The perfect Rollup Layer 2 design ingredients

Links table
Abstract and 1. Introduction
-
Main concepts
2.1 Record attached only and 2.2 cases of the virtual device
2.3 Transactions as curry functions
2.4 The natural names of the state
2.5 Earth’s truth
2.6 Effective state representations
2.7 checkpoints
2.8 Implementation parameters: Calldata
2.9 arrangement implementation
2.10 Decision on the right situation
-
Ideal layer design 2
3.1 VM job queue and arrangement of final transactions
3.2 Provides data and collecting garbage
3.3 state final
3.4 checkpoints
-
Conclusion and references
A. Security teachers to reveal the contradiction
3 ideal design for layer 2
The perfect Rollup design allows an effective account (outside the chain) with a fast final. Here, efficiency means:
• Reduced account decreased. We do not want to use resources, for example, to use a huge amount of electricity, when it is not necessary to be the required level of safety. Reduced repetition should also reduce the cost of each treatment, which makes the system more able to develop than an economic perspective.
• High confidence in the results. This is the opposite of repetition: Users should be able to trust the results from the verified account, although the symmetrical transcription factor may be less.
High productivity. The productivity of the total system should be high, so that the system is well performed with a high work burden.
Low cumin. The proposed transactions should not be for a long time to wait for the waiting lists. Users must have reasonable confidence that once the transaction is accepted, it will have the required/expected effect.
What may seem to be the “ideal” design depends on other factors, such as the expected work burden. For example, the more powerful systems, will applications need to operate larger transactions that have a high gas limit? What is the distribution of implementation times? Through the design that separates the finals of the arrangement of transactions and the end of the state, as long as the average transactions processing rate is sufficient, the system must be able to withstand the transactions at the highly transverse implementation transactions, because users will primarily care about the luxury of the arrangement of transactions, assuming that the high treatment does not interfere or interact with most user contracts.
This is still an area for research and some unknown design restrictions. We offer a “perfect” design below.
3.1 VM job queue and arrangement of final transactions
The POOCKCHAIN (for example, ETH2) is used for example, ETH2) for the final arrangement arrangement. That is, the transactions proposals are essentially the functions that are inserted into the phenomenon function menu. Once you are in the waiting list, his request is final.
This means that CALLDATA is not validated with the implications of the full apparent system, as this requires a close conjugation between the record and the apparent system. One of the extreme design options is to allow arbitrary messages to target the VM job waiting list, and to rely on the cost of registration to deter the service rejection attacks. This means, however, that the cost of VM implementation must be included to verify incomplete messages (for example, unimaginable contract entry points, non -existence, etc.) as part of the cost of processing messages.
Publishing messages should cost something in order to prevent the attacks of the service. This means that some checks should already be done in the basic Blockchain: the message itself must be signed, and you must allow payment from EOA to pay the minimum in exchange for spreading the same message, as well as a (limited) payment license to implement the VM (gas limit).
Since the signature verification is effectively immersed, the alternative is to make some very simple verification of proposed transactions:
• License of transactions: Saleh’s signature on the proposal.
• EOA account has enough symbols to pay the price of publishing messages.
• (Optional) EOA account has enough distinctive symbols to pay the price of the maximum gas, using less than the waiting list of transactions that have not been reached to the state finals.
Calldata is just an inappropriate attence at this stage.
All transactions signed with these basic checks are “well -made transactions” (WFTS). Note that we do not perform the specified contract entry type tests or examinations previously for the condition in the bridge. Good formation does not mean that the message is logical. WFTS will be frustrated that does not pass the verification of messages format with the sender of the sender small fees of gas: in our shapes, this means that the interpretation is that TC returns with its state of inputs. The same applies to other pre -conditions: it will be examined by the contract code (for example, the equivalent of checks in the stiffness) and cause the treatment to be thwarted. This corresponds to the separate nature of the system design: the bridge contract (maybe new) does not know the contracts that have been qualified on the Rollup, and the technology will be impractical.
Contracts invitations are organized in Blockchains that resemble ETHEREUM internally as calls in procedures mainly, with a message that must be (partially) improved to determine the intended entry point and discover the signature of the type, then for more analysis and celebrate the rest of the message. Although it may be reasonable to say that coding messages is constantly fixed and depleted by Rollup VM, it is possible – as by EVM’s hardness – to perform this in the code of the same contract (in case of hardness, at the time of running the language that performs RPC). Since the time of operating the different contract language, in principle, requires completely different data sequence formats, procedure to verify messaging formats in the bridge is not possible without knowing details about how to implement the RPC reception device for each contract.
The simplest design is the width of the bridge contract as the acceptance of WFTS and requires a operating time check for specific procedures or contracting with the contract, or preconditions.
The arrival order in the job waiting list does not necessarily specify the bridge contract. Obviously, as long as Rollup allows the transactions proposals to provide variable gas fees (unlike the fixed market price as a gateway), jobs will need to sort the price of gas. While using the price of gas as a main student and arrangement of its arrival as a secondary key, it may approach the arrangement of “Adel”, it allows the child’s offer to create a homogeneous false transactions through a pair of transactions proposal at a slightly higher and slight gas fee. More research is needed here, especially since the implementation of an approximate scheduling will display an additional transition time to process transactions.
Authors:
(1) Bennett Yi, Oasis Laboratory;
(2) Al -Fajr song, Oasis Laboratory;
(3) Patrick McCuri, Ingoura;
(4) Chris Backland, Ingoura.