The post Optimiums and the ‘L2’: Ethereum security revisited appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The term “Ethereum layer-2” is generally thought to mean that a chain inherits Ethereum’s security. But the line has always been blurry, and remains so, especially with the rise of OP Stack chains that use alternative data availability (DA) layers. These so-called “Optimiums” settle to Ethereum but post data elsewhere, introducing some additional trust-assumptions. Toghrul Maharramov, a rollup researcher and former Scroll contributor, has been a vocal critic of looser L2 definitions, and declared Wednesday on X: “Optimiums are not L2s. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to psyop you.” A good example of this is Celo, which Blockworks reported as a case study of an L1 becoming an L2. For the most part, Ethereum rollups post their data to Ethereum itself — originally via calldata and now, predominantly, via blobs. That enables the useful property of permissionless state reconstruction and withdrawals from an L2 to Ethereum mainnet. Optimiums, by contrast, outsource DA to off-chain networks like EigenDA, Celestia or Avail, and rely on attestations to prove that data is available. They may use fraud proofs and settle to Ethereum, but they add a layer of trust that Ethereum cannot directly verify. Vitalik Buterin has used “L2” liberally, and indeed specifically referred to Celo as moving to an “L2,” so we’re in good company there, but the difference is more than semantics.  Ethereum scaling tracker L2BEAT now classifies most Optimiums as “Others,” a catch-all category for chains that don’t meet the strict rollup criteria. Celo, for example, completed its transition in March 2025 to run on the OP Stack with EigenDA. According to L2BEAT, it fails two key checks for rollup status: It has fewer than five external actors who can submit fraud proofs It has no DA bridge that posts EigenDA availability proofs on Ethereum The result: no L1-enforced… The post Optimiums and the ‘L2’: Ethereum security revisited appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The term “Ethereum layer-2” is generally thought to mean that a chain inherits Ethereum’s security. But the line has always been blurry, and remains so, especially with the rise of OP Stack chains that use alternative data availability (DA) layers. These so-called “Optimiums” settle to Ethereum but post data elsewhere, introducing some additional trust-assumptions. Toghrul Maharramov, a rollup researcher and former Scroll contributor, has been a vocal critic of looser L2 definitions, and declared Wednesday on X: “Optimiums are not L2s. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to psyop you.” A good example of this is Celo, which Blockworks reported as a case study of an L1 becoming an L2. For the most part, Ethereum rollups post their data to Ethereum itself — originally via calldata and now, predominantly, via blobs. That enables the useful property of permissionless state reconstruction and withdrawals from an L2 to Ethereum mainnet. Optimiums, by contrast, outsource DA to off-chain networks like EigenDA, Celestia or Avail, and rely on attestations to prove that data is available. They may use fraud proofs and settle to Ethereum, but they add a layer of trust that Ethereum cannot directly verify. Vitalik Buterin has used “L2” liberally, and indeed specifically referred to Celo as moving to an “L2,” so we’re in good company there, but the difference is more than semantics.  Ethereum scaling tracker L2BEAT now classifies most Optimiums as “Others,” a catch-all category for chains that don’t meet the strict rollup criteria. Celo, for example, completed its transition in March 2025 to run on the OP Stack with EigenDA. According to L2BEAT, it fails two key checks for rollup status: It has fewer than five external actors who can submit fraud proofs It has no DA bridge that posts EigenDA availability proofs on Ethereum The result: no L1-enforced…

Optimiums and the ‘L2’: Ethereum security revisited

The term “Ethereum layer-2” is generally thought to mean that a chain inherits Ethereum’s security. But the line has always been blurry, and remains so, especially with the rise of OP Stack chains that use alternative data availability (DA) layers. These so-called “Optimiums” settle to Ethereum but post data elsewhere, introducing some additional trust-assumptions.

Toghrul Maharramov, a rollup researcher and former Scroll contributor, has been a vocal critic of looser L2 definitions, and declared Wednesday on X:

“Optimiums are not L2s. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to psyop you.”

A good example of this is Celo, which Blockworks reported as a case study of an L1 becoming an L2. For the most part, Ethereum rollups post their data to Ethereum itself — originally via calldata and now, predominantly, via blobs. That enables the useful property of permissionless state reconstruction and withdrawals from an L2 to Ethereum mainnet.

Optimiums, by contrast, outsource DA to off-chain networks like EigenDA, Celestia or Avail, and rely on attestations to prove that data is available. They may use fraud proofs and settle to Ethereum, but they add a layer of trust that Ethereum cannot directly verify.

Vitalik Buterin has used “L2” liberally, and indeed specifically referred to Celo as moving to an “L2,” so we’re in good company there, but the difference is more than semantics. 

Ethereum scaling tracker L2BEAT now classifies most Optimiums as “Others,” a catch-all category for chains that don’t meet the strict rollup criteria. Celo, for example, completed its transition in March 2025 to run on the OP Stack with EigenDA.

According to L2BEAT, it fails two key checks for rollup status:

  • It has fewer than five external actors who can submit fraud proofs
  • It has no DA bridge that posts EigenDA availability proofs on Ethereum

The result: no L1-enforced remedy if data goes missing.

Lisk, which migrated to Ethereum in late 2024, also falls into this bucket for similar reasons — reliance on a permissioned challenger set — although it does post data on Ethereum.

According to Sreeram Kannan, founder of EigenLayer, we can think of rollups as “out-of-protocol scaling for execution,” while EigenDA is “out-of-protocol scaling for blob space.” In both cases, the data and logic happen outside Ethereum’s protocol rules — but only rollups ensure Ethereum can enforce validity directly.

“When a certificate from EigenDA shows up, you’re trusting that that certificate implies that the data is available,” he told Blockworks.

That trust model has no on-chain enforcement today.

“If the DA claimed the data is available and the data is not available, there’s no recourse,” Kannan said.

So, is “L2” just Ethereum-aligned marketing? Or should it reflect the protocol’s ability to enforce both correctness and availability?

L2BEAT’s current stance is that Ethereum must be able to reject bad state roots and verify data availability independently. Anything else requires more trust — whether that’s in a DA quorum, a governance council, or a permissioned set of challengers.

Optimiums without either state validation or a DA bridge remain in the “Others” category. But as the tech matures, some may graduate to “Validiums & Optimiums” or even gain rollup status. To do that, you’d need some robust fallback mechanism or a way to make DA failures an “objectively attributable fault,” — a tough problem to crack.

Until then, the debate continues, grounded in practical considerations for users about who is trustworthy to keep funds safe. 

“If you’re just honest, every layer-2 is controlled by a multisig, so we should be talking more about that,” Kannan said. This is certainly a prime bugaboo for critics of Ethereum’s scaling scheme, he acknowledges.

“But I would want to also point out that every app on Solana has like a 2-of-3 or some very small multisig that controls it,” he said, meaning there’s more work to be done to minimize trust all around.


Get the news in your inbox. Explore Blockworks newsletters:

Source: https://blockworks.co/news/optimiums-and-the-l2-ethereum-security-revisited

Piyasa Fırsatı
Threshold Logosu
Threshold Fiyatı(T)
$0.00944
$0.00944$0.00944
-0.10%
USD
Threshold (T) Canlı Fiyat Grafiği
Sorumluluk Reddi: Bu sitede yeniden yayınlanan makaleler, halka açık platformlardan alınmıştır ve yalnızca bilgilendirme amaçlıdır. MEXC'nin görüşlerini yansıtmayabilir. Tüm hakları telif sahiplerine aittir. Herhangi bir içeriğin üçüncü taraf haklarını ihlal ettiğini düşünüyorsanız, kaldırılması için lütfen [email protected] ile iletişime geçin. MEXC, içeriğin doğruluğu, eksiksizliği veya güncelliği konusunda hiçbir garanti vermez ve sağlanan bilgilere dayalı olarak alınan herhangi bir eylemden sorumlu değildir. İçerik, finansal, yasal veya diğer profesyonel tavsiye niteliğinde değildir ve MEXC tarafından bir tavsiye veya onay olarak değerlendirilmemelidir.

Ayrıca Şunları da Beğenebilirsiniz

The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For

The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For

The post The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Visions of future technology are often prescient about the broad strokes while flubbing the details. The tablets in “2001: A Space Odyssey” do indeed look like iPads, but you never see the astronauts paying for subscriptions or wasting hours on Candy Crush.  Channel factories are one vision that arose early in the history of the Lightning Network to address some challenges that Lightning has faced from the beginning. Despite having grown to become Bitcoin’s most successful layer-2 scaling solution, with instant and low-fee payments, Lightning’s scale is limited by its reliance on payment channels. Although Lightning shifts most transactions off-chain, each payment channel still requires an on-chain transaction to open and (usually) another to close. As adoption grows, pressure on the blockchain grows with it. The need for a more scalable approach to managing channels is clear. Channel factories were supposed to meet this need, but where are they? In 2025, subnetworks are emerging that revive the impetus of channel factories with some new details that vastly increase their potential. They are natively interoperable with Lightning and achieve greater scale by allowing a group of participants to open a shared multisig UTXO and create multiple bilateral channels, which reduces the number of on-chain transactions and improves capital efficiency. Achieving greater scale by reducing complexity, Ark and Spark perform the same function as traditional channel factories with new designs and additional capabilities based on shared UTXOs.  Channel Factories 101 Channel factories have been around since the inception of Lightning. A factory is a multiparty contract where multiple users (not just two, as in a Dryja-Poon channel) cooperatively lock funds in a single multisig UTXO. They can open, close and update channels off-chain without updating the blockchain for each operation. Only when participants leave or the factory dissolves is an on-chain transaction…
Paylaş
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 00:09
USDC Treasury mints 250 million new USDC on Solana

USDC Treasury mints 250 million new USDC on Solana

PANews reported on September 17 that according to Whale Alert , at 23:48 Beijing time, USDC Treasury minted 250 million new USDC (approximately US$250 million) on the Solana blockchain .
Paylaş
PANews2025/09/17 23:51
US S&P Global Manufacturing PMI declines to 51.8, Services PMI falls to 52.9 in December

US S&P Global Manufacturing PMI declines to 51.8, Services PMI falls to 52.9 in December

The post US S&P Global Manufacturing PMI declines to 51.8, Services PMI falls to 52.9 in December appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The business activity in
Paylaş
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/16 23:24