jakiro
Author: jarry xiao Source: x,@jarxiao translation: Shan Oba
Firedancer is an extremely ambitious project, and it is also an impressive technical achievement.However, it also reflects the problem of priority narrative instead of actual needs in the blockchain industry.The goal of building infrastructure should be to serve users, and the standard for measuring its impact should be whether the goal is met.
Demand of different roles: verificationrs, developers and users
Demand of verificationrs
In the blockchain network, the core motivation of the verifications is to get more block rewards.To achieve this, they want to see:
-
More block rewards;
-
The stability of the chain to ensure long -term acquisition rewards;
-
Improve block resources restrictions, which directly depends on the client’s efficiency.
Developer’s needs
The needs of developers pay more attention to the practicality of the tool and the stability of the development environment:
-
Strong functional tool chain in order to facilitate development procedures;
-
Stable deployment environment, ensure that the program execution attribute does not change at will;
-
Simple development experience, support the development of client applications and new features, such as larger transactions;
-
Get the feasible path for users and funds.
User needs
Users are more concerned about the reliability of experience itself and transactions:
-
S excellent, smooth, interesting, and even practical new products;
-
Reliable completed transactions avoid capital cards in the middle.
Firedancer’s short -term impact
Firedancer will bring a series of changes in the short term, but not all positive.The following is its potential short -term impact:
-
Protocol development temporarily stagnant: As the new client is still under development, the active agreement development may be suspended;
-
The pain of network growth: Since there is a small difference between Firedancer and Agave clients, the network may experience unstable;
-
Speed increased limited: Before the pledge of Firedancer exceeds Agave, the network speed will not be significantly improved.
Potential misleading: TPS and client diversity
The understanding of some key issues may be misleading foreigners, especially in discussions on Firedancer:
-
1M TPS indicator is meaningless: 1 million transactions per second is just a theoretical value in an analog environment, which cannot reflect the transaction load of the real world;
-
The problem of client diversity: Although the diversified client seems to help network decentralization, the operation of two clients at the same time actually violates this original intention.
In addition, larger blocks do not necessarily mean more block rewards.If the Firedancer client cannot support certain key functions, such as the on the first day does not support JITO auction, it may cause the pledge difficulty.
Practical thinking: Is the interests consistent?
The pragmatic question is whether the incentives of all stakeholders are consistent.This is the key to determining whether the currently constructed project is “correct”.Demand differences in different groups may affect the effectiveness of FIREDANCER.
Is Firedancer the most needed?
Although Firedancer is a high -investment and high -influence project, from a cost -effective perspective, it may not be the most urgent need for Solana.Here are some alternatives that can have a greater impact on Solana at a lower cost:
-
Increase the calculation efficiency of the token program by 100 times;
-
Increase the maximum transaction size.
-
Increase the depth of the CPI stack;
-
Continue to improve the network layer and scheduling program;
-
Improve the cost model, enhance the guarantee contained in the transaction, and make users more confident.
Summarize
The achievements of the Firedancer team are undoubtedly admirable.Their team consists of a more talented underlying engineer and built a very outstanding system.However, when we measure the actual impact of Firedancer on Solana, we need to incorporate the scale and cost of the project into the consideration of priority sorting.
