shazow
@shazow.eth
Solana has a per-contract (account) fee market. Ethereum has a global fee market. To make Ethereum fees go up, the entire chain has to be congested. To make Solana fees go up, only the contract you're using needs to be congested. With this goal post, Solana is always experiencing defacto liveness failures.
3 replies
0 recast
14 reactions
accountless.eth
@accountless.eth
👀 is this worse or better in your mind? where should their goalpost be?
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
shazow
@shazow.eth
I think it's cherrypicking a convenient narrative in either case. Plenty of cases of people having bad experiences on Solana only to be gaslit with "lol works for me" (because "for me" is a different account that is not contested). https://warpcast.com/helladj/0xd23a03eb IMO a big concern is how expensive it is to effectively DoS urgent/important transactions like avoiding a liquidation. It's much more expensive to censor on Ethereum than on Solana for a specific contract at a specific short timeframe.
2 replies
1 recast
4 reactions
Señor Doggo
@fubuloubu
I like the per-contract fee market, but tbh this is a deal breaker if the fee rate rises faster in a per-contract fee market than it does in a global one You should design for the worst case scenario
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
shazow
@shazow.eth
Agree, the tradeoff of picking a very narrow fee market is that it's cheaper to spike that narrower market (vs expensive to spike the global market). I certainly believe we can do better (multdimensional gas, rollups, other techniques), but this ain't it for a robust censorship-resistant World Computer. Also another observation: Per-contract fee markets trend to similar per-contract design as rollups, you have to load balance contracts (hot spots) which results in similar interop challenges/techniques that based rollups experience. IMO if we "solve" rollups, we're solving a superset of problems/solutions here.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
