Paolo ArdoinoVerified account

I understand your point and agree inprinciple. Also understand the current throughput of L1 chains. The comment was a mild satire.

I think 10m isn't totally out of the question. Solana is at 100k right now, and there's about a factor of 100 of moderately low-ish hanging fruit I think? IDK for sure, @aeyakovenko / @seb_alameda would know more

Problem reaching 10M txs per second is more on the network side. Maybe on a local machine, but on a distributed geographic net? You could create 100 shards and have inter-shard sync, but then the chatter across shards might be too high with block time < 1s Interesting stuff

Oh yeah you def can't get 1 tx to have a latency of < 1/1m s, but you can do multiple in parallel without sharding using e.g. memory allocation (what Solana does)

CPU/Mem is not the problem here, as mentioned on a single machine testnet it would probably all work fine. But imagine shooting every 400ms, 10M transactions confirmations around to hundreds of nodes and synchronizing them all That's why L2 solutions are popping out.

My point is: if you want to scale 50x, L2 is something that you can implement today, without almost increasing requirements of L1. And it's really elegant from the engineering point of view.https://twitter.com/paoloardoino/status/1295375344590094337 …

Just because you *can* put everything on L1, doesn't mean you should. L2 architecture (particularly for something like an exchange) is more elegant no matter how fast the underlying blockchain is.