Modularity vs. Monolithic architecture is dead

Since the rise of Rollups, the expansion of blockchain has been focused on the debate between modularity and monolithization. Initially, this binary opposition was a useful mental model for reasoning about blockchain scalability, but now, these two The camps have all moved beyond it. Today, the contrast between modularity and

monolithic

brings unnecessary restrictions to our scalability mental model. So,

or

are there any alternatives? In this article, we

will

show how horizontal scaling versus vertical scalinghas always been the ## of blockchain scalability #Basic framework, And explain how adopting horizontal expansion and vertical can lead to better expansion solutions. Understanding modularity vs. monolithic

First, some definitions:

Modular

The chain separates

the core functionality of the blockchain into different layers. Monolithization

Chain integrates all core functionality into a single, interconnected layer.

We can think of "layers" as "machines" - Monolithic The chain has a

single

validator node that runs all tasks, while The modular chain has multiple (2-3) full nodes running different tasks.

For example, Rollup typically has two running nodes: a Rollup full node for execution, and one for Settlement Data Availability (DA) for Ethereum full nodes. Validium may use three running nodes: a Rollup full node for execution, an Ethereum full node for settlement, and one for DA Standby data availability tier full node.

Modular allocation of blockchain tasks to at least two full nodes. By doing this, modular blockchains can leverage the computing power of multiple computers when constructing each block.

This is a form of horizontal expansion.

Modularity is useful when thinking about blockchain scalability because it is a type of horizontal scaling.

##On the other hand, most of the

single camp chooses Scale through software optimizations, implementation of parallel virtual machines, data pipelines, faster network protocols, and (most notably) more powerful hardware. Essentially, a monolithic chain attempts to extract as much computing power as possible from a single full node. This is a form of

vertical expansion. Critics

believe

that this approach tends to be centralized: if you rely on increasing the power of a single node to scale, you will inevitably encounter the limitations of the underlying hardware. Physical limitations and forcing increased hardware requirements to scale further. However, this criticism is

incorrect

, because not all singleization chains rely solely on vertical scaling.

For example, Near is a monolithicL1 blockchain built on a sharded network architecture. This means that Near's full nodes are responsible for all tasks (i.e. execution, settlement, and data availability), but they are only responsible for a small portion of Near's global state. Therefore, Near leverages the computing power of multiple computers (just like a modular chain) by allocating work based on status rather than task .

We can see that

nothing

is a single chain Still modular chains, have no restrictions in terms of the extension technologies they implement. Both can be expanded horizontally and/or vertically. In addition, the debate between modularity and monolithization is always rooted in the framework of horizontal and vertical expansion. From a strictly technical perspective, modular

tends to

horizontally expand, which is inherent in its design, while monolithic ##Tend to vertical expansion.

Now that we have successfully launched the modular chain, the additional expansion advantage is no longer "more modular". The focus now is on how the chain can utilize horizontal or vertical scaling techniques.

Adopting a horizontal vs. vertical thinking model allows us to easily reason about what each chain is doing in the process trade off.

Redefining the Conversation: Horizontal vs. Vertical Scaling

Before delving into the horizontal vs.vertical scaling framework, it’s important to acknowledge that its origins date back to the 20th century In the 1970s, distributed computing research laid the foundation for the concept of horizontal scaling. Today, all scaling technologies can be classified as horizontal or vertical scaling.

Vertical expansion

Vertical expansion will increase the hardware utilization of each node or Hardware requirements. In blockchain, this is usually done through software optimizations such as parallel virtual machines (i.e. multi-threaded processes).

A common example is EVM and SVM.

EVM executes transactions in order, while SVM executes transactions in parallel. SVM achieves this by utilizing more CPU cores, so SVM can handle more transactions per second than EVM. NOTE: This type of vertical extension is the foundation behind Eclipse L2.

In terms of trade-offs, vertical scaling is limited by available hardware, tends to be centralized due to increased hardware requirements, and is less scalable than horizontal scaling.

Horizontal expansion

On the other hand, Horizontal expansion Increase the number of machines the system can access by spreading the workload across multiple nodes. As mentioned before, modular chaining essentially distributes tasks across multiple machines. However, chains can often achieve a greater degree of horizontal scaling through sharding.

=nil;A useful example is provided here.

In November last year, the =nil; foundation launched a verifiable sharding architecture called zkSharding, which is the new Ethereum The basis of Fang L2. =nil; The core of the design is to divide its global state into multiple shards. Each shard is run by a =nil; decentralized committee, which builds blocks and manages cross-shard transactions . Additionally, each shard generates a validity proof that is sent to the master shard for aggregation and then published and verified on Ethereum. =nil; Take advantage of the ability of horizontal scaling in two ways:

• First, =nil; is a A modular blockchain that leverages Ethereum's strong consensus and data availability as guarantees to distribute tasks

  across multiple full nodes.

• Secondly,

  , =nil; is a sharded blockchain, so part of the state is distributed across many full nodes.

Both techniques reduce the load that any single machine needs to bear and

increase the

overall scalability of the network. So,

What are the trade-offs for horizontal

expansion? This comes down to two things: network and consensus complexity and asynchronous communication between machines or shards. The Endgame of Ethereum Scalability

Neither Horizontal Scaling nor Vertical Scaling

Bureau Limited to Modular or Monolithic ized architecture. This is why the horizontalvs.vertical scaling framework provides more space to explore new solutions and make modular blockchains more scalable.

For example, one option is to vertically extend one layer of the modular stack. A commonly method is to implement parallel virtual machines to improve execution throughput. As mentioned above, Eclipse is leveraging SVM and other Rollups, such asStarknet, implement BlockSTM for parallelization.

However, vertical expansion is always limited by the limitations of a single machine, and we cannot break the laws of physics.

One solution might be to opt for horizontal scaling via sharding .

Current modular designs are just beginning to touch the full potential of horizontal scaling. With sharding, we can leverage the computing power of any number of machines (rather than just 2-3 machines sharing tasks).

In other words, many machines can run the same type of tasks in parallel. This is what Ethereum and Celestia hope to achieve through Danksharding and data sharding respectively. However, sharding is not inherently limited to the data availability layer - it can also be combined with execution (as in the case of =nil; L2). If we combine the horizontal scaling achieved through the modular stack with the horizontal scaling provided by sharding, we will Get a massive increase in available computing power

.

But we can do better...

The ultimate goal of blockchain scalability will be convergence

Scale horizontally and vertically, resulting in a sharded blockchain with parallel virtual machines.

At the =nil;

Foundation,

we are systematically designing toward this end state Moving forward . =nil

;'s

L2 takes by leveraging a modular, horizontally scalable architecture (zkSharding) and vertically scalable validator implementation (intra-shard parallelization) An aggressive expansion roadmap. Thus, =nil;’s design enables global scale without sacrificing state, liquidity, or user fragmentation.

#If you are curious about horizontal scaling and zkSharding, you can join the conversation on the =nil; Foundation’s Discord and X.

The above is the detailed content of Modularity vs. Monolithic architecture is dead. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!