Based preconfirmations

Actually I take that back :see_no_evil: If an L2 transaction is force-included at L1 and the L2 sequencer has been compromised (e.g. so that the sequencer is no longer settling anything) then that L2 transaction can’t execute until after some timeout. This timeout can’t be made arbitrarily small because otherwise that would completely break preconfirmations. To summarise, based sequencing gives the same settlement guarantees as the L1 (no need for a timeout to force settle).

1 Like

Yes, while you can have preconfirmations on inclusion with based forced transactions and L2 sequencing, if the sequencer halts or doesn’t post batches in order (OP derivation window is 12h!) then preconfirmations on post state break.

It’s not just preconfirmations that break. You also suffer a liveness failure during the derivation window.

1 Like

@JustinDrake I just saw your recent episode on Bankless. I understand your vision on this better now. Yes, if we have shared sequencing and real-time settlement then we can have synchronous composability. And that would be amazing.
The problem is that real-time settlement is only theoretical for now. AFAIK it is 5+ years away, maybe more. With shared sequencing alone, we can only do atomic inclusion, not atomic execution. So no synchronous composability. All of this is known to you.
Shared sequencing does come with a some big drawbacks (loss of sovereignty, loss of sequencing revenue, more complexity). But by itself it only has one advantage: no need to code your own consensus and maintain a validator set. But to be honest, a based rollup (the one described in the original proposal) is a better option if someone really doesn’t have the resources to build/maintain a consensus layer.
It doesn’t make sense for a decently-funded rollup team today to use a shared sequencer, in the hope that it will pay off 5+ years down the road. Better to build your own consensus today, have asynchronous composability with bridges and if real-time settlement becomes a reality then change to shared sequencing.
I really think you’re underestimating the importance users/devs place on sovereignty. Two examples. First example, Polkadot and Cosmos. Polkadot’s model has all chains sharing the same validators, while Cosmos has sovereign chains and just handles inter-chain communication. If you compare the two ecosystems, Cosmos has bigger projects and more users. Second example, Celo has signaled their intention to migrate to a L2 and one of their hard requirements is exactly the ability to keep their existing validator set.

1 Like