Ethereum: Why not restart every block?
Ethereum Blockchain was a revolutionary platform for decentralized applications (DAPPS) and smart contracts since its founding in 2015. However, one of the key features that makes Ethereum so attractive to developers is its ability to handle high quantities of transactions and large blocks. One aspect of this functionality, which can sometimes lead to problems with scalability and performance is diverting.
Withdrawal on each block refers to the practice of installing a time mark at the end of each block, allowing to execute more effective and smooth transactions. This feature was first presented in the Ethereum version for 2016, and has since become an essential part of Blockchain’s architecture. In this article, we will explore why the diverting is not applied to every block and what implications I can have on the Ethereum ecosystem.
District History
Retargeting for the first time introduced Vitalik Buterin in 2016 as a way to improve the performance and scalability of the Ethereum network. The idea was to create a time tag at the end of each block, which would allow for more effective processing of transactions and reduce the load on the network.
However, since its inception, retarding has been a little more complex than it was originally planned. One of the main reasons is that it requires significant changes to the basic blockchain protocol. The current Ethereum architecture relies greatly on the use of Merkle trees and mechanisms for proof of work (POW) to secure the network, which makes it difficult to implement the diverting on each block.
Why not every block of is applied
There are several reasons why diverting is not applied on each block:
- Safety : Implementation of diverting on each block would require a significant increase in safety risks for users and network as a whole. The use of the time mark at the end of each block creates a unique identifier, which can be used to monitor transactions and prevent malicious activities.
- Scalability : Refund requires a large number of unique identifiers, which can lead to increased computer costs for the network. This could adversely affect scalability and performance if retarding is applied to each block.
- Cost : Implementation of diverting on each block would also require significant investment in the development of infrastructure and software.
The consequences of not diverting
If retargeting was not carried out on each block, it could have several consequences:
- Increased transaction time : without diverting, transactions should wait for a time tag at the end of each block, which could lead to a longer transaction time.
- Reduced scalability : as mentioned above, retargeting requires significant computer resources, and not applying to each block can adversely affect scalability.
- Increased safety risks : without diverting, users would be more sensitive to malicious activities that use unique identifiers.
Conclusion
Although redirect is an essential part of Ethereum architecture, there are valid reasons why it is applied only to every blocks from 2016. The introduction of diverting required significant changes in the fundamental protocol, and these changes affected scalability, safety and costs. Although some may claim that diverting is not worth additional computer costs and security risks, it is clear that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
future improvements
In order to improve the scalability and performance of Ethereum, researchers are exploring alternative solutions such as shaving, transactions outside the chain and more effective mechanisms for proof of work. One potential solution is the use of an “time layer” approach, where the time markings are used only in optimization purposes, not the reason for safety or scalability.