Adding chains for mass analysis (bitlayer, bob, lens, sei, sonic, hyperliquid, story)

[fernandezlautaro]

Data for each separate chain below in case of needed further investigation or checking:

200810:                                   # https://docs.bitlayer.org/docs/Learn/BitlayerNetwork/Networks#bitlayer-testnet
  selector: 3789623672476206327
  name: "bitcoin-testnet-bitlayer-1"      # https://docs.bitlayer.org/docs/Learn/Introduction/
808813:                                   # https://docs.gobob.xyz/docs/build/getting-started/networks?_highlight=chain&_highlight=id#ethereum-mainnet
  selector: 5535534526963509396
  name: "ethereum-testnet-sepolia-bob-1"  # https://docs.gobob.xyz/docs/learn/bob-stack/stack-overview#rollup-layer
37111:
  selector: 6827576821754315911
  name: "ethereum-testnet-sepolia-lens-1" # https://lens-network-alpha.vercel.app/docs/network/overview#differences-with-ethereum
1328:
  selector: 1216300075444106652
  name: "ethereum-testnet-sepolia-sei-1"  # https://www.docs.sei.io/dev-intro
64165:
  selector: 3676871237479449268
  name: "sonic-testnet"                   # https://docs.soniclabs.com/sonic/overview https://docs.soniclabs.com/sonic/gateway#sonic-vs-layer-2s, also testnet might be beacon in a future https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18uiw5d4qFc_TkFwLpDz5tDG_Iza6SS9XV9lCq0flNH0/edit?gid=625078687#gid=625078687&range=B33 ?
998:
  selector: 4286062357653186312
  name: "hyperliquid-testnet"             # https://hyperliquid.gitbook.io/hyperliquid-docs/hyperliquid-l1/l1-overview
1513:
  selector: 4237030917318060427
  name: "story-testnet"                   # https://docs.story.foundation/docs/what-is-story#story-network-the-worlds-ip-blockchain 

[matYang]

I couldn't find much info about lens testnet, it makes sense for it to be an L2, can you provide a reference for extra assurance?

[fernandezlautaro]

yes, from here https://lens-network-alpha.vercel.app/docs/network/overview#differences-with-ethereum:
The Lens Network is a Layer 2 blockchain network built on ZKsync technology. As a result, the Lens Network is EVM-compatible, meaning it shares ZKSync's differences from Ethereum and other EVM-equivalent blockchains.

[stackman27]

as per this description
<blockchain>-<type>-<network_name>-<parachain>-<rollup>-<rollup_instance> wouldn't it be best to do ethereum-testnet-sepolia-lens-zksync-1 ?

[mohamed-mehany]

Zksync seems to be only the sdk that the network uses but it doesn't settle on it. See this thread for a similar discussion on why we drop the protocol/sdk.

[andrevmatos]

Yes, if zkSync is only the tech behind it, but ti settles on ethereum-testnet-sepolia, its name should be as is.

[mohamed-mehany]

Isn't Sei an L1? So in this case it would be something likg "sei-testnet" since cosmos is only the SDK that was used but it doesn't settle on Cosmos, correct?

[matYang]

that's my 1st reaction but this is a bit ambiguous in the readme:

blockchain | Name of blockchain protocol (or anchor blockchain) | ethereum, cosmos, polkadot

[matYang]

@mateusz-sekara can you double check here, should a cosmos SDK L1 name start with cosmos or by itself?

[mohamed-mehany]

I agree it's a bit confusing.
Based on this doc: https://smartcontract-it.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DEPLOY/pages/599491447/Network+naming+proposal I think it means the anchor blockchain rather than the protocol. Because we usually ignore the protocol, for example many chains use the OP stack but we don't add Optimism to the name, we only add Ethereum.

[andrevmatos]

Is it a true, independent L1?
IIANM, Cosmos used to be a family of "L1s", somewhat independent but sharing consensus and security with the Cosmos Hub chain.

I think this requires some discretion, but if SEI is an app chain on top of Cosmos Hub, even if in some aspects it could be seen as an L1, I think we could/should treat these chains as instances anchored in the Hub, therefore calling it cosmos-testnet-sei. @mateusz-sekara wdyt?

[andrevmatos]

Yes, I agree we don't add ethereum or optimism to the chains using them as tech, but my point is that, from my understanding, Cosmos SDK chains don't share just technology, but are actually anchored to the hub (in a consensus-level), and can only be to the hub (there are no independent instances of Cosmos SDK chains as bsc-to-ethereum or optimism-based L2s).

So, to my understanding, Cosmos SDK chains have enough to be named as a standalone family than the other examples.

[mohamed-mehany]

@andrevmatos could you clarify what you mean by "sharing consensus and security"? Are you suggesting that it relies on connecting to the Cosmos chain, or does it simply reuse libraries from the SDK? If it's the latter, I don't think this means the chain is anchored to Cosmos. It's similar to other chains that utilize another chain's SDK, like Optimism or Arbitrum Nitro. For both, we typically omit mentioning the SDK because adding the name of the chain usually implies that it settles on another layer. Overcomplicating the naming might diminish its value.

[andrevmatos]

@mohamed-mehany if it's the later, I agree we don't add cosmos to the name; if IIUC, it's actually the former: from what I understood from their documentation, Cosmos-SDK chains are actually anchored to the Hub, where the consensus and validation happens. Validation, PoS, etc, happens on the Hub chain, and the other chains depend on it to function, and derive their security from it. Is this correct? If so, they look more like a L1-with-L2-rollups than a true family of L1s which share just libs.

[mohamed-mehany]

@andrevmatos That’s an interesting point, and I agree—if it genuinely connects to Cosmos for tasks like consensus or validation, then it makes sense to reflect that in the name.

However, based on what I’ve found in the chain’s documentation (please feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken, as I’m not a Cosmos expert), it appears everything is handled on-chain. For example, the validator documentation (https://www.docs.sei.io/dev-validators/overview) suggests that all operations occur within the chain itself. Additionally, they claim instant finality (https://www.docs.sei.io/dev-advanced-concepts/differences-with-ethereum#finality), which, from my understanding, shouldn’t be theoretically possible if the chain depends on another network for consensus.

The only thing I found that connects to Cosmos is their use of IBC (https://www.docs.sei.io/dev-tutorials/ibc-protocol), which seems to be a cross-chain connectivity protocol allowing them to transfer data between chains, including Cosmos.

[andrevmatos]

Hmm, right. From the Cosmos SDK overview

The goal of the Cosmos SDK is to allow developers to easily create custom blockchains from scratch that can natively interoperate with other blockchains. We further this modular approach by allowing developers to plug and play with different consensus engines this can range from CometBFT or Rollkit.

So, I may have misunderstood, and indeed Cosmos SDK is more like just a set of libraries for building standalone chains, which happen to share some common facilities, like the IBC. So I concede, let's keep the standalone naming here. Thank you and sorry for the noise.