CZ v/s Vitalik – The Battle on Whether Blockchain Speed and Capacity Still a Problem
August 22nd, 2019
The Blockchain speed and the capacity problem is still a burning problem in the crypto space and Binance’s CEO, Changpeng Zhao, and Ethereum co-founder, Vitalik Buterin is currently in a debate around that.
Zhao vs Buterin
It is said that the battle for a scalable solution is the blockchain’s race to the moon. While a few blockchain projects are still struggling to solve scalability solutions and increase transaction per second (TPS) or transaction speed, Binance CEO believes that the problem is now largely solved.
On August 21, CEO of Binance Exchange, Changpeng Zhao (CZ) claimed that speed and capacity are a largely solved problem for newer blockchains (for now). He quietly remarks on Vitalik’s post, saying that we now need to focus on applications. CZ’s comment comes in the wake of Vitalik Buterin’s recent warning, who argues that “his blockchain is almost full”. During an interview with “The Star”, a Canadian outlet, Buterin said that the lack of scalability still exists which is becoming a barrier for organizations from joining the network.
“Scalability is a big bottleneck because the Ethereum blockchain is almost full. If you’re a bigger organization, the calculus is that if we join, it will not only be more full but we will be competing with everyone [else] for transaction space,”
Quoting the article with Buterin’s warning about Ethereum blockchain, CZ says that he liked Vitalik and ETH but believes;
speed & capacity was a problem a year ago, but now a largely solved problem for newer blockchains (for now). We need to increase real applications that people use so that we hit the new capacity issues/limits again. Focus on applications.
As always, the crypto community was quick to respond to this comment with trolls and support. More interestingly, Buterin too responded by disagreeing with CZ’s opinion on scalability and speed. He said, “it’s not solved at all” and claimed EOS, calling already had scalability bottleneck issues”.
It’s not solved at all. Even the newer semi-centralized blockchains have TPS in the hundreds; AFAIK EOS has already had scalability bottleneck issues.
— Vitalik Non-giver of Ether (@VitalikButerin) August 21, 2019
Blockchain Speed and Capacity
Even though decentralized technology has been in existence for almost 10 years now, crypto technologists are still attempting to solve the scalability issue alongside. As per Etherscan.io, Ethereum currently handles, 9.7 TPS.
Moreover, according to a crypto influencer, Larry Cermak, newer blockchain (TRON, EOS, Binance Chain) sacrifice centralization and censorship resistance for better scalability. He believes, Binance Chain, a native blockchain by Binance crypto exchange, still has a single point of failure.
EOS, which is considered as a rival to Ethereum aims to process millions of transactions per second whereas Ethereum network can handle only up to 15 transactions per second. Nevertheless according to blocks.io, the EOS’s maximum transactions per seconds (TPS) are 3996.
Tron is a blockchain that has been actively working towards achieving unlimited capacity. Tron recently launched the first version of the Tron scalability solution, dubbed as Sun Network. As mentioned on its official website, this upgrade will allow for 100x scalability and the development of DApps on sidechains. As shared High TPS data on Tron network official website, TRX consistently handles 2000 transactions per second whereas it claims ETH handles 25 TPS and BTC 3-6 TPS respectively. But, according to tronscan.org, TRX currently features only 748 maximum TPS.
While for Bitcoin network, blockchain development company lightning Labs announced Lightning network as a scalability solution in April. In a response to a comment on Twitter, Buterin claims that “he has been getting more and more pessimistic about off-chain-data L2s over time”. Continuing that, he added the opinion of Ethereum Foundation researcher Vlad Zamfir and said;
@VladZamfir is right; they’re just hard to build, require too much application-layer reasoning about incentives, and hard to generalize.