Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
abranti
@abranti
I'm trying to sum up the Solana vs Ethereum discussion. Can someone help? Solana: - Uses a consensus mechanism (PoH) that allows more throughput but requires better computers which is a centralising force (computers will improve tho) - No need for bridging (the L1 already scales)
3 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
abranti
@abranti
Ethereum: - Cheaper to set up a node (more decentralised) - Can scale with L2s but requires bridging which is a bad UX (can this be fixed though?) Ethereum's goal is to be the cheapest L1 to set up nodes and the easiest to build L2. This makes it technology agnostic when it comes to scaling.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
abranti
@abranti
I think if the UX problem can improve then a Solana-like L2 on eth would have the best of both worlds? High-throughput and cheap nodes. What am I missing? Can the UX problem be fixed?
3 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Caster Cat #648 🎩🧾
@ariansh.eth
This is oversimplifying it but if you are envisioning an SVM L2 then the UX problem is solved or at least on par with other L1s the moment centralized exchanges integrate the chain
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Matthew Fox 🌐
@matthewfox
Have you seen this? https://www.eclipse.builders/
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Trigs
@trigs
UX problem you describe is solved with IBC, which is now or soon to be available on nearly every single major L1. With that, app chains or L2s can address the unique use case performance needs, compartmentalizing the centralization risks. Solana is still relevant here, just more niche, as it should be imo.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
