Add zkEVM working group #400
+13
−5
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I find this constraint to be too broad to effectively constrain. "Generally", "Significant" and "Worthwhile" are all words that lack precision, and thus forfeit enforcement of Ethereum values. Protocol Guild subsidized research should be required to be value aligned with Ethereum.
For example, in this current example, I agree that the zkEVM working group is "significant and worthwhile", but the centralization threat of provers remains an ignored design space. If an area of research is willing to sacrifice decentralization in favor of scaling, that is a SIGNIFICANT departure from Ethereum values, which would sail right through these constraints.
We need to try harder to protect what we value.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I also don't think we should be changing category constraints while at the same time trying to add a working group. Feels like we're changing the rules to support the proposal instead of changing the rules to support the consensus view of the guild.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
appreciate the feedback, your consistent disapproval on grounds of "insufficient decentralization" is noted 🫡
one counterpoint to consider - the original "Casper the Friendly Finality Gadget" (FFG) design required 1500 ETH requirements and would have likely been excluded from funding had 1. PG existed 2. used your suggested requirements at the time. this work was important to inform the 32 ETH design of the beacon chain the community settled on.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great example! In that case I still would have excluded that research from Protocol Guild, till they got the design to a more decentralized one. Once that was proved, I would admit the working group, and backdate their working weights to the time of group inception.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also eth was <$10 when the original idea of 1500 requirement was being proposed, so not sure you should view it in the context of today's price.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jflo tangent but I think it's quite untrue to claim that the threat of provers is an ignored design space. It's precisely because it's not ignored that I am personally quite confident in adding zkEVM as a WG, it meets the criteria of "systematic and documented efforts to arrive at a result comparing with different approaches".
While I estimate the chances of changing our minds on this are low, it would be perfectly possible for new results to show that indeed provers are a threat and the approach is non-viable. Falsifiability is a necessary condition to consider the effort rigorous.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
not sure that's correct?
under the period of FFG consideration (using my rough cutoffs), the cost of a single validator would have ranged from $450,000 to $2,175,000
it's easy to look back with hindsight and say "this was unacceptable", when this is was the tradeoff space core devs found themselves designing in. We will likely do the same in 5 years if the limit is lower than 32 ETH 🤞