Which is more secure for digital currency transactions, optimistic rollup or zk rollup?

3 answers

• Igor VasconcelosFeb 28, 2025 · 4 months ago
  Optimistic rollup is considered to be more secure for digital currency transactions. It uses a combination of on-chain and off-chain data to ensure the integrity and security of transactions. By relying on the underlying blockchain's security, optimistic rollup provides strong protection against potential attacks. Additionally, it allows for faster transaction processing and lower fees compared to zk rollup. However, it is important to note that no solution is completely immune to security risks, and it is crucial to stay updated with the latest security measures and best practices.
  589

  295
• McCormack McElroyApr 23, 2023 · 2 years ago
  When it comes to security in digital currency transactions, both optimistic rollup and zk rollup have their strengths. Optimistic rollup relies on the security of the underlying blockchain, which provides a strong foundation for transaction security. On the other hand, zk rollup uses zero-knowledge proofs to ensure the privacy and integrity of transactions. Both solutions have been extensively tested and audited to ensure their security. Ultimately, the choice between optimistic rollup and zk rollup depends on the specific needs and priorities of the digital currency ecosystem.
  584

  195
• Shea ThomsonJun 23, 2020 · 5 years ago
  At BYDFi, we believe that both optimistic rollup and zk rollup offer strong security for digital currency transactions. Optimistic rollup provides security through its reliance on the underlying blockchain, while zk rollup ensures privacy and integrity through zero-knowledge proofs. It is important for users and developers to carefully evaluate the security features and trade-offs of each solution before making a decision. Ultimately, the security of digital currency transactions is a collective effort, and the industry as a whole is constantly working towards improving security measures and mitigating potential risks.
  626

  157