————————————————————
Chain abstraction and intent-centered solutions are both designed to solve the same core problem: how to achieve automated and asynchronous interoperability between different blockchain networks. In simple terms, it allows different blockchains to communicate and collaborate automatically and asynchronously.
📍 They both introduce the concepts of 'counterparty' and 'cross-chain proof,' but the implementation methods are vastly different. This article will detail the comparisons of their characteristics:
1) Features of Chain Abstraction 🔻
- Chain-Centric Worldview: This can be understood as having a dedicated blockchain (CA chain) acting as an 'intermediary' or 'agent' between users and various other blockchains.
- User Interaction: Users only need to interact with the CA chain, just like operating on a single platform.
- Responsibility Allocation: The CA chain and its associated off-chain components are responsible for helping users achieve the desired results on the target chain, such as transferring coins, executing smart contracts, etc.
- Proof Flow: Cross-chain proofs always flow from the CA chain to the target chain. The target chain verifies these proofs and only executes the corresponding operations, such as minting new tokens or using existing tokens, after confirmation.
- User Abstraction: Users only need to submit requests for operations they want to perform on the target chain, such as 'I want to transfer X coins from Chain A to Chain B.' The CA chain will handle all the remaining details.
- Scalability: To support various target chains, the CA typically requires a universal proof system that can be verified across all target chains, such as multiparty computation (MPC) schemes.
- Latency: The latency of operations depends on the confirmation rules of the universal proof system, and the latency for each request is fixed, which is not flexible enough.
2) Intent-Centered Solutions 🔻
Imagine that you want to operate across different blockchains but don't want to deal with the complexities and differences of each chain. Intent-centered solutions are designed to solve this problem. Unlike traditional methods, they do not require users to understand the specific details of each blockchain but allow users to focus on their desired goals.
- State-Centric Worldview: This can be understood as an open network composed of many 'solvers.' These solvers act like agents for users on different blockchains, helping them achieve their goals.
- User Interaction: Users only need to interact with one solver selected by the system. The system selects based on which solver can provide the best results for the user, just like choosing the most suitable agent.
- Obligation: The selected solver has an obligation to deliver the expected results for the user. This can be guaranteed through a reputation system or commitment system, just like agents need to be accountable to their clients.
- Proof Process Reversal: Traditional cross-chain proofs flow from the user's starting chain to the target chain. Here, the proof process flows back from the target chain to the user's starting chain. This is enforced by performing proof checks on the starting chain, and only if the proof is valid can resources on the starting chain be used. Simply put, it's like the agent needing to provide proof of completion to the user after finishing a task.
- User Abstraction: Users only need to focus on the proof obligations of account states on the target chain. In other words, users do not need to understand the complexities of cross-chain operations, only whether the results on the target chain meet expectations.
- Scalability: To support various target chains, the system needs a programmable proof-checking system capable of handling different proof methods. This is likely a 'resource locking' system that ensures only valid proofs can unlock resources.
- Latency: Latency is determined by the confirmation rules perceived by the solver, which means that latency optimization can be considered when selecting solvers. Just like when choosing an agent, their efficiency can be taken into account.
👇🏻 Perspective Extension:
Intent-centered approaches provide better architectural direction. They offer users result-based guarantees by optimizing result states and latencies through solver selection and are more scalable for customized target chains.
However, achieving this requires reversing the proof process and placing the proof obligation on the solver network. In other words, while the complexity and heterogeneity of the target chain do not disappear, the integration burden shifts from the on-chain computation combination's regulatory center to the off-chain solver's distributed network for handling proof combinations. This means that users no longer need to handle complex cross-chain operations themselves but can delegate these tasks to a professional solver network.
3) Intent Abstraction 🔻
If chain abstraction serves as the heterogeneous domain execution abstraction for users, then intent abstraction is the heterogeneous proof obligation abstraction for solvers.
Just as developers need to write, orchestrate, and guide computational flows for users in the context of cross-domain computation execution to achieve chain abstraction, they also need to write, orchestrate, and guide proof flows for solvers in the context of intent abstraction.
The concept of 'chain abstraction' is still evolving, with various approaches spanning from 'chain-centric' to 'state-centric.' For simplicity, I define 'chain abstraction' here as 'chain-centric,' which aligns more with the architecture of some original chain abstraction proponents.
However, in reality, many newer architectures blend elements of both 'pure chain-centric' and 'pure state-centric' models, as seen in frameworks like CAKE.