Read this blog in Indonesian, Türkçe, हिंदी, and 中文.
When bitcoin launched in 2009, it set the standard for software development in the cryptocurrency sector. Following the bitcoin protocol’s historic precedent, succeeding generations of cryptographers relied heavily on this blockchain’s monolithic framework when crafting their Web3 projects. However, as usage ramped up on the bitcoin network, cryptographers began to notice undesirable features of the monolithic model — particularly bitcoin’s inability to effectively scale to meet increasing user demand.
To address the scalability concerns on the bitcoin blockchain, some programmers began designing their cryptocurrencies using a more flexible “modular” tech stack. Although modular blockchains aren’t always “better” than bitcoin’s traditional monolithic architecture, they offer a viable strategy to handle increased user adoption.
So, how do monolithic and modular blockchains compare, and what benefits and drawbacks does each bring to the cryptocurrency ecosystem? Let’s take a closer look at the intricacies of these software models, and how they both play a role in bitcoin’s current evolution.
Defining Monolithic And Modular Blockchains
Monolithic and modular blockchains perform the same essential functions — including peer-to-peer (P2P) payment processing and distributed data storage — but they go about their decentralized duties differently. In a monolithic blockchain like bitcoin, all the chain’s features occur within one cohesive and interdependent codebase. From transaction processing to consensus mechanisms to data storage, the nodes on a monolithic blockchain take care of all these responsibilities on one layer.
The distinguishing feature of modular blockchains is that these networks split the tasks a chain has to complete into distinct software segments (or “modules”). Although all the modules on a modular blockchain are in constant communication, nodes are only responsible for keeping tabs on their sliver of network activity. By breaking up a cryptocurrency’s architecture into separate units, modular blockchains create a more efficient assembly line model, making it simpler to upgrade operations for maximum scalability.
Benefits And Risks Of Monolithic Versus Modular Architectures
Since modular blockchains are inherently more adaptable than their monolithic predecessors, it’s common to view them as an “upgrade” in cryptocurrency history. While modularity offers unique value propositions for many Web3 programmers — especially in terms of scalability — that doesn’t mean they’re inherently “better” than the monolithic model. Each software framework has significant benefits and tradeoffs that developers will consider before deciding how to build their projects.
Security
Due to the monolithic model’s longevity in the cryptocurrency market, it’s more widely trusted and battle-tested than newer modular chains. Many developers feel the integrated design of monolithic blockchains makes them more impenetrable than modular blockchains since potential hackers need to break into the blockchain’s entire system rather than target isolated modules. Modular blockchains also have to rely on intricate inter-layer communication protocols — often using self-executing programs like smart contracts — to successfully transmit data without a third party, which adds another potential weak point.
On the other hand, programmers in favor of modular blockchains argue the deliberate separation between layers minimizes the impact of a hypothetical security breach. If an attacker managed to corrupt one module in a cryptocurrency’s blockchain, this issue is more self-contained, making it easier to patch the problem without disrupting the entire network. By contrast, a successful attack on a monolithic blockchain would have an immediate ripple effect on the whole network’s operations. So, even though it’s typically more challenging to break into a monolithic blockchain, these networks are more susceptible to extreme and potentially irrecoverable disruptions.
Scalability
Monolithic blockchains (especially bitcoin) prioritize security and decentralization over scalability, while modular blockchains were designed with scalability as a priority. Separating functions through multiple modules helps avoid data congestion, translating to speedier transaction throughput and lower fees. Modular blockchains are also more adaptable to change since it’s easier for developers to implement upgrades on specific problem areas without requiring a complete network overhaul.
Interoperability
Another aspect of a modular blockchain’s superior scalability is its enhanced cross-chain communication (aka interoperability). The coding standards on modular blockchains aren’t as rigid and self-contained as they have to be for monolithic blockchains to work, which opens the possibility of linking to other decentralized networks in Web3.
For example, the Lorenzo Liquid Bitcoin Staking Protocol supports liquid bitcoin re-staking on native Layer 2s and Ethereum decentralized apps (dApps) thanks to compatibility with the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM). The relaxed technical standards within the modular framework make it easier to connect dApps and cryptocurrencies from multiple networks rather than restricting network activity to one blockchain ecosystem.
Development And Maintenance
Monolithic blockchains aren’t always “easier” to code than modular models, but they tend to be simpler for programmers to conceptualize and deploy since everything is within one framework. With modular blockchains, developers have to consider numerous moving parts and intricate inter-chain communication systems, which often hampers the initial development phase.
However, once a modular blockchain goes live, the more fragmented architecture makes it easier for developers to update and adapt these chains. Because monolithic blockchains are intertwined, they take considerable time, effort, and coordination even when making minor protocol updates, making ongoing development, governance, and maintenance more challenging.
The Best Of Both Blockchains?
Shared security erases the monolithic versus modular split: Rather than scrapping the monolithic model, there are ways to avoid radical network shifts and still take advantage of the modular framework’s scalability. Thanks to the concept of “shared security,” new modular blockchain projects can link their protocols directly to an established monolithic chain like bitcoin and immediately take advantage of its decentralization, size, and reputation.
Layer 2s (L2s) using shared security on bitcoin finalize all of their transaction data on the base layer, but they process transactions off-chain for superior scalability. This unique software arrangement cuts down on development time for L2s, instantly raises security standards, and helps expand Layer 1 cryptocurrencies like bitcoin throughout Web3.
Mixing Monolithic And Modular For Bitcoin’s Future Success
Every blockchain developer has different opinions on the merits and risks of modular versus monolithic designs, but there’s usually no simple choice between these design options. There are, however, undeniable tradeoffs when choosing one blockchain framework over the other.
Traditionally, monolithic blockchains have a higher safety reputation, while modular blockchains are better known for their scalability. Picking the “best” blockchain infrastructure always depends on the specific goals a cryptocurrency project wants to accomplish.
While the monolithic model continues to work for processing secure payments on bitcoin’s core infrastructure, the Lorenzo Protocol believes modular models will play an important role in the next stage of the cryptocurrency industry’s growth. Specifically, shared security with modular L2s provides a way to infuse the benefits of these blockchain architectures, helping to establish bitcoin’s monolithic model as “the” foundation for Web3 security, and broadening bitcoin’s utility in decentralized finance (DeFi).
The shared security between monolithic and modular blockchains accentuates the positives of both models, making secure scalability a possibility for the bitcoin network.