One of the most important questions that the crypto community faces today is how to design blockchains that can meet the diverse and evolving needs of users, developers, and validators. There are different approaches to this challenge, and they can be broadly categorized as “modular” or “monolithic”.

Modular blockchains are those that focus on a specific function or use case and rely on interoperability with other blockchains to provide a full range of services. For example, Celestia is a modular blockchain that aims to provide scalable data availability for any application, while delegating computation and state management to other chains. Modular blockchains can benefit from specialization, efficiency, and flexibility, but they also face trade-offs in terms of complexity, coordination, and security.

Monolithic blockchains are those that aim to provide a comprehensive platform for any kind of application, without depending on external networks. For example, Solana is a monolithic blockchain that claims to offer high performance, low cost, and rich functionality for a wide range of use cases. Monolithic blockchains can benefit from simplicity, convenience, and security, but they also face trade-offs in terms of scalability, adaptability, and diversity.

There is also a middle ground between modular and monolithic blockchains, which can be seen as “hybrid” or “general-purpose”. For example, Ethereum is a hybrid blockchain that offers a flexible and programmable platform for various applications, while also supporting interoperability with other chains through bridges and sharding. Hybrid blockchains can benefit from versatility, compatibility, and innovation, but they also face trade-offs in terms of performance, cost, and governance.

The debate between modular and monolithic blockchains is not a binary one, but rather a spectrum of design choices and trade-offs. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for blockchain architecture, as different applications may have different requirements and preferences.

The crypto community should embrace the diversity and experimentation that these approaches offer and collaborate to find the best solutions for the common goals of decentralization, security, and usability.

One of the most important and contentious topics in the blockchain space is the question of how to design a system that is scalable, secure, and decentralized. There are two main approaches that have emerged: modular blockchains and monolithic blockchains. Modular blockchains, also known as sharded or layer-2 blockchains, are composed of multiple independent chains that communicate with each other through a common layer-1 chain.

Monolithic blockchains, also known as single-chain or layer-1 blockchains, are based on a single chain that processes all transactions and data. Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages, and there is no clear-cut answer to which one is better.

The main trade-off between modular and monolithic blockchains is the balance between scalability and security. Scalability refers to the ability of a system to handle a large number of transactions and users without compromising performance or efficiency. Security refers to the ability of a system to resist attacks and ensure the validity and integrity of transactions and data.

Modular blockchains achieve higher scalability by dividing the workload among multiple chains, but this also introduces more complexity and potential points of failure. Monolithic blockchains achieve higher security by having a single source of truth and consensus, but this also limits the throughput and capacity of the system. Depending on the application and the requirements, different trade-offs may be acceptable or desirable.

“Data availability sampling” will allow blockchains to be verifiable on hardware devices

One of the biggest challenges facing blockchain technology is scalability. How can we ensure that millions of transactions can be processed quickly and securely without compromising the core principles of decentralization and trustlessness?

Many solutions have been proposed, such as sharding, layer 2 protocols, and rollups, but they all come with trade-offs and limitations. I want to introduce you to a novel concept that could revolutionize the way we verify blockchain data: data availability sampling.

Data availability sampling is a technique that allows anyone to check the validity of a large amount of data using only a small sample of it. The idea is based on the assumption that if a random subset of the data is available, then the whole data is available with high probability.

This means that instead of downloading and validating the entire blockchain, which could take hours or days on consumer hardware, like smartphones, you only need to download and validate a few random chunks of it, which could take seconds or minutes.

How does this work in practice? Imagine that Alice wants to send some tokens to Bob using a blockchain that supports data availability sampling. Alice creates a transaction and broadcasts it to the network. The transaction is then included in a block by a validator, who also commits to a Merkle root of the block data.

The Merkle root is a cryptographic hash that summarizes the entire block data in a compact way. The validator also publishes a proof of custody, which is a way of proving that they have the full block data and are not hiding or tampering with it.

Now, anyone who wants to verify the block can use data availability sampling. They can request a few random chunks of the block data from the validator or other peers, and check that they match the Merkle root. If they do, then they can be confident that the block is valid, and that Alice’s transaction was executed correctly. If they don’t, then they can raise an alarm and reject the block.

Data availability sampling has several advantages over existing solutions. First, it reduces the bandwidth and storage requirements for verifying blockchain data, making it possible to run full nodes on consumer hardware, like smartphones. This means that we can have more users participating in the network and securing it, without sacrificing decentralization or performance.

Second, it improves the security and privacy of blockchain transactions, as users do not need to reveal which transactions they are interested in or rely on third parties to validate them. Third, it enables new applications and use cases that require fast and cheap verification of large amounts of data, such as decentralized file storage, streaming, gaming, and machine learning.

Data availability sampling is not just a theoretical idea. It is already being implemented and tested by several projects in the blockchain space, such as Ethereum 2.0, Polkadot, Near Protocol, and Coda Protocol. These projects are using different variations and optimizations of data availability sampling to achieve their scalability goals and offer new features to their users.

Data availability sampling is a game-changing innovation that will allow blockchains to be verifiable on consumer hardware, like smartphones, which means we can have our abundance without sacrificing our decentralization. It is one of the most exciting developments in blockchain technology and I encourage you to learn more about it and try it out for yourself.

Amidst the escalating conflict between Israel and Hamas, South Africa has boldly stepped onto the international stage by bringing a case against Israel to the United Nations’ International Court of Justice (ICJ).

According to AP, South African lawyers are arguing that the recent Gaza war is not merely an isolated event but rather part of a protracted history of oppression against the Palestinian people by Israel.

Adila Hassim, a prominent South African lawyer, emphasized the urgency of the situation during the court proceedings, urging the ICJ to issue binding preliminary orders on Israel, including an immediate cessation of its military campaign in Gaza.

“Nothing will stop the suffering except an order from this court,” Hassim said.

The Health Ministry in Gaza, controlled by Hamas, reports that over 23,200 Palestinians have been killed by Israel’s offensive. Approximately two-thirds of the casualties are women and children, and the death toll does not distinguish between combatants and civilians.

“Mothers, fathers, children, siblings, grandparents, aunts, cousins are often all killed together. This killing is nothing short of destruction of Palestinian life. It is inflicted deliberately. No one is spared. Not even newborn babies,” added Hassim.

South African Justice Minister Ronald Lamola further expanded the scope of the case, contending that the violence and destruction in Palestine and Israel did not originate with the recent conflict but have deep roots in decades of systematic oppression and violence. Leading the South African delegation, Vusimuzi Madonsela drew poignant parallels between Israel’s actions and South Africa’s own history under apartheid.

The African National Congress, South Africa’s governing party, has consistently drawn comparisons between Israel’s policies in Gaza and the West Bank and the apartheid regime that persisted until 1994.

In response to South Africa’s allegations, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a video statement vehemently denying charges of genocide. Netanyahu asserted that Israel has no intentions of permanently occupying Gaza or displacing its civilian population, framing the conflict as a defensive measure against Hamas terrorists.

“Israel has no intention of permanently occupying Gaza or displacing its civilian population,” he said. “Israel is fighting Hamas terrorists, not the Palestinian population, and we are doing so in full compliance with international law.”

The legal dispute has garnered global attention, with demonstrations held outside the court by both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian groups. The United States, a staunch ally of Israel, dismissed the case as “meritless.” Secretary of State Antony Blinken, during a visit to Tel Aviv, criticized the lawsuit, deeming it “galling” and highlighting ongoing threats from groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran.

“It is particularly galling, given that those who are attacking Israel — Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, as well as their supporter Iran — continue to call for the annihilation of Israel and the mass murder of Jews,” he said.

The ICJ, tasked with resolving disputes between nations, has never before held a country responsible for genocide. The case hinges on the genocide convention established in 1948 after World War II, with both Israel and South Africa being signatories to this convention. The ICJ came close to such a ruling in 2007 when it found Serbia in violation of preventing genocide during the Srebrenica massacre.

South Africa seeks interim orders for an immediate halt to Israel’s military actions, and a decision from the ICJ is expected in the coming weeks. Should the ICJ rule in favor of South Africa, it could set a groundbreaking legal precedent with far-reaching implications for international relations. However, given the intricate geopolitical dynamics, the outcome remains uncertain.

Adding to the complexity of the situation, Israel is set to face additional legal scrutiny on the international stage. In the upcoming month, the ICJ will convene hearings to address a United Nations request for a non-binding advisory opinion on the legality of Israeli policies in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The lawsuit has the potential to strain the relationship between Israel and South Africa further. The historical comparisons drawn by South Africa between Israeli actions and its own apartheid past introduce a layer of complexity to diplomatic ties. Despite Israel’s usual skepticism towards international tribunals, it has dispatched a robust legal team to defend its military operations.

The unfolding legal battle at the ICJ hangs the Israel-South Africa relationship in the balance. Analysts believe that the resolution of this case has the potential to shape future international responses to conflicts and alleged acts of genocide, influencing how nations handle their commitments to human rights and international law amidst geopolitical conflicts.