March 30, 2026

Capitalizations Index – B ∞/21M

Vitalik Wants You to Pay to Slow Ethereum's Runaway Growth

Vitalik wants you to pay to slow ethereum's runaway growth

Vitalik Wants You to Pay to Slow Ethereum's Runaway Growth

Vitalik wants you to pay to slow ethereum's runaway growth

Could adding a new fee help preserve ethereum in the long term?

It’s a contentious statement in light of the debates ongoing across blockchains over how and when users should pay to support what amount to global computing networks. However, the concept is now gaining notable momentum on ethereum, most recently from the creator of the world’s second-largest blockchain himself, Vitalik Buterin.

Buterin’s concept, described in a recent blog post, revolves around so-called “rent fees,” whereby users would be asked to pay to use the network based on how long they’d like their data to remain accessible on the blockchain.

The idea has recently seen interest generally, as ethereum developers have sought to cope with the platform’s increased adoption, and, in turn, the increased amount of data being added that all network nodes need to store.

In short, it’s a tragedy of the commons issue – if too many people use the resource for free, the network starts taking on the costs itself. And there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that there is already reason to worry.

With rising use spurred by popular apps and ICOs, notable developers, including ethereum researchers Vlad Zamfir and Phil Daian, believe the problem needs to be addressed now.

“No one likes talking about rent, but we need to have this conversation,” ethereum developer and Thiel fellow Raul Johnson recently tweeted.

“Core developers need to relay this information to the smart contract developer community ASAP to get their opinions on the matter,” he continued, adding:

“The current system as it stands is unsustainable.”

Fees, explored

Still, Buterin’s backing could be a sign that momentum might build around the idea.

So far, he has broached the idea with a pair of proposals on the subject, including a succinct possible solution he calls “a simple and principled way to compute rent fees.” And Buterin’s first proposal is as simple as its title suggests.

The idea is to compute fees based on a long-term limit on the “state,” a slice of special ethereum data that node operators need to store, which tracks who owns the current information about all apps (including user balances, who has posted so much data in, say, a Twitter replacement app and so on).

Under the proposal, state data stored in a node computer’s RAM – now about 5GB – will never be allowed to exceed 500 GB. To ensure this, users will have to pay fees based on how long their data is stored. In this way, data is kept in check, since fees will grow if storage creeps toward that limit.

One notable part of Buterin’s proposal is that he tries to incorporate a scaling change that ethereum developers have long wanted to add to the platform.

Although the most recent roadmap claims deployment is still years away, “sharding,” as it’s known, could potentially boost the amount of resources a database can handle by splitting up the data. In ethereum, the idea is, each node wouldn’t have to store all of ethereum’s historical data – just a slice of it.

“With sharding, the maximum acceptable state size would be per-shard, so the above fees would be decreased by a factor of 100,” Buterin said.

Buterin also tries to address another key problem with rent: its bad user-experience. Most rent proposals today would require users to know how long their data will need to live ahead of time, which would be prone to error.

His second proposal explores a way of quashing this annoying guessing game by letting users use their state even after it has expired. Essentially, they would prove that their state existed at a previous point in time, with the help of a cryptographic technique called a “Merkle proof.”

Deep-rooted problem

One problem with all this, though, is that fees, kind of like taxes, are never popular.

bitcoin’s years-long debate, for example, mostly centered on fees and the trade-offs associated with them. If fees are increased, less data will be stored, making full nodes easier to run. The downside, of course, is it would make the cryptocurrency more expensive to use.

One question is whether ethereum users and developers will react the same way, arguing “the rent is too damn high.” In this way, Johnson worries that suddenly adding extra fees would alarm developers who have already deployed apps on ethereum.

Johnson argues for changes that aren’t so knee-jerk and should be phased in slowly to give developers time to adjust.

Not to mention, some believe a similar rent needs to be applied to all cryptocurrencies. Indeed, scaling problems – and the associated fees – are a problem across blockchains.

Daian went as far as to argue that bitcoin needs to apply the same model. Like ethereum, bitcoin currently doesn’t charge for the lifetime of a coin.

bitcoin is not free of these issues,” he said, arguing that its simpler model incentivizes state bloat in a variety of ways, “exposing users to a variety of other consequences of mispriced storage.”

Pricing resources to the right degree is such an important area of research, that Daian, a smart contract researcher at IC3, and others at the institute have set up an initiative called Project Chicago dedicated to the effort.

Even if this is a lesser-explored area and researchers haven’t yet found a concrete solution, he’s optimistic.

Daian concluded:

“No cryptocurrency has figured out good models for pricing these resources thus far, and ethereum’s storage rent represents a step in the right direction towards these goals.”

Hard drive image via Shutterstock

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which invests in cryptocurrencies and blockchain startups.

Published at Tue, 27 Mar 2018 12:00:30 +0000

Features[wpr5_ebay kw=”bitcoin” num=”1″ ebcat=”” cid=”5338043562″ lang=”en-US” country=”0″ sort=”bestmatch”]

Previous Article

Bitcoin: Safe Haven Asset or Lead Indicator for the S&P?

Next Article

Malta to Become a Cryptocurrency ‘Global Pioneer’ Says Country’s Prime Minister

You might be interested in …

Op Ed: Launching an ICO? Follow This Advice from the SEC

Op Ed: Launching an ICO? Follow This Advice from the SEC

Lost in the headlines over the SEC’s recent pronouncements on cryptocurrency was important practical advice for both promoters of and participants in initial coin offerings (ICOs).

Most coverage was rightfully garnered from the Report by the SEC’s enforcement division which deemed that DAO Tokens are securities, after subjecting the offering to the Howey test. However, the simultaneously issued Investor Bulletin should also be closely read by issuers of ICOs and their counsel.

Advice for Issuers and Counsel

Even though the bulletin was prepared as a cautionary statement to investors, it contains at least one disclaimer (in boldface type) that attorneys advising ICOs should add the following language to any offering document or white paper:

Investing in an ICO may limit your recovery in the event of fraud or theft. While you may have rights under the federal securities laws, your ability to recover may be significantly limited.

We have previously discussed the importance of these disclaimers and risk factors. By discussing the vulnerabilities of cryptocurrency exchanges and the potential difficulties associated with any recovery of invested or stolen funds, the SEC signals at least some of the risk factors counsel should consider adding to ICO offering materials.  

In fact, prudent attorneys advising their ICO clients would be wise to employ the cut-and-paste function, adding the above caveat to all their documents.

This additional wording is significant in that it spells out three key characteristics of ICOs:

(i) the difficulty of tracing or securing virtual currency;

(ii) the international scope of ICOs; and

(iii) the fact that lack of any central authority may limit an investor’s remedies against an issuer.

Practical Advice for Investors

Besides the usual bromides about being wary of any offer that sounds “too good to be true,” the SEC demonstrated an appreciation for the unique due diligence required in carefully evaluating an ICO.

According to the bulletin, investors should “ask whether the blockchain is open and public, whether the code has been published, and whether there has been an independent cybersecurity audit.” The SEC is communicating that those factors are indicative of companies whose products are verifiably real and secure.

Given the importance the SEC placed on these three items, rather than await questions, such points should be clearly addressed by an issuer in its ICO materials distributed to potential investors. Issuers of ICOs should include those factors and other “good facts” that can help to demonstrate their product’s value, security and legitimacy.

While the recent flurry of documents emanating from the SEC likely has given issuers of ICOs and their counsel pause (and caused them to walk each token through the Howey test), it does not appear to have stifled these transactions.

However, where the report reiterates the conceptual framework under which any potential token offering be evaluated to determine whether it constitutes a securities offering, the bulletin provides practical advice, and investors should expect to see some of the SEC’s language repeated in ICO offering documents going forward.

This is a guest post by Gray Sasser and Joshua Rosenblatt. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of bitcoin Magazine or BTC Media.

The post Op Ed: Launching an ICO? Follow This Advice from the SEC appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.