Ethereum continues to evolve as one of the most influential blockchain platforms, and discussions around increasing its gas limit have gained momentum. With growing demand for scalability and efficiency, stakeholders are re-evaluating whether the network is ready for higher throughput. This article explores the technical implications of raising Ethereum’s gas limit by analyzing three critical infrastructure components: storage, bandwidth, and computation. We’ll also examine two key Ethereum Improvement Proposals—EIP-7783 and EIP-7782—and assess their potential impact on network performance and security.
Core keywords: Ethereum gas limit, EIP-7783, EIP-7782, blockchain scalability, network throughput, gas optimization, Ethereum upgrades
A Historical Look at Ethereum’s Gas Limit
When Ethereum launched in 2015, the initial gas limit was set at just 5,000 per block—a figure quickly deemed too restrictive. Since then, the network has undergone several adjustments to accommodate growing transaction volumes:
- 2016: The gas limit rose to ~3 million, then to ~4.7 million later that year.
- After the Tangerine Whistle hard fork and implementation of EIP-150, which adjusted pricing for I/O-heavy opcodes in response to DoS attacks, the cap increased to 5.5 million.
- July 2017: Raised to 6.7 million amid rising DeFi activity.
- December 2017: ~8 million
- September 2019: ~10 million
- August 2020: 12.5 million
- April 2021: Reached 15 million
Under EIP-1559, a hard cap was introduced—twice the target value—allowing blocks to temporarily contain up to 30 million gas. However, for nearly four years, no further increases have been implemented despite advancements in hardware and network infrastructure.
This stagnation raises an important question: Is it time to revisit the gas limit?
👉 Discover how Ethereum's evolving infrastructure supports higher transaction capacity
Is It Time to Reconsider the Gas Limit?
To evaluate whether Ethereum can safely support a higher gas limit—such as doubling it to 60 million—we must analyze its impact on node requirements across three dimensions: storage, bandwidth, and computation.
Let’s break down each factor under both average and worst-case scenarios.
Storage: Not the Primary Bottleneck
One common concern with increasing the gas limit is the strain on node storage due to state growth. Ethereum’s state includes account balances, smart contract code, and storage data—all of which expand as more transactions occur and new contracts are deployed.
There are two types of storage growth:
- State growth: Ongoing expansion of active data
- Historical data growth: Accumulation of past blocks and receipts
State Growth
Currently, Ethereum’s state grows at approximately 2.5 GB per month, or about 30 GB annually. While this may seem significant, modern hardware improvements far outpace this linear growth. SSD prices have dropped exponentially over the past decade—roughly halving every two years—making storage increasingly affordable.
Even if state growth doubled to 60 GB/year, the cost difference would remain negligible compared to falling hardware prices. Moreover, query efficiency (typically logarithmic in complexity) ensures that performance differences between systems with tens of gigabytes variation are minimal.
Historical Data Growth
As full nodes store historical data, long-term archiving becomes a consideration. Soon, solo stakers may require over 2 TB of storage—effectively pushing them toward 4 TB drives due to standard hardware configurations (sold in powers of two). This creates a paradox: even without increasing the gas limit, validators will soon need high-capacity drives anyway.
Thus, storage constraints are not a decisive barrier to raising the gas limit. The real challenge lies elsewhere.
Bandwidth: The Real Scalability Challenge
While storage scales efficiently with consumer hardware trends, bandwidth presents a more complex issue because it's harder to upgrade at scale across a decentralized network.
Average Case Scenario
The average bandwidth usage on Ethereum is around 2 MB/sec, but most of this comes from consensus-layer gossip (e.g., blob propagation and attestations). For block processing, what matters is block size.
Currently:
- Maximum recorded block size: 270 KB
- Post-Deneb average block size: ~75 KB
Doubling the gas limit would increase block sizes moderately—equivalent to adding roughly 0.5–2 extra blobs. This translates to only a 2–5% increase in node bandwidth under normal conditions—not a major burden.
Worst-Case Scenario
In a worst-case scenario where blocks are filled to capacity (e.g., via DoS attacks), calculations suggest a peak block size of 1.7 MB, which would rise to 3.4 MB if the gas limit doubles—requiring up to 50% more peak bandwidth.
However, such sustained attacks are prohibitively expensive:
- Filling multiple blocks at maximum gas costs substantial capital.
- Attackers must outbid legitimate users for inclusion.
- High calldata usage makes large-scale spam economically unfeasible.
Furthermore, proposed adjustments like increasing calldata costs could further disincentivize abuse. And with EIP-7783’s gradual increase mechanism, sudden spikes become even less likely.
👉 Learn how next-gen blockchain upgrades are shaping network performance
Computation: Generally Not a Concern
Computation refers to the time nodes take to validate and execute transactions within a block.
Average Case
Under normal conditions, block processing takes less than one second, even on slower machines with modest disk performance. This confirms that computation has never been a bottleneck during regular operation.
Worst-Case Case
Some operations—like MODEXP (modular exponentiation)—are known to be computationally intensive and don’t scale well. These could theoretically be exploited in DoS attacks if gas pricing doesn’t reflect actual resource consumption.
However:
- Such vulnerabilities can be mitigated through opcode re-pricing.
- Gradual increases via EIP-7783 allow client teams time to optimize and patch weak points.
- Real-world risk remains low given economic disincentives and monitoring tools.
Evaluating EIP-7783 vs. EIP-7782
Two proposals have emerged to enhance Ethereum’s throughput:
- EIP-7783: Introduces a gradual increase in gas limit over time.
- EIP-7782: Aims to reduce slot time (currently 12 seconds), effectively increasing block frequency.
While both aim to improve scalability, they differ significantly in risk profile and readiness.
EIP-7783 is more conservative and safer:
- Allows incremental adjustments aligned with hardware improvements.
- Reduces risk of sudden network stress.
- Gives developers time to adapt clients and detect edge cases.
In contrast, EIP-7782 poses greater challenges:
- Shorter slot times increase message propagation pressure.
- Could negatively impact Distributed Validator Technology (DVT) and Solo Staker Frameworks (SSF).
- Requires tighter synchronization across geographically dispersed nodes.
Therefore, while reducing slot time may be necessary in the long term, it’s premature today. EIP-7783 offers a more viable near-term path—potentially enabling a 33% increase or even a doubling of the gas limit without compromising stability.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Why hasn't Ethereum increased its gas limit in recent years?
A: Despite falling hardware costs, developers have prioritized network stability and security over raw throughput. Rapid increases could risk centralization or DoS vulnerabilities. A cautious approach ensures sustainable growth.
Q: Could increasing the gas limit lead to higher fees?
A: Not necessarily. Higher gas limits allow more transactions per block, which can reduce competition and lower fees during periods of congestion. However, fee dynamics also depend on demand and EIP-1559’s base fee algorithm.
Q: What is EIP-7783’s main advantage?
A: Its gradual mechanism allows safe experimentation without abrupt changes. Nodes can adapt incrementally, minimizing disruption while testing higher capacity limits.
Q: Does a higher gas limit compromise decentralization?
A: Only if hardware requirements outpace consumer-grade tech. But since storage costs are dropping faster than state growth, and bandwidth impacts are manageable under EIP-7783, decentralization remains viable.
Q: How does blob data affect bandwidth concerns?
A: Blob-carrying blocks already impose significant bandwidth loads. Additional calldata from higher gas usage is relatively minor compared to full blob propagation—making current optimizations more impactful than gas cap changes alone.
Final Thoughts
Raising Ethereum’s gas limit is no longer just a theoretical discussion—it’s becoming increasingly feasible thanks to advances in consumer hardware and smarter protocol design.
Key takeaways:
- Storage is not a bottleneck—hardware improvements continue to outpace state growth.
- Bandwidth is the main constraint, especially under worst-case conditions.
- Computation risks exist but are manageable through opcode re-pricing and client optimization.
- EIP-7783 provides a safe, incremental path forward, potentially supporting a 33%+ increase or even doubling.
- EIP-7782 should wait until DVT and SSF ecosystems mature.
With careful planning and community coordination, Ethereum can safely boost throughput while preserving decentralization and security.
👉 Stay ahead of Ethereum’s evolution with real-time insights and tools