The recent announcement of Coinbase launching its own OP Stack-based L2, @BuildOnBase, has reignited bullish sentiment around Optimism. This article explores the rationale behind Optimism's 7-day challenge period for withdrawals to Ethereum mainnet.
Understanding the Challenge Period
When withdrawing funds from Optimism's Layer 2 to Ethereum mainnet, users must wait through a 7-day challenge period. But why exactly seven days? Could it be shorter—say 3 or 5 days? To answer this, we first need to understand why challenge periods exist.
Rollups and Ethereum Security
Rollups enhance Ethereum's performance by separating execution from the mainnet. While transactions occur on Layer 2, their validity must still be confirmed on Ethereum to inherit its security. This verification process differs between zk-Rollups and Optimistic Rollups (ORUs):
- zk-Rollups: Use zero-knowledge proofs for near-instant finality.
- Optimistic Rollups: Rely on fraud proofs and a challenge period for finality.
In ORUs like Optimism, sequencers submit transactions under the optimistic assumption they're valid. During the challenge period, verifiers can dispute invalid transactions by submitting fraud proofs. If unchallenged after this period, transactions achieve finality.
Is a 7-Day Challenge Period Necessary?
Let's break down the challenge process:
- A verifier reconstructs the state root and detects invalid transactions.
- They submit a fraud proof.
This sequence takes time—but how much?
Under ideal conditions:
- 10 blocks (~2 minutes): Too optimistic.
- 100 blocks (~20 minutes): Far shorter than Optimism's 50,400 blocks (7 days).
But what if bad actors manipulate the network? Suppose an attacker spends $1 million per block in gas fees to prioritize their transactions and block fraud proofs. With a $2 billion risk exposure, they could theoretically delay verification for ~6.67 hours (2,000 blocks). Even then, 7 days seems excessive.
The Non-Linear Relationship Between Challenge Periods and Security
The connection between challenge duration and security isn't straightforward. Some speculate Optimism's founders chose 7 days for symbolic reasons—similar to Bitcoin's 4-year halving cycle allegedly reflecting Satoshi Nakamoto's love of soccer.
Can Challenge Periods Be Shortened Safely?
- 3–5 days: Possible, but minimal user experience improvement.
- 1–2 days: Significantly enhances usability. Projects like @0xMantle (by BitDAO) achieve this via MPC (Multi-Party Computation) schemes.
How MPC Works
Instead of submitting batches directly to Ethereum, sequencers send them to an MPC network where nodes co-sign validity confirmations. Key differences:
| Optimism | Mantle |
|---|---|
| Submits state-root batches | Submits MPC-validated state-root batches |
| Higher trust risk | Reduced trust risk via economic assumptions |
While MPC offers a layer of validation, it remains off-chain—a psychological reassurance rather than cryptographic proof. Think of it as a semi-centralized alternative to zk-Rollups.
Future Outlook
The community eagerly anticipates ORUs with drastically shorter challenge periods (hour-level). Until then, understanding these mechanisms helps users navigate Layer 2 ecosystems more effectively.
👉 Explore Layer 2 solutions
👉 Learn about Ethereum scaling
FAQs
Q: Can the 7-day challenge period be bypassed?
A: No—it's a core security feature. Third-party services may offer instant withdrawals for a fee, but these involve liquidity providers assuming the risk.
Q: Does zk-Rollup eliminate challenge periods?
A: Yes. Zero-knowledge proofs provide immediate finality, making them preferable for time-sensitive applications.
Q: Why doesn't Ethereum enforce a standard challenge period?
A: Each ORU implements its own security model. Ethereum's flexibility allows innovation while maintaining base-layer security.
Q: Is MPC as secure as cryptographic proofs?
A: No. MPC relies on economic incentives, while zk-proofs use mathematical verification. Trade-offs depend on use cases.
Q: How does Base L2 compare to Optimism?