5 ms·

ETH doesn't scale. This is not surprising or new. Then they use secondary chains to batch transactions so they can backup on chain less often. What seems to be

by dudus 2y ago

ETH doesn't scale. This is not surprising or new. Then they use secondary chains to batch transactions so they can backup on chain less often. What seems to be new here is that these secondary chains that already exist are getting integrated into ETH while still being a separate chain. So after reinventing a database they are implementing sharding on top of it which to me seems like trailing already walked paths that will guide you nowhere new. The result is a less flexible and more complex system that attenuates but doesn't solve the scaling issue.

sixhobbits 2y ago
Yes TFA says largely the same > This is how any other peer-to-peer network (eg. BitTorrent) works too, so surely we could make blockchains work the same way > For many years, it has been common for some high-performance chains to claim that they solve the trilemma without doing anything clever at a fundamental architecture level, typically by using software engineering tricks to optimize the node. This is always misleading, and running a node in such chains always ends up far more difficult than in Ethereum. Not saying you're wrong, but I think if you disagree with a 5k+ word article full of careful technical explanations and diagrams (I am not an expert on Ethereum and really appreciated how the author explained things in a way that taught me stuff) then you need to put in a bit more effort than just naming the challenges again.
- realSatoshiNak 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - TZubiri 2y ago
    ok shill
    - edm0nd 2y ago
      Crypto maxis like above really are the worst part of the entire crypto space. They go around spewing nonsense about whatever chain they perceive as "best". It's rather toxic and probably pretty bad for their mental health. It's always kinda fascinating too. Like the person saw a post about Ethereum on here and raged out and created an account just to spew their digital gospel.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - TZubiri 2y ago
        They don't pregonate what they perceive is best, or try to evangelize. They hold the asset that they recommend, so that it increases in price. This dispels another common misconception that shills get paid, nope, they just buy into an asset at some early point in the early to late spectrum of a ponzi scheme, and then try to sell it by recommendation. Just another ponzi
TZubiri 2y ago
Which is quite decentralized in a way. Instead of paying 10 bucks to pollute the main Ethereum blockchain, I pay pennies in some second hand pepsi wannabe blockchain like Tron or Solana. I trade my assets once to the secondary chain and then I microtransact on what's effectively an L2 network. Same thing with banks, we can't have dozens of transactions per day for stuff like a hamburger and a coffee, so they invented credit cards as a sort of L2 layer that does smaller transactions. And then wallets like paypal popped up to fill the void in places where the transaction was too low or insecure to even warrant the use of a card, like when you buy porn o dumb videogames. So L3. Having everything on THE blockchain is not actually the decentralized vision we would have in mind, quite the opposite, there's a bunch of blockchains and they communicate with each other.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  Unfortunately, blockchains sprung into popularity right around the time traditional bank transfers were finally prodded into the 21st century (SEPA, UPI, FedNow, etc). Which means they're now competing against a digital, trusted-counterparty system.
  - otabdeveloper4 2y ago
    Blockchains don't compete with banks, they compete with stock markets and other exchanges. Basically Bitcoin exists because nerds wanted to play Wolf of Wall Street and thought the government was holding them down.
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      Blockchains compete with the existing financial system, which is largely held together by the major central banks and commercial banks. And because of poor timing as mentioned, they just seem like a shabby deal since nowadays it’s entirely possible to get nearly all the benefits in the existing system without the drawbacks.
      - otabdeveloper4 2y ago
kylebenzle 2y ago
>ETH doesn't scale That is so true but funny in light of the fact that Bitcoin does (did) scale perfectly well to Visa-like levels of transactions. The ONLY problem with Bitcoin scaling is the for profit company, Blockstream, having hijacked the GitHub repo and injected hacks like RBF and Segwit. The original Bitcoin (Bitcoin Cash) still works and scales totally fine.
- tacticus 2y ago
  > Visa-like is that the 1950s visa like or the 1960s visa like transaction levels?
- BodyCulture 2y ago
  Your words are interesting, but they need a strong source of truth to be relevant. Would you please like to add an URL that supports your thesis? Thanks!
- alfiedotwtf 2y ago
  > Bitcoin Cash Please… let’s not all get Flat Earth around here
  - 3np 2y ago
    No, really... Flat Earth would be BSV. BCH is more like JW "truthers" or something.
    - pyrale 2y ago
      Sedevacantists
      - joecool1029 2y ago
        Pretty sure bitcoin's most well known sedevacantist, luke-jr, sided with bitcoin not bitcoin cash lol.
- spaceman_2020 2y ago
qqqult 2y ago
Why do you think that it doesn't solve the scaling issue?
ETH_start 2y ago
No, the batching is done so that the transactions form a data structure that's amenable to optimistic verification or succinct zero knowledge proofs. All transactions can be fully verified onchain, every block, and Ethereum rollup transaction flows would see generate massive scalability boost ups. The incredible thing about the rollup scaling roadmap is that transactions across a rollup can be composable with each other while using different shards. This means Ethereum can massively scale with no compromises on decentralization or composability.

by dudus 2y ago

sixhobbits 2y ago

Yes TFA says largely the same > This is how any other peer-to-peer network (eg. BitTorrent) works too, so surely we could make blockchains work the same way > For many years, it has been common for some high-performance chains to claim that they solve the trilemma without doing anything clever at a fundamental architecture level, typically by using software engineering tricks to optimize the node. This is always misleading, and running a node in such chains always ends up far more difficult than in Ethereum. Not saying you're wrong, but I think if you disagree with a 5k+ word article full of careful technical explanations and diagrams (I am not an expert on Ethereum and really appreciated how the author explained things in a way that taught me stuff) then you need to put in a bit more effort than just naming the challenges again.

realSatoshiNak 2y ago
[flagged]
- TZubiri 2y ago
  ok shill
  - edm0nd 2y ago
    Crypto maxis like above really are the worst part of the entire crypto space. They go around spewing nonsense about whatever chain they perceive as "best". It's rather toxic and probably pretty bad for their mental health. It's always kinda fascinating too. Like the person saw a post about Ethereum on here and raged out and created an account just to spew their digital gospel.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - TZubiri 2y ago
      They don't pregonate what they perceive is best, or try to evangelize. They hold the asset that they recommend, so that it increases in price. This dispels another common misconception that shills get paid, nope, they just buy into an asset at some early point in the early to late spectrum of a ponzi scheme, and then try to sell it by recommendation. Just another ponzi

TZubiri 2y ago

Which is quite decentralized in a way. Instead of paying 10 bucks to pollute the main Ethereum blockchain, I pay pennies in some second hand pepsi wannabe blockchain like Tron or Solana. I trade my assets once to the secondary chain and then I microtransact on what's effectively an L2 network. Same thing with banks, we can't have dozens of transactions per day for stuff like a hamburger and a coffee, so they invented credit cards as a sort of L2 layer that does smaller transactions. And then wallets like paypal popped up to fill the void in places where the transaction was too low or insecure to even warrant the use of a card, like when you buy porn o dumb videogames. So L3. Having everything on THE blockchain is not actually the decentralized vision we would have in mind, quite the opposite, there's a bunch of blockchains and they communicate with each other.

ethbr1 2y ago
Unfortunately, blockchains sprung into popularity right around the time traditional bank transfers were finally prodded into the 21st century (SEPA, UPI, FedNow, etc). Which means they're now competing against a digital, trusted-counterparty system.
- otabdeveloper4 2y ago
  Blockchains don't compete with banks, they compete with stock markets and other exchanges. Basically Bitcoin exists because nerds wanted to play Wolf of Wall Street and thought the government was holding them down.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    Blockchains compete with the existing financial system, which is largely held together by the major central banks and commercial banks. And because of poor timing as mentioned, they just seem like a shabby deal since nowadays it’s entirely possible to get nearly all the benefits in the existing system without the drawbacks.
    - otabdeveloper4 2y ago

kylebenzle 2y ago

>ETH doesn't scale That is so true but funny in light of the fact that Bitcoin does (did) scale perfectly well to Visa-like levels of transactions. The ONLY problem with Bitcoin scaling is the for profit company, Blockstream, having hijacked the GitHub repo and injected hacks like RBF and Segwit. The original Bitcoin (Bitcoin Cash) still works and scales totally fine.

tacticus 2y ago
> Visa-like is that the 1950s visa like or the 1960s visa like transaction levels?
BodyCulture 2y ago
Your words are interesting, but they need a strong source of truth to be relevant. Would you please like to add an URL that supports your thesis? Thanks!
alfiedotwtf 2y ago
> Bitcoin Cash Please… let’s not all get Flat Earth around here
- 3np 2y ago
  No, really... Flat Earth would be BSV. BCH is more like JW "truthers" or something.
  - pyrale 2y ago
    Sedevacantists
    - joecool1029 2y ago
      Pretty sure bitcoin's most well known sedevacantist, luke-jr, sided with bitcoin not bitcoin cash lol.
spaceman_2020 2y ago

qqqult 2y ago

Why do you think that it doesn't solve the scaling issue?

ETH_start 2y ago

No, the batching is done so that the transactions form a data structure that's amenable to optimistic verification or succinct zero knowledge proofs. All transactions can be fully verified onchain, every block, and Ethereum rollup transaction flows would see generate massive scalability boost ups. The incredible thing about the rollup scaling roadmap is that transactions across a rollup can be composable with each other while using different shards. This means Ethereum can massively scale with no compromises on decentralization or composability.