2026-01-08 12:28:14

Ethereum's reliability needs to beat steadily like the "world heartbeat." To achieve this goal, increasing network bandwidth is more worthwhile than simply reducing latency.

Why? Latency is constrained by multiple factors—physical limits of the speed of light, global node distribution, censorship resistance requirements, and economic feasibility ceilings. These are hard constraints. But bandwidth differs. Through innovative solutions like PeerDAS and zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs), Ethereum can achieve thousands of times more capacity while still maintaining true decentralization.

In other words, with the right technical approach, more people can use the network simultaneously, rather than a few people using it faster. This is the right path for expansion—growing the ecosystem capacity, not just chasing speed.

ETH-7,87%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

22 Likes

Reward
22
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

DeFiCaffeinator

· 01-11 00:03

Prioritizing bandwidth makes sense, but can it really be implemented? Honestly, the combination of PeerDAS and ZKP sounds sexy, but I wonder if it will turn out to be something completely different once actually implemented...

View OriginalReply0

SmartContractWorker

· 01-10 23:05

This logic has no problem; bandwidth is really the bottleneck. --- If PeerDAS can truly be implemented, it would be amazing, but the execution is quite challenging. --- To put it simply, capacity should take priority over speed; expanding the cake is more important than fighting over who gets a slice. --- The set of hard constraints is clearly explained, but can ZKP really achieve thousands of times expansion? That's a bit uncertain. --- Got it. Under the premise of decentralization, increasing throughput is the right approach. --- Bandwidth and speed have always been confused; this article finally clarifies it thoroughly. --- The physical limit of the speed of light is truly unavoidable; we can only break through from bandwidth. --- Instead of competing over latency, it's more realistic to focus on capacity. --- Is the ZKP solution reliable? It still feels like it's in the experimental stage. --- The analogy of the heartbeat of the world is a bit romantic, huh.

View OriginalReply0

TokenomicsPolice

· 01-08 22:32

Bandwidth > latency, this logic makes sense, but can PeerDAS really live up to the hype?

View OriginalReply0

SleepyValidator

· 01-08 16:27

I agree with the idea of prioritizing bandwidth, but honestly, can PeerDAS really be implemented... --- Once again, the ZKP savior theory—tired of hearing it. Let's see the actual deployment. --- Expansion capacity > low latency. This logic makes sense; finally someone gets the point. --- "More people using simultaneously" sounds good, but gas fees are still so high, ordinary people simply can't afford it. --- The analogy of the world's heartbeat is brilliant, but can stability really be achieved with these two solutions? --- Thousands of times expansion sounds great. I want to see it truly go live. --- But the real issue is that decentralization and practicality are always mutually restrictive; they can't be perfectly achieved together. --- Finally, someone is discussing bandwidth instead of just bragging about speed—good awakening. --- What is the current progress of PeerDAS? Is there a specific timeline, or are we waiting another year? --- Capacity is the key. Isn't the lesson from Bitcoin enough?

View OriginalReply0

Blockblind

· 01-08 12:58

The idea of bandwidth priority is indeed much more reliable than just focusing on latency. Thinking about it, since even the speed of light can't be overcome, forced optimization is pointless.

View OriginalReply0

MetaDreamer

· 01-08 12:56

Bandwidth has indeed been seriously underestimated. Speed enthusiasts are constantly shouting about latency, but they are actually missing the real point. If the combination of PeerDAS and ZK solutions can truly be implemented, it would indeed be a new approach to scaling, much smarter than simply stacking hardware. Capacity > Speed. This statement hits home. Web3 still needs more people on chain to really innovate.

View OriginalReply0

OnChain_Detective

· 01-08 12:45

wait hold up... bandwidth scaling over latency optimization? let me run the numbers here because this pattern analysis suggests we're missing something critical. peerdas and zkps sound fancy but pattern recognition triggers immediately — heard similar promises before and statistically speaking, most "thousandfold capacity" claims need serious scrutiny.

Reply0

TxFailed

· 01-08 12:39

honestly, bandwidth over latency is the move. people been chasing speed like it's gonna save them from gas gone wrong, but that's not how this works. more throughput means actual users get in, not just whales doing their thing. learned this the hard way watching rollups compete on tps while missing the point entirely.

Reply0

SchrodingersFOMO

· 01-08 12:30

Wow, is PeerDAS really that powerful? Thousands of times capacity sounds a bit exaggerated. I really didn't expect the bandwidth approach; I always thought latency was the bottleneck. Feels like a new world has opened up. Can decentralization and capacity be achieved simultaneously? Not really convinced, always feel like there's some compromise. The logic is actually quite clear. It's not about turning everyone into superhumans, but about enabling more ordinary people. It's quite interesting. Wait, does ZKP really play such a big role in this area? Has anyone tried it?

View OriginalReply0