Now understand the following critical difference between this operation and a similar operation on an Ethereum L2. - When I am confirming the transaction on Solana it is settling in seconds to the Layer 1 blockchain. This is legal ownership of the Tesla derivative. The transaction is finalized instantly. I own the derivative. - If you do this with a Ethereum L2, you are not settling the trade, ownership is not legal, you are simply being promised that the trade is made by the L2, which just sequences the trade in a single server database. Then later it batches all the transactions up (rollup) and submits them to Ethereum, which has 7 days to confirm them. So there are 3 levels of failure with Ethereum L2s. The L2 is a single point of failure, the rollup is a point of failure and Ethereum validators may reject the entire rollup the third point of failure. You have been gaslit about Ethereum L2s. They are not blockchain, and will never be regulated to settle ownership like this. Whoever built them, promotes them and implements them never understood web3. They were gaslit too. IMO: @VitalikButerin needs to put together a team and rebuild Ethereum L1 with modern languages and architectures. Until then Ethereum L2s are frauds. This is not personal. Its technical. Understand the difference. Grow as users. Its 2025 we not idiots. Here is @grok summary opinion of my post in the thread.

@grok: Let’s break down the comparison between Solana’s transaction finality and Ethereum Layer 2 (L2) solutions, addressing the technical claims, the critique of Ethereum L2s, and the broader implications for Web3. I’ll aim to be clear, objective, and critical, while exploring the nuances of both systems. I’ll also avoid taking the “gaslit” narrative at face value and instead focus on the technical realities, acknowledging strengths and weaknesses. Solana’s Transaction Finality You’re correct that Solana offers rapid transaction finality, often in seconds, directly on its Layer 1 (L1) blockchain. Here’s how it works: Architecture: Solana uses a Proof-of-History (PoH) mechanism combined with a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus to achieve high throughput (up to 65,000 transactions per second in ideal conditions) and low latency. PoH creates a cryptographic timestamp, allowing validators to agree on the order of events without needing to communicate for every transaction. Finality: Solana’s finality is achieved in about 400-800 milliseconds for optimistic confirmation, with full finality (irreversible settlement) in roughly 2-3 seconds, depending on network conditions. Once a transaction is confirmed, it’s settled on the L1, meaning the state (e.g., ownership of a Tesla derivative in your example) is updated and legally binding within the blockchain’s rules. Implications: This speed and direct L1 settlement make Solana suitable for applications requiring immediate finality, like trading derivatives or real-time payments. The transaction is “done” when confirmed, with no further steps needed. Ethereum L2s: How They Work Ethereum L2s, such as Optimistic Rollups (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) or Zero-Knowledge Rollups (e.g., zkSync, StarkNet), are designed to scale Ethereum by processing transactions off-chain while leveraging Ethereum’s L1 for security. Let’s unpack your concerns about their settlement process and points of failure: Transaction Processing on L2: On an L2, transactions are executed and sequenced by the L2’s infrastructure, often a centralized sequencer (a single server or small set of servers). The sequencer processes transactions, updates the L2 state, and provides users with immediate feedback (e.g., “your trade is done”). However, this is not final settlement. The L2 state is a “promise” of execution, not a globally settled state on Ethereum’s L1 until the rollup submits its batch. Batching and Rollup Submission: L2s batch multiple transactions into a single compressed transaction (a rollup) and submit it to Ethereum’s L1. This reduces gas costs and congestion on L1. For Optimistic Rollups, the batch is submitted with a delay (typically 7 days, known as the challenge period). During this time, anyone can submit a fraud proof if they detect invalid transactions. If no fraud is proven, the batch is finalized on L1. For ZK-Rollups, finality is faster because cryptographic proofs (zero-knowledge proofs) guarantee the validity of the batch, often reducing the challenge period to hours or less. Finality on Ethereum L1: Ethereum’s L1 finality takes about 12-15 minutes (PoS finality after the Merge), but L2 batches are only finalized after the challenge period (for Optimistic Rollups) or proof verification (for ZK-Rollups). This means legal ownership on Ethereum’s L1 can take days for Optimistic Rollups or hours for ZK-Rollups. Until L1 finality, the L2’s state is “provisional,” and ownership isn’t fully secured by Ethereum’s consensus. Points of Failure in Ethereum L2s You’ve identified three potential failure points in Ethereum L2s. Let’s evaluate them critically: L2 Sequencer as a Single Point of Failure: Many L2s rely on a centralized sequencer, which introduces risks like downtime, censorship, or malicious behavior. If the sequencer goes offline, users can’t process transactions until it’s restored (though some L2s allow users to bypass the sequencer by submitting directly to L1, albeit at higher cost). Mitigation: Some L2s (e.g., Arbitrum) are working on decentralized sequencers, and ZK-Rollups reduce reliance on sequencers by using cryptographic proofs. However, decentralization is still a work in progress. Rollup Submission Failure: If an L2 fails to submit its batch to Ethereum (e.g., due to operator failure or network issues), transactions remain unsettled. This is rare but possible, especially for less mature L2s. Mitigation: Ethereum’s L1 is highly reliable, and L2 operators have strong incentives to submit batches correctly. Some L2s have fallback mechanisms to ensure submission. Ethereum Validators Rejecting the Rollup: If a batch contains invalid transactions, Ethereum validators (or fraud provers in Optimistic Rollups) can reject it. This is a feature, not a bug, as it ensures integrity. However, it introduces a delay and theoretical risk of disputes. Mitigation: ZK-Rollups minimize this risk by proving validity upfront, and Optimistic Rollups rely on economic incentives for honest behavior. Rejection of a valid rollup is highly unlikely due to Ethereum’s robust consensus. Are Ethereum L2s “Not Blockchain” or “Fraud”? Your claim that Ethereum L2s are “not blockchain” and “frauds” is a strong one. Let’s examine it: Are L2s Blockchains? L2s are not standalone blockchains like Solana or Ethereum L1. They are scaling solutions that inherit Ethereum’s security while processing transactions off-chain. The L2 state is a database (often centralized) that periodically settles to Ethereum’s decentralized L1. However, calling them “not blockchain” oversimplifies. L2s use cryptographic commitments (e.g., Merkle roots, ZK proofs) and Ethereum’s consensus for final settlement, making them part of the blockchain ecosystem. They’re a hybrid: centralized execution with decentralized settlement. Are L2s Frauds? The term “fraud” implies intentional deception. Ethereum L2s were designed to address Ethereum’s scalability issues (high gas fees, low throughput of ~15 TPS). They’ve succeeded in reducing costs (e.g., Arbitrum transactions cost cents) and increasing throughput (thousands of TPS). However, their trade-offs—centralized sequencers, delayed finality—are real and often under-discussed. If users are misled into thinking L2 transactions are as final as L1 transactions, that’s a communication failure, not necessarily fraud. Vitalik Buterin and Ethereum developers have been transparent about L2 limitations, advocating for improvements like decentralized sequencers and faster finality (e.g., via EIP-4844 and danksharding). The roadmap acknowledges L2s as a stopgap, not the endgame. Regulatory Concerns: You’re right that delayed finality could complicate legal ownership, especially for regulated assets like derivatives. Regulators may hesitate to recognize L2 transactions as settled until L1 finality, which could limit their use in high-stakes applications. Solana’s instant L1 finality aligns better with traditional financial expectations of settlement, but Ethereum’s L2s prioritize scalability and cost over immediate finality. The “Gaslit” Narrative and Web3 You suggest that L2 promoters “never understood Web3” and were “gaslit.” Let’s unpack this: Web3’s Core Principles: Web3 emphasizes decentralization, trustlessness, and user sovereignty. Solana aligns with this by offering decentralized L1 finality, though its high hardware requirements (for validators) and occasional network outages (e.g., 2022 incidents) raise centralization concerns. L2s and Web3: Ethereum L2s compromise on decentralization (e.g., sequencers) to achieve scalability, which critics argue deviates from Web3’s ethos. However, they’re a pragmatic response to Ethereum’s limitations, and the ecosystem is working toward decentralizing L2s. Gaslighting?: The hype around L2s as “the future of Ethereum” can feel overstated when their trade-offs aren’t clearly communicated. Some projects overpromise (e.g., ignoring sequencer risks), but this is more about marketing than systemic deception. Ethereum’s community, including Vitalik, has openly debated L2 limitations on forums like X and Ethereum Magicians. Should Ethereum L1 Be Rebuilt? You propose that Vitalik Buterin rebuild Ethereum L1 with modern languages and architectures. Let’s evaluate: Current State: Ethereum’s L1, written in Solidity (for contracts) and Go (for clients like Geth), is battle-tested but constrained. Its 15 TPS and high gas fees are bottlenecks, and sharding (originally planned) was deprioritized for rollups.