Does this not totally go against the “Sovereign Rollup” narrative? The RUs will not be able to fork away from the validating bridge based on their own social consensus. So we are back to the enshrined bridge on L1, L1<>L2 paradigm.
Sovereign rollups can have validating bridges too as long as they are upgradeable. The social aspect of sovereignty is primarily a social distinction rather than a technical one. See: https://twitter.com/musalbas/status/1644014320555098112
That being said, the idea in this post can also be used by “non-sovereign” rollups, what I actually mean are rollups where the fork-choice rule is proven succinctly inside the rollup (or by the rollup’s client directly) rather than by a smart contract, which is what Sovereign Labs means by sovereign rollup.
I think we need to probably refine the terminology a bit, or differentiate between “technical sovereignty” (rollups that do not need a smart contract to execute the fork choice rule) and “social sovereignty” (rollups that are upgraded by the community with hard forks).
- it would also mean that the RU would not have to “scan the DA layer” for proofs, as the L1 would keep track of the state, making the proof more efficient. (Scanning for txs might still be required).
I think that’s true, they don’t need to scan the DA layer for the proofs, just the transactions, but they’d still need to post the proofs on-chain using the mentioned special transaction type.
- It will be easier to bridge assets between the RUs, as RUs will not have to verify each others’ proofs, this will be done by the L1. They can prove that a RU is in a certain state just from the DA layer.
Sovereign Labs has an idea to aggregate ZK proofs so that sovereign ZK rollups don’t need to run a ZK verifier for every other rollup, mentioned here: https://members.delphidigital.io/reports/the-complete-guide-to-rollups/