Executive Summary: Both provide data availability using similar cryptographic foundations (Reed-Solomon erasure coding, polynomial commitments), but differ significantly in architectural philosophy, integration approach, and target use cases.
Architecture Comparison
π· Tezos DAL: Integrated L1 Design
βββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
β Tezos Layer 1 β
β ββββββββ βββββββββββ β
β β PoS ββββ DAL β β
β ββββββββ βββββββββββ β
β β β
β βββββββββββββββββββ β
β β Smart Rollups β β
β β (Etherlink...) β β
β βββββββββββββββββββ β
βββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
- Monolithic but modular - DAL is part of L1
- Native integration - Commitments on L1
- Same validator set - Tezos bakers
- Tight coupling - Optimized for Smart Rollups
π Celestia: Modular Blockchain Design
βββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
β Celestia (DA Only) β
β ββββββββ βββββββββββ β
β βTenderββββ DAS β β
β βmint β βSampling β β
β ββββββββ βββββββββββ β
βββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
β DA Service
ββββββββββββ ββββββββββββ
β Rollup A β β Rollup B β
β (any VM) β β (any VM) β
ββββββββββββ ββββββββββββ
- Fully modular - Consensus + DA only
- Blockchain-agnostic - Any rollup/chain
- Independent validators - Separate from consumers
- Loose coupling - Generic DA service
Technical Specifications
| Feature | Tezos DAL | Celestia |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | Integrated L1 component | Standalone modular blockchain |
| Launch Status | β Production (Seoul, 2024) | β Production (Mainnet, 2023) |
| Slot/Block Size | 126 KB per slot | Up to 2 MB blocks |
| Slots per Block | 32 slots | N/A (different model) |
| Max Throughput | ~4 MB/block (100 MB/s target) | ~6.7 MB/block (current) |
| Block Time | ~10 seconds | ~15 seconds |
| Redundancy Factor | 8x (512 shards, need 64) | ~4x typical |
| Recovery Threshold | 12.5% (64/512 shards) | 25% typical |
| Fault Tolerance | 87.5% data loss | 75% data loss |
Cryptographic Approach
Similarities: Both use Reed-Solomon erasure coding, polynomial representation, and data availability sampling (DAS).
π· Tezos: KZG Commitments
Technology Stack:
ββ KZG Polynomial Commitments
ββ BLS12-381 Elliptic Curve
ββ Pairing-Based Cryptography
ββ Trusted Setup (Powers of Tau)
Commitment: 48 bytes
Proof: 48 bytes per shard
Verification: ~1ms per shard
48-byte proofs
~1ms verification
Perfect for Reed-Solomon
Requires trusted setup
Not quantum-resistant
π Celestia: Merkle Trees + Fraud Proofs
Technology Stack:
ββ 2D Reed-Solomon Encoding
ββ Namespaced Merkle Trees (NMT)
ββ Data Availability Sampling
ββ Fraud Proofs (invalid encoding)
Commitment: 32 bytes (Merkle root)
Proof: ~288 bytes (9 hashes)
Verification: O(log n) operations
No trusted setup
Quantum-resistant
Simpler cryptography
Larger proofs (288B)
Fraud proof delays
Performance & Scalability
Current Metrics
| Metric | Tezos DAL | Celestia |
|---|---|---|
| Throughput | ~400 KB/s sustained | ~133 KB/s current |
| Target | 100 MB/s | Much higher with improvements |
| Validator Download | ~8 KB per slot (32 shards) | Entire blocks (full nodes) |
| Light Client Download | None (check attestations) | ~15-20 samples (few KB) |
| Verification Time | ~32ms per slot (all shards) | Varies by sampling |
| Storage | Temporary (attestation window) | Full blocks (full nodes) |
Validator Requirements
Tezos Bakers
- Download: ~8 KB per slot
- Verification: ~32ms
- Storage: Temporary only
- Bandwidth: ~119 KB/cycle (1% stake)
- Very lightweight
Celestia Validators
- Download: Entire blocks (full nodes)
- Light nodes: 15-20 samples
- Storage: Full blocks
- Bandwidth: Higher for full nodes
- Light clients very efficient
Consensus & Validation
π· Tezos: Liquid Proof-of-Stake
- Validators: Same bakers as L1 (~400 active)
- Assignment: Deterministic (32 shards per baker)
- Verification: KZG proofs (~1ms each)
- Attestation lag: 8 blocks
- Threshold: 66% attestation required
- Rewards: ~8-10 κ© per cycle (1% stake)
π Celestia: Tendermint PoS
- Validators: Independent set (~100 active)
- Sampling: Random per light client
- Verification: Statistical confidence
- Finality: Single-slot (~15 seconds)
- Fraud proofs: Challenge period
- Rewards: TIA block rewards + fees
Integration & Ecosystem
π· Tezos DAL Integration
Target Users:
- β Tezos Smart Rollups (primary)
- β Etherlink (EVM-compatible L2)
- β Gaming rollups on Tezos
- β DeFi applications on Tezos
- β Non-Tezos chains
Developer Tools:
octez-dal-nodeoctez-client- Tezos RPC API
- Smart Rollup SDK
π Celestia Integration
Target Users:
- β Ethereum L2s (EIP-4844 compatible)
- β Cosmos SDK chains
- β Sovereign rollups
- β Any blockchain needing DA
- β Cross-chain DA market
Developer Tools:
- Celestia Node API
- Rollkit framework
- OP Stack adapter
- Polygon CDK support
Economic Model
| Aspect | Tezos DAL | Celestia |
|---|---|---|
| Publish Cost | ~800 mutez (~$0.0005) | ~$0.01-$0.10 per MB (varies) |
| Fee Model | Fixed L1 transaction fee | Market-driven pricing |
| Validator Rewards | DAL + baking rewards (κ©) | Block rewards + fees (TIA) |
| Economics | Very low cost, no scarcity | Fee market, supply/demand |
Security Model
Tezos DAL Security
Trust Assumptions:
- Trusted Setup (Powers of Tau, 1000+ participants)
- BLS12-381 discrete log (~2^128 security)
- 66% honest baker attestations
- GossipSub P2P reliability
Attack Resistance:
- Forge KZG proof: 2^128 ops (infeasible)
- Compromise setup: All 1000+ participants (extremely unlikely)
- Withhold shards: Need 87.5% malicious (very expensive)
- Wrong shards: KZG proof fails immediately
Security Level: βββββ Very High
Celestia Security
Trust Assumptions:
- No trusted setup (hash-based)
- SHA-256 collision resistance
- Majority honest validators
- At least one honest node for fraud proofs
Attack Resistance:
- Invalid erasure coding: Fraud proofs detect
- Withhold data: Light nodes detect via sampling
- Forge Merkle proof: 2^128 ops (infeasible)
- Censor fraud proofs: Need majority validators
Security Level: βββββ High
The Verdict: Which Wins?
π Winner by Category
| Category | Winner | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Proof Size | π· Tezos | 48 bytes vs 288 bytes |
| Verification Speed | π· Tezos | ~1ms vs ~9 hash ops |
| Cost | π· Tezos | ~$0.0005 vs $0.01-0.10/MB |
| Fault Tolerance | π· Tezos | 87.5% vs 75% |
| Flexibility | π Celestia | Any chain vs Tezos only |
| No Trusted Setup | π Celestia | Hash-based vs KZG ceremony |
| Quantum Resistance | π Celestia | SHA-256 vs elliptic curves |
| True Light Clients | π Celestia | Statistical sampling vs attestation checking |
π― The Real Answer
There is no universal "better" - it depends on your use case:
Choose Tezos DAL if:
- β Building on Tezos ecosystem
- β Need tight L1 β L2 integration
- β Want lowest possible DA costs
- β Prefer integrated solution
- β Value BLS signature aggregation
- β Need high fault tolerance (87.5%)
- β Want proven cryptography (KZG)
Choose Celestia if:
- β Building multi-chain/blockchain-agnostic
- β Need maximum flexibility
- β Want modular blockchain design
- β Prefer no trusted setup
- β Value quantum resistance
- β Building sovereign rollup
- β Need cross-chain DA
Philosophical Differences
Tezos: Integrated Pragmatism
Philosophy:
- DA as essential L1 service
- Optimized for known use case (Smart Rollups)
- Leverage existing validator set
- Prioritize performance over flexibility
"DAL is what fills the slots you're attesting and earning rewards for" - Tezos docs
Celestia: Modular Maximalism
Philosophy:
- DA as standalone service
- Blockchain should be modular
- Execution shouldn't be coupled with consensus
- Maximum flexibility for builders
"Celestia is a modular blockchain network designed to enable anyone to easily deploy their own blockchain" - Celestia docs
The Analogy
Tezos DAL = ποΈ Ferrari
Integrated, high-performance, optimized for specific track (Tezos)
Celestia = π Uber
Flexible, serves everyone, modular transportation service
Conclusion
Both are excellent solutions solving the same problem with different philosophies.
Tezos DAL excels as an integrated, high-performance solution for the Tezos ecosystem, offering the smallest proofs, fastest verification, and tightest L1 integration.
Celestia shines as a flexible, modular platform serving multiple ecosystems, offering true light client verification and no trusted setup requirements.
Key Takeaways
Tezos Advantage: Smallest proofs (48B), fastest verification (~1ms), lowest cost ($0.0005)
Celestia Advantage: Blockchain-agnostic, no trusted setup, quantum-resistant
Both Mature: Production-ready, well-documented, active development
Choose Based On: Your ecosystem (Tezos vs multi-chain), cost requirements, flexibility needs
The choice between them depends less on "which is better" and more on "which fits your needs".
Learn More:
π¬ Tezos DAL Cryptography Guide | π DAL Implementation Guide
Document Version: 1.0
Last Updated: October 2025
Author: DALHousie Technical Research Team