Each of them has different pros and trade-offs in solving scalability using different methods on different blockchains. A notable example is that of Bitcoin, which leverages Layer 2 solutions such as the Lightning Network to send transactions off-chain. This keeps the network secure and gives it higher throughput. These reduce congestion at the main chain level but do add a bit more complexity to managing payment channels.
Ethereum, on the other hand, peeks in several directions. Ethereum is highly active in migrating to Ethereum 2.0, which deploys sharding. For clarity, it means splitting the blockchain into parallel pieces of data called shards. In this way, this would enable many shards to process sets of transactions all at once in parallel and, therefore, would greatly ramp up in capacity with lots of drawbacks regarding data synchronization and security between shards. Ethereum scales, too through Layer-2 rollups that batch many transactions into one for main-chain submission with no sacrificing of security.
Solana does it via Layer-1 level changes through a high-throughput Proof-of-History consensus mechanism. Solana is thus placed among the fastest blockchains by ordering prior to sending transactions for the highest TPS, at the cost of higher hardware requirements that may potentially lower decentralization.
What Polygon does offer is the best of both worlds: both Layer-1 scaling via its blockchain and Layer-2 solutions via compatibility with Ethereum.
Ultimately, each of these solutions reflects different priorities: some blockchains focus on decentralization and security, while others focus on speed and capacity for more transactions. It seems scalability solutions do involve certain trade-offs.
~ Regards,
VEIGO (Community Mod)
We're die-hard fan of Tron Blockchain
