On behalf of the Optimism Foundation, I’d like to get the conversation with the community started about Optimism’s first ever protocol upgrade vote. With the Bedrock release approaching, the first ever protocol upgrade is within reach. We’re super excited.
While the Goerli testnet upgrade is already scheduled for Thursday, any Mainnet upgrade needs to go through the Token House. This is a call for feedback on the type of information the Token House would like included in the default protocol upgrade proposal type.
We’ve put together a starting point for consideration below. We’d love to hear any and all thoughts from the community on what other info would be good to include.
Executive Summary
In short, what is this upgrade?
Impacted stakeholders & expected outcomes
Why the Collective should upgrade
Technical Summary
Overview of architectural changes
Link to all protocol/API/tech specifications
Overview of ongoing security considerations incl. all audits and findings
Impact Summary
Changes in performance characteristics, economics, …
Time-of-upgrade considerations (downtime, etc)
Links to exhaustive upgrade documentation for impacted stakeholders
Action Plan
Upgrade Timing, Staging, & Go-live
Contingency plans in case of last-minute bugs or issues
Links to any orchestration code used specifically at the time of migration
I would like to see a couple topics addressed in the summary:
1 Will Zero Knowledge Proofs be a part of this upgrade? (If not, are they coming in the future)?
Will users need to perform two separate activities in order to withdraw or do the two steps (proof and week later the unlock) happen behind the scenes after the user requests the funds
Those are good topics and I think they’ll help provide clarity for the community. This is my understanding:
No zk-proofs at the moment. Optimism is an optimistic rollup, so that means it uses a fault (formerly called “fraud”) proof system. From what I understand, Bedrock makes architectural changes that are more modular. In the future, if Optimism wants to migrate to a zk proving system, Bedrock’s architecture allows for a more simple swap between proving components without impacting the rest of the system. I believe when zk tech is more battle tested, this system will eventually replace fault proofs on optimism. It should be noted that Optimism’s proving system, Cannon, will not be live with Bedrock, but will come in a later release.
I believe it’s one action on the user’s end, but I’m not 100% sure. There is a week long challenge period. If a user is trying to break the rules, a fault proof can be submitted to block the malicious activity. I think if that period passes then you have your withdraw on L1 without further action required. More info high-level rollup protocol and technical withdraw specification.
Thanks for bring this conversation to the forum and congrats by deploying Bedrock upgrade on testnet.
About impact summary, I would like to see two specific clarifications and then relevant notes: 1. how this update would affect the active protocols in Optimism, such as due to changes in blocktime, timestamps? and any other one that entails that the protocols have to update or deprecate of their deployed contracts, if applicable. The idea here is to have a complete prevention picture that should be resolved before any update; so if there are relevant conditions like this, I would explicitly like to know about it.
And 2. metrics and analytics pertaining specifically to Bedrock’s performance at Goerli, and let us know if you need help with things like stress testing with the community.
Additional questions: any procedure in case of severe delays during the update and the fact that said downtime affects time-sensitive smart contracts? from contacting teams to avoid risks to allocation for compensation, if applicable.
The points you’ve put in mostly cover up all questions that come to my mind. I think most important things people would want to know are what impact it will have on transaction cost, transaction speed and security.
