-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 314
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add bold integration article #1413
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
arbitrum-docs/launch-orbit-chain/bold-adoption-for-orbit-chains.mdx
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
Adopting <a data-quicklook-from="bold">Arbitrum BoLD</a> brings new security benefits to Orbit chains that are independent of whether or not validation is permissionless. These new security benefits include improved resistance to delay attacks and increased censorship resistance for `L3s`. Because of these new security benefits, we strongly recommend teams to upgrade their Orbit chains to use Arbitrum BoLD (for the security benefits) but **keep validation permissioned**. Below is a quick breakdown of the impacts of permissioned BoLD vs. permissionless BoLD on your Orbit chain: | ||
|
||
| Permissioned BoLD | Permissionless BoLD | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there a better way to present this? The first row in the 2nd column is basically saying "everything on the left, plus ..."
Intent here is to show the audience that Permissionless BoLD has the same benefits at Permissioned BoLD but many other caveats, risks, and nuances to consider.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I modified the permissioned/permissionless trade-off tables.
The format I'm proposing would only be relevant if we have solid arguments to fill in the blanks. If we don't, we could remove the table and mention the trade-offs in the text, as you did in the previous version.
lmk what you think :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@leeederek , can you confirm?
arbitrum-docs/launch-orbit-chain/bold-adoption-for-orbit-chains.mdx
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
arbitrum-docs/launch-orbit-chain/bold-adoption-for-orbit-chains.mdx
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…s.mdx Co-authored-by: Derek <103802618+leeederek@users.noreply.github.com>
…s.mdx Co-authored-by: Derek <103802618+leeederek@users.noreply.github.com>
This PR adds @leeederek's article about BoLD adoption by Orbit chains' owners.
Currently reviewed by @leeederek