zkEVM Platforms: What Sets Them Apart From The Rest?
The zkEVM is a specialized virtual machine that operates on platforms utilizing Zkrollup technology, a privacy protection system for users. While this technology has numerous potential applications, it isn’t easy to develop.
One of the primary benefits of zkEVM is its ability to facilitate the development of decentralized applications (dApps) on ZK platforms that are compatible with the Ethereum ecosystem. This is particularly valuable for developers using Solidity language, who can easily create dApps on ZK platforms without having to modify their code significantly.
However, the level of fine-tuning required may depend on how closely the zkEVM platform aligns with the Ethereum ecosystem. To address this issue, Vitalik Buterin, the co-founder of Ethereum, has divided zkEVM into five distinct types, each with unique features and compatibility requirements.
The compatibility of zkEVM with different Ethereum-compatible platforms such as BNB Chain, Polygon, Avax C-chain, and Fantom varies depending on the degree to which the platform is aligned with Ethereum. Despite these variations, the overall goal of zkEVM remains the same: to provide developers with an easy-to-use platform for creating privacy-focused dApps on ZK rollup technology.
ZK-EVM types
Type 1 zkEVM: Compatible and Scalable Solution for Ethereum
The team behind zkSync, a layer 2 scaling solution for Ethereum, has recently announced the release of Type 1 zkEVM, a new implementation of the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) using zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs). Unlike other ZKP-based EVMs, Type 1 zkEVM is designed to be fully compatible with Ethereum’s current infrastructure and does not alter any non-consensus logic, such as hash, state, or transaction fees.
The main advantage of Type 1 zkEVM is its perfect compatibility with Ethereum, enabling the verification of Ethereum blocks as they are. It can verify the execution layer side, including all transaction execution and smart contracts, as well as account logic. This makes it an ideal solution for those looking to scale Ethereum without having to migrate to a completely new blockchain.
Moreover, Type 1 zkEVM has the potential to make Layer1 Ethereum itself more scalable than other types of ZKP-based EVMs. While modifications to experimental Ethereum in zkEVM Type 2 or Type 3 may be included in Ethereum in the long run, refactoring comes with its own complications. In contrast, Type 1 zkEVM allows for the reuse of most of Ethereum’s infrastructure, such as applications that work on Ethereum, to generate and process blocks. This means that block explorers, block producers, and other tools can be used as-is for compilations.
However, one major disadvantage of Type 1 zkEVM is the time required to prove the ZK proof. Since Ethereum was not originally designed to be ZK-friendly, there are many parts of the Ethereum protocol that require a large amount of computation to prove the ZK proof. Category 1 is aimed at exactly replicating Ethereum, so it has no way of mitigating these inefficiencies. Currently, proofs of Ethereum blocks take hours to generate. This issue could potentially be solved by clever engineering for parallel synchronization or using a ZK-SNARK ASIC (in development).
In summary, Type 1 zkEVM is a promising solution for those looking to scale Ethereum while maintaining compatibility with its current infrastructure. While the time required to prove ZK proofs remains a challenge, the potential benefits of Type 1 zkEVM make it an exciting development for the Ethereum community.
Type 2 (equivalent to EVM)
Type 2 zkEVM is exactly equivalent to EVM, but not exactly equivalent to Ethereum. They are identical to Ethereum on the inside, but they have some differences on the outside, especially in terms of data structures like block structure and state.
The developers of zkEVM type 2 are continuing to work on improving the performance and speed of the system. One possible solution being explored is to create a custom EVM that is designed specifically for zkSNARKs. This could potentially reduce the amount of computational overhead required for generating proofs and lead to faster validation times.
Overall, the zkEVM type 2 is a significant step forward in the field of zero-knowledge proofs for blockchains. It provides a high level of compatibility with existing Ethereum applications, while also offering faster proof times and the ability to use existing development infrastructure. While there are still some challenges to overcome, the future looks promising for zkEVM and its potential impact on the blockchain industry.
Type 3 (almost equivalent to EVM)
The zkEVM Type 3 is a new development in the world of blockchain technology, which aims to make it easier and faster to build and prove. This type is almost equivalent to the EVM, but with a few sacrifices made to improve normalization time and simplify development.
One of the advantages of zkEVM Type 3 is that it eliminates some of the features that are particularly difficult to implement in the ZK-EVM. Additionally, it can sometimes handle contract, memory, or stack code differently than the EVM, making it faster to prove.
However, the zkEVM Type 3 may also come with some disadvantages, such as more incompatibility. Although the goal is for it to be compatible with most applications and require only minimal rewrites for the rest, some applications may need to be rewritten because they use compilations that don’t match zkEVM Type 3.
Despite these potential drawbacks, zkEVM Type 3 is a promising development in the world of blockchain technology. Its ability to simplify development and improve normalization time could lead to faster and more efficient blockchain solutions in the future. As this technology continues to evolve, it will be interesting to see how zkEVM Type 3 is adopted and used by developers and businesses around the world.
Type 4 (high level language equivalent)
The Type 4 zkEVM system is a novel approach to optimizing the execution of smart contracts by utilizing zero-knowledge succinct non-interactive argument of knowledge (zk-SNARK) technology. The system is designed to compile smart contract source code written in high-level languages like Solidity or Vyper, or some intermediary that can compile to these languages, into languages that are specifically designed to be zk-SNARK friendly.
One of the primary advantages of the Type 4 zkEVM system is its ability to significantly reduce proof time. By avoiding the need to prove the zk-SNARK in the EVM execution steps and instead starting directly from the higher-level code, the system eliminates a lot of overhead and can provide very fast proof times. Additionally, compiling directly from high-level languages can reduce costs and help decentralization by making it easier for users to act as provers.
However, there are some potential drawbacks to using the Type 4 zkEVM system. One major issue is compatibility. While a normal application written in Vyper or Solidity can be compiled and work properly, there are certain ways in which many applications can be rendered unusual. For example, contracts may not have the same address in a Type 4 system as they do in an EVM, which can break un-deployed counter-contract based applications, ERC-4337 wallets, EIP-2470 singles, and more. Additionally, handwritten EVM bytecode can be harder to use in the system, as it may not be fully supported. While there are ways to implement limited EVM bytecode support, this requires additional effort and may not be as efficient as becoming a Type 3 ZK-EVM. Finally, the system may lack debugging infrastructure, as much of this infrastructure runs on EVM bytecode. However, this disadvantage can be mitigated by providing more access to debugging infrastructure from mid-level or high-level languages like LLVM.
Type 4 zkEVM system represents an exciting development in the world of smart contract execution. While there are some potential downsides, the system’s ability to reduce proof time and improve efficiency is a significant advantage. As the system continues to be developed and refined, it may become an increasingly popular choice for developers looking to optimize their smart contract execution.
The zkEVM’s future
The zkEVM is a technology that offers both advantages and disadvantages, with different trade-offs depending on the type used. The lower-order types are slower but more compatible with existing infrastructure, while the higher-order types are faster but less compatible. However, projects using zkEVM can start with a higher-numbered type and move to a lower-numbered type or vice versa as needed.
Vitalik Buterin, the creator of Ethereum, hopes to see more adoption of type 1 over time, which would require improvements to both zkEVM and Ethereum itself to make it more zk-friendly, particularly with SNARK. This would result in multiple zkEVMs that could be used for both ZK compilations and verification of the Ethereum chain, with different clients potentially using different proofs.
However, it will take some time before such a future becomes a reality. In the meantime, we can expect to see a lot of innovation in different paths towards scaling Ethereum and implementing zkRollup on the platform.
DISCLAIMER: The Information on this website is provided as general market commentary and does not constitute investment advice. We encourage you to do your research before investing.
Join us to keep track of news: https://linktr.ee/coincu
Website: coincu.com
Annie
Coincu News
Author
Knowledge
zkEVM Platforms: What Sets Them Apart From The Rest?
The zkEVM is a specialized virtual machine that operates on platforms utilizing Zkrollup technology, a privacy protection system for users. While this technology has numerous potential applications, it isn’t easy to develop.
One of the primary benefits of zkEVM is its ability to facilitate the development of decentralized applications (dApps) on ZK platforms that are compatible with the Ethereum ecosystem. This is particularly valuable for developers using Solidity language, who can easily create dApps on ZK platforms without having to modify their code significantly.
However, the level of fine-tuning required may depend on how closely the zkEVM platform aligns with the Ethereum ecosystem. To address this issue, Vitalik Buterin, the co-founder of Ethereum, has divided zkEVM into five distinct types, each with unique features and compatibility requirements.
The compatibility of zkEVM with different Ethereum-compatible platforms such as BNB Chain, Polygon, Avax C-chain, and Fantom varies depending on the degree to which the platform is aligned with Ethereum. Despite these variations, the overall goal of zkEVM remains the same: to provide developers with an easy-to-use platform for creating privacy-focused dApps on ZK rollup technology.
ZK-EVM types
Type 1 zkEVM: Compatible and Scalable Solution for Ethereum
The team behind zkSync, a layer 2 scaling solution for Ethereum, has recently announced the release of Type 1 zkEVM, a new implementation of the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) using zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs). Unlike other ZKP-based EVMs, Type 1 zkEVM is designed to be fully compatible with Ethereum’s current infrastructure and does not alter any non-consensus logic, such as hash, state, or transaction fees.
The main advantage of Type 1 zkEVM is its perfect compatibility with Ethereum, enabling the verification of Ethereum blocks as they are. It can verify the execution layer side, including all transaction execution and smart contracts, as well as account logic. This makes it an ideal solution for those looking to scale Ethereum without having to migrate to a completely new blockchain.
Moreover, Type 1 zkEVM has the potential to make Layer1 Ethereum itself more scalable than other types of ZKP-based EVMs. While modifications to experimental Ethereum in zkEVM Type 2 or Type 3 may be included in Ethereum in the long run, refactoring comes with its own complications. In contrast, Type 1 zkEVM allows for the reuse of most of Ethereum’s infrastructure, such as applications that work on Ethereum, to generate and process blocks. This means that block explorers, block producers, and other tools can be used as-is for compilations.
However, one major disadvantage of Type 1 zkEVM is the time required to prove the ZK proof. Since Ethereum was not originally designed to be ZK-friendly, there are many parts of the Ethereum protocol that require a large amount of computation to prove the ZK proof. Category 1 is aimed at exactly replicating Ethereum, so it has no way of mitigating these inefficiencies. Currently, proofs of Ethereum blocks take hours to generate. This issue could potentially be solved by clever engineering for parallel synchronization or using a ZK-SNARK ASIC (in development).
In summary, Type 1 zkEVM is a promising solution for those looking to scale Ethereum while maintaining compatibility with its current infrastructure. While the time required to prove ZK proofs remains a challenge, the potential benefits of Type 1 zkEVM make it an exciting development for the Ethereum community.
Type 2 (equivalent to EVM)
Type 2 zkEVM is exactly equivalent to EVM, but not exactly equivalent to Ethereum. They are identical to Ethereum on the inside, but they have some differences on the outside, especially in terms of data structures like block structure and state.
The developers of zkEVM type 2 are continuing to work on improving the performance and speed of the system. One possible solution being explored is to create a custom EVM that is designed specifically for zkSNARKs. This could potentially reduce the amount of computational overhead required for generating proofs and lead to faster validation times.
Overall, the zkEVM type 2 is a significant step forward in the field of zero-knowledge proofs for blockchains. It provides a high level of compatibility with existing Ethereum applications, while also offering faster proof times and the ability to use existing development infrastructure. While there are still some challenges to overcome, the future looks promising for zkEVM and its potential impact on the blockchain industry.
Type 3 (almost equivalent to EVM)
The zkEVM Type 3 is a new development in the world of blockchain technology, which aims to make it easier and faster to build and prove. This type is almost equivalent to the EVM, but with a few sacrifices made to improve normalization time and simplify development.
One of the advantages of zkEVM Type 3 is that it eliminates some of the features that are particularly difficult to implement in the ZK-EVM. Additionally, it can sometimes handle contract, memory, or stack code differently than the EVM, making it faster to prove.
However, the zkEVM Type 3 may also come with some disadvantages, such as more incompatibility. Although the goal is for it to be compatible with most applications and require only minimal rewrites for the rest, some applications may need to be rewritten because they use compilations that don’t match zkEVM Type 3.
Despite these potential drawbacks, zkEVM Type 3 is a promising development in the world of blockchain technology. Its ability to simplify development and improve normalization time could lead to faster and more efficient blockchain solutions in the future. As this technology continues to evolve, it will be interesting to see how zkEVM Type 3 is adopted and used by developers and businesses around the world.
Type 4 (high level language equivalent)
The Type 4 zkEVM system is a novel approach to optimizing the execution of smart contracts by utilizing zero-knowledge succinct non-interactive argument of knowledge (zk-SNARK) technology. The system is designed to compile smart contract source code written in high-level languages like Solidity or Vyper, or some intermediary that can compile to these languages, into languages that are specifically designed to be zk-SNARK friendly.
One of the primary advantages of the Type 4 zkEVM system is its ability to significantly reduce proof time. By avoiding the need to prove the zk-SNARK in the EVM execution steps and instead starting directly from the higher-level code, the system eliminates a lot of overhead and can provide very fast proof times. Additionally, compiling directly from high-level languages can reduce costs and help decentralization by making it easier for users to act as provers.
However, there are some potential drawbacks to using the Type 4 zkEVM system. One major issue is compatibility. While a normal application written in Vyper or Solidity can be compiled and work properly, there are certain ways in which many applications can be rendered unusual. For example, contracts may not have the same address in a Type 4 system as they do in an EVM, which can break un-deployed counter-contract based applications, ERC-4337 wallets, EIP-2470 singles, and more. Additionally, handwritten EVM bytecode can be harder to use in the system, as it may not be fully supported. While there are ways to implement limited EVM bytecode support, this requires additional effort and may not be as efficient as becoming a Type 3 ZK-EVM. Finally, the system may lack debugging infrastructure, as much of this infrastructure runs on EVM bytecode. However, this disadvantage can be mitigated by providing more access to debugging infrastructure from mid-level or high-level languages like LLVM.
Type 4 zkEVM system represents an exciting development in the world of smart contract execution. While there are some potential downsides, the system’s ability to reduce proof time and improve efficiency is a significant advantage. As the system continues to be developed and refined, it may become an increasingly popular choice for developers looking to optimize their smart contract execution.
The zkEVM’s future
The zkEVM is a technology that offers both advantages and disadvantages, with different trade-offs depending on the type used. The lower-order types are slower but more compatible with existing infrastructure, while the higher-order types are faster but less compatible. However, projects using zkEVM can start with a higher-numbered type and move to a lower-numbered type or vice versa as needed.
Vitalik Buterin, the creator of Ethereum, hopes to see more adoption of type 1 over time, which would require improvements to both zkEVM and Ethereum itself to make it more zk-friendly, particularly with SNARK. This would result in multiple zkEVMs that could be used for both ZK compilations and verification of the Ethereum chain, with different clients potentially using different proofs.
However, it will take some time before such a future becomes a reality. In the meantime, we can expect to see a lot of innovation in different paths towards scaling Ethereum and implementing zkRollup on the platform.
DISCLAIMER: The Information on this website is provided as general market commentary and does not constitute investment advice. We encourage you to do your research before investing.
Join us to keep track of news: https://linktr.ee/coincu
Website: coincu.com
Annie
Coincu News
Latest
Best Cryptos to Invest in December 2024: Qubetics Surges Past $2.6M as Solana Records Big Whale Pump and Polkadot Aims for $6
Bitcoin Trader Turned $100M in His 20s—Now Reveals 5 Altcoins to Build a $50M Portfolio, With Memecoins Leading the Way!
Press Release
Best Cryptos to Invest in December 2024: Qubetics Surges Past $2.6M as Solana Records Big Whale Pump and Polkadot Aims for $6
The Best Crypto for Passive Income? 10% Weekly Gains and 20% Final Surge—Qubetics Mirrors Cosmos’ Early Success!
