The Turning Point of a Decade-Long Debate: Could Ethereum End the "Impossible Trinity" Controversy?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
The Turning Point of a Decade-Long Debate: Could Ethereum End the "Impossible Trinity" Controversy?
Will the so-called "impossible trinity," once seen as insurmountable, truly dissolve with the maturation of PeerDAS, ZK technology, and account abstraction?
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: imToken
You're probably sick of hearing the term "impossible triangle," right?
During Ethereum's first decade, the "impossible triangle" loomed over every developer like a physical law—you could pick any two of decentralization, security, and scalability, but never all three at once.
Yet looking back from early 2026, we can see it gradually transforming into a "design barrier" that can be overcome through technological evolution. As Vitalik Buterin pointed out on January 8 in a groundbreaking statement: "Increasing bandwidth is safer and more reliable than reducing latency. With PeerDAS and ZKPs, Ethereum’s scalability can improve by thousands of times without compromising decentralization."
Can the once-unassailable "impossible triangle" truly dissolve in 2026, as PeerDAS, ZK technologies, and account abstraction mature?
1. Why Has the “Impossible Triangle” Remained Unsolvable for So Long?
We must first revisit the concept of the "blockchain impossible triangle" introduced by Vitalik Buterin, which describes the difficulty public chains face in achieving security, scalability, and decentralization simultaneously:
- Decentralization means low node requirements, broad participation, and no reliance on a single trusted entity;
- Security means the system maintains consistency even under malicious attacks, censorship, or other threats;
- Scalability means high throughput, low latency, and excellent user experience;
The problem is that these three factors often conflict with one another under traditional architectures. For example, increasing throughput usually raises hardware requirements or introduces centralized coordination; reducing node burden may weaken security assumptions; and maintaining extreme decentralization inevitably sacrifices performance and user experience.
Over the past 5–10 years, various blockchains—from early EOS to later Polkadot and Cosmos, and then high-performance contenders like Solana, Sui, and Aptos—have offered different answers. Some sacrificed decentralization for performance, others improved efficiency via permissioned nodes or committee mechanisms, while some accepted limited performance to prioritize anti-censorship and free verification.
But they shared one thing in common: almost all scaling solutions could satisfy only two of the three properties, necessarily sacrificing the third.
Put differently, nearly every solution has been locked in the logic of "monolithic blockchains"—if you want speed, you need powerful nodes; if you want many nodes, you have to accept slowness. This seemed like an unsolvable dilemma.
If we set aside debates about monolithic versus modular blockchains and instead reflect honestly on Ethereum’s shift since 2020—from a "monolithic chain" to a multi-layer architecture centered around Rollups—and consider the recent maturation of supporting technologies like ZK (zero-knowledge proofs), we realize something important:
The fundamental logic behind the “impossible triangle” has quietly been restructured over the past five years through Ethereum’s steady progress in modularity.
Objectively speaking, Ethereum has used a series of engineering practices to decouple previously binding constraints. At least in terms of implementation paths, this issue is no longer just philosophical debate.
2. An Engineering Approach: Divide and Conquer
Next, let’s break down these engineering details to see how Ethereum, between 2020 and 2025, advanced along multiple technical fronts in parallel to dissolve this triangular constraint.
First, PeerDAS decouples blockchain from data availability, lifting the inherent ceiling on scalability.
As we know, within the impossible triangle, data availability is often the primary bottleneck for scalability. Traditional blockchains require every full node to download and verify all data, ensuring security but capping scalability. This explains why Celestia-style "heretical" DA solutions saw explosive growth in the last (or rather, the one before last) cycle.
Ethereum’s approach isn’t to make nodes more powerful, but to change how nodes verify data—with PeerDAS (Peer Data Availability Sampling) at its core:
Instead of requiring each node to download entire block data, PeerDAS uses probabilistic sampling to check whether data is available. Block data is split and encoded, allowing nodes to randomly sample small portions. If data is withheld, the probability of detection quickly approaches certainty. This enables significantly higher data throughput while still allowing ordinary nodes to participate in validation—meaning performance gains aren’t achieved at the cost of decentralization, but through mathematical and engineering design that drastically optimizes the cost structure of verification (see further reading: Is the DA War Ending? Deconstructing PeerDAS and How It Helps Ethereum Reclaim “Data Sovereignty”).
Vitalik emphasized that PeerDAS is no longer just a roadmap idea—it's now a deployed system component. This marks a concrete step forward for Ethereum on the "scalability × decentralization" front.
Second, zkEVM aims to solve the question of whether every node must re-execute all computations, using a zero-knowledge proof-driven verification layer.
Its core idea is enabling Ethereum’s mainnet to generate and verify ZK proofs. In other words, after executing each block, a verifiable mathematical proof is produced so other nodes can confirm correctness without redoing the computation. Specifically, zkEVM offers advantages in three areas:
- Faster verification: Nodes don’t need to replay transactions—they simply verify the zkProof to confirm block validity;
- Lower burden: Significantly reduces computational and storage demands on full nodes, making it easier for light nodes and cross-chain validators to participate;
- Stronger security: Compared to the OP route, ZK state proofs are confirmed on-chain in real time, offering higher tamper resistance and clearer security boundaries;
Recently, the Ethereum Foundation (EF) officially released the L1 zkEVM real-time proof standard, marking the first time the ZK path has been formally included in the mainnet’s technical roadmap. Within the next year, Ethereum’s mainnet will gradually transition to an execution environment supporting zkEVM verification—a structural shift from "heavy execution" to "proof verification."
Vitalik believes zkEVM has already reached a stage where it's preliminarily suitable for production use. The real challenges lie in long-term security and implementation complexity. According to EF’s published roadmap, goals include keeping block proof latency under 10 seconds, limiting individual zk proof size to under 300 KB, adopting 128-bit security levels, avoiding trusted setups, and enabling household devices to participate in proof generation—lowering the bar for decentralization (see further reading: The Dawn of the ZK Path: Is Ethereum’s Endgame Roadmap Accelerating?).
Finally, beyond these two components, there are also multi-dimensional upgrades aligned with Ethereum’s pre-2030 roadmap (such as The Surge, The Verge), including boosting throughput,重构 state models, raising gas limits, and improving execution layers.
These represent trial-and-error paths toward transcending traditional triangular limitations—a long-term主线 aimed at achieving higher blob throughput, clearer Rollup division of labor, and more stable execution and settlement rhythms, laying the foundation for future multi-chain collaboration and interoperability.
Crucially, these upgrades aren't isolated improvements—they’re explicitly designed as interlocking, mutually reinforcing modules. This perfectly reflects Ethereum’s engineering mindset toward the impossible triangle: not seeking a magical silver bullet like monolithic chains do, but re-distributing costs and risks through layered architectural adjustments.
3. Vision 2030: Ethereum’s Endgame Architecture
Even so, we should remain cautious. Elements like "decentralization" aren't static technical metrics—they’re outcomes of long-term evolution.
Ethereum is progressively exploring the boundaries of the impossible triangle through engineering practice. As verification methods evolve (from recomputation to sampling), data structures change (from state bloat to state expiry), and execution models shift (from monolithic to modular), the original trade-offs are being redefined. We’re drawing infinitely close to that elusive goal where we can have it all: decentralization, security, and scalability.
In recent discussions, Vitalik outlined a relatively clear timeline:
- 2026: With improvements in execution layers and builder mechanisms—such as introducing ePBS—gas limits can be raised even without relying on zkEVM, while creating conditions for broader deployment of zkEVM nodes;
- 2026–2028: Adjustments to gas pricing, state structure, and execution payload organization will allow the system to maintain secure operation under heavier loads;
- 2027–2030: As zkEVM becomes a key method for block validation, gas limits may rise further, with long-term aspirations pointing toward more decentralized block building;
Combining recent roadmap updates, we can glimpse three key characteristics defining Ethereum before 2030—features that together form the ultimate answer to the impossible triangle:
- Minimalist L1: Layer 1 becomes a stable, neutral base responsible only for data availability and settlement proofs. By no longer handling complex application logic, it maintains extremely high security;
- Thriving L2s and Interoperability: Through EIL (Interoperability Layer) and fast confirmation rules, fragmented L2s are stitched together into a seamless whole. Users won’t perceive individual chains—they’ll simply experience TPS in the tens of thousands;
- Extremely Low Validation Barriers: Thanks to mature state management and light client technology, even smartphones can participate in validation, ensuring the cornerstone of decentralization remains rock-solid;
Interestingly, as this article was being written, Vitalik reiterated an important test criterion—the "Walkaway Test"—emphasizing that Ethereum must retain autonomous operability: even if all service providers disappear or suffer attacks, DApps should continue running and user assets must remain secure.
This statement effectively shifts the evaluation metric of Ethereum’s “endgame” away from speed and user experience, refocusing it on what Ethereum cares about most: whether the system remains trustworthy and non-reliant on single points, even under worst-case scenarios.
Final Thoughts
One must always view problems with a developmental perspective—especially in the fast-moving world of Web3/Crypto.
I believe that years from now, when people look back at the intense debates around the impossible triangle during 2020–2025, they might find them amusing—like serious discussions before the invention of automobiles about how carriages could simultaneously achieve speed, safety, and load capacity.
Ethereum’s answer isn’t choosing painfully among three corners. Instead, through PeerDAS, ZK proofs, and sophisticated economic game design, it builds a digital infrastructure that belongs to everyone, is highly secure, and capable of supporting humanity’s entire financial activity.
Objectively speaking, every step forward along this path walks upon the final chapter of the “impossible triangle” narrative.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
@imTokenOfficial
