1/19) There are three approaches to scaling a blockchain:
1. "L2 scaling" (BTC, ETH, TIA)
2. Parallelization (SOL, APT, SUI)
3. Sharding (TON, NEAR, EGLD)
Sharding is the future & parallelization is inevitable
There is no doubt in my mind that this is how it will all play out:
2/19) As "L2 scaling" guarantees inferior UX & weaker token economics
As it fails to keep fees within the L1 & fragmentation ruins the UX
The monolithic approach to scaling (parallelization & sharding) does not fall victim to these fatal flaws
By remaining as a coherent whole
3/19) Parallelization is inevitable, as it is unbelievably stupid not to multithread all client software
All modern CPUs have multiple cores, yet chains like ETH & BTC still only process TXs sequentially
Leaving the majority of validator hardware underutilized, a massive waste!
4/19) The same is true for sharded chains, as each shard should be parallelized
To maximize individual shard capacity
Sharding is a logical progression from parallelization
By extending concurrency from multiple cores to now splitting the workload between multiple computers!
5/19) This is what has smashed previous scalability records
Sharded systems are now capable of achieving 100k+ TPS, with theoretical limits approaching 1M+ TPS!
All while keeping node requirements relatively low
This is how the blockchain trilemma has been solved with sharding
6/19) Traditional blockchain designs all suffer from the blockchain trilemma
Because at a certain point, node requirements get so high that they threaten decentralization
As all nodes have to verify all global state changes, it fundamentally does not scale
Sharding solves this
7/19) Unlike traditional design, sharded chains scale capacity with usage
Whereas non-sharded chains always hit a brick wall eventually
When a sharded chain gains adoption with more usage & validators, it is able to spin up a new shard
In other words, sharding scales linearly!
8/19) Whereas other blockchains scale quadratically
This means that node requirements get higher & higher as the network grows until it hits physical limits
As we can only process so much within a single silicon chip
Compared to what we can achieve with networks of computers!
9/19) There is a lot of misinformation around sharding; I will counter two:
"You can attack individual shards"; Shards share L1 security due to randomized validator shuffling
"No composability"; cross-shard communication is built in natively; ensuring seamless interoperability
10/19) The irony of these criticisms is that "L2 scaling" is more guilty of the exact same flaws:
"You can attack individual L2s"; this is true, considering that admin keys & decentralized sequencers require their own consensus
"No composability"; also true, without enshrining
11/19) Fortunately, the leap from parallelized to sharded
Is a much shorter one compared to modular chains
All while parallelization is likely to provide sufficient capacity for many years to come
This is why I can, in good conscience, support chains in the last two categories
12/19) Monolithic scaling still allows modular scaling to take place with L2s
Allowing the free market to choose the best possible solution
Whereas modular scaling is more akin to central planning by the L1 to force modular scaling
By making the market choose another L1/L2
13/19) We have to draw a line when it comes to modular blockchains
As I am convinced modular scaling is a technological dead-end
Even worse, it sets our movement back, as people wrongly associate modular design with cryptocurrency
Slow, expensive & difficult; that is modular
14/19) Whereas monolithic designs are fast, cheap, easy to use & understand
ETH could still pivot back to a sharding if the community provides sufficient pushback
This would likely lead to a block size debate style fork, as the old guard attempts to hold on to their power
15/19) Make no mistake that entrenched power within ETH will not be easy to overcome
As L2 funding; VC investment & tokens provide a strong incentive against L1 scaling in ETH
It might therefore be much easier to vote with our feet
As ETH also lacks good on-chain governance
16/19) I am not ETH's enemy but its friend
If I am right, ETH's greatest enemies are entrenched within its leadership, as was also the case in BTC
As power corrupts & absolutely power corrupts absolutely
I will not derail this thread into governance; I covered that elsewhere
17/19) The bottom line, putting tribalism aside
Is that there is a correct path to take for the evolution of blockchain technology
Which, as I have explained, is monolithic scaling
Modular scaling advocates often cite the blockchain trilemma as the reason for their advocacy
18/19) An ideology I wholeheartedly respect
As there are many good & intelligent people supporting "L2 scaling"
However, that belief is based on a flawed assumption
As evidence of viable L1 scaling continues to pile up, contrary to the modular thesis
It is becoming a mountain
19/19) Far too large to deny
As alternative chains overtake BTC & ETH in several usage metrics
The truth is out there for anyone who wants to see
Monolithic scaling is the future, empowering everyone to use blockchain directly
Bringing us full circle, back to Satoshi's vision
From Twitter
Disclaimer: The content above is only the author's opinion which does not represent any position of Followin, and is not intended as, and shall not be understood or construed as, investment advice from Followin.
Like
Add to Favorites
Comments
Share
Relevant content