Odaily Planet Daily News: In response to the naming tag BattleTested proposed by community member Daniel Wang for Stage 2 of the L2 network, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik posted on the X platform, saying, "This is a good reminder that Stage 2 is not the only factor affecting security, and the quality of the underlying proof system is equally important. This is a simplified mathematical model that shows when to enter Stage 2:
Each member of the Security Council has a 10% chance of independent 'breaking'; We consider activity failure (refusal of signature or key access) and security failure (signing the wrong thing or key being hacked) as equally likely; Goal: Minimize the likelihood of protocol collapse under the above assumptions.
*Stage 0 Security Council is 4/7, Stage 1 is 6/8; Please note that these assumptions are very incomplete. In fact, members of the Security Council have a "common pattern failure": they may collude, or all be coerced or hacked in the same way, and so on. This makes both Stage 0 and Stage 1 less secure than shown in the model, so entering Stage 2 earlier than implied by the model is the best choice.
In addition, please note that by turning the proof system itself into a multi signature of multiple independent systems, the probability of the proof system crashing can be greatly reduced (which is what I advocated in my previous proposal). I suspect that all second phase deployments in previous years will be like this. Considering these factors, this is a chart. The X-axis represents the probability of system failure. The Y-axis represents the probability of protocol collapse. As the quality of the proof system improves, the optimal stage shifts from stage 0 to stage 1, and then from stage 1 to stage 2. Using the quality proof system of Stage 0 for Stage 2 is the worst.
In short, @ l2beat should ideally demonstrate proof of system auditing and maturity metrics (preferably proof of system implementation rather than the entire summary so that we can reuse it) as well as stages
