Vitalik Buterin argued that increasing Ethereum L1 L1 gas capacity is necessary to support the inclusion of transactions and the development of applications when most activities occur on L2. In a new blog article, Buterin described the calculations suggesting that an expansion of around 10 × in the L1 capacity would preserve key network functions even if applications migrate to layer 2 solutions.
The gas limit defines the maximum quantity of calculation work which can be carried out in a single block, by defining a higher limit on the transactions and operations processed. The increase in the gas limit widens the ability of the protocol to process more work -by -block calculation work, allowing it to manage a higher volume of transactions and more complex operations while influencing the dynamics of costs.
Recent 20% increase in the gas limit
Buterin’s analysis is based on the recent increase in the L1 gas limit from 30 million to 36 million, which increases the capacity of 20%.
Buterin noted that additional increases, activated by improving efficiency among Ethereum customers, reducing the storage of the history of the EIP-44444 and the possible adoption of stateless customers, could offer advantages to long term. His discussion frames the debate on scaling by comparing the current gas needs with more ideal scenarios in several use cases.
As Buterin reported, the resistance to censorship remains a critical function. He demonstrated that bypassing – designed to overcome potential censorship on L2 – could cost around $ 4.50 at current gas prices. In maze the capacity of L1 of approximately 4.5 ×, these costs could be driven, ensuring that valid transactions quickly reach the blockchain even under congestion. In a similar vein, cross-active asset movements-L2, including asset transfers and high volume NFT, are currently engaging costs nearly $ 14 per operation.
Buterin estimates suggest that with an improved design and a scaling factor of around 5.5 × to 6 ×, such transactions can be executed at a fraction of this cost, potentially as low as 0, $ 28 in an ideal configuration.
Massive outlets of L2S
Buterin’s analysis extends to the scenarios involving massive outing of L2. An output refers to the operation by which users remove their assets from a layer 2 solution to the main chain of Ethereum (L1), generally to protect funds during network disturbances or other emergencies.
It calculated that by virtue of current parameters, an output requiring 120,000 gases per user would allow between 7.56 million and 32.4 million users to leave a period of one week to 30 days, depending on the design . With optimized protocols, reducing the cost per exit operation to around 7,500 gases – the number of users capable of leaving in complete safety could increase considerably, supporting millions more and reducing the risk of liquidity or security problems during Network stress periods.
Addressing the token emission, Buterin observed that many new ERC20 tokens are launched on L2. However, the tokens emitted on L2 can be vulnerable if an upgrade of hostile governance occurs, a risk attenuated by the launch on L1. He cited examples such as the deployment of the Railgun token, where the cost was greater than 1.6 million gases.
Even if these costs were reduced to approximately 120,000 gases, expenditure per issue remain nearly $ 4.50, which implies that a scaling factor up to 18 × may be necessary for launches of more widespread and profitable tokens that meet the target costs lower.
The discussion also covered operations related to key portfolios. Buterin estimated that for generalized key updates, assuming that 50,000 gases per operation, an increase of 3.3 × of the gas capacity could be necessary, although efficiency gains reducing the cost to around 7 500 gases per operation can reduce this requirement to almost 1.1 ×.
Likewise, frequent submissions of evidence in L2, necessary to maintain up -to -date interoperability between channels, currently impose substantial costs which limit the number of viable L2. With approved aggregation protocols potentially reduced by costs by submission to approximately 10,000 gases, a scaling factor of around 10 × would be necessary to make L2 to L1 updates regularly viable.
Buerin calculations point out that despite most of the activities that move to L2, maintaining the Robust L1 functionality is essential to preserve resistance to censorship, allow transfers of effective assets, support massive outlets, save the ‘ emission emission and facilitate interoperability.
As Buerin concluded, the increase in the L1 gas capacity offers value by ensuring that the fundamental blockchain operations remain secure and accessible even as the network use models are evolving.
Its analysis frames a clear argument for short -term scaling measures which could protect the central functions of Ethereum, regardless of the long -term balance between activity L1 and L2.
Mentioned in this article
