In the rush towards the entirely decentralization of the rolls, Vitalik Buterin shared an important reminder which is easy to forget: step 2 is not always more secure unless the underlying evidence system is impenetrable. He clarified in a post, presenting a condensed mathematical model, that going too quickly to scene 2 without improving the robustness of the proof could really increase the failure rate.
The model makes the following hypotheses: Security and liveliness failures are also likely, and each member of the Security Council has a chance of independent failure of 10%. A multi-7 out of 7 is used at stage 0 and a 6 out of 8 is used in stage 1. The probability that the evidence will break varies. As the probabilities of proof system failure increase, the results indicate that step 0 or step 1 offer more security than step 2.
You might also love
It is only when the evidence system is incredibly reliable (for example, step 2 is the best option if the failure rate is 10⁻⁵ or less. Passing in step 2 with an unmanned or centralized test system is the worst possible configuration, as Buterine points out, as it combines the risks of the two. Multisig configurations less effective in practice than the model does not suggest.
Even thus, a solid evidence system is necessary for stadium 2 to be safer. Buterin suggests using multi-sigs of evidence system, which combine several distinct evidence systems as a temporary measure to reduce these risks. According to him, step 2 is not the only thing that counts. In addition to rollers, decentralization phase ecosystem tools such as L2Beat must monitor the maturity of the audits of the evidence. Reaching true security implies a progressive alignment of governance and cryptographic integrity; It is not a check box.
