Ethereum has blobs. Where do we go from here?

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Ethereum’s recent “proto-danksharding” upgrade (EIP-4844) introduces “blobs,” a cheaper, temporary data format meant to drastically cut Layer 2 transaction costs and push Ethereum toward high-throughput, rollup-centric scaling. Commenters debate whether this complex roadmap meaningfully improves on alternative chains like Solana, how much decentralization and security Layer 2s really preserve, and whether lower fees can finally enable non-speculative applications. Skeptics question real-world demand and point to existing payment rails and privacy coins like Monero, while proponents highlight censorship resistance, global settlement, and emerging apps (e.g. Farcaster, on-chain finance) as signs that the underlying infrastructure is maturing.

What blobs / proto-danksharding change

  • Blobs are a new, cheap, temporary data space on Ethereum; nodes only keep blob data ~18 days, vs permanent calldata.
  • They are designed mainly for rollups’ “data availability”: posting compressed L2 state/transactions to L1 at much lower cost.
  • Initial activation dropped rollup fees by ~100x; later “blobscriptions” traffic showed the blob fee market can fill and price them.
  • Longer-term roadmap mentioned: more blobs plus data-availability sampling (DAS/PeerDAS) and “full” danksharding, targeting up to ~100k TPS according to shared dashboards.

Layer 2s: scalability, security, UX

  • Rollups (optimistic & zk) settle to L1 and use blobs for data; escape hatches let users exit to L1 if an L2 fails.
  • Today’s L2s are acknowledged as more centralized and heterogeneous; many are at “Stage 0” security in L2Beat’s framework.
  • Some argue this centralization is temporary/technological; others think it’s structural.
  • UX concern: fragmentation across many L2s; proposed mitigations include shared sequencers, bridges, and app/wallet abstractions so users “don’t know which chain they’re on.”

Comparisons with other chains

  • Solana is described as scaling by running a classic n‑of‑n chain on powerful hardware with high throughput and low fees, but weaker home-verifiability.
  • Ethereum’s approach is to preserve verifiability with rollups and data-availability tricks (0‑of‑n / 1‑of‑n trust for rollups).
  • Some see Ethereum’s L2+blobs path as more credible than anything Bitcoin has done on scaling.

Real-world usage and use cases

  • Reported concrete uses: cross-border USDC payments on L2s, business settlement, tokenized funds (e.g., money-market fund on Ethereum), municipal loans and brokered CDs on permissioned chains, Lightning payments for podcasts, VPN/privacy services, international remittances, darkweb goods (often via Monero), NFT art scenes, and some DeFi.
  • Skeptics argue most “use” is speculation, scams, or niche (ransomware, sanctions evasion); many HN readers say they don’t use blockchain at all.

Decentralization, trust, and regulation

  • Pro‑crypto voices emphasize censorship-resistance, self-custody, and global, bankless transfers, especially for people under repressive regimes or capital controls.
  • Opponents respond that most people are fine trusting banks/States, existing instant-pay systems (SEPA, UPI, M‑Pesa, etc.) already work, and you still must trust law enforcement and courts for real disputes.

Skepticism, limitations, and jargon

  • Many complain about heavy jargon (“blobs”, “proto-danksharding”, “blobscriptions”) and see it as obfuscating complexity or a “solution in search of a problem.”
  • Micropayments and “Internet of Money” visions are debated: some see sub‑cent fees as transformative; others say user psychology, not fee size, is the real barrier.
  • Several note Ethereum’s technical ambition and seriousness, yet still question whether any “killer app” beyond finance will emerge.