Why Bitcoin doesn’t need to solve the decentralized, scaling, and security “Trilemma” but Ethereum did

A few years ago, the easiest way to explain Bitcoin to a newcomer was to keep it simple, slow, and sturdy.

Ten-minute blocks. Limited space. Everyone checks everything. Nobody gets special treatment.

That design is a feature. It is what makes Bitcoin feel like bedrock.

It is also why every bull market ends up replaying the same argument. Block space gets tight, fees jump, users complain, and builders promise solutions that live somewhere above the base layer.

This week, Vitalik Buterin showed up with a very different claim about Ethereum’s future, one that lands directly on Bitcoin’s turf.

In a post on X, he argued the blockchain “trilemma” is solved by pairing PeerDAS on mainnet with zkEVMs reaching “alpha” performance, while security work continues.

He sketched a 2026–2030 path where proofs increasingly replace re-execution as the way Ethereum validates blocks.

He also pointed to a third pillar: more distributed block building over time, so transaction inclusion is harder for a small club of builders to capture.

If you mostly live in Bitcoin land, it is tempting to shrug. Ethereum always has a roadmap, always has a new acronym, and Bitcoin keeps doing what it does.

This one deserves a closer look. It is less about another upgrade and more about shifting what a “decentralized network” can do, at least in theory, with code already shipping.

The part that is real today

Ethereum’s Fusaka upgrade activated on Dec. 3, 2025, at a specific mainnet slot. The Ethereum Foundation published the exact slot timing, and the headline feature was PeerDAS.

PeerDAS is one of those ideas that sounds abstract until you reduce it to a single question.

When a rollup posts data to Ethereum, how do we know that data is actually available to the network without requiring every node to download every byte?

PeerDAS answers with sampling.

Nodes subscribe to a small slice of the blob data. They check enough random pieces that the network gets a high-confidence guarantee the whole thing is there.

The math behind it uses erasure coding, so missing pieces can be reconstructed if enough of the full set exists.

The plain-English point is that Ethereum is trying to raise throughput while keeping the “regular node” workload from exploding.

Ethereum.org’s own explanation says a default node receives roughly one-eighth of the original blob data under PeerDAS, because it listens to eight of 128 subnets, and blobs are extended for sampling.

That matters because bandwidth is one of the quiet killers of decentralization.

When the cost of staying synced climbs, home operators drop off. The network can look distributed while behaving like a handful of professional operators.

Fusaka also introduced something that feels small but can become huge over time: blob parameter-only forks.

These are preprogrammed mini-upgrades that adjust blob targets and maximums without the full drama of a traditional hard fork.

The idea is to let Ethereum raise blob capacity in steps as the network proves it can handle it.

The Ethereum Foundation published a schedule where BPO1 raised the blob target and max to 10 and 15 on Dec. 9, 2025. BPO2 is set to raise the target and max again to 14 and 21 on Jan. 7, 2026.

Coin Metrics framed this as the start of Ethereum treating blob throughput like a dial it can turn.

The report also notes that blobs had been running near the prior six-blob target and that blob fees often sat at 1 wei, a polite way of saying the market was barely charging for the resource.

That “barely charging” issue is why another EIP keeps showing up in the background.

It sets a reserve price so blob base fees do not collapse to near zero relative to execution costs.

If you are a Bitcoiner, this should already sound familiar.

Block space in Bitcoin is expensive because it is scarce, and scarcity is the point. Ethereum is trying to grow blob space for rollups without turning it into a free lunch that invites spam and centralizes validation.

The zkEVM piece: fast enough now, safe enough later

PeerDAS is live today. The zkEVM claim is about what happens next.

In December, the Ethereum Foundation published a second “Shipping an L1 zkEVM” update that is blunt about the shift in priorities: speed is no longer the main question. Provable security is.

The Foundation laid out milestones through 2026. That includes a target of 100-bit provable security by the end of May 2026 and 128-bit by the end of 2026, along with proof-size caps.

Here is why that matters for Bitcoin.

Bitcoin’s base-layer security story is simple enough to explain at a dinner table. Miners hash, nodes verify, invalid blocks get rejected, and the network moves on.

Ethereum’s story is trending toward a world where the network can accept far more activity because validators verify succinct proofs instead of replaying every step of execution themselves.

That is a different kind of trust. It is still decentralized in the sense that anyone can verify, but it leans more on cryptography, implementation correctness, and the economics of who produces proofs.

And it comes with a timeline.

Vitalik’s post sketches 2026 as the year of big gas-limit increases driven by other upgrades, and the first real chances to run a zkEVM node.

He frames 2027–2030 as the window where zkEVM validation becomes the primary path for block validation.

Why Bitcoin should care, even if nothing changes on Bitcoin

Bitcoin does not need to “win” throughput. It needs to keep winning credibility.

For a long time, Bitcoin’s strongest competitive edge has been decentralization plus a base layer that stays understandable, conservative, and brutally hard to change.

Ethereum’s edge has been flexibility and a willingness to scale through new primitives, then lean on rollups to carry most user activity.

Those roads are now colliding.

If Ethereum can scale data availability while keeping node requirements bounded, and push proof-based validation without breaking trust assumptions, the market gets a second credible “settlement-style” network.

It would be able to handle high-bandwidth activity without looking like a permissioned data center.

That impacts Bitcoin in three ways.

First, the narrative premium on block space.

Bitcoin fees spike when demand spikes. That is normal, and it is the market signal.

Ethereum is trying to make the rollup fee experience feel more like the internet: steady, cheap, and boring, by expanding blob capacity and smoothing the fee market.

If Ethereum succeeds, Bitcoin’s block space remains premium. But the use cases that demand premium settlement may narrow toward high-value transfers, long-term custody moves, and settlement of layered systems.

Second, the fight over decentralized rails for everything else.

A lot of crypto’s “real world” pitch, tokenized dollars, on-chain equity, supply-chain settlement, lives or dies on cost and throughput.

Base’s scaling write-up says its median fees fell from about $0.30 to fractions of a cent during frequent capacity increases. It also points to Ethereum’s data availability roadmap, including PeerDAS and further blob increases, as the next unlock.

When that kind of user experience exists at scale, capital and builders follow. Bitcoin’s role becomes more clearly monetary and less general-purpose.

Some Bitcoiners will call that a win. Others will see it as Ethereum absorbing the parts of crypto that attract mainstream users.

Third, a new centralization battleground that Bitcoin already understands.

Bitcoin’s risks concentrate in mining pools, ASIC supply chains, and regulation touching custodians and large intermediaries.

Ethereum’s next risks concentrate in prover markets and block building, which Vitalik acknowledged by talking about distributed block building and mechanisms like inclusion lists.

On the Ethereum roadmap, the tools that show up here include enshrined proposer-builder separation, fork-choice-enforced inclusion lists, and block-level access lists. The goal is to keep scaling from handing control to a small set of professional actors.

Bitcoiners have seen this movie.

Scaling often shifts power somewhere else. The hardest part is keeping the system neutral when the tooling gets expensive.

What the next four years could look like

Nobody gets to declare victory in crypto without a few “if” statements, and Ethereum’s own sources are clear that zkEVM safety is still the main work.

So the honest way to cover this is with scenarios. The impact on Bitcoin changes depending on which path plays out.

Scenario one: slow and careful, fewer surprises. PeerDAS keeps expanding blob capacity through scheduled parameter forks. zkEVM security milestones take time, and proof-based validation remains optional longer than enthusiasts want.

In this world, Ethereum improves the fee experience for rollups. The market gradually treats ETH as the most scalable “credible neutral” settlement network outside Bitcoin.

Bitcoin remains the most conservative monetary base. The competitive tension stays ideological and investor-driven.

Scenario two: demand pulls the roadmap forward. Rollups soak up blob capacity quickly, usage stays high after each BPO step, and Ethereum keeps turning the dial upward.

In this world, the “cheap crypto UX” narrative consolidates around Ethereum’s rollup stack. Bitcoin becomes even more clearly a settlement and savings layer.

The market starts asking whether Bitcoin’s L2 ecosystem can offer a similar experience while retaining Bitcoin’s social and technical conservatism.

Scenario three: zk proofs become normal, and the argument changes. Ethereum hits its security targets, proof verification becomes the default for validators, and higher gas limits become more feasible without raising hardware requirements for everyone.

In this world, Ethereum’s claim to “high-bandwidth decentralization” becomes harder to dismiss. Bitcoin’s differentiation leans harder on simplicity, immutability, and monetary policy.

The investor conversation shifts toward two base layers with different philosophies, rather than one base layer and a crowd of alt chains racing for speed.

What users actually feel

Most users do not wake up excited about data availability sampling.

They wake up frustrated that moving money costs too much, or that a swap fails, or that a memecoin mint chews up a paycheck in fees.

Bitcoiners know this pain too, especially when the mempool gets crowded, and fees price out casual users.

Ethereum’s promise here is a future where the base layer stays decentralized enough for ordinary validators, while the user experience happens on rollups with costs that feel like app fees, not settlement fees.

If that happens, it does not kill Bitcoin. It clarifies Bitcoin.

Bitcoin becomes the thing you trust when you want to exit the casino.

Ethereum becomes the network that tries to make the casino scale without collapsing into a single operator.

The risk is that Ethereum’s path requires more moving parts, more cryptography, more sophisticated markets for building and proving blocks, and more chances for concentration to sneak in through the back door.

Vitalik all but says so when he highlights distributed block building as unfinished business.

Bitcoin’s risk is different. It stays slow, it stays scarce, and it stays expensive when demand rises.

The industry keeps trying to rebuild the world on layers above it.

Bottom line

Vitalik’s “trilemma solved” line is a headline. The substance is a roadmap, with real code already deployed on the data side and a hard security push on the proof side.

Bitcoin should care because the strongest argument for Bitcoin as crypto’s only credibly neutral base layer weakens if Ethereum can scale without pricing out regular validators.

Bitcoin should also stay calm. Bitcoin’s value proposition is not throughput.

It is restraint, predictability, and a base layer that remains legible under stress.

The more Ethereum evolves toward a high-bandwidth settlement fabric, the more Bitcoin’s role as the conservative monetary anchor looks intentional rather than outdated.

That is the kind of competition crypto needs: two networks pushing different definitions of trust, and forcing the rest of the market to stop confusing speed with decentralization.