Vitalik Buterin’s Wild Ride: Can Ethereum Survive the Gas Wars?

by

Ah, Ethereum—the blockchain that’s like that one friend who insists on ordering the most complicated drink at the bar. You know, the one that takes ten minutes to make and costs more than your last three meals combined? Well, it seems our dear co-founder, Vitalik Buterin, has decided that the gas limit needs a little boost. Recently, it was cranked up to a whopping 36 million. But wait! The debate rages on like a family Thanksgiving dinner—should we raise it even higher? 🍗

Conclusion (as a table)

— vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) February 14, 2025

While Layer 2 solutions are out there doing the heavy lifting, Vitalik is waving his hands like a conductor, insisting that we can’t forget about Layer 1. He’s suggesting we scale it up by nearly ten times. Why? Because who doesn’t want to simplify application development and improve security? It’s like saying, “Let’s make our house bigger so we can fit all the junk we’ve accumulated over the years.”

Now, let’s talk about censorship resistance, which is basically Ethereum’s way of saying, “We don’t want anyone telling us what to do.” A decentralized network should process transactions faster than a kid can say “I want ice cream!” when they see the ice cream truck. But here’s the kicker: L1 validators are decentralized, making censorship as difficult as finding a parking spot in a crowded mall. Meanwhile, Layer 2 solutions are like that exclusive club with a bouncer who decides who gets inand who doesn’t. 😒

“The practical value of the censorship resistance guarantee is dependent on (i) L1 fees being sufficiently low, and (ii) L1 having enough space that users can send bypass transactions even if an L2 censors a large number of users en masse,” Vitalik said.

Ethereum’s Layer 1 Faces Cost Hurdles—$4.50 vs. $1 Debate

So, here’s the deal: Ethereum’s L1 is like a safety net for when Layer 2 networks decide to play hardball. If an L2 refuses to process your transaction, you can always fall back on L1—but it’ll cost you. Right now, that’s about $4.50 per transaction. Vitalik thinks we should aim for less than a buck. Because who doesn’t want to save a few pennies? Achieving that would require a 4.5x increase in L1 capacity. It’s like trying to fit a giraffe into a Mini Cooper. Good luck with that!

And let’s not forget about cross-L2 asset transfers. Moving assets between different L2s is like trying to navigate a maze blindfolded. It currently costs around $13.87 per transaction. With a little luck and some better designs, we could get that down to a mere $0.28. But, of course, that would require at least a sixfold increase in L1 scalability. Because why not add more challenges to the mix?

But wait, there’s more! In extreme cases, like a mass exit from an L2, users need L1 to process withdrawals. Right now, it could only support 7.56 million users exiting a failing Plasma chain in a week. That’s like trying to evacuate a stadium during a fire drill—chaotic and not very reassuring.

The Challenge of Mass Exits and ERC20 Security

Optimizing mass exit protocols could allow L1 to support up to 121 million users in a single week, or 518 million over a month. But even with these improvements, handling the scale of a global platform is like trying to herd cats. If Ethereum wants to support a PlayStation-sized user base—around 116 million users—its current infrastructure might just throw up its hands and say, “I give up!”

And let’s not overlook security. Issuing ERC20 tokens on L1 is like putting on a seatbelt—stronger protections against governance attacks. Many tokens launch on L2s, but their security is as reliable as a politician’s promise. L1 issuance is safer, but it’s also pricier. Reducing L1 transaction costs could encourage more secure token launches, especially for those smaller markets that are just trying to make a name for themselves.

Finally, wallet operations like key management add to Ethereum’s gas burden. Keystore wallets with L1 verification could simplify cross-L2 interactions, but gas costs need to drop faster than a hot potato for this to be practical. One potential solution? Shift key management functions to L2s while keeping L1-based security features. Because who doesn’t love a good compromise?

2025-02-14 22:29