Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dogan
@doganeth
My personal opinions & first thoughts about Beam Chain. The idea is simple; - We have too many possible improvements on the L1 consensus. - However, we don't have any dedicated "paths" to move forward and get these improvements on the L1. - Beam gives an overview & possible paths to get needed improvements to ETH L1 consensus. The beam chain is an independent chain that works simultaneously with the Beacon. After getting all the improvements and tests done, the Beam chain will be replaced (or merged, idk how to call it) with Beacon. This refers to a "batched" subset of optimizations on Ethereum. The idea is great, and I'm sure ETH devs will execute it perfectly, However, the idea of continuing with the same Beacon chain until 2029 does not seem to be the best thing we can do.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Dogan
@doganeth
I think we need some "agile" improvements that directly affect users and Ethereum's security. For example, if we continue with 12-second block times and long finality times, rollups' interop will be impossible - until Beam Fork. If we continue with the same PBS implementation on the L1, block production will be centralized until 2029. Is this the best we can do? So, sharing the same vision for the endgame -Beam- and working for it is great, but postponing the all possible improvements to Beam is not I'm super happy with Justin's leadership and will do my best to contribute to Ethereum's success. I'm just afraid of Ethereum being bad while looking for the perfect. "Perfect is the enemy of good."
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
