Speed isn't everything—that's the takeaway from recent technical discussions around high-performance blockchain networks. Here's the math: push a network to ~200k TPS and suddenly you're looking at massive bandwidth demands for authentication. Shift to post-quantum resistant signatures and you're staring at 0.5-1.5GB/s just handling the crypto layer. That's not sustainable. Latency tanks. Markets suffer when confirmation times blow out.
The real challenge isn't bragging about peak throughput numbers. It's making architectural choices that don't sacrifice settlement finality for raw speed. Modern Layer 1s have to pick their battles: optimize for signature verification, or keep transaction latency tight? Both simultaneously? That's the hard problem nobody talks about. Some networks are being honest about this tradeoff instead of pretending breakthrough cryptography solves everything.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
8 Likes
Reward
8
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
AlphaWhisperer
· 7h ago
Ha, finally someone dares to speak out... Those projects claiming 200k TPS, bandwidth overhead can't hide it at all.
human says "both"?... Then that's just self-deception.
Compromise is the right answer; someone has to dare to admit this.
Really optimistic about those chains that honestly acknowledge tradeoffs; there are too many scammers.
View OriginalReply0
CryptoMotivator
· 7h ago
When reaching 200k TPS, the bandwidth directly explodes. This is the reality. Who is still talking about groundbreaking cryptography?
View OriginalReply0
MetaLord420
· 7h ago
200k TPS sounds impressive, but once you calculate the bandwidth, it immediately reveals the truth. The post-quantum signatures alone consume 1.5GB/s, who can handle that?
View OriginalReply0
TopBuyerForever
· 7h ago
The number 200k TPS sounds impressive, but once you actually try to run with it, you're doomed. That's the reality.
View OriginalReply0
WalletDivorcer
· 7h ago
0.5-1.5GB/s just for signature verification? Isn't that just pushing the problem further down? Does no one want to discuss how this final bill is calculated?
Speed isn't everything—that's the takeaway from recent technical discussions around high-performance blockchain networks. Here's the math: push a network to ~200k TPS and suddenly you're looking at massive bandwidth demands for authentication. Shift to post-quantum resistant signatures and you're staring at 0.5-1.5GB/s just handling the crypto layer. That's not sustainable. Latency tanks. Markets suffer when confirmation times blow out.
The real challenge isn't bragging about peak throughput numbers. It's making architectural choices that don't sacrifice settlement finality for raw speed. Modern Layer 1s have to pick their battles: optimize for signature verification, or keep transaction latency tight? Both simultaneously? That's the hard problem nobody talks about. Some networks are being honest about this tradeoff instead of pretending breakthrough cryptography solves everything.