💥 Gate Square Event: #PTB Creative Contest# 💥
Post original content related to PTB, CandyDrop #77, or Launchpool on Gate Square for a chance to share 5,000 PTB rewards!
CandyDrop x PTB 👉 https://www.gate.com/zh/announcements/article/46922
PTB Launchpool is live 👉 https://www.gate.com/zh/announcements/article/46934
📅 Event Period: Sep 10, 2025 04:00 UTC – Sep 14, 2025 16:00 UTC
📌 How to Participate:
Post original content related to PTB, CandyDrop, or Launchpool
Minimum 80 words
Add hashtag: #PTB Creative Contest#
Include CandyDrop or Launchpool participation screenshot
🏆 Rewards:
🥇 1st
Vitalik: The quality of the underlying proof systems of L2 networks is equally important and should gradually enter the second phase as they develop.
Odaily News Regarding the naming label #BattleTested for L2 network Stage 2 proposed by community member Daniel Wang, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik responded in a post on X platform, stating: "This is a good reminder: the second stage is not the only factor affecting security; the quality of the underlying proof system is also equally important. This is a simplified mathematical model that illustrates when to enter the second stage:" Each member of the Security Council has a 10% independent "break" chance; we consider activity failure (refusal to sign or key inaccessible) and security failure (signing the wrong thing or key being hacked) as equally probable; goal: to minimize the probability of protocol collapse under the above assumptions. *Stage 0 Security Council is 4/7, Stage 1 is 6/8; please note that these assumptions are very imperfect. In reality, the members of the Security Council have a "common mode failure": they may collude, or all be coerced or hacked in the same way, etc. This makes both Stage 0 and Stage 1 less secure than shown in the model, so entering Stage 2 earlier than implied by the model is the best choice. Also, note that by turning the proof system itself into a multisig of multiple independent systems, the probability of a proof system crashing can be greatly reduced (which is what I advocated in my previous proposal). I suspect that this will be the case for all Phase 2 deployments in previous years. With that in mind, here's the chart. The X-axis is the probability of proving the collapse of the system. The Y-axis is the probability of a protocol crash. As the quality of the attestation system improves, the optimal phase moves from Phase 0 to Phase 1 and then from Phase 1 to Phase 2. Using a Phase 0 quality proof system for Phase 2 is the worst. In short, @l2beat ideally should display proof system audits and maturity indicators (preferably proof system implementations rather than the entire summary, so that we can reuse them) and stages.