Ethereum is poorly built from the ground up and needs an update, layer 2 is not a solution, it simply exposes you to more risk, being completely centralized protocols.

Ethereum has become a business.So I think the main problems are the expensive fees and approvals.
I prefer not to talk about staking re-staking either.

I assumed that sharding would allow the high rates to be reduced, but I read that it will only serve the L2 circus, honestly a shame.

Anyone who has experienced a bull run in this market knows that many cryptocurrencies multiply their price x100.

    Rules

1. Refrain from sharing investment tips, they are not welcome here. There are many other posts for that.

2. Do not share projects with high capitalization whose chances of making a 100x are practically zero.

2. Try to be concise. Share a ticker and an explanation about the project if you want.

4. Respect the first 3 rules and this will be a thread where other users can easily consult hundreds of projects and do their own research.

The native token is not the same as a token with parity to the native token. The main difference, as I already said, is that layer 2 inherits the security of the main chain, while side chains do not, since they have their own rules and consensus protocols.

Liquid and RSK use 1:1 tokens with Bitcoin, not Bitcoin. Lightning on the contrary yes. I don't know of any layer 2 on Ethereum that doesn't use ETH for commissions. Polygon is sidechain, layer 2 rollup is under construction.
At no time have I talked about decentralization or recommended buying anything.

Could we say that layer 2 always uses the native currency of the mainnet?
For example, layer 2 of Ethereum, and that sidechain uses its own currency, its own consensus algorithm...

I have been reading about selfish mining and I have some doubts, since the information is very scattered. What percentage of computing power is required? Is there any way to detect it? What would happen if all miners were selfish miners?

Ok, thank you all.

The explanation listed here as reorganization attack does not require 51%? I don't understand.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Irreversible_Transactions#Blockchain_reorganization_attack

· Top team
· Zero network fees using mana recharge
· Proof of Burn, more efficient than POW and more secure than POS
· Multilanguage programming
· Low supply that can generate moments of deflation thanks to PoB
· Modular, no hardforks
· Really decentralized, no ICO

If you know the ecosystem you know it. Development tool about and DEX coming soon. Just enjoy the ride.

Are a blockchain reorganization attack and a 51% attack the same thing? Is 51% of the hashing power necessary for a reorg attack?

Difference between fusion and synchronization. I think it is well explained here.

https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/scaling/sidechains/

OK. So Coinjoin we can consider it decentralized, I guess that's the main difference.

Well, because it has its own chain with its own consensus, it does not depend on the security of the main chain. If it merges with the main chain it is no longer a sidechain. Polygon is another example of a sidechain.

Why is Coinjoin not considered a mixer?

Your security doesn't depend on layer 1, that's the main difference.

My opinion is that Bitcoin requires 4 main characteristics, decentralized, secure, fast and cheap. DeFi and other things are fine in layers 2 and other protocols.

Another option to improve scaling would be sharding.

Sidechains are not protected by Layer 1 and they have their own consensus, unlike Layer 2.


No, atomic swaps take place across blockchains.
[/quote]
The Technology Behind Atomic Swaps
A valid transaction requires a signature. This signature can only be created by the person that has access to the private key. When you send a transaction you usually sign it and broadcast it to the network afterward. HTLCs are based on a technology called state channels. All you need to know is that they allow you to exchange signed transactions securely. Only once the participants decide they are done transacting, the final state is broadcast to the blockchain.

The “Hashed” part of HTLC means that a hash serves as a lock for the contract, to protect it from a third party accessing it. The “Timelock” part refers to the contract having an expiration date.

Two conditions must be met to perform an Atomic Swap between two crypto assets: Both assets and their underlying blockchain need to support the same hashing algorithm, like SHA-256 in the case of Bitcoin and both blockchains need to support some kind of programmability that allows an HTLC to be deployed.

Based on what I have read I think this is the main difference:
A sidechain is an independent, EVM-compatible blockchain that runs parallel and interacts with the mainnet through bridges. As they use a separate consensus mechanism and are not secured by layer 1, they are not technically considered layer 2.
And if we also introduce the State channels in the comparison? I deduce that they are pay channels. Are they not the same as an atomic swap?

What is the difference between a Layer 2 and a Sidechain? I have not found any article that distinguishes them well.