[obstacle1]

So this is Yet Another Liquidity Pool? $14B is not the kind of scale I mean. That is frankly trivial especially when transactions are large (or initial funding is high).

What I mean is, if blockchain is going to be a revolutionary technology backing all finance, where is the evidence it can handle the kind of transaction volume that, say, major credit card networks generate?

[somebodythere]

Maybe check out DYDX L2.

[obstacle1]

Great pointer, thanks.

This is a protocol that rolls up ETH transactions and executes them in batch, in an attempt to alleviate scalability concerns. I can't really speak to the side/unintended effects of transaction rollups on a blockchain, but I'm interested in learning.

This excerpt from the FAQ

> It is worth noting that anyone can become a relayer so long as they have staked the required bond in the smart contract. This incentivises the relayer not to tamper with or withhold a rollup.

kind of bothers me. It does not seem like such a small step to go from 'decentralized' to 'cartel of relayers' to 'central bank and subordinate branches'. And the fact that this protocol is unavailable to US persons is interesting, though perhaps standard for the space right now.

[somebodythere]

The censorability of rollup relayers bothers me too. As you mentioned, the fact that US persons are blocked from the protocol shows this is a real problem.

I think this is a problem with technological solutions (perhaps anonymous and redundant relayers, or private rollup transactions so that the relayer does not know the content of transactions in a block but can produce a valid output state) that will be worked on in the next couple years now that the base technology (rollups) exists.

[Dwolb]

We need more precision in the scale and performance targets you’re seeking prior to discussing blockchain analogs.

It’s tough to respond when “serious financial application” or “revolutionary technology backing all finance” aren’t well-defined.

[obstacle1]

Sorry, thought my last paragraph covered that. Can any blockchain-backed tech handle the number of transactions per second that current major credit card/payment networks do?

One benchmark is 1,700 tps for VISA. https://phemex.com/blogs/what-is-transactions-per-second-tps

If not, why not? Especially after 10+ years of development and intense VC funding (as is the parent article's point).

[Dwolb]

Solana’s on the same order of magnitude as Visa. Some people dispute the exact figure, but it’s basically there: https://www.benzinga.com/amp/content/25031541

Next long term target is speed and energy efficiency of a Google search.

Edit: Avalanche says they’re around 4.5k tps: https://support.avax.network/en/articles/5325146-what-is-tra...

[baby]

Fastpay can pretty much do infinite transactions/s

[magicjosh]

1,700 tps for VISA is a good benchmark. I recall VISA's technical capability is 10x or 100x that number,

Ethereum 1.0 can handle 30 transactions per second.

Part of the development dubbed "Ethereum 2.0" is focused on scaling the number of transactions via sharding. Each shard will be able to handle 2,400 tps. As more shards are deployed up to 64, Ethereum 2.0 will reach 160,000 tps.

[obstacle1]

I am interested in learning about how "shard chains" work.

I'm concerned after reading https://ethereum.org/en/eth2/shard-chains/ that sharding is aimed at letting individual dApps roll up transactions -- i.e. the individual app would be the effective shard key -- and thus that would introduce some notion of centralization into the system.

[magicjosh]

I imagine there are some good podcasts or articles discussing sharing in greater depth. I'm interested as well if anyone has suggestions!