خب بعد از چهار ساعت
هم دلیل این رو پیدا کردم که چرا این سوال برام پیش اومده بود و هم دلیل این روکه چرا جوابش رو نمیفهمیدم 😂😂😂🤦‍♂️


توی بخش code storage صرفا op code های evm ای قرار نمیگیرن بلکه constant variable ها هم که یک نوع دیتا حساب میشن اونجا قرار میگیرن و توی account storage نوشته نمیشن

https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/62595/are-constant-state-variables-cached-in-the-evm
+

این وسط این مقاله رو هم دوست داشتم توضیح های خوبی درباره EVM داشت

http://158.64.76.181/bitstream/10993/36756/1/visual-emulation-ethereums.pdf

فعلا که چیزی ندیدیم بعد آپدیت فی دوباره سر به فلک کشید

اگه ببینید یا گوش کنید
اخرش درباره ای موضوع حرف زده میشه

ولی خلاصه بگم که هدف eip 1559 چسبوندن fee شبکه به کف نبوده بلکه بهبود ساختار پرداخت فی و افزایش ux تو سمت کاربر و کیف پول ها، به علاوه چند تا موضوع دیگه بوده

بعد یک نکته هم وجود داره

fee
نتیجه تابع عرضه و تقاضا برای block space هستش و مادامی که تقاضا برای block space بالا بره fee هم بالا میره و تنها راه حل موجود هم افزایش block space هستش اما این افزایش لزما به شکل افزایش حجم بلاک صورت نمیگیره مثلا تو راه کار های لایه ای ما داریم به نوعی به کاربر ها Block space ارائه میکنیم و یا تو مدل elastic block size اتریوم(که تو این eip معرفی شد)

this is easier to understand:
https://ethtx.info/0xcfd3fd19ac968796bb3b97d5edd3fb2b2a11e5ccc8247c5fa4efd2917f2b400f/

the basic message of Limits to Growth, that exponential growth of our world civilization cannot continue very long and that a very careful management of the planet is needed, remain as valid as ever.

In their 1972 publication Limits to Growth, their recommendations were focused on "how to slow growth". In the 2004 Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update, the message has changed. Meadows explained: "Now we must tell people how to manage an orderly reduction of their activities back down below the limits of the earth's resources."


In 2014, research at the University of Melbourne confirmed that the predictions from the book Limits to Growth were largely correct.[9] Presently we are very close to tracking the "business-as-usual" scenario from the book.

The Limits to Growth: The 30-year Update

http://www.peakoilindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Limits-to-Growth-updated.pdf

2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years

systems science

complex systems management and engineering

Policy and Social Science

complex strategic games

System Dynamics Society

#LTG (1)
تیکه های مهم بخش ۱

We addressed questions such as: Are current policies leading to a sus- tainable future or to collapse? What can be done to create a human economy that provides sufficiently for all?


A major foundation of our project was the “World3” computer model, which we constructed to help us integrate data and theories related to growth.


The Limits to Growth (LTG) reported that global ecological constraints (related to resource use and emissions) would have significant influence on global developments in the twenty-first century. LTG warned that humanity might have to divert much capital and manpower to battle these constraints—possibly so much that the average quality of life would decline sometime during the twenty-first century. Our book did not specify exactly what resource scarcity or what emission type might end growth by requiring more capital than was available—simply because such detailed predictions can not be made on a scientific basis in the huge and complex population–economy–environment system that constitutes our world.

In every realistic scenario we found that these limits force an end to physical growth in World3 sometime during the twenty-first century.

The end of growth, in whatever form, seemed to us to be a very distant prospect in 1972. All World3 scenarios in LTG showed growth in population and economy continuing well past the year 2000. Even in the most pes- simistic LTG scenario the material standard of living kept increasing all the way to 2015. Thus LTG placed the end of growth almost 50 years after the publication of the book.
ٖWhen we wrote LTG we hoped that such deliberation would lead society to take corrective actions to reduce the possibilities of collapse. Collapse is not an attractive future.

But the 1992 book did offer one major new finding.We suggested in BTL that humanity had already overshot the limits of Earth’s support capacity. This fact was so important that we chose to reflect it in the noscript of the book.
(یه چکی بکن تغییر روند های سیاسی قدرت های بزرگ رو توی ۱۹۹۲ یا ۱۳۷۲ به بعد)

No modern political party has garnered broad support for such a program, cer- tainly not among the rich and powerful, who could make room for growth among the poor by reducing their own footprints. Meanwhile, the global footprint gets larger day by day.