We need more precision in the scale and performance targets you’re seeking prior to discussing blockchain analogs.
It’s tough to respond when “serious financial application” or “revolutionary technology backing all finance” aren’t well-defined.
It’s tough to respond when “serious financial application” or “revolutionary technology backing all finance” aren’t well-defined.
One benchmark is 1,700 tps for VISA. https://phemex.com/blogs/what-is-transactions-per-second-tps
If not, why not? Especially after 10+ years of development and intense VC funding (as is the parent article's point).
Next long term target is speed and energy efficiency of a Google search.
Edit: Avalanche says they’re around 4.5k tps: https://support.avax.network/en/articles/5325146-what-is-tra...
Ethereum 1.0 can handle 30 transactions per second.
Part of the development dubbed "Ethereum 2.0" is focused on scaling the number of transactions via sharding. Each shard will be able to handle 2,400 tps. As more shards are deployed up to 64, Ethereum 2.0 will reach 160,000 tps.
I'm concerned after reading https://ethereum.org/en/eth2/shard-chains/ that sharding is aimed at letting individual dApps roll up transactions -- i.e. the individual app would be the effective shard key -- and thus that would introduce some notion of centralization into the system.