Starknet moves on Quantum.

[IjawMan]

For those knowing Starknet for the first time.

Starknet is a Validity-Rollup (aka ZK-Rollup) Layer 2 network that operates on top of Ethereum, enabling dApps to massively scale without compromising on security.

It achieves this by bundling transactions into an off-chain computed STARK proof. This proof is then submitted to Ethereum as a single transaction, resulting in significantly higher throughput, faster processing times, and much lower costs, all while retaining the robust security of the Ethereum settlement layer.

Starknet has made an opening timeframe which closes by October 22, for it stark holders to vote in what it called a non-binding poll which should allow the network move from ethereum L2 to it independent layer1 that it classified to be quantum resistant.

According to sources, they want to be fully quantum resistant network protocol by 2027, but it might not if it data continue to depend on ethereum for transaction security. This means Starknet will be responsible for it security. In the meantime, nothing has been laid out for the L1 design and blueprint in achieving this resistance.

What comes to mind about this move by Starknet. Drop your thoughts.

More details:
https://www.tokenpost.com/news/technology/32375 
https://financefeeds.com/starknet-eyes-a-bold-l1-leap-to-outrun-quantum/

[atookz]

Interesting move, but I don’t think the L1 jump is about quantum at all. STARK proofs are hash-based, so they’re already considered fairly quantum-resistant. The vulnerabilities are rather signature schemes and the Ethereum settlement layer. So I wonder if a complete L1 migration is necessary, or if they could just switch signature schemes (maybe through account abstraction) and get most of the way there.

But security is my bigger concern. But Starknet, as an L2, rides on the shoulders of the security of Ethereum. As its own L1, it would have to build its own validator set and economic security from the ground up, which is a much bigger problem than a quantum threat that isn’t practical yet.

Interesting that holders are voting prior to any L1 design being released. Does not seem to reflect a well-informed choice, but rather a sentiment check, particularly because it is non-binding anyway. What will happen to the existing dApps and liquidity if they leave Ethereum's settlement?

Meanwhile, is it really a technical need or is it the quantum story?

[Lontor]

I thought sui made the same move, not voting but quantum resistant movement, I believe that many Blockchain will end up doing the same thing but there is still a catch, only the strongest will survive it.

Just because a Blockchain claimed to be quantum resistance doesn't mean a quantum computer won't break into it, your own L1 can be weaker than others L1 even though they are all quantum resistance ready.

People who are rushing into a project because it's quantum resistance enabled should all calm down.

[hugeblack]

They are moving from one trend to another. After low fees and high security were the trend they were promoting, now they are using the “quantum computing resistant” standard to promote their project, and tomorrow if another trend appears, they will modify the project accordingly.
Such projects are not worth 1 USD investment.

[zasad@]

If Starknet moves to its own blockchain, it would be a major loss for them. I’ve read about this vote, but it’s essentially a way to gather community opinion, the vote itself does not obligate the protocol to actually go through with the transition.

This non-binding poll seeks to gauge STRK holders’ interest in exploring that direction further. It will run for 7 days.

https://community.starknet.io/t/should-starknet-become-an-independent-post-quantum-l1/116392

Are they serious?

[asriloni]

I think the proposal to move their chain from L2 to L1 sounds like a gimmick. They might be using quantum computer as a reason, but their chain's statistic may be the true reason why they is keen on moving it as L1. Beside that they also get somany benefit from ethereum as ethereum L2.

I believe most of their TVL also came from ethereum, while no guarantee for their TVL to still stay there if they become L1.

I'm mentioning Movement as an example of L2 move to the L1. It looses majority of TVL due to the transition, and it can also happen to them. Using quantum resistancy as a reason to leave all of benefit they got from being L2 of ethereum is truly a big gambling here.

It's also kinda weird they do it now. Why don't they built L1 instead of L2 when they got almost 300m funding?

I think this proposal is just a desperation. They use quantum dependency on ethereum just to sell their proposal.

[ultrloa]

They are moving from one trend to another. After low fees and high security were the trend they were promoting, now they are using the “quantum computing resistant” standard to promote their project, and tomorrow if another trend appears, they will modify the project accordingly.
Such projects are not worth 1 USD investment.

Many people actually start to get disappointed on those changes, because it seems like their project cannot focus on single mission. Those recent actions made, actually points out that they are just chasing trends and care for their own profits.

Crazy that they are now joining on quantum threats trend, maybe they think they would get another set of investors with this gimmick. But actually I find this as red flag.

So yeah much better not to put any amount in their project, because its hard to trust that they would get a good long term value.

[hugeblack]

This non-binding poll seeks to gauge STRK holders’ interest in exploring that direction further. It will run for 7 days.

https://community.starknet.io/t/should-starknet-become-an-independent-post-quantum-l1/116392

Are they serious?

This will serve as a good catalyst for a price surge, especially since more projects are beginning to incorporate a "quantum-resistant" label. These projects are not planning for the long term; whenever an opportunity for profit arises, they will seize it.

[MArsland]

What comes to mind about this move by Starknet. Drop your thoughts.

The first one that came to my mind was a project that created a lot of annoyance towards the initial community. If you are in the early days of starknet development then I am sure you will never use this bad network for transactions. I still remember when they launched the token and the narrative was immediately bad as many early adopters were not eligible for token allocation.

So whatever starknet tries to do, move to L1 to break away from Ethereum or implement Quantum into its network as its transactional activity can be clearly seen the fewer and fewer are using it.