Author: Vitalik Buterin
Translated by: Wenser, Odaily
Editor's Note: The discussion of the three stages of Ethereum rollup security has always been a focus of the Ethereum ecosystem community, which is not only related to the operational stability of the Ethereum mainnet and L2 networks, but also to the real development status of L2 networks. Recently, Ethereum community member Daniel Wang proposed the naming tag #BattleTested for the L2 network Stage 2 on the X platform, believing that only L2 networks with current code and configuration that have been online on the Ethereum mainnet for more than 6 months, maintaining a total locked value (TVL) of over $100 million, with at least $50 million in ETH and major stablecoins, can earn this title. The title is dynamically assessed to avoid creating "chain ghosts". Ethereum co-founder Vitalik subsequently provided a detailed answer and shared his views, which Odaily has translated as follows.
3 Stages of L2 Networks: From 0 to 1 and then to 2, Security Determined by Governance Share
The three stages of Ethereum rollup security can be determined by when the security committee can cover trustless (purely cryptographic or game-theoretic) components:
- Stage 0: The security committee has complete control. There might be a running proof system (Optimism or ZK mode), but the security committee can overturn it through a simple majority vote. Therefore, the proof system is only "advisory in nature".
- Stage 1: The security committee needs 75% (at least 6/8) approval to cover the running system. There must be a quorum-blocking subset (e.g., ≥ 3) outside the main organization. Thus, the difficulty of controlling the proof system is relatively high, but not insurmountable.
- Stage 2: The security committee can only act in cases of provable errors. For example, provable errors might be two redundant proof systems (such as OP and ZK) contradicting each other. If there is a provable error, it can only choose one of the proposed answers: it cannot arbitrarily respond to a mechanism.
We can represent the "voting share" of the security committee at different stages with the following chart:
Governance Voting Structure of Three Stages
An important question is: What is the optimal timing for L2 networks to transition from Stage 0 to Stage 1, and from Stage 1 to Stage 2?
The only valid reason for not immediately entering Stage 2 is that you cannot fully trust the proof system—a understandable concern: the system consists of a lot of code, and if there are vulnerabilities, attackers might steal all users' assets. The more confident you are in the proof system (or conversely, the weaker your confidence in the security committee), the more you want to push the entire network ecosystem to the next stage.
[The translation continues in the same manner, maintaining the original structure and translating all text while preserving any HTML tags.]
