L2 Payouts with Zksync

Ideas & Suggestions Storage Node feature requests - voting
1

In response to the feedback we’ve received about SNO payments (particularly in light of recent ETH volatility):

  1. We would like to thank you for always voicing your thoughts and feedback. We are fortunate to have a community of clearheaded, solutions-oriented folks who help us work through these issues.
  2. You help us make the system better when you point out flaws, and you frequently help us come up with novel solutions that are better because of your participation. We appreciate you greatly.

We understand that payments are to be taken seriously. We’re always trying to make the next choices to honor the value you bring to the network, and we never treat your payments casually.

Proposed solution:

Were looking into a new tech called zkSync. [design draft HERE] zkSync is a scaling and privacy engine for Ethereum.

zkSync’s current functionality scope includes low gas transfers of ETH and ERC20 tokens in the Ethereum network. It’s a technology that has been brought to our attention by community members in the past. We have been in conversation with the folks in MatterLabs for awhile now, and are excited by their offering.

The benefits? It is slated to be radically cheaper and will potentially offer the possibility of allowing payouts with a higher frequency in the future (more than once per month)

We expect to have zkSync in place by the next payout cycle. During initial rollout, zkSync will be opt-in. With upcoming changes to the SNO dashboard, you will be able to opt-in. To participate, there will be a little bit of setup with zkSync, but it isn’t major.

Our cross-team consensus is that this dashboard change is a top priority. We expect to have it ready by the next payout cycle.

To enable this prioritization, engineering resources for multinode dashboard will be redirected to this project. We’re planning an MVP that will take bout 2 sprints. Our expectation is that by the March 2021 cycle (which when payouts earned during February will be sent), we can send payouts to anyone who chooses to opt in with a zkSync address.

We heard you that its important to have advance notice about upcoming changes. We’re accepting upvotes and feedback on this post, to include community input for this approach. We are working to get ahead of the next cycle so that ample time can be allowed to notify everyone of their options.

2

Here is some info about the supported wallets for zksync:

https://wallet.zksync.io/ shows that the wallets they currently support are: metamask, WalletConnect, Fortmatic, Portis, Opera, Ledger, Dapper, Lattice and Torus.
No direct support yet for Trezor but it work with a Metamask and it may work via WalletConnect too, which is used for connecting with mobile wallets - instructions how this is supposed to work with mycrypto are here

If the user doesn’t have a compatible wallet, the following applies:

Here is a block explorer:

1 Like
4

Maybe to add this too:

2 Likes
5

I don’t see how or why you guys feel you need community support / backing for an opt in solution.
ofc it’s always a good idea to hear peoples opinion on difficult to understand subjects.

i would imagine any saving that can be made towards the payout transfer expenses is a good move, it’s absurd to be paying 25% of a payout, in most cases if you gave the customer / SNO a choice about that… extend they payout another month and gain 10-15% bonus to the value added to their total payout for that month, then i think most would take it.

that is better than the ROI on a triple A investment, ofc one cannot cure stupid… :smiley:
it will be great if you guys can get a solution that will solve this token fee problem.
i would be very interested in how the company expects to solve it tho, since if it is inherently an issue with how etherium works, then it’s like having a 3 lane highway all filled up with cars… and then nobody claiming they make make it run like a 9 lane highway / motorway… whatever it’s called.

sounds to good to be true and inherently impossible, in how i understand the problem.
so i would be very technically detailed in how this solution solves the problem it claims to, because i would want to ensure that there isn’t some major issue long term… like saying oh you guys all opted in and our own fee’s are now going up and you are basically unable to leave because of some sort of legal contract or whatever else companies can come up with to be parasites on others.

not saying it’s a problem, just suspicious on a solution that just solves a major problem like it’s nothing.
it would be great if they can solve the problem…

my last ISP got screwed, they apparently had a contract so that if they sold the company they where obliged to offer all possible options for internet by their competitors, if they ended the contract with a partner… and since there was like 15 companies on the list and they wasn’t allowed to favor themselves.

then all their customer base just left… woops
all because they had been working with some semi bigshot company that had some smart lawyers which knew how to write a contract so that, if they bailed on it in the future, it was basically rigged to shoot themselves in the head.

so yeah, long story short… it’s not always obvious where the scam is located, but an offer like they seem to give, should be reviewed if in reality a viable business…

i say that, having no clue about who they are, their company nor their relation with other companies.

just thinking… if it sounds to good to be true, it most probably is…

so on that note, i hope it works out, sure sounds great :smiley:

1 Like
6

You can easily test it on the test network yourself. It’s not complicated from the user side. Connect wallet on test network, gather some test tokens and try it. All you need - a Metamask for example and browser. Costs nothing.

Clues are:

  1. You need to connect your wallet (and confirm every time when you use it)
  2. You need to have some balance on L2. To have it, you need to move your tokens from the L1 to L2. When you would move your existing balance from the L1, it will cost a usual ETH fee for executing a contract. So, it’s better to use a testnet at the moment, because it’s free.
  3. Next you will connect a second address (which is easy to create in Metamask, I didn’t try other solutions) to the zkSync
  4. Now you are able to transfer funds on L2 from your first address to the second. It’s fast and cheap.
  5. When you move tokens from L2 to L1 you will pay a fee again for executing of smart contract, it should be much lower than a traditional fee.
4 Likes
7

Any support for Ledger Nano S or X?

8

It’s great to see a lot of work around this subject. But I think for now it misses some essential information if you want users to opt in. Specifically, what will change for them. How will receiving and using tokens differ from before. The communication provided by Storj so far focuses on the advantages, rather than the end user experience. And based on that I’m currently still hesitant to make the switch as I don’t yet know what that will mean for me.
I will do some additional reading on my own later to find out more about zksync, but this really shouldn’t be a requirement if you’re looking for people to pro-actively opt in.

I know it’s still early days, so I’m sure more information will be provided.

4 Likes
9

Yes. I am going to use MetaMask in combination with my Trezor.

Who wants to play around in testnet with me? I would like to practice it myself.

1 Like
10

On the storage node side just enable this new feature. You will read about it in the changelog once the implementation is finished. If you have 10 nodes you can enable it on the smalles node first and test it before commiting all storage nodes.

After the payout was send you simply use a different block explorer to see your balance and a different wallet to send you balance to an exchange. It is still the ethereum blockchain. Just some zkSync magic to make it cheaper.

3 Likes
11

0.00849658 STORJ can you send to the exchange?

12

I created another concurrent proposition for payouts.

1 Like
13

Its a great idea but probably not for the avg user running a storagenode though with no experience using different wallets…

1 Like
14

is it posible to add myEther walet there with MEW?

15

I agree with @BrightSilence, this announcement might be great for payouts but it lacks any helpful information about what this actually means for me as a SNO. Now I have to read through lots of different links to even get to the gist of what that means for me, who doesn’t know anything about zksync, L2, new wallets etc.

7 Likes
16

This is the link to read: https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/05/rollup.html Rollups is the important part. zksync is based on this.

3 Likes
17

I’m not voting for this, I’d rather not take engineering resources away from the multi-node dashboard and I’m more than happy to wait until my payout is big enough.

Nice to see its been given so much discussion internally though and you are listening.

8 Likes
18

only SNOs with multiple nodes profit from that and those SNOs likely get enough payment to still get paid. So it’s a double loss for small SNOs that only have one or 2 nodes.

Besides, I have 5 nodes and I couldn’t care less about multi-node dashboard as I use external monitoring tools to monitor all my nodes (except for payout history)

The multi-node dashboard is just a qol improvement but having a good payment system is a neccessity. So it should always come first.

1 Like
19

I understand @kevink but i’m entitled to my view like everyone :smiley:

20

I tried using Zksync the fees are much higher then the normal fees.

image
image1242×2375 135 KB

Did anyone confirm this as viable option?