Here’s Why ZK-Rollup Is Big for Ethereum’s Scalability

Here’s Why ZK-Rollup Is Big for Ethereum’s Scalability

Generally speaking, scalability has been the largest obstacle facing most blockchain-based cryptocurrencies, like Ethereum. However, the industry-wide issue is starting to change. The emergence of ZK-rollups has made transactions easier, providing fast confirmations and low fees. While they’ve commonly been called “Ethereum killers,” here is why ZK-rollup is big for Ethereum’s scalability. 

What Are ZK-Rollups? 

ZK-rollups, also known as zero-knowledge rollups, implement the technology from Ethereum Layer 2 scaling solutions. Using that technology, ZK-rollups are able to make the entire process more efficient, cutting time and cost.

To do this, ZK-rollups take advantage of Ethereum Layer 2 solutions. This basically means that, instead of using the mainchain, they use the secondary Ethereum blockchain. The biggest problem with doing this before is that it has been questioned how secure Layer 2 transactions were. 

Rollups are able to provide a high number of transactions per second without sacrificing any security or decentralization. Now, let’s take a look at why ZK_rollup is big for Ethereum’s scalability. 

Why ZK-Rollup is Big for Ethereum’s Scalability 

Ethereum has had a hard time with scalability because of the limitations of the main blockchain. That issue has been approached in a number of different ways through emergence protocols (ZK-rollups), including Solana, Avalanche, PolkaDot, Terra, and others. Here are some of the benefits of rollups that may be able to help Ethereum scale up. 

  • Increased throughput (transactions per second): Because rollups are “zero-knowledge,” there is less data that needs to be shared during each transaction. All of the information is compiled into a single transaction, then proof of validity is verified. This makes things more efficient, supporting scalability for Ethereum. 
  • Cheaper transaction fees: Rollups can provide more affordable transaction fees. With enough users, the fees may only add up to a few cents. 
  • Faster transaction and withdrawal times: Another thing rollups make more efficient is transaction and withdrawal times. As soon as proof of validity is received, the transaction or withdrawal goes through.  
  • Decentralized, but still secure: Best of all, rollups are still decentralized and secure. Only validity proof is required to complete the transaction instead of all the transactional data. This way, everything stays secure. 

That being said, there are still plenty of drawbacks to ZK-rollups. 

  • Trust: There still isn’t much trust around rollups. After all, it took years for more people to trust crypto. So, it could be a while before ZK-rollups really take off. Not to mention, only one person is needed to validate the transaction, leaving some chance for all participant’s data to be corrupted. 
  • Smart contracts: Rollups also don’t support smart contracts, but that problem may be solved soon.
  • Validity proofing: The proof of validity can be somewhat complex. Because it is complex, it is limited to simple transactions. 

Key Takeaways 

After digesting all of the information about ZK-rollups and how they may be able to impact Ethereum’s scalability, it looks promising. High gas fees on Ethereum are a non-issue with ZK-rollups. These emerging systems simply improve upon what exists, not create something entirely new. 

As the cost of using Ethereum continues to go up, the need to scale up has become more apparent. The technology behind zero-knowledge rollups promises lower fees all around without compromising the security that makes blockchain transactions so attractive. There are a lot of reasons why ZK-rollup is big for Ethereum’s scalability, but only time will tell its impact on the industry.

Read More

Author

  • Drew Blankenship is a cryptocurrency investor, family man, father and lifelong automotive enthusiast. He lives in North Carolina with his wife, daughter and their dog Enzo.

(Visited 20 times, 1 visits today)

Comments (No)

Leave a Reply