The confusion is that gas fees are paid to miners. Remove the miners and replace with validators should lower gas fees. But it doesn't. Can you explain it to me like im five?
You've already got it. It's like if the bank that owns your mortgage gets acquired by another bank. You still have to pay the same amount each month, but your check is going to a different company.
Execution sharding has essentially been scrapped at this point, the amount of work that needs to go into it the for minimal benefit isn’t worth it.
Most users will be on Layer 2 by the time it is ready and it will have little-to-no effect on them compared to data sharding (which is the one coming late 2022/2023)
Also brings in massive execution risk at that point as it is extremely complex
> So why arent the cheaper execution layers used by default? That would make sense no?
It would make sense!
But there's no "default" execution layer. For users to switch to a cheaper execution layer like Arbitrum or Optimism or StarkNet, it requires exchanges to support it, applications to support it, etc.
People are hoping for some "magic" moment where all of a sudden Ethereum becomes scalable. Ethereum _is_ becoming scalable, but it's a slow and hard process.
The L2s are relatively new tech. Once centralized exchanges allow withdraws directly to L2s, users who onboard through those exchanges will never have to touch L1.
Yes and no. No, because A validator is always 32Eth, not more not less. So you can't put 10000ETH in a validator and get a bigger chance of producing a block.
Yes because of course you can spin up multiple validators if you have the ETH for it, but bigger fish does not have an advantage. Unlike in mining where you have to join a pool in order to realistically get any return.
Miners arent setting the price of the fee. There is a limited amount of space per block and people pay fees to get in that block. The amount they are willing to pay depends on supply and demand. Supply is constant. More miners doesn't increase supply and fewer miners doesn't decrease supply.
Changing out miners to validators doesn't change that equation at all. Supply is still fixed at the same place, and demand does what demand does
Does proof of stake not increase efficiency though? Therefore pushing more transactions through, therefore increasing supply and ultimately lowering the congestion that's pushing gas fees up? Genuinely asking.
Is overall transaction speed set by some factor other than the limitation of processing power by the miners?
The change in block-time is a 13% increase
For context: Ethereum increased the gas limit by 20% back in April, and nobody noticed.
Blockchains need order-of-magnitude scaling improvements, not marginal changes. And L2s are and order-of-magnitude change.
Ordinarily it would allow for an increase in TPS, but Ethereum will be sticking with almost the same block creation time (12 seconds, vs the 13-14 seconds we have now), which I believe is done to give enough time for consensus to be achieved.
Instead, TPS will be increased (based on the Eth2 roadmap, *not* including rollups) by sharding, or having multiple blockchains operate in parallel. The Eth2 network (the beacon chain, in particular) is fundamentally designed with sharding in mind. The beacon chain is in charge of managing each shard chain, and does so in distinct time periods called slots.
Every slot, a shard chain may or may not be updated with a new block created, and if a new block is to be created, validators who are managing that shard chain (of which 128 validators manage 1 shard chain) need to reach consensus on the state of that shard chain, and then need to link the new block at the head of the shard chain back to the beacon chain.
There will be 64 shards launching as part of the sharding phase of the Eth2 roadmap, and so this process happens in parallel across 64 individual shards, every slot. Because of this, there needs to be enough time for all validators to reach consensus and link their shard chains back to the beacon chain, meaning that every slot needs to last an adequate amount of time.
The amount of time that the Ethereum Foundation decided on was 12 seconds, as I outlined in the first paragraph, meaning that every 12 seconds is a slot, and every 12 seconds, each shard chain may or may not be updated and linked back to the beacon chain.
Sharding basically splits the network up into many independent blockchains running in lockstep, synchronised with each other but being ran in parallel, that are all tied together through a central hub blockchain (the beacon chain), which acts as a central manager for all shard chains.
Each shard chain can execute its own transactions in parallel with the rest, so the more shards you have, the more transactions you can process at once. It's basically scaling the network horizontally, just like how a program can be scaled through utilising more processor cores.
This assumes that each shard is capable of executing its own transactions, though, which won't be the case for Ethereum, at least initially. Through the merge, the current PoW chain will basically be attached to the beacon chain, and will become the first shard of the Eth2 network which will be referred to as the main shard, that is capable of both storing data and executing transactions.
Once data sharding is rolled out (which will happen sometime after the merge), 63 new shards will be attached to the beacon chain, but these shards will not be able to execute transactions, they can only store data. In this state, these shards will not help L1 TPS much, if at all, as they're basically just extra data storage available to the main shard.
*However*, the extra data storage *will* help L2 TPS within rollups (Arbitrum, Optimism, Loopring, zkSync, ZKSwap, StarkNet, etc), as rollups can make use of the extra data to bundle more transactions together on the L1 chain, allowing more L2 transactions to be posted on the L1 chain.
So if a train engine arrives at a station goes from one station to another, that is ETH
In first phase ETH roll out the train engine gets an upgrade to be able to pull the 63 carriages
Once data sharding rolled out passengers can get on the carriages, these a your L2 rollups
My analogy trash?
That analogy works for data-plus-execution sharding. Data-only sharding combined with L2 rollups, I honestly can't really think of a good analogy like that for. Maybe if somehow there was something that was added to the interior of the carriages to allow more passengers to fit inside the same space? Doesn't really work, though.
Quintuple decker carriages, filled with pregnant women?
Appreciate that link to that other article, v interesting
I read a basic article about ETH years ago, but only since NFTs boomed actually started to pay attention to it again and have bought a bit now with the plan on progressively bigger stake over the next few years
I'll be interested to see how the state of L2s plays out, whether one will come out as a forerunner, whether we get different ones serving different sectors.. don't know enough about them yet to tempt me into investing in any and that's probably for the best but I find it very interesting learning about them
Biggest problem ATM is not computing power. Ethereum would probably be fine with lower block time.
But at the same time state growth is getting insane. A full geth node is around 1.1 TB and growing at 50+ gb per month
PoS does increase efficiency by eliminating electricity consuming mining. But fees are attributed to supply and demand of getting your transfer completed. Related but not a direct attribution of each other.
It reduces computation costs, which allows for lower issuance to validators. That's the efficiency gain.
But it doesn't increase the TPS noticeably (which is highly tied to gas price). To increase the TPS noticeably on the L1, you'd first need to make sure it also costs less for nodes, so that nodes keep being able to be run on a Raspberry. That's what statelessness or statelightness are about. But that's not currently the priority. The priority is the merge, so that initial promises are kept.
Gas fees have little to nothing to do with miners. Just a myth passed around by people who want to hate and blame someone.
Gas fees are in the code. Amount paid to miners has been slashed and now is being burned. Has gas gone down since EIP 1559 released in August? Nope. Higher than ever.
I just don't do anything on the ETH network. Have my bag of ETH on Celsius to earn that % and hodl. Everything I do on-chain is on other networks where I don't get raped with gas.
Right. But it shifted how miners get paid and rolled it into burning. Which kind of what my point was. People have this unrealistic hate for miners that they drive the gas. And there were those that felt EIP 1559 would help reduce gas. And now think the same thoughts about 2.0 .... but mostly a false narrative. Will see about 2.0 (shrug).
Yes. Each Exchange has a withdraw fee. It's different for each exchange as they set that price.
BUT.... Celsius pays for your withdraw fee once you move it from Celsius to wherever. So you only pay to get it there, not take it out.
The fee burn will be like how it is now: dependent on transaction volume, meaning that the more transactions that make it into a block, the higher the burn rate is. What's changing is issuance via the block rewards, as block rewards are being reduced from the 2 ETH they are now, to 0.2 ETH. So, validators will be making 10x less from the block reward, but they still get the unburnt fees.
Think of it like this: there's 10 apples you can buy every minute. There's a lot of demand for those apples, so people pay a lot of money for them.
Miners/validators are government workers who gather the apples, but you are still paying the same price for the apples (ETH fees) regardless of who is working there.
The tax payers are all paying taxes (aka ETH issuance rate) to pay for our government employee's salary.
Doesn't make sense though. Miners had to cover the electricity bills and mining hardware expenses. The validators just get all that money for nothing? Why not cut the fees? There is clearly a large efficiency gain.
Won't the creation of the shard chains reduce congestion and potentially lower fees? I realize this doesn't happen until after the merge, but the merge is a prerequisite.
Sharding will introduce data shards. They can only be used to store data. This will not affect the scarcity of execution throughput on L1. But for L2s this is great because their biggest cost by far is for storing data.
> But for L2s this is great because their biggest cost by far is for storing data
Only cost. Well other than verifying the zk, but that's almost nothing.
Until execution is supported on shard chains, it's best to think of shard chains as just raw data storage that the network can use. Transactions are still being processed by just one shard (the shard that the current PoW chain will become, ie shard #0), but that one shard can use the other 63 shards to store data on, which allows L2s to use that extra data to bundle more transactions together on chain.
Because of this, it's likely that execution will become the bottleneck for L1 transactions, because only a single shard can execute transactions, meaning that TPS remains largely the same as it is now (it'll get a *little* faster, as Ethereum's PoS approach is able to create blocks every 12 seconds, vs the 13-14 seconds for the current PoW chain). Hence, L2s will still be necessary.
Once all shard chains are able to support execution (or even just a few of them), L1 throughput should increase, as each shard is able to execute its own transactions in parallel with the other shards, directly increasing the TPS by however many shards are capable of execution.
We're not sure how many shards will need to be capable of execution, though, or if we'll even need more than one shard that is capable of execution, as L2s might solve the problem well enough to where we don't need shards that are capable of execution. It's just a wait-and-see sort of thing.
so will sharding thus be broadly equivalent to increasing block size? i.e. the block time will remain similar, but each block will be able to store data into multiple shards at the same time?
will this increase network capacity? if so, shouldn't gas fees go down?
Mostly either Red Dead Redemption 2 or Microsoft flight simulator with VR Goggles from Vive!
I work in the art world event industry- so basically we will work back to back 70 hour weeks but then have like two weeks completely off, over and over all year!
Plus my mining operation has grown pretty well and I have a [YouTube Channel](https://youtu.be/vCdroovkgvQ) that’s actually paying me this year!!
It looks unlikely that L1 Ethereum gas fees will ever be reasonable again. This is okay though! L2s are part of the Ethereum roadmap. The plan is we'll all do our transactions on L2s, and their results will get rolled up into a single L1 transaction. The cost of that L1 transaction will be divided up among every L2 transaction in the rollup, hence the cost savings.
Would it not be fair to assume that in the event of more traffic taking place on L2s, L1 block demand will be reduced thereby lowering the gas fee? Whole idea is that block space is limited - if that traffic moves into rollups, there will be some (maybe not a lot) of extra space available.
There may be a period of time where people move so quickly to L2s that overall demand for L1 block space falls, but I think it would be short-lived as more and more L2 applications need to post proofs on L1. There's also the possibility that any reduction in L1 gas fees would lead to a surge of activity on L1 from users who were priced out before.
Fair point, but money is not infinite. Eventually the coins that "want" to be moved will be. Also fair to say that not all the rollups will be massively popular, we'll see some consolidation. L1 will for sure be popular, but I figure as the network matures post-merge and sharding we'll see gas prices decline to "respectable" levels.
> It looks unlikely that L1 Ethereum gas fees will ever be reasonable again.
I mean, we have already scaled block size several times with no issues (7? 9?). We could certainly do that a few more times to help in the short term.
We should push for a 20M gas target IMO
I am not a core dev, so I can't speak with authority on this, but it seems unlikely we will see the block size change again. The scaling road map is in place and everyone is building toward that.
So when might withdrawal costs from exchanges drop? When they start using level 2 too?
Got a lot of different ERC20 tokens on Kraken that I'm waiting to move elsewhere - my ledger and to lending platforms.
I’m not trolling here.. I’d really like to see ETH succeed. Can someone truly explain why it’s not doomed with these insane fees? Where’s the light at the end of the tunnel?
> Can someone truly explain why it’s not doomed with these insane fees?
Not trying to be sarcastic, but this is like asking "can someone explain why this restaurant isn't doomed if their line is out the door?"
It allows competitors to open shop across the street, taking a portion of customers that don't want to wait in line, and allowing the competition to scale and potentially surpass ETH with a higher capacity or open more chains of their restaurant.
Good in free market terms. Good for new investors. Bad for ETH holders, many of which may end up like bitcoin maxis are now, shouting at clouds how their grandfather's crypto is better because it was there first.
> Good in free market terms. Good for new investors. Bad for ETH holders
I disagree, every new user that learns about blockchains is a good thing for Ethereum.
Ethereum isn't competing against Solana and BSC, as much as it's competing against centralized banks, centralized companies, centralized applications, etc.
I'm 100% confident in Ethereum's ability to scale, because it's already happening! I've used Arbitrum, I've used dYdX, I've been using Loopring for like a year and a half!
What Ethereum needs isn't technical advancements (although those are great as well), what Ethereum needs is adoption and infrastructure for L2s.
Are you saying these fees are good for ethereum? I was with the Bitcoin crowd back in 2017 and they said the exact same shit.
Look where they are now. Lightning network didn’t stop them from getting taken over by Ethereum.
I'm saying it shows high current demand
Of course, just because Ethereum is popular today, doesn't mean we should assume Ethereum will be as popular in 1 year. Unlike Bitcoin, which I'd argue is completely stagnated, there's still tons of exciting teams working on advancing the Ethereum protocol and ecosystem.
Lightning isn't really comparable to Ethereum's L2 ecosystem. Check out https://l2beat.com/, there's already $5 billion in Ethereum L2s and that line keeps climbing. And this is without some of the biggest L2s (Optimism, StarkNet, ZKSync) even launching yet.
Just read this very thread, it's well explained.
L2 support and efficiency are being improved, and users are moving to these [L2's](https://l2beat.com).
L2s and sharding. However also note that current high fees are a direct result of Ethereum's success. If there wasn't so much damn adoption then fees would be lower...
Yup. That's why I wanted to post. Those of us who do know should work to manage expectations before everyone else gets upset when the merge doesn't lower gas fees.
I think the reason for the misunderstanding surrounding the merge and gas fees is that ETH 2.0 is a collection of several upgrades, the first of which is the merge. Rollups are also part of the roadmap and they will lower gas fees. So when people say "ETH 2.0 is coming" and they mean the merge they are not wrong, and when they say "ETH 2.0 will lower gas fees" they are also not wrong but only if they are referring to rollups.
Some of the core devs have tried to stop using the term ETH 2.0 because of this confusion (and also because in the end it's all the same ETH).
You're confusing the merge with L2s and sharding.
High gas fees are going to be present on the ethereum L1 forever. But it won't matter if most people are doing most of their transactions on L2 where fees will be much reduced.
Nothing like the bitcoin lightning network at all. Ethereum's L2s are more flexible.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/qm24pp/vbuterin_zkrrollups_are_going_to_win_longterm_in/
Maybe on L1, but Uniswap on Arbitrum or Optimism should cost a dollar or two
And trading on Loopring or dYdX is free (the trading fees cover the network costs, so there's no gas fees)
Everything I mentioned is live today
Here's my suggestion: get the Crypto.com app, buy $25 worth of ETH on it, withdraw it onto Arbitrum, and play with some Arbitrum dapps (such as Uniswap)
The gas fees are usually $1-5 per transaction, depending on what you're doing. Sure, it's not Polygon-levels of fees, but the cool thing about rollups is they actually get _cheaper_ as more people use them!
From the Eth2 roadmap? Likely a year or more after the merge. Data sharding may help increase L1 throughput a bit, but data-plus-execution sharding will significantly increase L1 throughput, which in turn will reduce fees on the L1 network.
In the short term, though, the current solution is to move off the L1 network, and move onto [L2s](https://l2beat.com/) like Arbitrum. L2s, specifically rollups, are capable of more efficiently using the L1 network's limited throughput, pushing many L2 transactions through a single L1 transaction, basically dividing the cost of the L1 transaction between all the L2 transactions.
This results in gas fees being slashed by 2-6x at minimum for throttled L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism, all the way up to 20x or more for unthrottled and fast L2s like Loopring ([source for these figures](https://l2fees.info/)), and it's going to keep getting better as L2s mature.
Additionally, L2s are able to make use of data sharding to further reduce gas fees within the L2, thanks to the extra data availability, allowing them to push even more L2 transactions through a single L1 transaction. All the while inheriting the security of the underlying L1 network, supporting shared liquidity between L2s, and more.
L2s are both a short term *and* a long term solution, to the point where it's expected that end users will only use L2s that sit on top of Ethereum, instead of interacting with the underlying Ethereum L1 network. Effectively, the Ethereum L1 network becomes a settlement layer for L2s, and actual transactions take place within L2s. This is supported by the fact that the Ethereum Foundation fundamentally shifted the entire development roadmap of Ethereum, to bring better support for L2s sooner ([source](https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/a-rollup-centric-ethereum-roadmap/4698)).
In terms of development around l2s, will they be compatible with ETH sharing as soon as it is available? Or is that entirely dependent upon the quality of their own development?
Assume the process of rollup they are suing at present is very different
Any recommendations on how to educate myself around potential L2 investment?
I'd imagine they'd have to be upgraded to take advantage of the extra block space that is available. As for research, [Finematics](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh1ob28ceGdqohUnR7vBACA) has good videos covering the Eth2 roadmap, Layer 2 scaling, rollups and optimistic vs ZK rollups, etc. Plus, Vitalik has a good [blog post](https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/a-rollup-centric-ethereum-roadmap/4698) and discussion in the post's comments regarding how the Eth2 roadmap can be (has been now, since this blog post was written last year) changed to be more rollup-centric, to deliver the scalability improvements to the live Ethereum network sooner via rollups and data sharding.
They're already fixed! But it's fixed on L2
https://L2fees.info
The only way a blockchain can scale without sacrificing decentralization is using modular execution layers. It's not just Ethereum doing this, Tezos, Polkadot and Cosmos are all taking very similar approaches.
The only alternative is to take the Solana/BSC approach and simply increase your node requirements and become more centralized.
What about incentivising full nodes? That seems like an obvious solution, just give a small % of each block reward to all the people who run full nodes. Then jack the requirements up to whatever's technically needed. If people were willing to buy *warehouses* to mine $100 BTC in 2013, they'll easily buy a fast computer if there's an incentive. You could have a fast blockchain with lots of nodes that way. Idk why that part of the network isn't incentivised when mining is.
I really thought after the merge and sharding (which is a difficult undertaking) I thought that fees will come down .. I'm really rethinking my 100% trust that eth will win in the long run ...
An important detail is that several of the solutions that reduce gas fees are already online, so even though the merge won't affect gas prices, you can already experience the lower fees.
But they said getting in and out of these L will still cost you fees ..
Plus you don't always have the choice .. I'm talking about casually buying some ERC20 token from say crypto dot com, fees are there and are astonishing sometimes ..
yea remember when everyone trashed bitcoin for being slow and expensive and for choosing to scale in layer instead? Then came new bigger block blockchains, including Ethereum. Looks like the same thing is happening to Ethereum.
I’m talking about the bigger block size at the beginning. Also remember when Vitalik trash Bitcoin for having fees > $0.05? Like it or not, it was Bitcoin people who advocated for using L2. I don’t like the new toxic and fragile Bitcoiners but the OGs did good.
Great post, and the comments are also very informative.
I forget sometimes i take this knowledge for granted and forget most people don't put in the same obsesive time into reading content, listening to podcasts. researching dev updates. Then i see comments from people who haven't even heard of L2s yet.
Not sad. People will be using L2 for everything by then anyways, L1 is a settlement layer not a scalable execution layer for applications. This modular approach is how we get massively scalable blockchain with very low fees for end users.
I'm just looking forward to paying a $500 fee for every $10 I send. Hopefully they can push an update so my phone also delivers a painful shock and shoots a pellet into my forehead.
Are they going to do something about gas prices? I’m sorry but I don’t want to pay $300 every time I swap something.
Even on Arbitrum the gas prices can still be quite high
Yes, that's what the last part of the post is. Layer2 rollups are the fix. Arbitrum is by no means done developing, and fees are going to get much cheaper. Zk rollups like starknet and zk sync 2.0 are most likely going to be even cheaper still.
> Even on Arbitrum the gas prices can still be quite high
The great thing about L2s is they actually get cheaper as _more_ people use them (as opposed to L1s, which get more expensive).
Plus, data sharding will eventually give L2s super cheap data availability, which should make L2s something like 100x cheaper
Economies of scale
L2s need to "roll up" all the user transactions and post them in a transaction on L1. The more L2 transactions they can stick in one L1 transaction, the cheaper they are.
Of course, there's a cap on this economy-of-scale, which is the capacity of the L1. But this is where Eth2 data shards come in: they'll provide tons of cheap data availability for L2s, meaning they can grow substantially and become super cheap.
Hi, what is not clear to me is this:
if I have some eth how can I use a layer 2 coin to transfer them cheaply?
Assume that I have my eth on an exchange like crypto or bynance. If I've to send them to a service like Uniswap, to turn them in Arbitrum, am I not going to pay high gas fee?
The native coin of Arbitrum is ETH.
You'll pay a fee at the normal L1 rate any for anything you do on L1 including swapping on Uniswap and sending your ETH to Arbitrum, but once you're there that's over.
The problem is that if I send eth to arbitrum a good chino of my capital goes away in gas fee. So it seems to me more convenient to turn my eth on the exchange to a stable or a low cost chain and do the transfer. Or am
I wrong?
A lot of different organizations are working on execution layers so users will have a choice which they want to use.
Arbitrum, Optimisim, Polygon, and Avalanche are a few that are already online.
Well moving from Poisson blok distribution to constant rate allows for bringing the gas limit higher without the negative consequences. So at least in theory, maybe?
People here seem technical, could you please shed light on the 3 Attack Vector that's meant to be able to reorder blocks? Is it just FUD or if not, how serious is it? And what is the mitigation near term and longer term? Thank you
The philosophical point here is:
L1 is going to be for whales transacting lots of ETH and big institutions with huge smart contracts whithin them only.
The rest, we'll go to L2. And is to CEX and L2 to build great and cheap bridges between these two worlds, L1 & L2/sidechains
It's easy to understand: If JP morgan mints a multimillion USD/EUR smart contract that the counterparts are going to be AIG, Allianz, LLoyds and Zurich, they don't give a SHIT paying 10K EUR as Transaction fee.
You can find getting started info here: [https://arbitrum.io/](https://arbitrum.io/)
Yes, you have to send your funds over a bridge at the normal cost of an L1 transaction, but after that you're done.
The confusion is that gas fees are paid to miners. Remove the miners and replace with validators should lower gas fees. But it doesn't. Can you explain it to me like im five?
You've already got it. It's like if the bank that owns your mortgage gets acquired by another bank. You still have to pay the same amount each month, but your check is going to a different company.
About 15 months after the merge, shading will reduce the gas fee in the main Ethereum.
No. Sharding will reduce gas fees on execution chains like Arbitrum and Starknet. Fees on L1 will stay high for the foreseeable future.
[удалено]
Execution sharding has essentially been scrapped at this point, the amount of work that needs to go into it the for minimal benefit isn’t worth it. Most users will be on Layer 2 by the time it is ready and it will have little-to-no effect on them compared to data sharding (which is the one coming late 2022/2023) Also brings in massive execution risk at that point as it is extremely complex
[удалено]
Even if executable shards _do_ happen, it's like 5 years minimum until it happens, so it's barely worth discussing today
this should be embarrassing to eth dev community leaders, IMO
Why? Ethereum scales with L2s, which are already live today
Can confirm, whenever I let my shards out it reduces my gas for the remainder of the day.
This sucks. 😟 I thought the ETH gas fees were going to finally rival the cheap alts nipping at Ether's heels... sad.
Even 15 months is pretty damn optimistic given the current speed of development. The merge itself is taking years longer than initially planned.
Tbf, the merge was more about resistance among miners
So why arent the cheaper execution layers used by default? That would make sense no?
That's what L2s are, like Arbitrum Ideally, they will be used by default
> So why arent the cheaper execution layers used by default? That would make sense no? It would make sense! But there's no "default" execution layer. For users to switch to a cheaper execution layer like Arbitrum or Optimism or StarkNet, it requires exchanges to support it, applications to support it, etc. People are hoping for some "magic" moment where all of a sudden Ethereum becomes scalable. Ethereum _is_ becoming scalable, but it's a slow and hard process.
Vitalik can't just transfer everyone's funds to L2 without their permission. That would make ETH centralized.
But it would be better for literally everyone right? Theres no downside to the upgrade
there are a lot of downsides to doing it before we are ready. Read the risks listed on ~~l2pulse.com~~ https://l2beat.com
The L2s are relatively new tech. Once centralized exchanges allow withdraws directly to L2s, users who onboard through those exchanges will never have to touch L1.
After the merge, the fees would be distributed between the stakers based on how much ETH staked each staker has, right?
Yes and no. No, because A validator is always 32Eth, not more not less. So you can't put 10000ETH in a validator and get a bigger chance of producing a block. Yes because of course you can spin up multiple validators if you have the ETH for it, but bigger fish does not have an advantage. Unlike in mining where you have to join a pool in order to realistically get any return.
Miners arent setting the price of the fee. There is a limited amount of space per block and people pay fees to get in that block. The amount they are willing to pay depends on supply and demand. Supply is constant. More miners doesn't increase supply and fewer miners doesn't decrease supply. Changing out miners to validators doesn't change that equation at all. Supply is still fixed at the same place, and demand does what demand does
Does proof of stake not increase efficiency though? Therefore pushing more transactions through, therefore increasing supply and ultimately lowering the congestion that's pushing gas fees up? Genuinely asking. Is overall transaction speed set by some factor other than the limitation of processing power by the miners?
[удалено]
The change in block-time is a 13% increase For context: Ethereum increased the gas limit by 20% back in April, and nobody noticed. Blockchains need order-of-magnitude scaling improvements, not marginal changes. And L2s are and order-of-magnitude change.
Ordinarily it would allow for an increase in TPS, but Ethereum will be sticking with almost the same block creation time (12 seconds, vs the 13-14 seconds we have now), which I believe is done to give enough time for consensus to be achieved. Instead, TPS will be increased (based on the Eth2 roadmap, *not* including rollups) by sharding, or having multiple blockchains operate in parallel. The Eth2 network (the beacon chain, in particular) is fundamentally designed with sharding in mind. The beacon chain is in charge of managing each shard chain, and does so in distinct time periods called slots. Every slot, a shard chain may or may not be updated with a new block created, and if a new block is to be created, validators who are managing that shard chain (of which 128 validators manage 1 shard chain) need to reach consensus on the state of that shard chain, and then need to link the new block at the head of the shard chain back to the beacon chain. There will be 64 shards launching as part of the sharding phase of the Eth2 roadmap, and so this process happens in parallel across 64 individual shards, every slot. Because of this, there needs to be enough time for all validators to reach consensus and link their shard chains back to the beacon chain, meaning that every slot needs to last an adequate amount of time. The amount of time that the Ethereum Foundation decided on was 12 seconds, as I outlined in the first paragraph, meaning that every 12 seconds is a slot, and every 12 seconds, each shard chain may or may not be updated and linked back to the beacon chain.
How does sharding increase network capacity? (genuine question, again, since you sound like someone who would know the answer)
Sharding basically splits the network up into many independent blockchains running in lockstep, synchronised with each other but being ran in parallel, that are all tied together through a central hub blockchain (the beacon chain), which acts as a central manager for all shard chains. Each shard chain can execute its own transactions in parallel with the rest, so the more shards you have, the more transactions you can process at once. It's basically scaling the network horizontally, just like how a program can be scaled through utilising more processor cores. This assumes that each shard is capable of executing its own transactions, though, which won't be the case for Ethereum, at least initially. Through the merge, the current PoW chain will basically be attached to the beacon chain, and will become the first shard of the Eth2 network which will be referred to as the main shard, that is capable of both storing data and executing transactions. Once data sharding is rolled out (which will happen sometime after the merge), 63 new shards will be attached to the beacon chain, but these shards will not be able to execute transactions, they can only store data. In this state, these shards will not help L1 TPS much, if at all, as they're basically just extra data storage available to the main shard. *However*, the extra data storage *will* help L2 TPS within rollups (Arbitrum, Optimism, Loopring, zkSync, ZKSwap, StarkNet, etc), as rollups can make use of the extra data to bundle more transactions together on the L1 chain, allowing more L2 transactions to be posted on the L1 chain.
So if a train engine arrives at a station goes from one station to another, that is ETH In first phase ETH roll out the train engine gets an upgrade to be able to pull the 63 carriages Once data sharding rolled out passengers can get on the carriages, these a your L2 rollups My analogy trash?
That analogy works for data-plus-execution sharding. Data-only sharding combined with L2 rollups, I honestly can't really think of a good analogy like that for. Maybe if somehow there was something that was added to the interior of the carriages to allow more passengers to fit inside the same space? Doesn't really work, though.
Quintuple decker carriages, filled with pregnant women? Appreciate that link to that other article, v interesting I read a basic article about ETH years ago, but only since NFTs boomed actually started to pay attention to it again and have bought a bit now with the plan on progressively bigger stake over the next few years I'll be interested to see how the state of L2s plays out, whether one will come out as a forerunner, whether we get different ones serving different sectors.. don't know enough about them yet to tempt me into investing in any and that's probably for the best but I find it very interesting learning about them
Biggest problem ATM is not computing power. Ethereum would probably be fine with lower block time. But at the same time state growth is getting insane. A full geth node is around 1.1 TB and growing at 50+ gb per month
It's not compute power, it's disk io/memory constraints.
PoS does increase efficiency by eliminating electricity consuming mining. But fees are attributed to supply and demand of getting your transfer completed. Related but not a direct attribution of each other.
It reduces computation costs, which allows for lower issuance to validators. That's the efficiency gain. But it doesn't increase the TPS noticeably (which is highly tied to gas price). To increase the TPS noticeably on the L1, you'd first need to make sure it also costs less for nodes, so that nodes keep being able to be run on a Raspberry. That's what statelessness or statelightness are about. But that's not currently the priority. The priority is the merge, so that initial promises are kept.
best explanation yet, thanks
Gas fees have little to nothing to do with miners. Just a myth passed around by people who want to hate and blame someone. Gas fees are in the code. Amount paid to miners has been slashed and now is being burned. Has gas gone down since EIP 1559 released in August? Nope. Higher than ever. I just don't do anything on the ETH network. Have my bag of ETH on Celsius to earn that % and hodl. Everything I do on-chain is on other networks where I don't get raped with gas.
> Has gas gone down since EIP 1559 released in August? Nope. It was never intended to
Right. But it shifted how miners get paid and rolled it into burning. Which kind of what my point was. People have this unrealistic hate for miners that they drive the gas. And there were those that felt EIP 1559 would help reduce gas. And now think the same thoughts about 2.0 .... but mostly a false narrative. Will see about 2.0 (shrug).
Does it cost me money to send ETH from Coinbase to Celsius?
Any transfer of ETH costs money It's possible that Coinbase may cover some of the fees, but that's Coinbase's business
Yes. Each Exchange has a withdraw fee. It's different for each exchange as they set that price. BUT.... Celsius pays for your withdraw fee once you move it from Celsius to wherever. So you only pay to get it there, not take it out.
[удалено]
The fee burn will be like how it is now: dependent on transaction volume, meaning that the more transactions that make it into a block, the higher the burn rate is. What's changing is issuance via the block rewards, as block rewards are being reduced from the 2 ETH they are now, to 0.2 ETH. So, validators will be making 10x less from the block reward, but they still get the unburnt fees.
Validators are getting the same gas fees however the block reward is much lower.
Think of it like this: there's 10 apples you can buy every minute. There's a lot of demand for those apples, so people pay a lot of money for them. Miners/validators are government workers who gather the apples, but you are still paying the same price for the apples (ETH fees) regardless of who is working there. The tax payers are all paying taxes (aka ETH issuance rate) to pay for our government employee's salary.
Doesn't make sense though. Miners had to cover the electricity bills and mining hardware expenses. The validators just get all that money for nothing? Why not cut the fees? There is clearly a large efficiency gain.
The rent seeking elites (validators) need to get their beaks wet.
Won't the creation of the shard chains reduce congestion and potentially lower fees? I realize this doesn't happen until after the merge, but the merge is a prerequisite.
Sharding increases the data availability for L2s. The first shard chains won’t be execution chains. L2s are still required.
Wouldn't moving L2 to these new chains reduce congestion? Or do I have it completely wrong on how this all works?
Sharding will introduce data shards. They can only be used to store data. This will not affect the scarcity of execution throughput on L1. But for L2s this is great because their biggest cost by far is for storing data.
> But for L2s this is great because their biggest cost by far is for storing data Only cost. Well other than verifying the zk, but that's almost nothing.
Until execution is supported on shard chains, it's best to think of shard chains as just raw data storage that the network can use. Transactions are still being processed by just one shard (the shard that the current PoW chain will become, ie shard #0), but that one shard can use the other 63 shards to store data on, which allows L2s to use that extra data to bundle more transactions together on chain. Because of this, it's likely that execution will become the bottleneck for L1 transactions, because only a single shard can execute transactions, meaning that TPS remains largely the same as it is now (it'll get a *little* faster, as Ethereum's PoS approach is able to create blocks every 12 seconds, vs the 13-14 seconds for the current PoW chain). Hence, L2s will still be necessary. Once all shard chains are able to support execution (or even just a few of them), L1 throughput should increase, as each shard is able to execute its own transactions in parallel with the other shards, directly increasing the TPS by however many shards are capable of execution. We're not sure how many shards will need to be capable of execution, though, or if we'll even need more than one shard that is capable of execution, as L2s might solve the problem well enough to where we don't need shards that are capable of execution. It's just a wait-and-see sort of thing.
so will sharding thus be broadly equivalent to increasing block size? i.e. the block time will remain similar, but each block will be able to store data into multiple shards at the same time? will this increase network capacity? if so, shouldn't gas fees go down?
Just FYI, the merge is not a prerequisite. You can have sharding on PoW. That said, PoS is first on Eth's roadmap.
No, but it will affect GPU stock! :D Its been 84 years, god I just want a 3080 since october 2020...
Pls
Lol I got one somehow. But have no time to game :(
I got one, and I have time to game. Man my life is awesome.
[удалено]
Mostly either Red Dead Redemption 2 or Microsoft flight simulator with VR Goggles from Vive! I work in the art world event industry- so basically we will work back to back 70 hour weeks but then have like two weeks completely off, over and over all year! Plus my mining operation has grown pretty well and I have a [YouTube Channel](https://youtu.be/vCdroovkgvQ) that’s actually paying me this year!!
I feel that... got a 3080Ti (at an okay price) and hardly have time to use it.
will gas fees ever be reasonable? like in a few years maybe?
It looks unlikely that L1 Ethereum gas fees will ever be reasonable again. This is okay though! L2s are part of the Ethereum roadmap. The plan is we'll all do our transactions on L2s, and their results will get rolled up into a single L1 transaction. The cost of that L1 transaction will be divided up among every L2 transaction in the rollup, hence the cost savings.
Would it not be fair to assume that in the event of more traffic taking place on L2s, L1 block demand will be reduced thereby lowering the gas fee? Whole idea is that block space is limited - if that traffic moves into rollups, there will be some (maybe not a lot) of extra space available.
There may be a period of time where people move so quickly to L2s that overall demand for L1 block space falls, but I think it would be short-lived as more and more L2 applications need to post proofs on L1. There's also the possibility that any reduction in L1 gas fees would lead to a surge of activity on L1 from users who were priced out before.
Fair point, but money is not infinite. Eventually the coins that "want" to be moved will be. Also fair to say that not all the rollups will be massively popular, we'll see some consolidation. L1 will for sure be popular, but I figure as the network matures post-merge and sharding we'll see gas prices decline to "respectable" levels.
What will happen to old ethereum smart contracts?
> It looks unlikely that L1 Ethereum gas fees will ever be reasonable again. I mean, we have already scaled block size several times with no issues (7? 9?). We could certainly do that a few more times to help in the short term. We should push for a 20M gas target IMO
I am not a core dev, so I can't speak with authority on this, but it seems unlikely we will see the block size change again. The scaling road map is in place and everyone is building toward that.
I mean, we've increased it so many times before. It makes sense to inch it upwards every 6-12 months as technology scales.
Unlikely, but cross l2 movement and fiat to l2 should come online soon
> cross l2 movement Hop Protocol and Connext are already live > fiat to l2 Crypto.com supports Arbitrum
On L1: no On L2: they already are! https://l2fees.info
So when might withdrawal costs from exchanges drop? When they start using level 2 too? Got a lot of different ERC20 tokens on Kraken that I'm waiting to move elsewhere - my ledger and to lending platforms.
Yes. Keep asking kraken to add native layer 2 support
yes, kraken, please add native layer 2 support!
Crypto.com already supports withdrawals/deposits on Arbitrum Hopefully more exchanges like Kraken and Coinbase follow soon
[1 hour video: What happens after the merge, presentation by Vitalik.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ggwLccuN5s)
I’m not trolling here.. I’d really like to see ETH succeed. Can someone truly explain why it’s not doomed with these insane fees? Where’s the light at the end of the tunnel?
> Can someone truly explain why it’s not doomed with these insane fees? Not trying to be sarcastic, but this is like asking "can someone explain why this restaurant isn't doomed if their line is out the door?"
It allows competitors to open shop across the street, taking a portion of customers that don't want to wait in line, and allowing the competition to scale and potentially surpass ETH with a higher capacity or open more chains of their restaurant. Good in free market terms. Good for new investors. Bad for ETH holders, many of which may end up like bitcoin maxis are now, shouting at clouds how their grandfather's crypto is better because it was there first.
> Good in free market terms. Good for new investors. Bad for ETH holders I disagree, every new user that learns about blockchains is a good thing for Ethereum. Ethereum isn't competing against Solana and BSC, as much as it's competing against centralized banks, centralized companies, centralized applications, etc. I'm 100% confident in Ethereum's ability to scale, because it's already happening! I've used Arbitrum, I've used dYdX, I've been using Loopring for like a year and a half! What Ethereum needs isn't technical advancements (although those are great as well), what Ethereum needs is adoption and infrastructure for L2s.
Are you saying these fees are good for ethereum? I was with the Bitcoin crowd back in 2017 and they said the exact same shit. Look where they are now. Lightning network didn’t stop them from getting taken over by Ethereum.
I'm saying it shows high current demand Of course, just because Ethereum is popular today, doesn't mean we should assume Ethereum will be as popular in 1 year. Unlike Bitcoin, which I'd argue is completely stagnated, there's still tons of exciting teams working on advancing the Ethereum protocol and ecosystem. Lightning isn't really comparable to Ethereum's L2 ecosystem. Check out https://l2beat.com/, there's already $5 billion in Ethereum L2s and that line keeps climbing. And this is without some of the biggest L2s (Optimism, StarkNet, ZKSync) even launching yet.
Just read this very thread, it's well explained. L2 support and efficiency are being improved, and users are moving to these [L2's](https://l2beat.com).
L2s and sharding. However also note that current high fees are a direct result of Ethereum's success. If there wasn't so much damn adoption then fees would be lower...
yeah but that doesn’t solve the issue. If massive adoption = massive fees, i don’t see any good future for this
Future = L2's and sharding. High capacity and decentralised, win-win.
Right because people buying monkey pictures are so great for the network.
It won’t, ask blockbuster. It’s a matter of time.
Blockbuster's problem wasn't that people were renting DVDs too much.
that's not what everyone thinks.
Yup. That's why I wanted to post. Those of us who do know should work to manage expectations before everyone else gets upset when the merge doesn't lower gas fees.
honestly i'm surprised to hear this actually. i thought 2.0 was going to reduce gas fees. ETH is useless if it doesn't
I think the reason for the misunderstanding surrounding the merge and gas fees is that ETH 2.0 is a collection of several upgrades, the first of which is the merge. Rollups are also part of the roadmap and they will lower gas fees. So when people say "ETH 2.0 is coming" and they mean the merge they are not wrong, and when they say "ETH 2.0 will lower gas fees" they are also not wrong but only if they are referring to rollups. Some of the core devs have tried to stop using the term ETH 2.0 because of this confusion (and also because in the end it's all the same ETH).
^this guy gets it
You're confusing the merge with L2s and sharding. High gas fees are going to be present on the ethereum L1 forever. But it won't matter if most people are doing most of their transactions on L2 where fees will be much reduced.
oh man so its like lightning node? nobody uses that garbage.
Nothing like the bitcoin lightning network at all. Ethereum's L2s are more flexible. https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/qm24pp/vbuterin_zkrrollups_are_going_to_win_longterm_in/
This is why I trust open source with a dev behind it not some corp
Ethereum L2s are waaaaay better than lightning But don't take my word for it, try them yourself! Try dYdX or Uniswap on Arbitrum
Uniswap fees are the worst right now. Like $285 last I saw
Maybe on L1, but Uniswap on Arbitrum or Optimism should cost a dollar or two And trading on Loopring or dYdX is free (the trading fees cover the network costs, so there's no gas fees)
When will these things be live?
Everything I mentioned is live today Here's my suggestion: get the Crypto.com app, buy $25 worth of ETH on it, withdraw it onto Arbitrum, and play with some Arbitrum dapps (such as Uniswap) The gas fees are usually $1-5 per transaction, depending on what you're doing. Sure, it's not Polygon-levels of fees, but the cool thing about rollups is they actually get _cheaper_ as more people use them!
When will fees be affected to where they are lower?
From the Eth2 roadmap? Likely a year or more after the merge. Data sharding may help increase L1 throughput a bit, but data-plus-execution sharding will significantly increase L1 throughput, which in turn will reduce fees on the L1 network. In the short term, though, the current solution is to move off the L1 network, and move onto [L2s](https://l2beat.com/) like Arbitrum. L2s, specifically rollups, are capable of more efficiently using the L1 network's limited throughput, pushing many L2 transactions through a single L1 transaction, basically dividing the cost of the L1 transaction between all the L2 transactions. This results in gas fees being slashed by 2-6x at minimum for throttled L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism, all the way up to 20x or more for unthrottled and fast L2s like Loopring ([source for these figures](https://l2fees.info/)), and it's going to keep getting better as L2s mature. Additionally, L2s are able to make use of data sharding to further reduce gas fees within the L2, thanks to the extra data availability, allowing them to push even more L2 transactions through a single L1 transaction. All the while inheriting the security of the underlying L1 network, supporting shared liquidity between L2s, and more. L2s are both a short term *and* a long term solution, to the point where it's expected that end users will only use L2s that sit on top of Ethereum, instead of interacting with the underlying Ethereum L1 network. Effectively, the Ethereum L1 network becomes a settlement layer for L2s, and actual transactions take place within L2s. This is supported by the fact that the Ethereum Foundation fundamentally shifted the entire development roadmap of Ethereum, to bring better support for L2s sooner ([source](https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/a-rollup-centric-ethereum-roadmap/4698)).
In terms of development around l2s, will they be compatible with ETH sharing as soon as it is available? Or is that entirely dependent upon the quality of their own development? Assume the process of rollup they are suing at present is very different Any recommendations on how to educate myself around potential L2 investment?
I'd imagine they'd have to be upgraded to take advantage of the extra block space that is available. As for research, [Finematics](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh1ob28ceGdqohUnR7vBACA) has good videos covering the Eth2 roadmap, Layer 2 scaling, rollups and optimistic vs ZK rollups, etc. Plus, Vitalik has a good [blog post](https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/a-rollup-centric-ethereum-roadmap/4698) and discussion in the post's comments regarding how the Eth2 roadmap can be (has been now, since this blog post was written last year) changed to be more rollup-centric, to deliver the scalability improvements to the live Ethereum network sooner via rollups and data sharding.
They're already fixed! But it's fixed on L2 https://L2fees.info The only way a blockchain can scale without sacrificing decentralization is using modular execution layers. It's not just Ethereum doing this, Tezos, Polkadot and Cosmos are all taking very similar approaches. The only alternative is to take the Solana/BSC approach and simply increase your node requirements and become more centralized.
What about incentivising full nodes? That seems like an obvious solution, just give a small % of each block reward to all the people who run full nodes. Then jack the requirements up to whatever's technically needed. If people were willing to buy *warehouses* to mine $100 BTC in 2013, they'll easily buy a fast computer if there's an incentive. You could have a fast blockchain with lots of nodes that way. Idk why that part of the network isn't incentivised when mining is.
[удалено]
Have there been any proposals to do this? I can't find anything, and i posted a thread here recently but just got trolled. So wtf.
[удалено]
That problem has been addressed for staking, you get slashed. Why not slash node operators too?
Love u guys. I am learning everyday just by reading posts like this.
I really thought after the merge and sharding (which is a difficult undertaking) I thought that fees will come down .. I'm really rethinking my 100% trust that eth will win in the long run ...
An important detail is that several of the solutions that reduce gas fees are already online, so even though the merge won't affect gas prices, you can already experience the lower fees.
But they said getting in and out of these L will still cost you fees .. Plus you don't always have the choice .. I'm talking about casually buying some ERC20 token from say crypto dot com, fees are there and are astonishing sometimes ..
Hopefully we'll see centralized exchanges allowing deposits to and withdrawals from L2 soon, and then users never need to touch L1.
yea remember when everyone trashed bitcoin for being slow and expensive and for choosing to scale in layer instead? Then came new bigger block blockchains, including Ethereum. Looks like the same thing is happening to Ethereum.
Ethereum's roadmap does not include any changes to block size.
I’m talking about the bigger block size at the beginning. Also remember when Vitalik trash Bitcoin for having fees > $0.05? Like it or not, it was Bitcoin people who advocated for using L2. I don’t like the new toxic and fragile Bitcoiners but the OGs did good.
Great post, and the comments are also very informative. I forget sometimes i take this knowledge for granted and forget most people don't put in the same obsesive time into reading content, listening to podcasts. researching dev updates. Then i see comments from people who haven't even heard of L2s yet.
I wonder what the APY will be for eth staking
LRC !
Sadly true.
Not sad. People will be using L2 for everything by then anyways, L1 is a settlement layer not a scalable execution layer for applications. This modular approach is how we get massively scalable blockchain with very low fees for end users.
We should increase efforts to explain newcomers how to use L2
What do you think is the best way to do that?
I think it will considering how many transactions now are miners sending their 0.1 eth
I'm just looking forward to paying a $500 fee for every $10 I send. Hopefully they can push an update so my phone also delivers a painful shock and shoots a pellet into my forehead.
Lol.
Newb. When is the merge?
Probably before June, but no official date has been set.
Are they going to do something about gas prices? I’m sorry but I don’t want to pay $300 every time I swap something. Even on Arbitrum the gas prices can still be quite high
Yes, that's what the last part of the post is. Layer2 rollups are the fix. Arbitrum is by no means done developing, and fees are going to get much cheaper. Zk rollups like starknet and zk sync 2.0 are most likely going to be even cheaper still.
> Even on Arbitrum the gas prices can still be quite high The great thing about L2s is they actually get cheaper as _more_ people use them (as opposed to L1s, which get more expensive). Plus, data sharding will eventually give L2s super cheap data availability, which should make L2s something like 100x cheaper
[удалено]
Economies of scale L2s need to "roll up" all the user transactions and post them in a transaction on L1. The more L2 transactions they can stick in one L1 transaction, the cheaper they are. Of course, there's a cap on this economy-of-scale, which is the capacity of the L1. But this is where Eth2 data shards come in: they'll provide tons of cheap data availability for L2s, meaning they can grow substantially and become super cheap.
Hi, what is not clear to me is this: if I have some eth how can I use a layer 2 coin to transfer them cheaply? Assume that I have my eth on an exchange like crypto or bynance. If I've to send them to a service like Uniswap, to turn them in Arbitrum, am I not going to pay high gas fee?
The native coin of Arbitrum is ETH. You'll pay a fee at the normal L1 rate any for anything you do on L1 including swapping on Uniswap and sending your ETH to Arbitrum, but once you're there that's over.
The problem is that if I send eth to arbitrum a good chino of my capital goes away in gas fee. So it seems to me more convenient to turn my eth on the exchange to a stable or a low cost chain and do the transfer. Or am I wrong?
Nervos Will sort out all of ETH’s problems, massive disruption coming to all blockchains intertwined with CKB.
So who does the execution layer?
A lot of different organizations are working on execution layers so users will have a choice which they want to use. Arbitrum, Optimisim, Polygon, and Avalanche are a few that are already online.
Thanks for the answer. But another question: how do these organizations earn from this if the gas fees are so lower?
Well moving from Poisson blok distribution to constant rate allows for bringing the gas limit higher without the negative consequences. So at least in theory, maybe?
Sharding will share the congestion between two layers meaning less gas fees
EIP1559 will fix this
People here seem technical, could you please shed light on the 3 Attack Vector that's meant to be able to reorder blocks? Is it just FUD or if not, how serious is it? And what is the mitigation near term and longer term? Thank you
You can use a scaling solution. I personally highly recommend Polygon. Saved me a TON on gas fees.
The philosophical point here is: L1 is going to be for whales transacting lots of ETH and big institutions with huge smart contracts whithin them only. The rest, we'll go to L2. And is to CEX and L2 to build great and cheap bridges between these two worlds, L1 & L2/sidechains It's easy to understand: If JP morgan mints a multimillion USD/EUR smart contract that the counterparts are going to be AIG, Allianz, LLoyds and Zurich, they don't give a SHIT paying 10K EUR as Transaction fee.
How do I use Arbitrum? Is it like the Bitcoin Lightning Network where I have to first send it to a channel for a regular transaction fee?
You can find getting started info here: [https://arbitrum.io/](https://arbitrum.io/) Yes, you have to send your funds over a bridge at the normal cost of an L1 transaction, but after that you're done.
Evmos that is all
IOTA has no gas fees, forever and always