Solana vs Ethereum again: ‘Small blocker argument’ returns

Ethereum’s disregard of L1s raises questions once again.
Layer 2 security concerns challenge Ethereum’s decentralization commitment.

During the current cryptocurrency market decline, Ethereum (ETH), the primary alternative coin, follows Bitcoin‘s (BTC) negative trend as indicated by their daily and weekly charts which are dominated by red colors.

In one day, there was a small decrease of 3%, but over the past week, larger drops exceeding 10% have occurred frequently.

In spite of Ethereum’s unpredictable ups and downs, a surprising query emerges: Is Ethereum’s design still number one?

Concerns surrounding ETH’s architecture?

Recently, David Hoffman, a co-owner at Bankless, emphasized in an article how the long-term consequences of the Bitcoin block size debates continue to shape the modern crypto world.

Many individuals express differing views on constructing cryptocurrencies or what their final forms should be. These perspectives can be categorized as either obstructive, presenting significant challenges, or accommodating, proposing smaller adjustments.

Interestingly, outlining the modern-day scenario he added,

“Solana is the big blocker and Ethereum is the small blocker.”

The dispute between Solana (SOL) and Ethereum continues, with Solana focusing on providing fast, cost-free transactions at the base layer (L1), while Ethereum places greater importance on decentralization and addresses scalability through Layer 2 solutions.

Moving forward, exploring the intricacies of block complexity, Hoffman made a comparison between blockchains with and without a virtual machine, stating,

Before Ethereum, all previous blockchain platforms lacked a crucial feature. Instead of providing a fully functional virtual machine, they attempted to include capabilities through separate op-codes.

Moreover, Vitalik Buterin emphasized in his 2019 piece the significance of striking a harmonious equilibrium between scalability and decentralization.

“Simplify the first layer, but don’t rely on it alone for both scalability and advanced features in a blockchain system.”

Buterin made this statement as this method overlooks the importance of L1 blockchains having enough scalability and functionality for further development on them.

What’s more to it?

It’s worth mentioning that this development has made ETH more expensive for individual users yet more attractive for larger entities such as chains, exchanges, and funds.

Remarking on the same, @RyanSAdams highlighted,

“’Ethereum is too expensive’ is a really bad take.”

Additionally, comparing Ethereum L2 solutions with the Cosmos chains, Sam Hart noted,

In simpler terms, choosing to develop a self-governing app is not about technology or building an interconnected network, but rather being part of the Cosmos.

Lately, accusations against some leading Layer 2 Ethereum projects regarding the handling of user funds have caused uncertainty about Ethereum’s dedication to decentralization. This apprehension resonates with the concerns previously expressed by Justin Bons.

“ETH gives decentralization lip service, but actions speak louder than words.”

All this brings forth a question: Does Ethereum’s architecture need a revamp?

2024-04-18 19:04

Concerns surrounding ETH’s architecture?

What’s more to it?

Read More