flâneur

Should Ethereum be okay with enshrining more things in the protocol?

vitalik.eth.limo · 6,218 words · saved by 4 readers

From the start of the Ethereum project, there was a strong philosophy of trying to make the core Ethereum as simple as possible, and do as much as possible by building protocols on top. In the blockchain space, the "do it on L1" vs "focus on L2s" debate is typically thought of as being primarily about scaling, but in reality, similar issues exist for serving many kinds of Ethereum users' needs: digital asset exchange, privacy, usernames, advanced cryptography, account safety, censorship resistance, frontrunning protection, and the list goes on. More recently, however, there has been some cautious interest in being willing to enshrine more of these features into the core Ethereum protocol. This post will go into some of the philosophical reasoning behind the original minimal-enshrinement philosophy, as well as some more recent ways of thinking about some of these ideas. The goal will be to start to build toward a framework for better identifying possible targets where enshrining certain

Dark Mode Toggle Should Ethereum be okay with enshrining more things in the protocol? 2023 Sep 30 See all posts Should Ethereum be okay with enshrining more things in the protocol? Special thanks to Justin Drake, Tina Zhen and Yoav Weiss for feedback and review. From the start of the Ethereum project, there was a strong philosophy of trying to make the core Ethereum as simple as possible, and do as much as possible by building protocols on top. In the blockchain space, the "do it on L1" vs "focus on L2s" debate is typically thought of as being primarily about scaling , but in reality, similar

saved by

related reading