zkSync VS Solana, the battle for the future of single-chain and multi-chain ecology

Author: Haotian, independent researcher Source: X, @tmel0211

A friend asked me what I think about the debate between the two founders of @zksync and @solana about the future of "single/multi-chain ecology"? Let me start with the conclusion:Well, the cake is delicious, you are all right!

1) The future Hyperchain multi-chain era of zkSync is a stacked expansion solution that decouples the single Monolithic chain of Ethereum. It regards Ethereum as the settlement layer, ZK technology as the communication verification as the core medium, and layer3 as the application traffic entry layer, ultimately forming a layer1 settlement + layer2 interoperability + layer3 application multi-module Stack strategy.

In general, the future of Hyperchain is indeed worth looking forward to. It not only avoids the performance defects of the layer1 main chain, but also seizes the interoperability of layer2. The core of the liquidity aggregation communication network, the imagination space of layer3 application chain is unlimited.

However, layer2 is currently in the infra stage of building a basic Sequencer+Prover system, and layer3 is still in its infancy. Although the future is bright, it is still far away.

2) The Solana-driven super application era is an implementation solution based on pure monomer chains. In this context, Solana's high concurrency performance can already support the simultaneous operation of multiple applications. In terms of communication, interoperability, and gas consumption, it is comparable to or even surpasses the Ethernet Stack stack strategy.

This is correct. Solana is a single chain designed for the future super blockchain, with a synchronization state close to the "speed of light" and a single atomic state. The native performance design of the chain such as processing multiple concurrent transactions in the machine far exceeds that of Ethereum. Solana’s original goal is an architecture leading to the future of blockchain applications.

It’s just that the entire industry is still in the construction stage of basic infra, and the demand for super applications has not been implemented on a large scale. Solana’s high TPS, high concurrency and other performances It has not yet been truly tested.

3) It should be said that the debate between the two bosses of zkSync and Solana is not on the same latitude. Both of them plan an application-driven super chain future, which is nothing more than The paths to implementation are different. zkSync is Ethereum's modular stack chain, which uses zero-knowledge proof technology to increase transaction speed and reduce costs; while Solana is a high-performance single blockchain that achieves high performance through its unique consensus mechanism and system architecture. Throughput and low latency, designed to be the infrastructure to support large-scale applications.

Whether it is the Stack multi-module combination method or the single closed-loop ecological implementation method, there are great opportunities. Before the vision is realized, no one has the right to diss anyone.

4) As for the database hotspot problem in ZKP mentioned by toly, it does exist. If the smart contract accepts a large number of requests in a short period of time, congestion or processing delays will inevitably occur. This This is a problem that Stack's multi-module combination will inevitably face. In essence, the expansion chain only separates the consensus layer, execution layer, application layer and other stacks. To expand transactions based on interoperability, there are still problems with database resource optimization and allocation.

It seems that the Solana native chain has more advantages. Toly even proudly believes that TPS is the inevitable result of Solana data optimization and concurrency processing, and is not needed. Mention it deliberately. However, zkSync believes that using ZKP can improve processing capabilities through asynchronous transaction processing. ZKP technology itself is designed to solve the problem of the native chain being unable to conduct concurrent transactions.

5) Finally, toly implies that although ZKP’s asynchronous processing will promote parallel processing, it may lead to the weakening of decentralized full node participation because of the large number of efficient It is definitely more efficient for centralized nodes to process ZKP.

However, Alex did not answer this question directly. He said that a full node processing 1M TPS may require a computer cluster, but zkSync would like to use it on mobile phones. Verification in a lightweight way. It shows that zkSync is pursuing a decentralized model that can participate in the verification process even with limited device capabilities, although this may face challenges in handling high throughput (such as 1M TPS). The argument between the two is like "playing house", which is a bit interesting.

It seems that Alex often has such technical debates with his peers that "both sides seem to have a point". This may be a mutual marketing strategy of the Western developer community. Well, that's it. Otherwise, how else would the melon-eating masses see it?