Content
@
0 reply
26 recasts
26 reactions
Roberto Bayardo 🎩
@bayardo.eth
Regarding Base transaction fees: they are high because the chain is at its target capacity (2x the throughput of the L1), but demand has increased dramatically. Data fees remain insignificant thanks to EIP-4844 blobs which are still far from capacity! So while "it could be worse..." what can make it better? (cont)
8 replies
26 recasts
126 reactions
obvs ((internet of money))
@obvs
What are your thoughts on past experiments in pumping the gas limit (let’s say Polyon in the early days, then BSC and others). State growth is an issue for L1 because of the type of home users they target long before it’s an issue for professional infrastructure providers.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Roberto Bayardo 🎩
@bayardo.eth
Both BSC and Polygon are great examples of how NOT to push the limits, as they suffered bad chain halts and other issues, and both those chains are basically impossible for anyone to sync from scratch now.
4 replies
1 recast
7 reactions
Ismeth
@ism.eth
BSC has been targeting 18x what Base does for over 2 years, and that’s with the consensus overhead. I think being over cautious at this point is just wrong. Move fast break things doesn’t apply to L1 but it applies to L2s.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Tim Robinson
@timjrobinson
Why can't users snap sync from the latest finalized (including challenge delay) block on Ethereum? Doesn't seem like there's any risk in that over syncing from scratch
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
obvs ((internet of money))
@obvs
BSC yes, but I believe that’s more to do with rushed code changes to geth than the block limit. I would expect syncing to rely more on snapshot for the L2 than it be a full sync from genesis. I realise the architectures differ, but how is Arbitrum currently handling this?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
TiⓂ️brrr 🎩🧢 ↑ 🍖
@twb
You speak to a pain point we experience weekly. It’s indeed brutal.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
