Ethereum Validators Signal Support for Gas Limit Increase Amid Community Debate

The Ethereum network is currently witnessing a significant debate over whether to increase the gas limit, with more than 50% of validators signaling their support for a change. This shift could increase the maximum amount of gas used per transaction in a single Ethereum block, which could potentially lower fees and improve scalability, but also carries risks of destabilizing the network if raised too aggressively.
As of February 4, data from Gaslimit.pics, a site that tracks the progress of validator votes, shows that 52% of Ethereum validators are in favor of increasing the gas limit. This surpasses the threshold of 50% support required to move forward with scaling the network without the need for a hard fork. Validators can adjust their node configurations to signal their approval for the change, allowing for an upgrade to the Ethereum network that doesn’t require the disruption of a hard fork.
Ethereum’s gas limit has been set at 30 million since August 2021, after being increased from 15 million. However, recent data from Blockscout, a multichain block explorer, shows that the gas limit is already starting to rise. For example, a transaction around 3 AM UTC on February 4 saw a gas limit of over 33 million.
Crypto commentator Evan Van Ness, a former operations director for blockchain technology company ConsenSys, noted that this would be the first increase in the gas limit since Ethereum transitioned to proof-of-stake (PoS) in September 2022. He pointed out that the PoS system, being more decentralized than the previous proof-of-work (PoW) model, took longer to coordinate the vote on such a change.
Vitalik Buterin Calls for Pectra Fork to Further Scale Ethereum
Following the success of the gas limit vote, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin is now calling for the "Pectra fork," expected to launch in March. The Pectra fork will increase the blob target from three to six, another step in scaling Ethereum’s network. Buterin emphasized that this update, like the gas limit increase, would be staker-voted using the same mechanism, ensuring that any changes to the network could occur in response to technological advancements without requiring hard forks.
A Divided Community
The proposal to increase the gas limit has sparked intense debate within the Ethereum community. Some supporters believe that increasing the gas limit to 36 million would help boost the capacity of the Ethereum layer 1 network, facilitating innovation and reducing transaction fees. Notable Ethereum researcher Justin Drake expressed his support for this increase in December 2023, stating that he would configure his validator to support a 36 million gas limit to help “safely grease the wheels” of the network.
In contrast, other members of the community have raised concerns about the risks associated with a significant increase. Ethereum developers Eric Connor and Mariano Conti launched the "Pump The Gas" initiative, advocating for a raise to 40 million, with the goal of reducing transaction fees. However, some experts warn that a drastic increase could lead to problems with network stability. Ethereum Foundation researcher Toni Wahrstätter cautioned that increasing the gas limit to 60 million could cause propagation failures, missed validator slots, and potentially destabilize the network.
The "Pump The Gas" site acknowledged these risks, but it also argued that increasing the gas limit gradually over time makes sense, given the improvements in Ethereum's technology.
Moving Forward
The decision to increase the gas limit marks an important moment for the Ethereum community, signaling a shift towards improving scalability without the need for disruptive hard forks. However, it also highlights the ongoing tension between scalability and network security. As Ethereum continues to evolve under proof-of-stake, the community will need to balance the potential for lower fees and increased capacity with the inherent risks of altering the network's foundational parameters.
Disclaimer: The content on this website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. We do not endorse any project or product. Readers should conduct their own research and assume full responsibility for their decisions. We are not liable for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the information provided. Crypto investments carry risks.