As stated in the document, proposal is to increase block’s
0.8. This implies that network will use 80% of max block size as the block’s target size.
Rationale behind this, is to maximize transaction throughput. Contrary to Ethereum where max block size is set to limit negative externalities like storage and compute costs imposed on every node; within Celo max block size is set as the maximum block size network can sustains without risking deviating from the 5s block average.
If we then attempt to maximize throughput; using only half that size to implement EIP-1559 is a big limitation. The proposals suggest a new number that suggest a different tradeoff, in which we still apply EIP-1559 dynamics but we use more of the potential block size.
The tradeoff comes with a risk, which is described in the document. On which validators could collude to lower gas fees and maximize their profit by accruing more of the gas fees for themselves. We believe that is is not big risk for two reasons.
- Potential profit is low at the current state of the network
- Performing the attacks leaves a trace of empty (or almost empty) blocks within a sequence of full blocks. Thus, you can observer validators doing such an attack, and that would impact their reputation and even make them susceptible of a governance slash.