Topic: The main problem with ETH... (Read 527 times)
One of the main issues is the scalability problem. When lots of people try to use it at once, it can slow down, making transactions take ages and cost more in fees. That can be a bummer, especially if you're trying to move your funds quickly.Also, there’s a lot of competition out there. Newer platforms are popping up that offer faster transactions and lower fees. It makes you wonder if ETH can keep up. Plus, the whole transition to proof-of-stake is a bit tricky. It should help in the long run but it is still a work in progress.If you're looking for more insights or want to chat about alternatives, check out figment.io . They have some great resources. While ETH has its challenges, it still has a lot of potential.
Being aggressive, how? I can't be aggressive towards anyone, I know better than that. My construction approach may not align with yours since we disagree, but that doesn't make you conclude I was aggressive. It was a plain question I asked, so why are you judgmental? I've noticed many people can't achieve close to what some people achieved but they will be criticizing as if they know everything. Asking a sincere question to show his achievement is not so rude/aggressive the way you put it
I sense something is not right with you and I do feel you are living in a delusional habitat because you came with one heck of a weird reply to my one-line reply. To justify your behaviour you had to right so much
You are wrong here, I don't have any investment in Ethereum but regularly trade it. Again, if I have any interest in it or even invested in it, I don't let my emotions rule me, I act with a neutral mind.
Someone who is regularly trading Ethereum is considered a trader and investor. If you are not investing in Ethereum then how the heck are you able to trade it? Emotional mind, what are you talking about?
Understand one point do not justify your argument with emotional gimmick. If you don't have anything concrete to counter my reply you shouldn't bother to reply. 
My thought is that you are very wrong about this, you know all these and you've not created your blockchain yet? It's easy to criticize but difficult to create and manage one's invention. Vitalik Buterin and the other brains behind Ethereum are not dumbs, they know exactly what they want but there is room for improvements and upgrades, no gadget or application gets it at once, that's why they always add and remove and call it "upgrade." Ethereum carefully studies Bitcoin to improve it, and if you are comparing it with others like Solana and TON, you have a point but also know that they studied why Ethereum was so appreciated and improved on it. Having several functions in one blockchain is never easy, that's what Ethereum faces, but it still stays true to its name.
There's no need to be so aggressive towards someone who is questioning Ethereum.
Quote
I get the sense that you may have invested a lot in it or obtained your $ETH for free by completing tasks during the initial days. I would appreciate a professional argument and would love it if you could explain why Ethereum is vulnerable after getting the ETF approved. Please take a moment to consider my argument before responding.
You are wrong here, I don't have any investment in Ethereum but regularly trade it. Again, if I have any interest in it or even invested in it, I don't let my emotions rule me, I act with a neutral mind. here's one of the things said by a guy who supported ETH being a validator for years. and he is not happy with what is happening in the ENS and all the rest of the tokens that used the Etherchain. it's been happening for years already and we can see it since the time Tether got into most of the L1 projects but are using eth blockchain. users are just up to making profits and not for decentralization.
Quote
I’m an Ethereum node validator mining for over 1100 days! Why because I saw the connections with TradFi years ago and so I took a bet on ETH and wanted to support what they called ETH2. But over the years, I’ve been seeing things which I disagree with. LSD’s, restaking, and sadly this extreme bias with ENS.
These conflicts of interest are fuelled solely by their investments and the price of tokens! It’s an attempt for an inner circle to hold a monopoly over certain services.
The @ethereum foundation recently suggested they need to work on these financial conflicts of interest. The problem is, imho they are empty words.
I’m not sure they can actually put their biases aside because they’re so deeply intertwined with these tokens financially they are ethically and morally corrupt.
They can’t deny it because they are literally saying these things publicly, we have the receipts recorded in podcasts hosted on the Internet for everyone to hear and see.
And for this reason I believe in a multi chain paradigm. Because if you’re going to sit on a high horse with such arrogance believing that nothing can compete due to a first mover advantage.
To me that is a sign of lackadaisical leadership with their eyes off the ball, bellies already too fat from feeding off the ERC-20 trough for too long.
@IOHK_Charles has made a loud and clear message to @BanklessHQ
that if they wish to mock their research and technology at least have the balls to go and do it in person to their communities faces, instead of hiding behind a computer screen with the Ethereum army backing them up.
Charles is right, I’ve not seen Ethereum Maxis talk about any other protocol in the many years I’ve been around in a positive manner. Unless it’s an L2 of course!
They throw shade on anything they’re not connected to financially and for some reason the same goes for .eth they disingenuously push a narrative that it’s the only Ethereum name service 😂 and ironically after doing exactly the same to the Solana community @BanklessHQ have bizarrely pivoted and have been banging on about Solana for about a year now since it hit it’s low of $7 👀 and Vitalik jumped in to pump it! ☝️
I would bet my bottom dollar these guys are heavily invested in Solana now, possible fraudulent and misleading behaviour from social networking influencers pumping their bags. No one would be surprised, this is crypto after all.
@VitalikButerin
knows that if he ever murmured the words of another TLD that uses the Ethereum blockchain that it would harm the price of the ENS token. And that’s why he will pretend for as long as possible that ENS is the only decentralised DNS protocol on the Ethereum Blockchain 🤦♂️
ENS is not even decentralised because of the way they use token weighted governance and the major holders of the tokens happen to be Binance, Coinbase a16z et al and other whales that we’re not too sure who they actually are?
more https://x.com/ZKDID_/status/1799400337612190153 These conflicts of interest are fuelled solely by their investments and the price of tokens! It’s an attempt for an inner circle to hold a monopoly over certain services.
The @ethereum foundation recently suggested they need to work on these financial conflicts of interest. The problem is, imho they are empty words.
I’m not sure they can actually put their biases aside because they’re so deeply intertwined with these tokens financially they are ethically and morally corrupt.
They can’t deny it because they are literally saying these things publicly, we have the receipts recorded in podcasts hosted on the Internet for everyone to hear and see.
And for this reason I believe in a multi chain paradigm. Because if you’re going to sit on a high horse with such arrogance believing that nothing can compete due to a first mover advantage.
To me that is a sign of lackadaisical leadership with their eyes off the ball, bellies already too fat from feeding off the ERC-20 trough for too long.
@IOHK_Charles has made a loud and clear message to @BanklessHQ
that if they wish to mock their research and technology at least have the balls to go and do it in person to their communities faces, instead of hiding behind a computer screen with the Ethereum army backing them up.
Charles is right, I’ve not seen Ethereum Maxis talk about any other protocol in the many years I’ve been around in a positive manner. Unless it’s an L2 of course!
They throw shade on anything they’re not connected to financially and for some reason the same goes for .eth they disingenuously push a narrative that it’s the only Ethereum name service 😂 and ironically after doing exactly the same to the Solana community @BanklessHQ have bizarrely pivoted and have been banging on about Solana for about a year now since it hit it’s low of $7 👀 and Vitalik jumped in to pump it! ☝️
I would bet my bottom dollar these guys are heavily invested in Solana now, possible fraudulent and misleading behaviour from social networking influencers pumping their bags. No one would be surprised, this is crypto after all.
@VitalikButerin
knows that if he ever murmured the words of another TLD that uses the Ethereum blockchain that it would harm the price of the ENS token. And that’s why he will pretend for as long as possible that ENS is the only decentralised DNS protocol on the Ethereum Blockchain 🤦♂️
ENS is not even decentralised because of the way they use token weighted governance and the major holders of the tokens happen to be Binance, Coinbase a16z et al and other whales that we’re not too sure who they actually are?
Will definitely take time to read into this one, but it's an interesting perspective from a person involved into the node for sure.
I've heard from different posts and from here that ETH is centralized, too centralized for some.
Ethereum's biggest problem is scalability. I'm sure everyone agrees on this. However, quality projects are still running on Ethereum. Thousands of developers are releasing their new projects on ethereum. I don't know if everyone trusts Vitalik, but everyone is staying on Ethereum despite all the problems. I think if we are going to see a change, positive or negative, they will start it and we as end users will follow them...
Ethereum blockchain have been very compromised over the past years due the instability and volatility the market. Who's fault to blame? Vitalik Buterin is probably not the man to be hold responsible for the heavy crash of these projects build on the Ethereum blockchain network. Trust is a strong word to use in the system. Before taking any decision to become a developer, one ought . It's been absolutely a tough one for people that engaged in the space mostly the developers, having everything to lose in the market. 
What are your thoughts? Does ETH have a bad network design? If not, why? What do you think would be the best approach for scaling ETH (aside from centralized L2s)? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. 
And that is why the Layer 2 solution was first created on the Ethereum network due to its scalability issue. They have added so many upgrades to the network that I cannot remember but those have not been effective. The transaction fees are still high and that is the reason why the BSC chain became popular in the last bull run and the next in line will be the Solana network as that is what I can forsee. A lot of new crypto projects are now using other blockchains that are cheaper, faster, and can handle congestion or they are using a layer 2 solution.
It is true that the problem of transaction costs has not been resolved until now, but actually sometimes transaction costs can be cheap when the market is sluggish, and it takes perseverance to check every time to get cheap network costs.
My thought is that you are very wrong about this, you know all these and you've not created your blockchain yet? It's easy to criticize but difficult to create and manage one's invention. Vitalik Buterin and the other brains behind Ethereum are not dumbs, they know exactly what they want but there is room for improvements and upgrades, no gadget or application gets it at once, that's why they always add and remove and call it "upgrade." Ethereum carefully studies Bitcoin to improve it, and if you are comparing it with others like Solana and TON, you have a point but also know that they studied why Ethereum was so appreciated and improved on it. Having several functions in one blockchain is never easy, that's what Ethereum faces, but it still stays true to its name.
There's no need to be so aggressive towards someone who is questioning Ethereum. I get the sense that you may have invested a lot in it or obtained your $ETH for free by completing tasks during the initial days. I would appreciate a professional argument and would love it if you could explain why Ethereum is vulnerable after getting the ETF approved. Please take a moment to consider my argument before responding.
ETH's design was a bad idea from the start. Executing turing-complete smart contracts on-chain, adds undesired network bloat. The Blockchain wasn't designed to handle a large number of interactions per second. Vitalik and team should've separated contract deployment and execution from the main Ethereum blockchain. In other words, smart contracts will run off-chain, while ordinary transactions will run on-chain. Avalanche's 3-layer network design is the best way for scaling. For those unaware, "turing-completeness" means being able to "solve any complex computation problem if provided with enough memory and time".
What are your thoughts? Does ETH have a bad network design? If not, why? What do you think would be the best approach for scaling ETH (aside from centralized L2s)? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
My thought is that you are very wrong about this, you know all these and you've not created your blockchain yet? It's easy to criticize but difficult to create and manage one's invention. Vitalik Buterin and the other brains behind Ethereum are not dumbs, they know exactly what they want but there is room for improvements and upgrades, no gadget or application gets it at once, that's why they always add and remove and call it "upgrade." Ethereum carefully studies Bitcoin to improve it, and if you are comparing it with others like Solana and TON, you have a point but also know that they studied why Ethereum was so appreciated and improved on it. Having several functions in one blockchain is never easy, that's what Ethereum faces, but it still stays true to its name. What are your thoughts? Does ETH have a bad network design? If not, why? What do you think would be the best approach for scaling ETH (aside from centralized L2s)? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
It is common knowledge that the main problem with ETH is the high transaction costs,
The counterpart of bitcoin's transaction fees is gas fees of ethereum.In ethereum, gas is what is used to compute for the effort required to make a transaction. There are several reasons why gas fees are high one of them is the problem of all cryptocurrencies with high volume of users: their congestion. Gas fees also increase due to the more complicated nature of some transactions.
Quote
and of course the developers have made certain efforts to minimize the costs incurred, one of the ways that is being done is increasing the network scale on each platform, Even though it's not optimal, I think this method will reduce ethereum transaction costs over time.
Layer 2 solutions are also part of the methods to try and lessen the congestion in the blockchain. for us investors what we can do is to watch out for a time where there is not much transactions happening or the price is not that high so gas fees aren't too high as well. 
Ethereum's biggest problem is scalability. I'm sure everyone agrees on this. However, quality projects are still running on Ethereum. Thousands of developers are releasing their new projects on ethereum. I don't know if everyone trusts Vitalik, but everyone is staying on Ethereum despite all the problems. I think if we are going to see a change, positive or negative, they will start it and we as end users will follow them...
most of dapps right now are blockchain agnostic, they don't just stick with one blockchain but gonna expand as much as they can, since if its EVM based literally what they needed to do is just doing some testing with their existing codebase and deploy it, heck, some even expand to the blockchain that doesn't rely on EVM, there has been many emergence of dapps that are omnichain, they usually utilizes bridging protocol like layerzero, considering that these bridging protocol already have abundant liquidity and good routes all the problem with bridging has been solved.aside from that, most of the new blockchain also incentivizes existing dapps to integrate to their network so it's also the thing that causes massive dapps expansion across various blockchain so the argument that ethereum got all the quality project is little bit irelevant right now.
on the other hand, after the introduction of blobs, in my opinion, ethereum devs are taking approach to cultivate L2 for the sake of offloading complex, gas expensive computing to the L2. so the L2 is where the dapps interaction will frequently occurs and ethereum will secure those networks through blobs that significantly reduces gas cost compared to calldata for the L2 settlement (posting L2 transactions data to the L1). at least that is what I think of it.
Ethereum's biggest problem is scalability. I'm sure everyone agrees on this. However, quality projects are still running on Ethereum. Thousands of developers are releasing their new projects on ethereum. I don't know if everyone trusts Vitalik, but everyone is staying on Ethereum despite all the problems. I think if we are going to see a change, positive or negative, they will start it and we as end users will follow them...
it's real the plan has been drawn up
has been taken and it has overcome Ethereum's shortcomings in overcoming existing scalability solutions. I am sure that the future will be better by maximizing current performance, which shows an optimal effort,
Due to the high adoption of the scaling schemes used to improve the performance of Ethereum which is used as infrastructure for many applications, limitations due to the initial nature of the network and knowing that it can make changes to make it better.
Ethereum's biggest problem is scalability. I'm sure everyone agrees on this. However, quality projects are still running on Ethereum. Thousands of developers are releasing their new projects on ethereum. I don't know if everyone trusts Vitalik, but everyone is staying on Ethereum despite all the problems. I think if we are going to see a change, positive or negative, they will start it and we as end users will follow them...
Scaling Blockchains has always been an issue. I'm talking about on-chain smart contracts making matters worse due to the high amount of resources they consume. If smart contracts had their own chain separate from the main ETH blockchain, there would be less network load. This means lower fees and faster confirmation times.
Unless developers plan to constantly increase ETH's transaction capacity, on-chain smart contracts will continue to plague the network for as long as it lives. Again, Avalanche's 3-layer approach is the best way to scale the Blockchain. Smart contracts (dApps) have their own chain, consensus has its own chain, and payments have their own chain. I'm certainly not a fan of ETH's L2 networks, especially when they're centralized. Only time will tell us if on-chain network fees will remain high or decline to acceptable levels. At least, we have plenty of other chains to choose from.
Ethereum's biggest problem is scalability. I'm sure everyone agrees on this. However, quality projects are still running on Ethereum. Thousands of developers are releasing their new projects on ethereum. I don't know if everyone trusts Vitalik, but everyone is staying on Ethereum despite all the problems. I think if we are going to see a change, positive or negative, they will start it and we as end users will follow them...
Ethereum had an early mover advantage and today we see many projects aiming to be EVM compatible. Even if they are not on the main chain they are still part of the greater ecosystem, which benefits Ethereum’s network effects.
We are recently starting to see Solana gain more traction. Just like Tron surpassed Ethereum for stablecoin activity, we are seeing Solana’s market share growing in many areas, while ETH’s web3 dominance diminishes. The fact that Solana is very centralized doesn’t matter to the majority of users who are just trying to transact with the lowest fees possible.
Ethereum's biggest problem is scalability. I'm sure everyone agrees on this. However, quality projects are still running on Ethereum. Thousands of developers are releasing their new projects on ethereum. I don't know if everyone trusts Vitalik, but everyone is staying on Ethereum despite all the problems. I think if we are going to see a change, positive or negative, they will start it and we as end users will follow them...
when it was still pow, we're already doing this. the same problem with BTC, miners and validators are picking transactions for profit. it's still the same problem for the other platforms despite the high TPS can be done and L2s being developed. when the value of the L2 projects goes to up as well, i think the same problem will arise.
We developed the top strategies for our trades and investments projects. ETH comes with extremely high fee and we should always watch out for our possible safety in the market. The market have its own very seasons and have become a top trends in the system. Pumping and dumping comes with different results and we should always know what's coming in and out. From my research it is the transaction fee that is the major problem of Ethereum and the developers have not done anything to douse the issue and another one is the progress of the market price which is very slow foe some investors likeness. And I don't think because of that I will be interested to invest in Ethereum. And those who have invested in it can continue the investment. But I don't think those who started their investment late last year and early this year have made any gain from the investment.
Before venturing into any business one need to find out the advantages and disadvantages of the business and check if the disadvantages are bearable or not cause you can just jump into business knowing fully well that the disadvantages is something to compare with the advantages. Is the person planning to move forward or backward, what an saying in essence is that Etherum Gas fee is too much and their transaction always take longer time before it will arrive, just imagine a situation where someone wants to withdraw from it's ETH wallet to another where he or she can use the money and lets say the thing is very urgent will the person still be waiting for the transaction to arrive, these are things they should work on.Anyway, the speed of the transaction can also depend on the fees that we put in. ETH fees are already high nowadays in default, so we might still increase our fees if we want our transactions to get processed faster.
when it was still pow, we're already doing this. the same problem with BTC, miners and validators are picking transactions for profit. it's still the same problem for the other platforms despite the high TPS can be done and L2s being developed. when the value of the L2 projects goes to up as well, i think the same problem will arise.
From my research it is the transaction fee that is the major problem of Ethereum and the developers have not done anything to douse the issue and another one is the progress of the market price which is very slow foe some investors likeness. And I don't think because of that I will be interested to invest in Ethereum. And those who have invested in it can continue the investment. But I don't think those who started their investment late last year and early this year have made any gain from the investment.
Before venturing into any business one need to find out the advantages and disadvantages of the business and check if the disadvantages are bearable or not cause you can just jump into business knowing fully well that the disadvantages is something to compare with the advantages. Is the person planning to move forward or backward, what an saying in essence is that Etherum Gas fee is too much and their transaction always take longer time before it will arrive, just imagine a situation where someone wants to withdraw from it's ETH wallet to another where he or she can use the money and lets say the thing is very urgent will the person still be waiting for the transaction to arrive, these are things they should work on.Anyway, the speed of the transaction can also depend on the fees that we put in. ETH fees are already high nowadays in default, so we might still increase our fees if we want our transactions to get processed faster.
I think moving to POS was the mistake not the design of their blockchain and the smart contracts within it. They somehow survived it until ICO came that bloated their chain because of the number of smart contracts that was created and the vast amount of transactions that is happening. Even before, it was already a slow network and they thought they can fix it by moving to POS. Well, it did somehow but what I like now is the transactions fees getting cheaper but I hate it when it comes to ERC20 fees.
I don't think there's much fixing that will happen but they will always be the top 1 when it comes to the altcoin industry and for many years it's possible that may not change.
I don't think there's much fixing that will happen but they will always be the top 1 when it comes to the altcoin industry and for many years it's possible that may not change.
PoS was supposed to improve performance and focus on cost-efficiency. But so far, things remain the same as before. It's even worse with the "meme" coins craze. We can blame on-chain smart contracts for this.
Wouldn't Ethereum had less load if everything else is moved off-chain (no centralized L2s)? Sort of how Avalanche does. Consensus has its own layer, smart contracts have their own layer, and the base chain (for normal transactions) has its own layer. The 3-tier approach for scaling is genius, imo. ETH devs should redesign the network for the benefit of all. L2s won't stay cheap forever. They're limited by the L1s capabilities.
Solana is even more practical than Ethereum. If it wasn't because of the constant network outages, it would've already "killed" ETH as the leading smart contracts platform in the world. The only reason why ETH is still #1 (as in the number one altcoin), it's because of its first mover advantage. Hopefully, the network will improve to a point where it becomes usable again.
"Undesired" is the part that makes me laugh, the coin itself is second ranked coin that is basically king of all altcoins, and you think that is undesired? All these people who think that it would have been even better without it, could see all the ones without it and how they are not second, not all coins have it, eth does, and it's second ranked. This should have been enough for people to see that it is desired and not undesired but they still want to ignore that part for some reason.
All in all I believe that we are going to see people still do not understand it and look for more, and improvements are fine as long as people like them, but you could also take it to some place that is not wanted, so it should be closely looked if people even want that.
All in all I believe that we are going to see people still do not understand it and look for more, and improvements are fine as long as people like them, but you could also take it to some place that is not wanted, so it should be closely looked if people even want that.
I think moving to POS was the mistake not the design of their blockchain and the smart contracts within it. They somehow survived it until ICO came that bloated their chain because of the number of smart contracts that was created and the vast amount of transactions that is happening. Even before, it was already a slow network and they thought they can fix it by moving to POS. Well, it did somehow but what I like now is the transactions fees getting cheaper but I hate it when it comes to ERC20 fees.
I don't think there's much fixing that will happen but they will always be the top 1 when it comes to the altcoin industry and for many years it's possible that may not change.
I don't think there's much fixing that will happen but they will always be the top 1 when it comes to the altcoin industry and for many years it's possible that may not change.
We have gone through it a million times probably. ETH is a premined shitcoin and centralized. Ripple is another premined shitcoin and also centralized. USDT are fake USD. And then what? nobody really gives a damn.
There is bitcoin, there is litecoin, there is monero and there is doge for the lulz. Tbh I am not really interested in the rest of the crypto. I don't care what real world problem they solve (and usually they don't any), I don't care how they performed. LTC, BTC, DOGE, XMR are enough for everything. If the others disappear tomorrow and the world will become a better place actually.
There is bitcoin, there is litecoin, there is monero and there is doge for the lulz. Tbh I am not really interested in the rest of the crypto. I don't care what real world problem they solve (and usually they don't any), I don't care how they performed. LTC, BTC, DOGE, XMR are enough for everything. If the others disappear tomorrow and the world will become a better place actually.
Indeed, transaction fees on Ethereum are often high and developers are working to address this, for example by increasing network capacity through Ethereum 2.0 and layer-2 solutions like Rollups. While not perfect, these measures are already helping to reduce fees and will hopefully continue to improve over time. Source: https://ethereum.org/en/eth2/ & https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/scaling/layer-2-rollups/
Wasn't Ethereum 2.0 launched already? If I'm not mistaken, this new version brought along the PoS consensus mechanism. Yet, ETH still has high network fees and slow transaction processing times. And L2 networks with Rollups are only short-term solutions to the problem. We need something that would scale the ETH blockchain in the long-term. The only way to do this is by increasing on-chain transaction capacity. But for some reason, developers are reluctant in doing it. They left everything in the hands of L2 devs. Just like how Bitcoin Core devs are right doing now.
With ETH, it's worse because smart contracts take a lot of resources. Constant interactions with the Blockchain will keep it congested for a very long time. Developers should've moved smart contract deployment and execution completely off-chain. Talk about a bad design. Time will tell us if ETH will survive or become a failed experiment. Let's move on, shall we?
From my research it is the transaction fee that is the major problem of Ethereum and the developers have not done anything to douse the issue and another one is the progress of the market price which is very slow foe some investors likeness. And I don't think because of that I will be interested to invest in Ethereum. And those who have invested in it can continue the investment. But I don't think those who started their investment late last year and early this year have made any gain from the investment.
Before venturing into any business one need to find out the advantages and disadvantages of the business and check if the disadvantages are bearable or not cause you can just jump into business knowing fully well that the disadvantages is something to compare with the advantages. Is the person planning to move forward or backward, what an saying in essence is that Etherum Gas fee is too much and their transaction always take longer time before it will arrive, just imagine a situation where someone wants to withdraw from it's ETH wallet to another where he or she can use the money and lets say the thing is very urgent will the person still be waiting for the transaction to arrive, these are things they should work on.
From my research it is the transaction fee that is the major problem of Ethereum and the developers have not done anything to douse the issue and another one is the progress of the market price which is very slow foe some investors likeness. And I don't think because of that I will be interested to invest in Ethereum. And those who have invested in it can continue the investment. But I don't think those who started their investment late last year and early this year have made any gain from the investment.
The fees have been not so cheap before but I think that we're seeing the better side of it and with their efforts, they're starting to lessen the fees. But even with that, the other networks are better in terms of reducing the fees, quickening their transactions and as well as with all of the scalability issues that ETH has, they're able to do something about that. But then, ETH is already popular and it's unlikely to get out of its 2nd spot in the entire market. 
From my research it is the transaction fee that is the major problem of Ethereum and the developers have not done anything to douse the issue and another one is the progress of the market price which is very slow foe some investors likeness. And I don't think because of that I will be interested to invest in Ethereum. And those who have invested in it can continue the investment. But I don't think those who started their investment late last year and early this year have made any gain from the investment.
As Vitalik said the trilemma of blockchains! Everyone knows about ETH problems, so that's why we have so many L2s built on different roll ups!
It is common knowledge that the main problem with ETH is the high transaction costs, and of course the developers have made certain efforts to minimize the costs incurred, one of the ways that is being done is increasing the network scale on each platform, Even though it's not optimal, I think this method will reduce ethereum transaction costs over time.
Indeed, transaction fees on Ethereum are often high and developers are working to address this, for example by increasing network capacity through Ethereum 2.0 and layer-2 solutions like Rollups. While not perfect, these measures are already helping to reduce fees and will hopefully continue to improve over time. Source: https://ethereum.org/en/eth2/ & https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/scaling/layer-2-rollups/ Why more centralization? It's been shown that hardware and storage prices keep dropping.
Now, will people want to bother running a local node is a different discussion. But the 'need more resources' is no more an issue then it really is for most things.
We are still under 2TB and it works fine on a few gen old i7
-Dave
Now, will people want to bother running a local node is a different discussion. But the 'need more resources' is no more an issue then it really is for most things.
We are still under 2TB and it works fine on a few gen old i7
-Dave
The rate at which network congestion grows is higher than the rate at which bandwidth/storage prices decline. Especially when on-chain smart contracts take up a lot of resources. Having Turing-completeness on a Blockchain is a terrible idea, imo. With rising costs, ETH will become utterly-centralized. The staking model will exacerbate the situation. Big exchanges and institutional investment companies will take a big part on the network's consensus with customer funds.
Ethereum is already doomed. That's why no other coin can outmatch Bitcoin. I sure hope it stays that way forever.
What are your thoughts? Does ETH have a bad network design? If not, why? What do you think would be the best approach for scaling ETH (aside from centralized L2s)? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
And that is why the Layer 2 solution was first created on the Ethereum network due to its scalability issue. They have added so many upgrades to the network that I cannot remember but those have not been effective. The transaction fees are still high and that is the reason why the BSC chain became popular in the last bull run and the next in line will be the Solana network as that is what I can forsee. A lot of new crypto projects are now using other blockchains that are cheaper, faster, and can handle congestion or they are using a layer 2 solution.
Actually, Ethereum's design primarily revolves around its attempt to handle both simple transactions and complex smart contracts on the same layer, which has led to network congestion and high gas fees. While Ethereum's Turing-complete virtual machine enables it to support a wide range of decentralized applications (dApps), it has indeed introduced challenges in scalability and efficiency. Still, I say, it's better than most.
The main problem with Ethereum is that it's owned by a company and that it was premined and started as ICO.
Now when it switched to PoS, the company has even more power over it.
May God of thunder strike you if you ever use word "Decentralized" along with this doodoo.
Now when it switched to PoS, the company has even more power over it.
May God of thunder strike you if you ever use word "Decentralized" along with this doodoo.
It is common knowledge that the main problem with ETH is the high transaction costs, and of course the developers have made certain efforts to minimize the costs incurred, one of the ways that is being done is increasing the network scale on each platform, Even though it's not optimal, I think this method will reduce ethereum transaction costs over time.
The design of Ethereum has been a topic of debate, particularly the execution of smart contract completely on chain. This method puts significant pressure on network and eventually leads to higher cost of transactions. Running smart contract off-chain appears a good idea to reduce congestion on network, however, it is upto the team of Ethereum to weigh the pros and cons and determine its viability for implementation.
In summary, there is no inherent flaw in Ethereum's design, however it requires continuous evolution to address scalability challenges while staying true to its core principles.
In summary, there is no inherent flaw in Ethereum's design, however it requires continuous evolution to address scalability challenges while staying true to its core principles.
With ETH's current design, developers will need to continuosly scale the network to keep fees at the minimum. This will lead to centralization issues in the long run. Especially when on-chain computations take up a lot of resources. Keeping everything off-chain is the way to go. Only leave basic financial applications (sending/receiving money) on-chain. Sort of like how Bitcoin does today.
ETH devs are sluggish enough (no offense) to re-design the network. Instead, they're forcing us to move to centralized L2 networks with low liquidity. Just like how BTC Core devs are forcing us to move to the centralized (and flawed) Lightning Network. ETH in its current state is a playground for whales and "Wall Street". Maybe it's time to move to another chain like Avalanche?
Why more centralization? It's been shown that hardware and storage prices keep dropping.
Now, will people want to bother running a local node is a different discussion. But the 'need more resources' is no more an issue then it really is for most things.
We are still under 2TB and it works fine on a few gen old i7
-Dave
The design of Ethereum has been a topic of debate, particularly the execution of smart contract completely on chain. This method puts significant pressure on network and eventually leads to higher cost of transactions. Running smart contract off-chain appears a good idea to reduce congestion on network, however, it is upto the team of Ethereum to weigh the pros and cons and determine its viability for implementation.
In summary, there is no inherent flaw in Ethereum's design, however it requires continuous evolution to address scalability challenges while staying true to its core principles.
In summary, there is no inherent flaw in Ethereum's design, however it requires continuous evolution to address scalability challenges while staying true to its core principles.
With ETH's current design, developers will need to continuosly scale the network to keep fees at the minimum. This will lead to centralization issues in the long run. Especially when on-chain computations take up a lot of resources. Keeping everything off-chain is the way to go. Only leave basic financial applications (sending/receiving money) on-chain. Sort of like how Bitcoin does today.
ETH devs are sluggish enough (no offense) to re-design the network. Instead, they're forcing us to move to centralized L2 networks with low liquidity. Just like how BTC Core devs are forcing us to move to the centralized (and flawed) Lightning Network. ETH in its current state is a playground for whales and "Wall Street". Maybe it's time to move to another chain like Avalanche?
ETH's design was a bad idea from the start. Executing turing-complete smart contracts on-chain, adds undesired network bloat. The Blockchain wasn't designed to handle a large number of interactions per second. Vitalik and team should've separated contract deployment and execution from the main Ethereum blockchain. In other words, smart contracts will run off-chain, while ordinary transactions will run on-chain. Avalanche's 3-layer network design is the best way for scaling. For those unaware, "turing-completeness" means being able to "solve any complex computation problem if provided with enough memory and time".
What are your thoughts? Does ETH have a bad network design? If not, why? What do you think would be the best approach for scaling ETH (aside from centralized L2s)? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
What are your thoughts? Does ETH have a bad network design? If not, why? What do you think would be the best approach for scaling ETH (aside from centralized L2s)? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
The design of Ethereum has been a topic of debate, particularly the execution of smart contract completely on chain. This method puts significant pressure on network and eventually leads to higher cost of transactions. Running smart contract off-chain appears a good idea to reduce congestion on network, however, it is upto the team of Ethereum to weigh the pros and cons and determine its viability for implementation.
In summary, there is no inherent flaw in Ethereum's design, however it requires continuous evolution to address scalability challenges while staying true to its core principles.
I don’t think it’ll be fair to call it bad. We can say that it could be better. All these advancements and preferences you mention, were they available and known at the time? If yes, is there a way we can tell that Vitalik knew that it’d be so while knowing that he could make changes to make it better. What I think is that in software, you may never really know until you write a code and it goes into production. Just like we’ve come to realize Bitcoin can’t handle daily transactions if half the world was to use it.
ETH's design was a bad idea from the start. Executing turing-complete smart contracts on-chain, adds undesired network bloat. The Blockchain wasn't designed to handle a large number of interactions per second. Vitalik and team should've separated contract deployment and execution from the main Ethereum blockchain. In other words, smart contracts will run off-chain, while ordinary transactions will run on-chain. Avalanche's 3-layer network design is the best way for scaling. For those unaware, "turing-completeness" means being able to "solve any complex computation problem if provided with enough memory and time".
What are your thoughts? Does ETH have a bad network design? If not, why? What do you think would be the best approach for scaling ETH (aside from centralized L2s)? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
What are your thoughts? Does ETH have a bad network design? If not, why? What do you think would be the best approach for scaling ETH (aside from centralized L2s)? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
It was good for its time and was an instant success but as demand and use increased, the problems started to be visible. Cryptokitties tested the limits of network. As the network got bigger and bigger, the development team were unable to make it quicker. It's not only the will of the developers but also limitation due to the initial nature of the network. Newer chains learned from the mistakes of Ethereum and worked on solving its problem from scratch. L2 on ethereum are better but they too have limitations of the Ethereum blockchain. Even though they be able to make more transactions per block than Ethereum, they are limited to how Ethereum blockchain develops in the future.
here's one of the things said by a guy who supported ETH being a validator for years. and he is not happy with what is happening in the ENS and all the rest of the tokens that used the Etherchain. it's been happening for years already and we can see it since the time Tether got into most of the L1 projects but are using eth blockchain. users are just up to making profits and not for decentralization.
Quote
I’m an Ethereum node validator mining for over 1100 days! Why because I saw the connections with TradFi years ago and so I took a bet on ETH and wanted to support what they called ETH2. But over the years, I’ve been seeing things which I disagree with. LSD’s, restaking, and sadly this extreme bias with ENS.
These conflicts of interest are fuelled solely by their investments and the price of tokens! It’s an attempt for an inner circle to hold a monopoly over certain services.
The @ethereum foundation recently suggested they need to work on these financial conflicts of interest. The problem is, imho they are empty words.
I’m not sure they can actually put their biases aside because they’re so deeply intertwined with these tokens financially they are ethically and morally corrupt.
They can’t deny it because they are literally saying these things publicly, we have the receipts recorded in podcasts hosted on the Internet for everyone to hear and see.
And for this reason I believe in a multi chain paradigm. Because if you’re going to sit on a high horse with such arrogance believing that nothing can compete due to a first mover advantage.
To me that is a sign of lackadaisical leadership with their eyes off the ball, bellies already too fat from feeding off the ERC-20 trough for too long.
@IOHK_Charles has made a loud and clear message to @BanklessHQ
that if they wish to mock their research and technology at least have the balls to go and do it in person to their communities faces, instead of hiding behind a computer screen with the Ethereum army backing them up.
Charles is right, I’ve not seen Ethereum Maxis talk about any other protocol in the many years I’ve been around in a positive manner. Unless it’s an L2 of course!
They throw shade on anything they’re not connected to financially and for some reason the same goes for .eth they disingenuously push a narrative that it’s the only Ethereum name service 😂 and ironically after doing exactly the same to the Solana community @BanklessHQ have bizarrely pivoted and have been banging on about Solana for about a year now since it hit it’s low of $7 👀 and Vitalik jumped in to pump it! ☝️
I would bet my bottom dollar these guys are heavily invested in Solana now, possible fraudulent and misleading behaviour from social networking influencers pumping their bags. No one would be surprised, this is crypto after all.
@VitalikButerin
knows that if he ever murmured the words of another TLD that uses the Ethereum blockchain that it would harm the price of the ENS token. And that’s why he will pretend for as long as possible that ENS is the only decentralised DNS protocol on the Ethereum Blockchain 🤦♂️
ENS is not even decentralised because of the way they use token weighted governance and the major holders of the tokens happen to be Binance, Coinbase a16z et al and other whales that we’re not too sure who they actually are?
more https://x.com/ZKDID_/status/1799400337612190153 These conflicts of interest are fuelled solely by their investments and the price of tokens! It’s an attempt for an inner circle to hold a monopoly over certain services.
The @ethereum foundation recently suggested they need to work on these financial conflicts of interest. The problem is, imho they are empty words.
I’m not sure they can actually put their biases aside because they’re so deeply intertwined with these tokens financially they are ethically and morally corrupt.
They can’t deny it because they are literally saying these things publicly, we have the receipts recorded in podcasts hosted on the Internet for everyone to hear and see.
And for this reason I believe in a multi chain paradigm. Because if you’re going to sit on a high horse with such arrogance believing that nothing can compete due to a first mover advantage.
To me that is a sign of lackadaisical leadership with their eyes off the ball, bellies already too fat from feeding off the ERC-20 trough for too long.
@IOHK_Charles has made a loud and clear message to @BanklessHQ
that if they wish to mock their research and technology at least have the balls to go and do it in person to their communities faces, instead of hiding behind a computer screen with the Ethereum army backing them up.
Charles is right, I’ve not seen Ethereum Maxis talk about any other protocol in the many years I’ve been around in a positive manner. Unless it’s an L2 of course!
They throw shade on anything they’re not connected to financially and for some reason the same goes for .eth they disingenuously push a narrative that it’s the only Ethereum name service 😂 and ironically after doing exactly the same to the Solana community @BanklessHQ have bizarrely pivoted and have been banging on about Solana for about a year now since it hit it’s low of $7 👀 and Vitalik jumped in to pump it! ☝️
I would bet my bottom dollar these guys are heavily invested in Solana now, possible fraudulent and misleading behaviour from social networking influencers pumping their bags. No one would be surprised, this is crypto after all.
@VitalikButerin
knows that if he ever murmured the words of another TLD that uses the Ethereum blockchain that it would harm the price of the ENS token. And that’s why he will pretend for as long as possible that ENS is the only decentralised DNS protocol on the Ethereum Blockchain 🤦♂️
ENS is not even decentralised because of the way they use token weighted governance and the major holders of the tokens happen to be Binance, Coinbase a16z et al and other whales that we’re not too sure who they actually are?
What are your thoughts?
Scalling is the only main problem of ethereum. It was an experimental blockchain from the start. Other blockchain can only copy and improve it. Does ETH have a bad network design?
It doesn't have a bad network design. How can you call blame the first smartcontract blockchain as a blockchain that has bad network design? Does it make sense? Why don avalanche team release their blockchain before ethereum? Ethereum is an old blockchain, and it has also become the first smartcontract blockchain. I value ethereum not only as a blockchain but it acted as experimental technology before the development of blockchain is growing even faster like this time.
If not, why? What do you think would be the best approach for scaling ETH (aside from centralized L2s)? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
L2 is already the best solution for this. I meant we shall not be going through forking the blockchain anytime. Vitalik has introduced an update for ethereum blockchain to cut L2 fees. Although i must admit ethereum fees is so damn high but it can go so low once you have bridged your ethereum to the L2 blockchain. 
I fear for Ethereum because other competitors are indeed catching up to, the success of Solana and Basechain is a testimony to this, I don't like to talk the technical side because with real commitment fromt the team it can be resolved. Today BNB hit ATH after all the FUD and negativity it suffers due to SEC attack on the exchange but Ethereum continue to lag behind with the ETF news.
I think it might only be a matter of time before ethereum gets surpassed by another altcoin. Though I am not sure about memecoins being the one to do it. Solana is doing really good so we’d have to keep an eye on it to check whether it can maintain its current status or even grow more.One thing for sure though if solana becomes more successful and valuable than ethereum, it will legitimize memecoins and we will see more of them in the field.
ETH's design was a bad idea from the start. Executing turing-complete smart contracts on-chain, adds undesired network bloat. The Blockchain wasn't designed to handle a large number of interactions per second. Vitalik and team should've separated contract deployment and execution from the main Ethereum blockchain. In other words, smart contracts will run off-chain, while ordinary transactions will run on-chain. Avalanche's 3-layer network design is the best way for scaling. For those unaware, "turing-completeness" means being able to "solve any complex computation problem if provided with enough memory and time".
What are your thoughts? Does ETH have a bad network design? If not, why? What do you think would be the best approach for scaling ETH (aside from centralized L2s)? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
ETH was actually launched so that the altcoins market can compete with BTC market but the major problem that were faced was congestion and then we see that chains like SOL come into play where they solved the issues that were faced in ETH.What are your thoughts? Does ETH have a bad network design? If not, why? What do you think would be the best approach for scaling ETH (aside from centralized L2s)? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Now it's time that either ETH upgrade itself utpo a certain extent otherwise SOL will take over the chain. These two are in a tussle and they both are very much in market due to continuous upgrades.
I fear for Ethereum because other competitors are indeed catching up to, the success of Solana and Basechain is a testimony to this, I don't like to talk the technical side because with real commitment fromt the team it can be resolved. Today BNB hit ATH after all the FUD and negativity it suffers due to SEC attack on the exchange but Ethereum continue to lag behind with the ETF news.
Exchanges are only obligated to do just one main job and that's simple, making trades simple and smooth running. ETH is listed among the promising project in the market and have become one of the top project after bitcoin. However as we're concerned with the project, we should also consider the high gas fee and become more curious because it makes us spend extra because everyone would be so bend to see the enormous profits. I do not think ethereum has bad design until it moved from PoW to PoS which makes it further to become more centralized. What I do not like about ethereum is that it was an ICO. Its developers sold some coins to early investors when the coin has not started trading. This is another reason the coin is very centralized. Another thing is that its developers like Vitalik Buterin have so much influence on the coin which also makes it centralized. The coin is centralized to an extent.
Exactly. Bitcoin never had an ICO. Even its creator Satoshi Nakamoto was anonymous. He left the project in the hands of the community. With ETH, it's all of the contrary. People are following Vitalik blindly instead of sticking with crypto's true ideals/principles. ETH was centralized from the very beginning. But now it's worse with the PoS upgrade.
As I've stated before, deploying and executing smart contracts on-chain is a terrible idea. The Blockchain wasn't designed to handle constant interactions/computations per second. So-called "decentralized applications" will eventually clog the Blockchain network. Why not move it off-chain instead? Only put token transactions on-chain to help reduce network congestion. Don't expect ETH developers to fix this, especially when it's not in their best interests to do so. I'm afraid on-chain gas fees will remain high for as long as ETH lives. At least, we have plenty of options to choose from.
Ethereum was designed to look like bitcoin as decentralized project and that was why I invested in it but seen slow movement of the price made me to realize that the project is not good to invest. Ethereum would have been the second best cryptocurrency in the industry but I don't think so though it is the second in the market but people are investing in other coins more than Ethereum. And the element of Centralization is also there through the wallet.
Ethereum MEW is sharing with other projects which is not good as a decentralized cryptocurrency project. If a project is decentralized then it has to separate itself from other projects with all ramifications. So from the onset when I see the wallet with other projects, I see it as a centralized project and not decentralized project. And that is one of the main project I detected in the Ethereum project. Though the approval of the ETF is making the coin price increase.
Ethereum MEW is sharing with other projects which is not good as a decentralized cryptocurrency project. If a project is decentralized then it has to separate itself from other projects with all ramifications. So from the onset when I see the wallet with other projects, I see it as a centralized project and not decentralized project. And that is one of the main project I detected in the Ethereum project. Though the approval of the ETF is making the coin price increase.
Ethereum is my favorite altcoin, its strength lies in smart contracts and its many erc2' tokens. It is true that if there are many transactions at the same time, the network slows down but hopefully with the next upgrades this problem will also be solved, more and more blockchains are adopting /create eth
Ethereum has been undergoing multiple upgrades, and the primary objective is to be enhance its scalability. As it's still the most decentralized smart contract platform so far, I believe a solution to address scalability issues will eventually be implemented over time.
and so the reason for developing the layer 2 solution for those issues including the issue with fees because of this congestion.
despite this problem though, there is a huge interest in making money out of ETH because of its POS upgrade and institutions are getting to pour more of its staking and they like it because its a cash cow for the rich validators.
I fear for Ethereum because other competitors are indeed catching up to, the success of Solana and Basechain is a testimony to this, I don't like to talk the technical side because with real commitment fromt the team it can be resolved. Today BNB hit ATH after all the FUD and negativity it suffers due to SEC attack on the exchange but Ethereum continue to lag behind with the ETF news.
Ethereum, to be honest despite its many attempts in fixing their scalability issues, remain to have high gas fees which should be immediately addressed.
I don't think so because ethereum is a decentralized blockchain network, which means it is not controlled by any single entity. It allows cryptocurrencies and decentralized apps to run on it. Directly editing or fixing Ethereum is not easy because it would go against its decentralized nature where no one has full control. Making big changes to Ethereum without proper consensus could disrupt its decentralization. So, addressing high gas fees or other issues should be done step-by-step, through planned upgrades that the entire Ethereum community agrees on, rather than sudden major edits that could break the system's decentralized design. 
Ethereum has been undergoing multiple upgrades, and the primary objective is to be enhance its scalability.
That much can be deduced from The Merge. Ethereum switching from Proof of Work to Proof of Stake proved to be a move towards solving scalability issues as well as environmental concerns. Quote
I believe a solution to address scalability issues will eventually be implemented over time.
Ethereum, to be honest despite its many attempts in fixing their scalability issues, remain to have high gas fees which should be immediately addressed. 
Gas fees can often be too high & it’s the fact that it’s POS which makes me uncomfortable about its long term future. I’m sure it will do well over the short to mid term, the Spot ETF will drive investment but Vitalik having too much control is a big negative to me.
it definitely has it flaws, but the layer 2 has done helped the scalability to some extent by offloading the transaction to these layer 2 blockchains which in result after the introduction of blobs to replace calldata proven to help reduce the transaction fee significantly meaning the attempt to scale further the ethereum blockchain is somewhat successful though occasionally when there are sudden flood of transaction such as when there's airdrop claiming event and so on, the fee get back up again. at this point I think the problem in regard of scalability almost solved.
And that is why the Layer 2 solution was first created on the Ethereum network due to its scalability issue. They have added so many upgrades to the network that I cannot remember but those have not been effective. The transaction fees are still high and that is the reason why the BSC chain became popular in the last bull run and the next in line will be the Solana network as that is what I can forsee. A lot of new crypto projects are now using other blockchains that are cheaper, faster, and can handle congestion or they are using a layer 2 solution.
the perk of being latecomer they can easily find the weak point that they can improve on in releasing the next iteration of the smart contract based blockchain but being the first ever smart contract blockchain as ethereum is that you just don't know what kind of problem gonna be appearing next that could possibly congest the blockchain. so can't really blame ethereum on falling short on certain capability.
at the end of the day ethereum still got that advantage of matured ecosystem overall which many new blockchain can't imitate or come close to.
hopefully next upgrade there will be many surprises that could help significantly in improving ethereum scalability.
What are your thoughts? Does ETH have a bad network design? If not, why? What do you think would be the best approach for scaling ETH (aside from centralized L2s)? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
And that is why the Layer 2 solution was first created on the Ethereum network due to its scalability issue. They have added so many upgrades to the network that I cannot remember but those have not been effective. The transaction fees are still high and that is the reason why the BSC chain became popular in the last bull run and the next in line will be the Solana network as that is what I can forsee. A lot of new crypto projects are now using other blockchains that are cheaper, faster, and can handle congestion or they are using a layer 2 solution.
at the end of the day ethereum still got that advantage of matured ecosystem overall which many new blockchain can't imitate or come close to.
hopefully next upgrade there will be many surprises that could help significantly in improving ethereum scalability.
(...)What are your thoughts? Does ETH have a bad network design? If not, why? What do you think would be the best approach for scaling ETH (aside from centralized L2s)? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
But in recent years, I've really not been concerned with ETH's technology-related issues, because at the time of launch it was considered a star in the field, but up to this point, competitors have introduced new solutions to differentiate themselves many restrictions were created. But in the end, the reason why people still prioritize using Bitcoin, ETH,... old things is not just a technology story. Anyway, I, like many people here, approach ETH to make profits, and actually have much greater faith in it than the rest, proving the ETF spot story
I do not think ethereum has bad design until it moved from PoW to PoS which makes it further to become more centralized. What I do not like about ethereum is that it was an ICO. Its developers sold some coins to early investors when the coin has not started trading. This is another reason the coin is very centralized. Another thing is that its developers like Vitalik Buterin have so much influence on the coin which also makes it centralized. The coin is centralized to an extent.
What are your thoughts? Does ETH have a bad network design? If not, why? What do you think would be the best approach for scaling ETH (aside from centralized L2s)? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
And that is why the Layer 2 solution was first created on the Ethereum network due to its scalability issue. They have added so many upgrades to the network that I cannot remember but those have not been effective. The transaction fees are still high and that is the reason why the BSC chain became popular in the last bull run and the next in line will be the Solana network as that is what I can forsee. A lot of new crypto projects are now using other blockchains that are cheaper, faster, and can handle congestion or they are using a layer 2 solution.
ETH's design was a bad idea from the start. Executing turing-complete smart contracts on-chain, adds undesired network bloat. The Blockchain wasn't designed to handle a large number of interactions per second. Vitalik and team should've separated contract deployment and execution from the main Ethereum blockchain. In other words, smart contracts will run off-chain, while ordinary transactions will run on-chain. Avalanche's 3-layer network design is the best way for scaling. For those unaware, "turing-completeness" means being able to "solve any complex computation problem if provided with enough memory and time".
What are your thoughts? Does ETH have a bad network design? If not, why? What do you think would be the best approach for scaling ETH (aside from centralized L2s)? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
What are your thoughts? Does ETH have a bad network design? If not, why? What do you think would be the best approach for scaling ETH (aside from centralized L2s)? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
ETH was launched for the purpose of creating projects on their blockchain instead of creating their own and they had been successful in that even until 2018 then only the number of transactions on chain is getting out of the limit from that they are going through multiple upgrades to make it reliable and feasible solution even they switched from PoW to PoS just for the same reason.
But moving smart contracts off-chain will make it more centralized network then people will lose trust over so I don't think they will be interested in doing that.
Ethereum has been undergoing multiple upgrades, and the primary objective is to be enhance its scalability. As it's still the most decentralized smart contract platform so far, I believe a solution to address scalability issues will eventually be implemented over time.
ETH's design was a bad idea from the start. Executing turing-complete smart contracts on-chain, adds undesired network bloat. The Blockchain wasn't designed to handle a large number of interactions per second. Vitalik and team should've separated contract deployment and execution from the main Ethereum blockchain. In other words, smart contracts will run off-chain, while ordinary transactions will run on-chain. Avalanche's 3-layer network design is the best way for scaling. For those unaware, "turing-completeness" means being able to "solve any complex computation problem if provided with enough memory and time".
What are your thoughts? Does ETH have a bad network design? If not, why? What do you think would be the best approach for scaling ETH (aside from centralized L2s)? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
What are your thoughts? Does ETH have a bad network design? If not, why? What do you think would be the best approach for scaling ETH (aside from centralized L2s)? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Jump to: