Yale ReiSoleil, Jr.

Co-founder & CTO @untradingOrg ~ Why shouldn't you be a polymath?

[Yale ReiSoleil, Jr. @ReiSoleilJr]

EMIT only requires a full node, as opposed to an archive node, which means it only works on the post-merge range. However, support for Era files is planned.

Multi-chain support is currently achieved through 1 EMIT engine = 1 chain = 1 node.

You only host what you need.

[Yale ReiSoleil, Jr. @ReiSoleilJr]

Introducing EMIT

The fastest single-chain EVM indexer available, and it's free under AGPL-3.0.

EMIT was born due to a lack of a satisfactory, self-hosted, open, and efficient indexer.

The goal was to beat proprietary indexer performance without compromise.

[Yale ReiSoleil, Jr. @ReiSoleilJr]

As the benchmark in the repo demonstrates, all of the above was hosted on a $50/mo Hetzner server and substantially beats Envio, with the margin widening with better hardware.

And that includes hosting your own Nethermind Full Node on the same server.

[Yale ReiSoleil, Jr. @ReiSoleilJr]

@_Enoch Genuinely disappointing. They were leading on the ZK-TLS/WebProof adoption front; abandoning that is a shame.

Albeit they were using a sub-optimal TLS Proxy implementation vs MPC-TLS.

[Adrian Brink @adrianbrink]

I get the overall vibe, but Ethereum isn't even friendly to developers as a protocol.

We had an EIP-665 (https://t.co/g7BTO1p8uf), which was implemented in every client to add ed25519 precompiles.

However instead of doing the simple thing, someone proposed to generalize it (https://t.co/Yag5FONayE); make it work for all curves.

So as a result the former was abandoned and closed and then the latter was also abandoned and closed.

The net result is that 8 years later, we still only have secpk1 and bn128 precompiles instead of at least also having ed25519, which everyone agrees is just better.

So I get why people complain that this looks not focused enough on actual users, sure. But god the problem is that this is also not focused on any protocol user.

There are a bunch of super low hanging fruits (like freaking precompiles) that would make deploying privacy tech 10x easier, but we haven't managed to improve the core protocol a single bit on that front for the last 8 years.

[laurence @functi0nZer0]

I genuinely couldn’t give a shit what the Ethereum Foundation puts out or prioritises so long as the contract code size limit is raised in Glamsterdam

I am an incredibly simple man

[Yale ReiSoleil, Jr. @ReiSoleilJr]

@z0r0zzz Who says minings dead

[Yale ReiSoleil, Jr. @ReiSoleilJr]

@rootslashbin Categorically incorrect.

The thing with rollups is we haven't reached escape velocity.

Once Stage 2 is achieved the system becomes uninfluenced by any "evil", because if it arises you can easily leave.

No perfect world needed.

[DCinvestor @DCinvestor]

when the L2 architecture was first launched for Ethereum

we didn’t have the tech to hyper-scale L1 without sacrificing censorship-resistance, etc.

now with the latest frontier zk technology, we do

so we will hyper-scale L1, while also supporting a robust ecosystem of L2s around Ethereum, continuing to do things and make tradeoffs where L1 can’t

win-win

[tim-clancy.gwei @_Enoch]

@DCinvestor And we will kill every trustful L2 in the process inshallah.

[Yale ReiSoleil, Jr. @ReiSoleilJr]

@_Enoch Precisely, if all rollups followed faithfully in their philosophical footsteps we would be walking a different road right now.

Funny to think the only Stage 2 rollups we got were from so many years ago.

It will eventually still happen, just long overdue.

[Yale ReiSoleil, Jr. @ReiSoleilJr]

I believe most people are grossly misinterpreting this either due to not having much reading comprehension, general ignorance, and/or cognitive dissonance.

Firstly, paths change and this plasticity is imperative. Were it not for this there would be no innovations. Ethereum's combined dynamism and diversity of opinions are invaluable. ETH is anti-stubborn.

I also believe there is confusion in the understanding of what "scaling" is actually defined as. In this context of ETH scaling, it can be broken down into TX cost, finality, and throughput.

L2s were originally envisioned with the intent of drastically reducing the TX cost and throughput (the latency of txs is also "reduced" to the end-user, but the finality is extended as there is a larger window before the batch of txs is finalized on ETH, that is the whole concept of a "rollup") without sacrifices to decentralization or security. This they actually do (particularly ZK-Rollups using ETH blobs), at least in theory, however, they have not in practice.

Instead, as @_Enoch (first vocal name that came to mind) and several others have been emphasizing for years, we have not seen an "actual" L2 with a proper exit window, no security council, and smooth interop.

So since L2s have been failing to advance and properly serve their users and the Ethereum community, they do not fit the former "Sharded Ethereum" vision. We do not have any mature Stage 2 L2s, and that is a major executional blunder. Scaling ETH via L1 vs L2s isn't inherently flawed in theoretical differences, but rather executional differences.

And since the L1 is scaling, that means that L2s will be mostly irrelevant for scaling (aside from hyper fast and scaled rollups and the tradeoffs that ensue), though rollups have more value than scale itself, so this is not the death of rollups themselves, but definitely many of the rollups today if they don't evolve.

That is not to say the rollup-centric vision was all a waste of time and effort. There have been countless advances and developments around both ZKPs and rollup designs as a result of this former vision.

Without diving too deep, Rollups and ZKPs are useful beyond scaling. We have seen alt-VMs (like @SwayLang FuelVM), privacy layers (like @aztecnetwork and @RAILGUN_Project), function specific appchains (@LC), and much more. The point being, rollups themselves are useful for purposes beyond scaling which would unlikely be explored were it not for having ventured down the rollup-centric roadmap. And when implemented properly, with the guarantees and inheritance of ETH, they will still play a vital role in the ETH ecosystem; a crucial part of The World Computer.

More centralized and fallible systems will continue to exist on Ethereum, but only where they make sense, rather than blanketing the current L2s we have as the only way forward for ETH.

And finally to dispel some naysayers:

To the people which were blindly touting "scaling the L1 like Solana" several years ago, blind L1 "scaling" is just centralization. Solana is unreliable, it goes down, it is centralized, and does not have any of the strong guarantees that Ethereum has. If ETH sacrificed everything in favor of chasing "Solana-level scale", ETH would be valueless, and not The World Computer.

Additionally, why do you think in face of this rollup centric vision was the L1 able to scale? This is because of the decentralization of the long-term Ethereum vision, roadmap, and workforce. There is no unified view held by everyone, development happens based on different opinionated directions simultaneously, and that is beautiful.

Just have a look at https://t.co/MBVSYNQd1k and you will be able to determine why ETH is different. I think people are so accustomed to the common practice that development only happens by a few individuals in a centralized corporate entity, that such a decentralized novel collaborative structure is entirely alien.

Rollups were not a waste of time or useless, rather corporations took over in place of cypherpunks. When we become the very thing we despise, of course it won't work and that is precisely why this narrative shift makes sense.

Death to centralization larping as decentralization, insecurity larping security, and corpos larping as cypherpunks.

[vitalik.eth @VitalikButerin]

There have recently been some discussions on the ongoing role of L2s in the Ethereum ecosystem, especially in the face of two facts:

* L2s' progress to stage 2 (and, secondarily, on interop) has been far slower and more difficult than originally expected
* L1 itself is scaling, fees are very low, and gaslimits are projected to increase greatly in 2026

Both of these facts, for their own separate reasons, mean that the original vision of L2s and their role in Ethereum no longer makes sense, and we need a new path.

First, let us recap the original vision. Ethereum needs to scale. The definition of "Ethereum scaling" is the existence of large quantities of block space that is backed by the full faith and credit of Ethereum - that is, block space where, if you do things (including with ETH) inside that block space, your activities are guaranteed to be valid, uncensored, unreverted, untouched, as long as Ethereum itself functions. If you create a 10000 TPS EVM where its connection to L1 is mediated by a multisig bridge, then you are not scaling Ethereum.

This vision no longer makes sense. L1 does not need L2s to be "branded shards", because L1 is itself scaling. And L2s are not able or willing to satisfy the properties that a true "branded shard" would require. I've even seen at least one explicitly saying that they may never want to go beyond stage 1, not just for technical reasons around ZK-EVM safety, but also because their customers' regulatory needs require them to have ultimate control. This may be doing the right thing for your customers. But it should be obvious that if you are doing this, then you are not "scaling Ethereum" in the sense meant by the rollup-centric roadmap. But that's fine! it's fine because Ethereum itself is now scaling directly on L1, with large planned increases to its gas limit this year and the years ahead.

We should stop thinking about L2s as literally being "branded shards" of Ethereum, with the social status and responsibilities that this entails. Instead, we can think of L2s as being a full spectrum, which includes both chains backed by the full faith and credit of Ethereum with various unique properties (eg. not just EVM), as well as a whole array of options at different levels of connection to Ethereum, that each person (or bot) is free to care about or not care about depending on their needs.

What would I do today if I were an L2?

* Identify a value add other than "scaling". Examples: (i) non-EVM specialized features/VMs around privacy, (ii) efficiency specialized around a particular application, (iii) truly extreme levels of scaling that even a greatly expanded L1 will not do, (iv) a totally different design for non-financial applications, eg. social, identity, AI, (v) ultra-low-latency and other sequencing properties, (vi) maybe built-in oracles or decentralized dispute resolution or other "non-computationally-verifiable" features
* Be stage 1 at the minimum (otherwise you really are just a separate L1 with a bridge, and you should just call yourself that) if you're doing things with ETH or other ethereum-issued assets
* Support maximum interoperability with Ethereum, though this will differ for each one (eg. what if you're not EVM, or even not financial?)

From Ethereum's side, over the past few months I've become more convinced of the value of the native rollup precompile, particuarly once we have enshrined ZK-EVM proofs that we need anyway to scale L1. This is a precompile that verifies a ZK-EVM proof, and it's "part of Ethereum", so (i) it auto-upgrades along with Ethereum, and (ii) if the precompile has a bug, Ethereum will hard-fork to fix the bug.

The native rollup precompile would make full, security-council-free, EVM verification accessible. We should spend much more time working out how to design it in such a way that if your L2 is "EVM plus other stuff", then the native rollup precompile would verify the EVM, and you only have to bring your own prover for the "other stuff" (eg. Stylus). This might involve a canonical way of exposing a lookup table between contract call inputs and outputs, and letting you provide your own values to the lookup table (that you would prove separately).

This would make it easy to have safe, strong, trustless interoperability with Ethereum. It also enables synchronous composability (see: https://t.co/9jy6v1X6Fw and https://t.co/gZmu3YjebM ). And from there, it's each L2's choice exactly what they want to build. Don't just "extend L1", figure out something new to add.

This of course means that some will add things that are trust-dependent, or backdoored, or otherwise insecure; this is unavoidable in a permissionless ecosystem where developers have freedom. Our job should make to make it clear to users what guarantees they have, and to build up the strongest Ethereum that we can.

[Yale ReiSoleil, Jr. @ReiSoleilJr]

@ddimitrovv22 Each line and assumption must be accounted for and validated, lest someone else do the work for you.

Most contracts are secure, their effects, however, aren't.

The blind spot often occurs on a developer level, if the code wasn't written by them, then they don't think about it.

[hoobi.eth 💗 @hubkotl]

classic

[Yale ReiSoleil, Jr. @ReiSoleilJr]

On the less visible side we do have some cool additions like the secp256r1 precompile (which is the wallet UX mentioned here, but has uses beyond that), CLZ opcode (big for ZK and general efficiency), and obviously the blob upgrade and major gas limit increase. Very nice fork.

[rip.eth @ripeth]

ethereum's fusaka upgrade drops next week

cheaper fees, higher TPS & smoother UX.

scale blobs
→ 20x more capacity with PeerDAS

scale L1
→ 33% more throughput with 60M gas limit

improve UX
→ native passkeys support

going live december 3rd

[Yale ReiSoleil, Jr. @ReiSoleilJr]

@tritlo Schrodinger's Inbox

[Yale ReiSoleil, Jr. @ReiSoleilJr]

It is categorically false and potentially malicious to imply that Hyperliquid represents the paragon of crypto.

They are no different from Binance or FTX apart from the fact they don't directly deal with fiat and thus don't require KYC.

An entirely centralized "alt-L1" where you wholeheartedly trust the Hyperliquid team with all your token deposits, directly to their private keys, just as you would a CEX.

To call it decentralized or a DEX is an insult to the space. It is marginally more transparent, and has no reason to exist as an alt-L1 apart from ensuring the users have no control over their assets once they're in HL's control, because unlike a proper L2/L3 there is no exit window, escape hatch, or anything similar that would inspire confidence.

There are far better ways to go about achieving the general functionality of HL that they intentionally did not utilize. So it would either be foolish or disingenuous to claim that they're the poster child of crypto, setting a standard for the entire space.

I see HL as a nominally better Binance, and Aster as identical to HL in every discernable way. Both aren't in it for the long run.

You should expect and demand better.

[aaalex.hl @aaalexhl]

Hyperliquid was born from the mistakes of FTX and Binance

The same Binance that liquidates the market whenever they feel like, sells off every major on a daily basis, and has been accused of back room deals for years

This is the first DEX in Crypto that actually scales and rivals tier 1 centralized exchanges

It's proven time and time again it's a viable replacement, and this industry has begged for something like this for a decade

They don't sell assets on the side, every aspect of the protocol is transparent, and Jeff doesn't tweet bullshit

If Hyperliquid fails (it won't), you should accept what Crypto has become and decide whether or not that's the future you want to participate in