|
|
|
The debate over block size has persisted throughout the history of crypto development, continuing to this day. We no longer refer to these factions as Big Blockers or Small Blockers; today, people have found more resonant modern factions, typically defined by specific L1s. However, the differing philosophies expressed by these two camps can be seen in the cultures and belief systems of various L1 camps, whether they realize it or not. Today, the debate between Small Blockers and Big Blockers manifests in the Ethereum vs Solana dispute. The Solana camp points out that Ethereum is too expensive and too slow to bring the world onto the chain. Unless transactions are instant and free, consumers won't use cryptocurrencies. We need to design L1 with as much capacity as possible. The Ethereum camp argues that this is a fundamental compromise on decentralization and trust neutrality, with winners and losers set, ultimately leading to the same social and financial stratification we're trying to escape. We should focus on increasing the density and value of L1 blocks and force expansion into L2s. This debate is nothing new. The crypto landscape is constantly changing, adapting, and evolving, but the debate over small and large block concepts remains the same. Ethereum's biggest innovation from 0 to 1 was adding a virtual machine to the blockchain. All chains before Ethereum lacked this crucial element of a virtual machine; they attempted to add individual opcode functionality rather than a fully expressive virtual machine. Early Bitcoiner philosophies disagreed with this choice because it added complexity to the system, expanded the attack surface, and increased the difficulty of block validation. Although both Bitcoin and Ethereum belong to the "small block" chain, the expansion of the virtual machine scope still creates a significant wedge between these two communities. Today, you can clearly see the division of some modern blockchain ideology into larger camps. |
|
Post time 20-4-2024 21:13:25