V神新文:以太坊L1与L2在2025年及未来的扩展之路

coinvoicePublished on 2025-01-25Last updated on 2025-02-01

原文作者:Vitalik Buterin

编译:Luke,火星财经

 

技术

以太坊的目标自始至终未曾改变:构建一个全球性的、抗审查且无需许可的区块链。这个为去中心化应用打造的自由开放平台,其根基与GNU/Linux、Mozilla、Tor、维基百科等伟大自由开源软件项目共享相同的原则(当代可称为"再生主义"与"密码朋克伦理")。

过去十年间,以太坊进化出另一个让我极为珍视的特质:除了密码学与经济机制的创新,它还是一项社会技术的创新。以太坊生态系统本身就是一个正在运行的、活生生的示范,展示了一种全新、更开放且去中心化的协作建设方式。政治哲学家Ahmed Gatnash如此描述他在Devcon的体验:

"...这是对另一种可能世界的惊鸿一瞥——一个几乎不存在守门人、不依附于遗留系统的世界。在这里,社会标准地位体系被彻底倒置:最受尊崇的是那些将所有时间投入专注解决特定技术难题的极客,而非在传统机构等级制度中玩弄权术向上攀爬的人。这里几乎所有的权力都是软实力。我发现这种生态既美丽又充满启发性——它让你感觉在这样的世界里一切皆有可能,而这样的世界实际上触手可及。"

技术工程与社会工程本质上是相互交织的。如果在时间T拥有一个去中心化的技术系统,但由中心化的社会进程维护它,就无法保证在时间T+1该系统仍保持去中心化。同理,社会进程也通过技术以多种方式维持生命力:技术吸引用户,由技术实现的生态系统为开发者提供留存激励,它使社区保持务实并专注于建设而非空谈。

 

技术

Where you can use Ethereum to pay for things around the world, Oct 2024. Source.

 

经过十年由技术与社会双重属性驱动的不懈努力,以太坊已具备另一关键品质:以太坊正在大规模地为人们提供实用价值。数百万人持有ETH或稳定币作为储蓄形式,更多人用这些资产进行支付:我本人就是其中之一。它拥有有效的隐私工具,我用来支付保护互联网数据的VPN费用。它拥有ENS——DNS的强健去中心化替代方案,更广义上是公共密钥基础设施。它拥有可用且易用的Twitter替代品。它提供DeFi工具,为数百万人提供比传统金融更高收益的低风险资产。

五年前,我不愿谈论后者的应用场景,主要原因在于:基础设施与代码尚未成熟,我们刚从2016-17年大规模智能合约攻击的创伤中恢复不久。如果每年有5%的概率遭遇-100%年化收益率(本金全损),那么7% APY相比5% APY的优势将毫无意义。此外,当时交易手续费过高,难以支撑规模化应用。如今,这些工具已展现出时间考验下的韧性,审计工具质量显著提升,我们对它们的安全性日益充满信心。我们已了解哪些做法应当避免。L2扩容正在发挥作用。交易手续费已持续近一年保持低位。

我们必须继续强化以太坊的技术社会属性与实用价值。若仅有前者而无后者,我们将退化为日益无效的"减速主义"(decel)社区,只能在风中徒劳呐喊主流势力的不道德,却无力提供更好的替代方案。若仅有后者而无前者,我们就会重蹈华尔街"贪婪即美德"的覆辙——而这正是许多人投身于此所要逃离的。

上述二元性带来诸多启示。本文中,我将聚焦对以太坊用户在中短期内至关重要的具体议题:以太坊的扩容战略。

 

L2的崛起

 

当前,我们选择的扩容路径是Layer 2协议(L2s)。2025年的L2已远非2019年的早期实验品:它们已达成关键去中心化里程碑,守护着数十亿美元价值,目前正将以太坊交易处理能力提升17倍,手续费亦同比下降相近幅度。

 

技术

Left: stage 1 and stage 2 rollups. On Jan 22, Ink has joined as the sixth stage 1+ rollup (and third full-EVM stage 1+ rollup). Right, top rollups by TPS, with Base leading at roughly 40% of Ethereum's capacity.

 

这些进展正及时应对成功应用的浪潮:各类DeFi平台、社交网络、预测市场、Worldchain(现拥有1000万用户)等创新产品。曾被视作死胡同的"企业区块链"运动(因2010年代联盟链失败而衰落),正借助L2重获新生,Soneium即为典型范例。

这些成功也印证了以太坊去中心化模块化扩容路径的社会维度:无需以太坊基金会亲自招揽所有用户,已有数十个独立实体主动承担此任。这些实体也为技术做出关键贡献,没有它们,以太坊远不可能取得今日成就。由此,我们终将接近逃逸速度。

 

挑战:规模与异构性应对

 

当前L2面临两大核心挑战:

  1. 规模:现有blob空间勉强满足当前L2与应用需求,远不足以支撑未来需求
  2. 异构性挑战:早期以太坊扩容愿景设想区块链包含多个分片,每个分片作为EVM副本由部分节点处理。理论上,L2正是该路径的实现。但实践中存在关键差异:每个分片(或分片组)由不同主体创建,被基础设施视为独立链,且常遵循不同标准。如今,这导致开发者与用户面临可组合性与体验问题。

首个问题属于易理解的技术挑战,且有明确(但难实现)的技术解决方案:为以太坊提供更多blob。此外,短期内L1也可进行适度扩容,包括权益证明改进、无状态与轻验证、存储、EVM与密码学优化。

第二个问题(公众关注焦点)本质是协调问题。以太坊并非首次应对多团队复杂技术协作:我们曾完成合并(The Merge)。但此次协调更具挑战性,因涉及更多元的主体与目标,且进程启动较晚。尽管如此,我们生态曾解决过类似难题,此次亦能成功。

 

技术

 

可能的捷径与取舍

一种扩容捷径是放弃L2,通过大幅提高gas limit(多分片或单分片)在L1完成所有操作。但此方案将过度牺牲以太坊现有社会结构的优势——该结构有效整合了不同形式的研究、开发与生态建设文化。因此,我们应坚持既定路线,继续以L2为主扩容,同时确保L2真正兑现其承诺。

这意味着:

  • L1需加速blob扩容
  • L1需适度扩容EVM并提高gas limit,以应对L2主导时代仍需处理的L1活动(如证明、大规模DeFi、存取款、极端大规模退出场景、密钥库钱包、资产发行)
  • L2需持续提升安全性:分片应有的安全保证(包括抗审查、轻客户端可验证性、无固有信任方)须在L2实现
  • L2与钱包需加速推进互操作性标准化:包括链特定地址、消息传递与桥接标准、高效跨链支付、链上配置等。使用以太坊应如同使用单一生态系统,而非34条不同区块链
  • L2存取款时间需大幅缩短
  • 在满足基本互操作性前提下,L2异构性有益:部分L2将是基于最小化治理的Rollups,运行与L1完全相同的EVM;其他L2将尝试不同虚拟机;还有些将充当利用以太坊为用户提供额外安全保证的服务器。我们需要覆盖该光谱各环节的L2
  • 需明确ETH经济学设计:确保即便在L2主导时代,ETH仍持续捕获价值,理想情况下覆盖多种价值累积模型

 

扩容:Blob、Blob、Blob

 

技术

 

通过EIP-4844,当前每个slot包含3个blob(数据带宽384 kB/slot)。速算显示这相当于32 kB/s,每笔交易链上占用约150字节,故处理能力约210 TPS。L2beat数据与此高度吻合。

计划于3月发布的Pectra升级将blob数量翻倍至6个/slot。

当前Fusaka的核心目标是专注PeerDAS,理想情况下仅包含PeerDAS与EOF。PeerDAS可再将blob数量提升2-3倍。

此后目标将持续增加blob数量。采用2D采样技术后可达128 blobs/slot,后续可继续提升。配合数据压缩改进,最终可实现链上10万TPS。

以上均为2025年前既有路线图的重申。关键问题在于:如何加速该进程?我的答案是:

  1. 更明确地暂缓非blob相关功能开发
  2. 更清晰传递blob扩容目标,将相关P2P研发作为人才引进重点
  3. 允许stakers直接调整blob目标(类似gas limit机制),无需等待硬分叉即可响应技术进步
  4. 可探索更激进方案(在低资源stakers承担更多信任假设前提下加速blob扩容),但需谨慎

 

提升安全性:证明系统与原生Rollups

 

当前存在3个Stage 1 Rollups(Optimism、Arbitrum、Ink)与3个Stage 2 Rollups(DeGate、zk.money、Fuel)。多数活动仍发生在Stage 0 Rollups(即多签系统)。必须改变此现状。进展缓慢的主因在于:构建证明系统并获得足够信心以放弃训练轮(training wheels)、完全依赖其保障安全,极具挑战性。

实现路径有二:

  1. Stage 2 + 多证明者 + 形式化验证:采用多证明系统冗余,通过形式化验证(参见Verified ZK-EVM计划)确保安全性
  2. 原生Rollups:将EVM状态转换验证纳入协议自身(如通过预编译,参见研究[1][2][3])

当前应并行推进两者。对Stage 2 + 多证明者 + 形式化验证路径,路线图相对明确。主要实践加速点在于加强软件栈协作,减少重复工作同时提升互操作性。

原生Rollups仍处早期阶段。需深入探索如何设计最大化灵活性的原生Rollup预编译。理想目标是:不仅支持EVM精确克隆,还能兼容各类EVM变体,使采用修改版EVM的L2仍可使用原生Rollup预编译,仅需为修改部分自带证明者。该机制可应用于预编译、操作码、状态树等组件。

 

互操作性与标准

 

目标是让用户在不同L2间转移资产、使用应用的体验如同操作同一区块链的不同分片。现有路线图已明确数月:

  1. 链特定地址:地址应包含链标识符与账户信息。ERC-3770是早期尝试,现有更复杂方案将L2注册表移至以太坊L1
  2. 标准化跨链桥与消息传递:应建立标准化的跨链证明验证与消息传递机制,且这些标准仅需信任L2自身证明系统。依赖多签桥的生态不可接受。若某项信任假设在2016式分片设计中不存在,则今日亦不可接受
  3. 加速存取款时间:使"原生"消息传递耗时从数周缩短至分钟级(最终目标单slot)。这需要更快ZK-EVM证明者与证明聚合技术
  4. L2同步读取L1状态:参见L1SLOAD、REMOTESTATICCALL提案。这将极大简化跨L2互操作,并助力密钥库钱包
  5. 共享排序与其他长期工作:基于Rollups的部分价值源于其在此领域的高效性

只要满足上述标准,L2仍可在虚拟机、排序模型、安全与规模权衡等方面保持差异性。但必须向用户与应用开发者明确其安全等级。

为加速进展,大量工作可由跨生态实体(以太坊基金会、客户端开发团队、主流应用团队等)承担。这将减少协调成本,使标准采用更易推进,因为单个L2与钱包需完成的工作量将减少。但作为以太坊的延伸,L2与钱包仍需在功能实现与用户体验环节持续发力。

 

ETH经济学

 

技术

ETH as triple-point asset

 

我们应采取多管齐下策略,覆盖ETH作为"三相点资产"价值来源的所有主要可能性:

  1. 巩固ETH核心资产地位:广泛共识支持ETH作为以太坊(L1+L2)经济体系首要资产,鼓励应用采用ETH作为主要抵押品
  2. 推动L2费用与ETH挂钩:可通过销毁部分费用、永久质押并将收益捐赠生态公共品等机制实现
  3. 支持基于Rollups的MEV价值捕获:但不应强制所有Rollups采用此模式(因并非适用所有应用),也不应假定单凭此解决所有问题
  4. 扩容blob与探索blob定价机制:举例而言,若blob数量增至128个且30天平均费用维持当前水平(假设需求同步增长),以太坊年销毁量将达713,000 ETH。但需注意此类理想需求曲线并非必然

 

结论:前行之路

 

以太坊已作为技术栈和社会生态系统成熟发展,使我们更接近一个更加自由和开放的未来——数亿人将能够从加密资产和去中心化应用中受益。然而,仍有大量工作亟待完成,现在正是加倍努力的时刻。

如果你是L2开发者,请为以下领域贡献力量:开发工具以使blob扩容更加安全,编写代码以扩展EVM的执行能力,以及实现功能和标准以使L2更具互操作性。如果你是钱包开发者,请同样积极参与标准的贡献与实施,使用户体验更加无缝,同时确保生态系统的安全性和去中心化程度与以太坊仅作为L1时相当。如果你是ETH持有者或社区成员,请积极参与这些讨论;仍有许多领域需要积极的思考和头脑风暴。以太坊的未来取决于我们每个人的积极参与。


声明:本内容为作者独立观点,不代表 CoinVoice 立场,且不构成投资建议,请谨慎对待,如需报道或加入交流群,请联系微信:VOICE-V。

来源:火星财经

Trending Cryptos

Related Reads

Collateral Dollars: How Does a 'Second-Layer Dollar' Above Stablecoins Form?

Collateral Dollars: How Does a "Second Layer of Dollars" Form on Top of Stablecoins? Most assume stablecoins replicate Eurodollar functions, expanding the offshore dollar system. However, stablecoins primarily replace specific functions like operational dollar balances for settlement. They do not inherently create new dollar credit; they substitute existing claims. The key question is: what happens when financial intermediaries use stablecoins as collateral to create a new layer of dollar-denominated claims? This "collateral dollar" channel operates through secured lending, not direct money creation. A money-like event only occurs when a liability issued against the controlled stablecoin is funded, rolled over, or accepted at near-par value by another balance sheet. The discount (haircut) prices the gap between "effective control over the token" and "reliable convertibility to bank dollars." Elasticity stems not from the stablecoin itself but from the liability issued against it and the willingness of third-party balance sheets to treat that liability as a near-par asset. Compared to the traditional Eurodollar system—where elasticity originates from bank deposit creation—the stablecoin collateral chain is structurally different. Eurodollar deposits are credit-expansive from inception. Stablecoins are initially substitutive; elasticity emerges later if an intermediary's liability against them gains monetary acceptance. Stablecoins disrupt specific tiers of the offshore dollar system, mainly replacing operational settlement balances. They do not replace the need for full dollar balance-sheet capacity (credit lines, hedging, maturity transformation). For systemic impact, the second-layer liability must pass three tests: transferability, funding capacity, and monetary acceptance (being fundable or held at par by others). Pressure transmission also differs. In the Eurodollar system, stress moves up a hierarchy of claims. In a stablecoin collateral chain, the second-layer liability can lose its money-like status well before the underlying stablecoin faces a run, often triggered by haircut increases and margin calls that create a dynamic spiral of falling token prices and rising discounts. In conclusion, the "collateral dollar" is not the stablecoin itself. It is the second-layer liability issued against a controlled token balance that is willing to be funded and maintained at near-par value. Its existence depends on that liability surviving the leap from "token liquidity" to "bank dollar liquidity."

marsbit28m ago

Collateral Dollars: How Does a 'Second-Layer Dollar' Above Stablecoins Form?

marsbit28m ago

Collateral Dollars: How the 'Second-Layer Dollar' Above Stablecoins Takes Shape?

"Collateralized Dollars: How a 'Second Layer of Dollars' Forms on Top of Stablecoins" Most assume stablecoins replicate Eurodollars and expand the offshore dollar system, but this is not accurate. Stablecoins primarily replace certain functions within the existing system, especially operational dollar balances for daily settlement. The critical question is what happens when financial intermediaries create a new layer of dollar claims *on top of* stablecoins. This article explains how this new collateralized funding channel works. Stablecoins introduce tokenized private dollar claims. Even if issuers and reserves are within the US legal perimeter, their circulation and use as collateral can become economically "offshore." Enforceable control over collateral opens a secured credit channel but does not itself create a monetary claim. A true monetary event occurs only when another balance sheet funds, rolls over, or accepts a liability issued against the controlled token at near-par value. The discount prices the gap between "effective control over the token" and "reliable convertibility into bank dollars." Elasticity comes from the balance sheet issuing the liability against the token and from third-party willingness to treat that liability as a near-par asset. Collateralized Dollars are not the stablecoins themselves; they are the second-layer liability that another balance sheet is willing to issue, fund, and maintain at near-par against a controlled token balance. The Eurodollar system is a hierarchy of claims, with elasticity originating in expandable bank liabilities. In contrast, the stablecoin collateral chain starts with a tokenized asset. It gains systemic significance only when an intermediary's liability against that token is treated as money-like by other balance sheets. Key determining factors include: who has effective control, the legal/operational path to bank dollars, and whether the resulting claim can still be financed near-par under stress. Pressure in this new channel manifests differently. The upper-layer (intermediary) claim fails first, losing its money-like status, potentially while the underlying stablecoin remains solvent. Increased haircuts and forced sales can create a destructive feedback loop, widening the very gap the discount measures. In conclusion, the Eurodollar analogy has limits. Reserve quality supports the underlying token's solvency, but the leverage, credit, and liabilities built atop it face a separate test. Collateral eligibility is not monetary acceptance. Only when a claim built on stablecoins survives the leap from "token liquidity" to "bank dollar liquidity" do Collateralized Dollars truly exist.

链捕手34m ago

Collateral Dollars: How the 'Second-Layer Dollar' Above Stablecoins Takes Shape?

链捕手34m ago

Don't Be Misled by the $1.25 Billion Cap: MicroStrategy's Three-Pronged Bitcoin Sale Pools Hide Massive Selling Pressure

Don't Be Misled by the $1.25B Cap: Strategy's Three-Tier Bitcoin Sales Plan Hides Massive Potential Selling Pressure Strategy recently sold 3,588 BTC (~$216M) to fund a dividend and replenish its dollar reserve, while claiming its $1.25B "reserve build" capacity remains fully available. This highlights a key nuance: the widely cited $1.25B limit applies only to sales for "Building" the reserve. Strategy's broader capital framework, however, allows Bitcoin sales for three primary purposes, each with different scales: 1. **Building the Reserve:** Selling BTC to raise up to $1.25B for the reserve. 2. **Covering Priority Share Expenses:** Selling BTC to pay dividends/interest or to replenish the reserve after such payments are made from it (no specified limit). 3. **Share Repurchase Funding:** Selling BTC to fund up to $1B each in convertible note and common stock repurchases (totaling $2B potential). Combined, just the capped "Build" and "Repurchase" channels could facilitate over $3B in Bitcoin sales, excluding the uncapped "Cover Expenses" channel. The accounting distinction between "Building" (adding cash before a payout) and "Replenishing" (adding cash after a payout) is operationally blurry but allows sales like the recent $216M transaction without touching the $1.25B "Build" quota. This gives Strategy significant flexibility. The move signifies a strategic shift: Strategy is transforming from a simple Bitcoin accumulator into an active capital manager, akin to a hedge fund. Bitcoin is now a financial lever to balance pressures between common stock, convertible notes, dollar reserves, and Bitcoin holdings. This creates inherent tensions—actions benefiting one part of the capital structure may harm another. Investors must understand that the potential Bitcoin sales are far greater than the surface-level $1.25B figure. Strategy has become a complex financial entity where every term in its disclosures matters. Betting on it now is a wager on its active capital management skill to navigate these internal contradictions without a systemic failure.

Foresight News41m ago

Don't Be Misled by the $1.25 Billion Cap: MicroStrategy's Three-Pronged Bitcoin Sale Pools Hide Massive Selling Pressure

Foresight News41m ago

When the Largest BTC Buyer Becomes a Seller, Who's Buying After MicroStrategy Sells 3,588 Bitcoin?

MicroStrategy, once the largest corporate buyer of Bitcoin, sold 3,588 BTC for approximately $216 million to fund its preferred stock dividends, marking a significant shift from buyer to seller. This move occurred after its market-to-NAV premium vanished, breaking its "print stock to buy Bitcoin" financial model. A roundtable discussion featuring Austin Campbell, Ram Ahluwalia, and Chris Perkins analyzed the implications. They noted that MicroStrategy's dominance has become a narrative bottleneck for the broader crypto market, with some speculating that Bitcoin's price might only surge significantly after the company's influence wanes. The conversation expanded to examine the capital structure conflict between traditional equity and crypto tokens, arguing that most current tokens will fail as they don't fit neatly into existing debt/equity frameworks. A "stablecoin war" was identified as a major trend, with entities like Tether, Robinhood, and the OUSD alliance competing. Tether's decision to abandon the European MiCA market highlights strategic divergences. The panelists argued that bank-issued stablecoins could revolutionize global finance by allowing US banks to capture net interest margins from international transactions, potentially making JPMorgan the first trillion-dollar bank. They concluded that while capital is currently being siphoned by AI/semiconductors, markets will eventually refocus on fundamentals and cash flow, which could benefit cryptocurrencies with real utility.

marsbit48m ago

When the Largest BTC Buyer Becomes a Seller, Who's Buying After MicroStrategy Sells 3,588 Bitcoin?

marsbit48m ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of ETH (ETH) are presented below.

活动图片