Layer-2的中心化是区块链的一颗定时炸弹

比推Published on 2024-08-20Last updated on 2024-08-20

来源:Blockworks

原文标题:L2 centralization is a ticking time bomb for blockchain

作者: Daranee Ganesh

编译:比推BitpushNews Scott Liu


Layer-2解决方案的排序器如今过于中心化,给整个区块链行业带来了巨大的隐患。如果不及时采取措施,区块链的去中心化原则将受到威胁,信任危机也将随之而来。为了维护网络的安全性,Layer-2项目必须尽快推动转型,消除单点故障。

what-is-layer-2-meta.png

如果不及时应对,网络安全将受到严重威胁,整个生态系统将面临包括交易审查、安全漏洞,甚至客户数据和资金泄露等一系列问题。

自2024年第二季度以来,基于以太坊网络的Layer-2解决方案处理的交易量已经达到以太坊主网的12倍。此外,Layer-2生态系统的总锁仓价值(TVL)在6月6日创下历史新高,达到了490亿美元。这些数据说明,Layer-2网络的普及速度在不断加快。然而,随着普及率的上升,新的问题也随之而来——排序器操作的中心化现象日益严重。

排序器是Layer-2网络中至关重要的部分,负责将交易提交到以太坊主网之前进行排序和打包。然而,这种高效操作却是以去中心化的丧失为代价的,排序器正逐渐变成一把“双刃剑”。

在以太坊的Layer-2解决方案中,排序器负责管理交易数据流,当多个交易同时发生时,排序器决定哪个交易先处理。这一过程往往由单一实体控制,虽然能够提升交易处理效率,但也为审查和操控带来了巨大的风险。

这些担忧并非空穴来风。如今大多数主流Layer-2解决方案依赖的都是中心化排序器,通常是由构建这些rollup的公司自行管理。例如,数据显示,Coinbase旗下的Base网络在2024年3月仅通过排序器费用就为公司创造了3000万美元的收入,年化收入可达约3.6亿美元。

在一个日益去中心化的行业中,信任应被最小化,而由单一公司控制区块链关键操作这一现象自然会引发广泛质疑。

Galaxy Digital的研究副总裁Christine Kim表示,去中心化不应被简单地理解为二元对立的概念,而应该是一个光谱,且应尽可能减少集中化的影响。她强调:“推动去中心化排序器的实现可能是rollup项目中最具挑战性的任务之一,但也是提高去中心化和增强弹性的关键所在。”

最近,Consensys支持的zkEVM rollup Linea用户遭遇了260万美元的损失。更令人震惊的是,项目开发团队一致决定暂停排序器操作,并“屏蔽攻击者的地址,以保护用户和开发者的利益”。

Screenshot 2024-08-20 at 4.54.52 PM.png

这一事件凸显了排序器中心化的潜在危害,也警示我们去中心化的重要性。通过去中心化排序器,网络能够有效消除单点故障,增强对攻击和技术故障的抗风险能力。这不仅能提升网络的安全性,还更加契合区块链技术的核心价值,尤其是在透明度和效率方面。

值得庆幸的是,大多数Layer-2解决方案已经开始意识到去中心化的必要性。通过引入验证者和区块生产者的网络,Layer-2解决方案可以实现排序器节点的随机选择和轮换。这些节点共同承担交易排序和打包的责任,极大地提升了网络的安全性和抗压能力。

这种去中心化的排序机制不仅确保了排序过程的公平性和安全性,还在不降低性能的前提下,显著减少了审查和操控的风险。这一举措鼓励了更多的社区参与,并在网络与用户之间建立了利益一致性,从而更好地贯彻了区块链的核心原则。

最近,Vitalik Buterin提出了一种rollup网络的分类系统,将其划分为从第0阶段到第2阶段,他认为目前大多数领先的rollup项目仍然依赖某种形式的“训练轮”。

展望未来,Layer-2解决方案必须迅速摆脱这些临时性措施,否则将面临停滞不前甚至被淘汰的风险。虽然中心化无疑在短期内带来了可观的经济效益和操作便利,但它更多的是服务于运营方的利益。与之相对,去中心化虽然挑战重重,却能为项目及其社区带来长期的稳定和发展。

这种“自我强化模式”不仅减少了安全成本,还启动了一个良性循环。社区参与度的提升带来了更多的质押,从而进一步增强了网络的安全性,吸引了更多的去中心化应用和创新者。

此外,排序器去中心化后的去中心化交易所(DEX)资金流入的稳步增长也表明,只要激励机制到位,用户完全能够接受轻微的延迟增加。除了通过流动质押等机制提升安全性,去中心化排序器还将行业参与者和贡献者的利益与生态系统的成长紧密联系在一起。

例如,排序器挖矿的收入分享模式有效提高了用户的参与度,建立了社区参与、网络安全与生态系统成长之间的直接联系。随着技术原型的日益成熟,甚至比特币Layer-2网络也开始通过去中心化排序器提供挖矿奖励。

未来,以太坊Layer-2生态系统不能仅依赖某一个网络来实现排序器去中心化。跨多个网络实现去中心化是确保区块链技术完整性的关键。已经建立的Layer-2解决方案必须迅速采取行动,以避免被市场淘汰,并确保用户的安全。


Twitter:https://twitter.com/BitpushNewsCN

比推 TG 交流群:https://t.me/BitPushCommunity

比推 TG 订阅: https://t.me/bitpush

比推 Btok 订阅: https://btok360.com/bitpush


说明: 比推所有文章只代表作者观点,不构成投资建议

Related Reads

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

OpenAI has announced a major internal reorganization just months before its anticipated IPO. The company is merging its three flagship product lines—ChatGPT, Codex, and the API platform—into a single, unified product organization. The most significant leadership change involves co-founder and President Greg Brockman moving from a background technical role to take full, permanent control over all product strategy. This follows the indefinite medical leave of AGI Deployment CEO Fidji Simo. Additionally, ChatGPT's longtime lead, Nick Turley, has been reassigned to enterprise products, with former Instagram executive Ashley Alexander taking over consumer offerings. The consolidation, internally framed as a strategic move towards an "Agentic Future," aims to break down internal silos and create a cohesive "Super App." This planned desktop application would integrate ChatGPT's conversational abilities, Codex's coding power, and a rumored internal web browser named "Atlas" to autonomously perform complex user tasks. The reorganization occurs amid significant internal and external pressures. OpenAI has recently seen a wave of high-profile departures, including Sora co-lead Bill Peebles and other senior technical leaders, leading to concerns about a thinning executive bench. Externally, rival Anthropic recently secured funding at a staggering $900 billion valuation, surpassing OpenAI's own. Google's upcoming I/O developer conference also poses a competitive threat. Analysts suggest the dramatic restructure is a pre-IPO move to present a clearer, more focused narrative to Wall Street—streamlining operations and demonstrating decisive leadership under Brockman to counter internal turbulence and intense market competition.

marsbit15m ago

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

marsbit15m ago

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

Market makers and arbitrageurs represent two distinct survival structures in high-frequency trading. Market makers primarily use limit orders (makers) to profit from the bid-ask spread, enjoying high capital efficiency (nominally 100%) but bearing inventory risk. This "inventory risk" arises from passive, fragmented, and discontinuous order fills in the limit order book (LOB). This risk, while a potential cost, can also contribute to excess profit if managed within control boundaries, allowing for mean reversion. Market makers essentially sell "time" (uncertainty over execution timing) to the market for price control and low fees. In contrast, cross-exchange arbitrageurs typically use market orders (takers) to exploit price differences or funding rates, resulting in lower nominal capital efficiency (requiring capital on both exchanges) and higher transaction costs. Their risk exposure stems from asymmetries in exchange rules (e.g., minimum order sizes), execution latency, and infrastructure risks (e.g., ADL, oracle drift). These exposures are active, exogenous gaps that primarily erode profits rather than contribute to them. Arbitrageurs essentially sell "space" (capital sunk across venues) for localized, immediate certainty. Both strategies engage in a trade-off between execution friction and residual risk. Optimal systems allow for temporary, controlled risk exposure rather than enforcing zero exposure at all costs. Their evolution converges towards hybrid models: arbitrageurs may use maker orders to reduce costs, while market makers may use taker orders or hedges for risk management. Ultimately, both use different forms of risk exposure—market makers exposing inventory, arbitrageurs immobilizing capital—to extract marginal, hard-won certainty from the market.

链捕手15m ago

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

链捕手15m ago

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

This article, based on Anthropic's analysis, outlines the intensifying systemic competition between the U.S./allies and China for AI leadership by 2028. It argues that access to advanced computing power ("compute") is the critical bottleneck, where the U.S. currently holds a significant advantage through chip export controls and allied innovation. However, China's AI labs remain competitive by exploiting policy loopholes—via chip smuggling, overseas data center access, and "model distillation" attacks to copy U.S. model capabilities—keeping them close to the frontier. The piece presents two contrasting scenarios for 2028. In the first, decisive U.S. action to tighten compute controls and curb distillation locks in a 12-24 month AI capability lead, cementing democratic influence over global AI norms, security, and economic infrastructure. In the second, policy inaction allows China to achieve near-parity through continued access to U.S. technology, enabling Beijing to promote its AI stack globally and integrate advanced AI into its military and governance systems, altering the strategic balance. Anthropic contends that maintaining a decisive U.S. lead is essential for shaping safe AI development and governance. The core recommendation is for U.S. policymakers to urgently close compute and model access loopholes while promoting global adoption of the U.S. AI technology stack to secure a lasting strategic advantage.

marsbit2h ago

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

marsbit2h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片