The gas limit is a fundamental parameter governing transaction processing on the Ethereum blockchain. As the world's largest decentralized computing platform, Ethereum faces immense pressure to scale its transaction capacity to meet growing user demand. However, any changes to the protocol must balance throughput with decentralization and security.

The gas limit caps the amount of "gas" or computational effort that may be expended to process transactions during each new block added to the chain. Each operation on the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) requires a certain amount of gas, and the limit prevents runaway processes from grinding the network to a halt. Since Ethereum's launch in 2015, the gas limit has slowly risen from 8 million to its current level of 30 million.

Pump the Gas

An effort to educate the Ethereum community about the gas limit and how it can be used to help improve Ethereum scaling.

https://pumpthegas.org

This proposal now aims to "pump the gas" by increasing the limit another 33% to 40 million. Supporters argue this could boost Ethereum's daily transaction capacity by a third while moderately lowering transaction fees. Vitalik Buterin, Ethereum's founder, has endorsed exploring a 40 million target. Efforts are also underway to educate validators, clients and node operators on adjusting their configurations accordingly.

However, any protocol changes must be approached judiciously. While more transactions per block sounds appealing, a higher limit could threaten the network's decentralization if it makes running a full node too resource-intensive for average users. There are also concerns individual stakeholders may not implement the changes safely.

This essay aims to critically and objectively analyse the technical requirements, risks and community considerations around proposals to raise Ethereum's gas limit. My goal is to shed light on this important issue to help guide the cautious, evidence-based process required for continued healthy growth of the world's largest blockchain.

Purpose of "Pump the gas" initiative

The "Pump the gas" initiative has launched with the goal of educating the diverse Ethereum community about proposals to increase the network's gas limit. As a fundamental protocol parameter, changes to the gas limit can have far-reaching impacts. It is therefore important all stakeholders have a base understanding of gas, its role in transaction processing, and how different limit levels may affect scaling and fees.

Gas (Ethereum): How Gas Fees Work on the Ethereum Blockchain

Gas is the pricing value required to conduct a transaction or execute a contract on the Ethereum blockchain platform.

https://www.investopedia.com

By raising awareness about the technical considerations and trade-offs involved, the initiative aims to foster well-informed, evidence-based debate among users, developers, and other groups. Its organizers understand the community must reach consensus on any protocol adjustments through respectful, transparent discussion. To that end, "Pump the gas" provides educational resources clarifying the issues and answering common questions.

The benefits of educating stakeholders are clear. A more knowledgeable community is empowered to make decisions aligned with Ethereum's long-term success and principles of decentralization. Technical proposals can be rigorously evaluated, and community consensus more easily achieved, with widespread comprehension of the topics.

If educational materials oversimplify complex issues or ignore reasonable objections, it could mislead some groups and undermine open debate. There is also the risk certain stakeholders may feel targeted or that their viewpoints are being discouraged rather than discussed. To achieve its goals, the initiative must maintain a neutral and balanced approach, presenting all perspectives fairly while clearly separating facts from opinions.

Vitalik Buterin's suggestion

I think doing a modest gas limit increase even today is reasonable. The gas limit has not been increased for nearly three years[...]. an increase to around 40M or so.

-Vitalik Buterin from a Reddit AMA

As Ethereum's founder, Vitalik Buterin's opinions carry significant weight within the community. In a Reddit AMA, Buterin endorsed exploring an increase to the gas limit as one way to moderately boost the network's transaction capacity. He specifically suggested raising the limit from 30 million to around 40 million as a reasonable next step.

Buterin reasoned an additional 10 million gas per block could ease short-term congestion by allowing more transactions to settle without dramatically increasing storage and bandwidth usage. Based on his technical analysis, 40 million appeared a prudent target that would not overburden the network's resources.

While Buterin's rationale was based on his expertise developing Ethereum's core protocols, some community members argue his suggestion warrants further discussion. They point out individual nodes, especially those run by hobbyists or in regions with poorer connectivity, may struggle if blocks grow much larger. There are also concerns more data could centralize transaction processing over time into the hands of fewer, larger validators.

Scaling and fee impacts

If the gas limit is increased by 33% to 40 million gas per block, we could expect transaction throughput on the Ethereum mainnet to rise by approximately 33% as well. Based on the current average gas used per transaction, this would allow an extra ~50-60 transactions to settle during each new block mined. Transaction fees paid by users may drop moderately due to the added capacity and less network congestion.

However, these estimates have a high degree of uncertainty and would likely change based on user behaviour and transaction mix. Not all users may immediately utilize the additional block space, so throughput could rise slower than expected. Conversely, if usage spikes it's possible fees may not drop as much as anticipated or could even increase temporarily due to high demand.

Therefore, it will be important for the community to closely monitor the effects of any gas limit increase through rigorous post-implementation analysis. Only with real-world data can we refine our models and better understand the true scaling and economic impacts.

Maybe there's a better way: Safety EIPs

EIPs 7623 and 4444 introduce important safety mechanisms that could enable future gas limit increases to be implemented more gradually and carefully.

https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7623

EIP 7623 establishes a maximum block size, which prevents runaway processes from grinding the network to a halt if the limit is raised.

https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-4444

EIP 4444 aims to decrease disk usage and allow clients to simplify their code by removing support for processing old block structures from past hardforks.

Adopting both EIPs would add necessary safeguards before additional large gas limit adjustments are made. A gradual approach that stages multiple smaller increases over time, and incorporates mechanisms like these EIPs, could help ensure network stability and security as capacity is expanded. This would allow effects to be closely monitored at each step.

In Conclusion

There are reasonable arguments on both sides of proposals to further increase Ethereum's gas limit.

While a moderate rise could boost transaction throughput and lower fees in the near-term, larger blocks may threaten the ability of average users to run full nodes long-term, risking decentralization. There are also open questions around how user behaviour and network demand may change in response.

Safety mechanisms like EIPs 7623 and 4444 could help enable such an incremental process if implemented. Continued technical work and community discussion are also needed to gain consensus on protocols that balance scaling, decentralization and security over the long run.

In conclusion, while well-intentioned efforts aim to ease current congestion, proposals with far-reaching technical implications require prudent evaluation and debate. The thesis that the Ethereum community is best served through respectful, evidence-based dialogue on its careful, long-term evolution remains valid.