ZKsyncの‌価格ZK

Robert Sasu on X emphasizes the strengths of Proof-of-Stake (PoS) over Proof-of-Work (PoW). PoS dominates across security, decentralization, and economic efficiency. While PoW allows open participation, Delegated Proof-of-Stake (dPoS) also enables accessibility with minimal initial capital. However, broader distribution remains necessary for credibility. Enhanced governance, akin to Switzerland’s model, could improve decision-making and encourage participation. Blockchain’s power lies in decentralization , automation, and provable history. Consequently, cryptocurrency emerged from blockchain rather than vice versa. More development and public involvement are essential to maximize its potential. Justin Bons asserts that PoS outperforms PoW in all aspects. It offers superior security, fairness, and economic sustainability. He questions why PoW chains remain relevant when PoS technology has advanced significantly. Many still support PoW, possibly due to financial interests rather than logical reasoning. Despite PoW’s historical significance, PoS provides a more scalable and efficient framework for blockchain networks. The blockchain development team from Iron Fish was purchased by Base, a Layer 2 initiative supported by Coinbase. The acquisition is intended to increase Base’s ecosystem’s privacy. Zero-knowledge proofs, or zk-SNARKs, are utilized by Iron Fish, a proof-of-work blockchain with a privacy focus , to facilitate private transactions. The acquisition does not include Iron Fish’s blockchain or native token. Instead, it focuses solely on integrating the development team’s expertise into Base. This ensures Iron Fish remains independent while benefiting from Base’s privacy initiatives. Iron Fish confirmed the transition on X, stating its commitment to scaling privacy solutions. Founder Elena Nadolinski will retain her position on the Iron Fish Foundation board. This implies Iron Fish’s governance remains intact despite the team’s transition. Iron Fish launched its mainnet in 2023 after two years of incubation. However, it failed to fly. It raised $28 million in 2021 with support from Andreessen Horowitz to develop its privacy blockchain. Nevertheless, adoption problems were still present despite the capital. This acquisition marks a strategic shift for the Iron Fish team. It allows them to contribute privacy-preserving primitives to Base while maintaining Iron Fish’s autonomy. As blockchain privacy solutions advance, this move signifies a broader industry focus on security and user protection. DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is provided as general market commentary and does not constitute investment advice. We encourage you to do your own research before investing.

The Mint Blockchain, Ethereum, and Solana are all prominent blockchain networks, but they differ significantly in terms of scalability, consensus mechanisms, and overall design. Let's break down their scalability features: 1. Ethereum: Ethereum, being one of the oldest and most widely used smart contract platforms, initially struggled with scalability, particularly in its proof-of-work (PoW) model, due to network congestion and high transaction fees. However, Ethereum 2.0 (transitioned to Proof-of-Stake (PoS)) and layer-2 scaling solutions have improved scalability. Layer-1 Scalability: Ethereum's scalability has been limited by its block size and the number of transactions it can process per second (TPS). On Ethereum 1.0 (PoW), it could handle roughly 15-30 TPS. Ethereum 2.0: Ethereum 2.0 aims to improve scalability by introducing sharding (splitting the network into smaller pieces, or "shards", to increase parallel processing) and PoS. This will help Ethereum scale to thousands of TPS in the long term. However, sharding and full Ethereum 2.0 upgrades are still in development. Layer-2 Solutions: Solutions like Optimistic Rollups, zk-Rollups, and sidechains are already deployed to offload transactions from the main chain and process them at a faster rate, effectively boosting scalability on Ethereum. 2. Solana: Solana is designed from the ground up to prioritize scalability. Its architecture allows for much faster transaction speeds and lower fees compared to Ethereum. Proof of History (PoH): Solana uses a unique consensus mechanism called Proof of History (PoH) combined with Proof of Stake (PoS). PoH timestamps transactions, allowing for parallelization and speeding up the validation process, leading to higher scalability. TPS: Solana can handle 50,000+ transactions per second (TPS), and theoretically, this could scale even higher with optimizations. This makes Solana one of the most scalable blockchains in existence today, significantly outperforming Ethereum in raw transaction throughput. Low Fees: Solana's high scalability also leads to very low transaction fees (often fractions of a cent), making it attractive for high-frequency, low-value transactions. 3. Mint Blockchain: The Mint Blockchain is relatively newer and often described as a blockchain focused on solving some of the scalability challenges that Ethereum and Solana face, but it comes with its own unique approach. Scalability Features: The Mint Blockchain emphasizes simplicity and efficiency, with its consensus mechanism designed for high throughput. It is built to be a highly scalable layer-1 blockchain. TPS: The Mint Blockchain claims to support over 10,000 TPS, though it isn't as widely tested or proven as Solana in terms of real-world transaction volume and scalability. However, the Mint Blockchain’s focus is on handling a large number of transactions quickly, with lower energy consumption and reduced operational costs. Low Latency: Mint Blockchain is also designed for low latency and fast finality, meaning transactions are confirmed rapidly, which is essential for scalability in applications that need quick execution times. Comparison in Scalability: Transactions Per Second (TPS): Solana: 50,000+ TPS (with potential for even higher). Mint Blockchain: Claims of 10,000+ TPS. Ethereum: 15-30 TPS on Ethereum 1.0, with Ethereum 2.0 + layer-2 solutions aiming for thousands of TPS. Transaction Fees: Solana: Extremely low (fractions of a cent). Mint Blockchain: Aims for low fees, but likely higher than Solana. Ethereum: High fees during congestion (can range from a few dollars to more), but Ethereum 2.0 and layer-2 scaling should reduce fees. Finality: Solana: Fast finality, with block times of around 400ms. Mint Blockchain: Low latency, rapid finality. Ethereum: Finality is slower compared to Solana (usually around 12-14 seconds for block confirmation, but Ethereum 2.0 and layer-2 solutions can improve this). Conclusion: Scalability Leader: Solana is the clear leader in scalability with its high TPS and low fees, largely due to its unique PoH consensus and architecture. Ethereum: With its Ethereum 2.0 upgrades and layer-2 solutions, Ethereum is catching up in terms of scalability but still lags behind Solana in pure transaction throughput. Mint Blockchain: While promising, the Mint Blockchain is newer and less proven in large-scale applications, but it aims to solve some of the same scalability challenges faced by Ethereum and other blockchains. In terms of raw scalability (TPS), Solana currently holds the edge, but each blockchain has its strengths depending on use cases (e.g., Ethereum’s established ecosystem vs. Mint’s focus on efficiency). $MINT

$ZK After a while, this chart is getting interesting again. We've swept the equal lows, and I'll be watching for longs. Two approaches here: 🔹Position early at these levels. 🔹 Wait for a confirmed trend reversal above 0.108.

For the first time ever, a ZK-proof was verified on Bitcoin mainnet, a breakthrough once thought impossible. At the center of it all? @BTC_OS My deep dive ↓

Namada uses a tech called MASP. MASP is a zero-knowledge circuit (zk-SNARK) that works on data protection guarantees. More users putting assets into shielded sets would increase the data protection guarantee for the whole network.