Juliano: I do strongly imagine that layer 2s will get to some extent the place the sequencer is a community, reasonably than only a single operator. And that may make the sequencers rather more decentralized, censorship-resistant. However the issue with having a single sequencer on layer 2’s proper now’s, the one sequencers are usually not censorship-resistant, proper? It is similar to, actually a server, and the server can refuse to course of your transactions if it desires to. Like, I am not attempting to choose on anybody, like actually all of them are like this, however let’s simply take like Coinbase or Base for instance. Coinbase is actually working a server that’s the sequencer for the Base chain. And in the event that they wish to reject your transaction, for no matter motive, they will try this. And, you understand, I feel they’re attempting to be as neutral as doable. And that is superior. However that’s not completely decentralized, I’ll say. And simply to show the purpose that I sort of perceive a lot of the arguments a minimum of, OK, there is a approach to get across the censorship-resistance switches. Successfully, you’ll be able to return to layer 1, and ship a transaction to layer 1 and be like, Oh, Coinbase, it’s important to embrace my transaction now as a result of I went to the layer 1. However that is a horrible product expertise, proper? Like possibly that works for some edge instances, or if just like the lower than 1% of the time when, for some random motive someone’s being centralized by a sequencer. But when there is a good quantity of alternative for a large quantity of the transactions to be censored on a given sequencer, for no matter motive, then this is probably not one thing that you really want to your community as a lot.
, discusses his project's move to build a new layer-1 blockchain using Cosmos technology.){kind=link}