Optimism shuts down permissionless fraud proofs - L2s security debates intensifies

It's comical how the things we discuss here get debated months later on crypto twitter.

The first time I talked about layer 2 networks was a year ago and the article was centered around the idea that “Layer 2 networks are not secured by layer 1” like Ethereum.

Then about a month ago, I touched on the topic again when it seemed like crypto twitter was picking up on the realities. Well, shit just hit the fan and several critics are flying around.

I guess we've passed the phase of praising VC funding over paying attention to what's actually being built?

Not gonna lie, it does feel nice to find people finally discussing things a common document reader(probably living isolated in the mountains) like myself, who could not care to learn how to deploy a contract on any chain, would wake up and write and the funny part is these are “opinions” and sometimes “counter opinions” of their own very “opinions” in the past.

Truly refreshing.

Optimism shuts down permissionless fraud proofs

For those who don't know:

Permissionless fraud proofs in Optimism refer to a security mechanism designed to enhance the decentralization and robustness of the network by allowing any user to challenge the validity of transactions. This system was introduced to ensure that users can permissionlessly submit and challenge state proposals about the chain, thus supporting decentralized withdrawals from the OP Stack chains like OP Mainnet.

GPT.

Well, at least that's what the documentation says. Whether or not this system works outside the written theories cannot be accounted for, at least I'm yet to see any such reports.

That said, one of the things that's common about crypto projects, who am I kidding, businesses as a whole, is that there's always an attempt to engineer a cover up for inadequacy in the system.

Most blockchains so called revolutionary technologies have never been put to test. This tells us the need to watch the stretch to which we regard any form of product promotions coming from these projects.

Funny that I should use the word “promotion” unconsciously, you see, that there is one common way projects hide their flaws - promotional content.

Given that a well presented content most times than not restricts people from wanting deeper knowledge of a product but simply “want in” on it, it's a common practice to write up theories and engineer social contents on specific subjects to get people intrigued.

Of course, this isn't to say that many of what is promoted by Optimism or any other layer 2 are merely theories, but that there's quite room for faults that would expose that the system is designed to be centralized, at the fundamental.

In the announcement tweet and post of Optimism shutting down the permissionless fraud proof system, if you pay close attention, you'd realize how “picky” the team is with words, all to avoid saying: We've centralized the chain once more by shutting off what we promoted to you as a “system” to keep it decentralized.

Today, @OPLabsPBC posted an upgrade proposal detailing findings from a recent series of community-driven audits on the Fault Proof System, including the plan to fix the bugs identified as part of the audits.

As part of the planned fix, the permissioned fallback has been activated on OP Mainnet.

This means that over the next ~3 weeks during the upgrade process, the Optimism Foundation is the proposer, with the Security Council retaining the right to revoke if needed.

Because of the system’s design, including the fallback, user assets are not at risk. Any pending withdrawals have been reset and will need to be reproven.

If it can be influenced by a centralized body, it is not decentralized.

But half the audience that reacts to promotional tweets from similar projects are merely content creators that read a couple of lines and comment “bullish” or “lfg.”

Most analyst reactions get buried under all that spams, effectively leading to why the majority of crypto users/investors blinding believe that any of these layer 2 networks are “decentralized.”

I just visited the Optimism website https://optimism.io/ and not a single mention of Optimism being a decentralized blockchain or anything of the sort. What the network is trying to build is a unified network of blockchains, I believe they call it the “Superchain.”

I'll call it a protocol linking blockchains via a centralized server.

That said, Twitter has been boiling lately with layer 2 criticism. Many are now sharing how “Layer 2 is not Ethereum” essentially agreeing to my points a year ago that Ethereum does not protect it's so-called layer 2 networks and they do not exactly scale Ethereum.

As much as I'd love to bring all the arguments here, you'd just have to head to Twitter and do a search for “Layer 2.”

That said, here's a nice summary tweet of what I've been saying all along.

L2s in the current form was the worst decision ever for Ethereum. It destroyed so many things, made so much extraction, so much short therm gain without producing something really meaningful for users in the long run. 🏃‍♀️

Stealing, censoring, freezing should have never been allowed, and people should not be so reluctant.

Blockchain is more than money. Blockchain is the enabler for #Web3 with some amazing properties, but only if built correctly. Eliminating some properties and the system is no better than an SQL database with admins.

So much was developed on blockchain, keeping it decentralised, safe, secure, censorship resistant is a must. Your own keys your own funds ALWAYS. In 100% of cases, this is a must, like any mathematical axiom in a defined system.

L2s are not expansions of Ethereum, they are separate sometimes databases connected to Ethereum. Sometimes not even blockchains.

Also, the whole incentivisation of developers and what they built is screwed. We can especially see this in the 2023-24 era. Launching the same infrastructure under different name, getting tens of millions of funding, no real innovation, only narratives.

Emphasis on not even being “blockchains.”