For years, explaining Bitcoin to a newcomer was a straightforward affair: it was simple, deliberately slow, and incredibly robust. Its design, featuring ten-minute blocks, limited transactional space, universal verification by all participants, and no special treatment for anyone, wasn't a flaw. It was a core feature, the very foundation that gave Bitcoin its bedrock-like stability and immutable nature. Yet, this design also leads to a predictable cycle during every bull market: block space tightens, transaction fees soar, users voice their frustrations, and developers inevitably propose solutions that exist above the base layer.
Recently, Vitalik Buterin, a co-founder of Ethereum, presented a strikingly different vision for his network's future. His claims directly challenge the long-held assumptions about decentralized networks, venturing onto what many consider Bitcoin's unique territory. In a recent post, Buterin asserted that Ethereum is solving the 'blockchain trilemma' by combining PeerDAS on its mainnet with zkEVMs reaching 'alpha' performance, all while ongoing security work continues. He outlined a roadmap extending from 2026 to 2030, envisioning a future where cryptographic proofs increasingly replace direct re-execution as Ethereum's primary method for validating blocks. He also emphasized a third crucial element: a move towards more distributed block building over time, making it harder for a small, concentrated group of builders to control transaction inclusion.
If your world mostly revolves around Bitcoin, it might be tempting to dismiss this. Ethereum, after all, always seems to have a new roadmap, another upgrade, and an endless stream of acronyms, while Bitcoin simply continues its steadfast operation. However, this particular announcement warrants a closer look. It's not just about another technical upgrade; it's about fundamentally altering what a 'decentralized network' can theoretically achieve, with actual code already being implemented and shipped.
The Reality Today: Ethereum's PeerDAS and Fusaka Upgrade
Ethereum's significant Fusaka upgrade went live on December 3, 2025, at a specific mainnet slot, with its headline feature being PeerDAS (Peer Data Availability Sampling). PeerDAS can sound abstract, but its core purpose is simple: when a rollup posts data to the Ethereum mainnet, how can the network confirm that this data is truly available for everyone without requiring every single node to download every single byte?
PeerDAS addresses this challenge through a clever technique called sampling. Instead of downloading everything, nodes subscribe to and check only a small, random slice of the blob data. By having enough nodes verify enough random pieces, the network collectively gains a high-confidence guarantee that the entire data set is present and available. The underlying mathematics leverage erasure coding, which means that even if some pieces are missing, the complete data can be reconstructed as long as a sufficient portion of the full set exists. The practical implication is clear: Ethereum is striving to significantly increase its throughput while simultaneously preventing the workload for 'regular nodes' from exploding. Ethereum.org's own explanation highlights that a default node, under PeerDAS, receives roughly one-eighth of the original blob data because it monitors eight out of 128 subnets, and blobs are specifically extended to facilitate this sampling process.
This focus on node workload is critical because bandwidth cost is one of the silent destroyers of true decentralization. As the cost and hardware requirements for running a full node climb, fewer individuals can participate from home, leading to network centralization. A network might appear distributed on paper but ultimately behave like a system controlled by a handful of professional, high-resource operators.
Fusaka also introduced another seemingly minor but potentially monumental feature: blob parameter-only forks. These are pre-programmed, mini-upgrades designed to adjust blob targets and maximums without the full-scale drama and coordination effort of a traditional hard fork. The intent is to allow Ethereum to incrementally increase its blob capacity as the network demonstrates its ability to handle the added load. The Ethereum Foundation has already published a schedule, with BPO1 raising the blob target and maximum to 10 and 15 respectively on December 9, 2025. BPO2 is slated to further increase these to 14 and 21 on January 7, 2026. Coin Metrics characterized this development as Ethereum beginning to treat blob throughput like a 'dial it can turn.'
Their report also observed that blobs had been running close to the previous six-blob target, and blob fees often sat at 1 wei. This was a subtle way of indicating that the market was barely charging for this resource. This 'barely charging' issue is precisely why another Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP) is frequently discussed in the background. It aims to establish a reserve price, preventing blob base fees from collapsing to near zero relative to execution costs. If you're familiar with Bitcoin, this dynamic should resonate: Bitcoin's block space is expensive because it's inherently scarce, and that scarcity is a fundamental design principle. Ethereum, by contrast, is actively trying to expand blob space for rollups without turning it into a 'free lunch' that invites spam and risks centralizing validation.
The zkEVM Piece: Fast Enough Now, Secure Enough Later
While PeerDAS is already live, the discussion around zkEVMs (Zero-Knowledge Ethereum Virtual Machines) focuses on what's coming next. In December, the Ethereum Foundation released a second 'Shipping an L1 zkEVM' update, which was remarkably blunt about a crucial shift in priorities: speed is no longer the primary concern; provable security is. The Foundation laid out clear milestones extending through 2026, including a target of 100-bit provable security by the end of May 2026, and 128-bit by the end of 2026, alongside specific proof-size caps.
Here's why this trajectory matters significantly for Bitcoin. Bitcoin's base-layer security narrative is elegantly simple and easy to grasp, even over a casual dinner: miners perform computational work (hashing), nodes independently verify every transaction and block, invalid blocks are swiftly rejected, and the network moves forward. Ethereum's evolving narrative, however, is trending towards a world where the network can accommodate vastly more activity because validators will verify succinct cryptographic proofs instead of replaying every step of execution themselves. This represents a different kind of trust.
It remains decentralized in the sense that anyone can verify, but it places a heavier reliance on advanced cryptography, the correctness of implementation, and the economic incentives surrounding who produces these proofs. And it comes with a definitive timeline. Vitalik Buterin's post sketches 2026 as the year for substantial gas-limit increases, driven by other upgrades, and the first genuine opportunities to run a zkEVM node. He frames the 2027-2030 window as the period when zkEVM validation is expected to become the primary path for block validation across the network.
Why Bitcoin Should Care, Even if Nothing Changes on Its Own Network
Bitcoin doesn't necessarily need to 'win' the throughput race. Its primary objective is to continue winning credibility, particularly as the most secure and reliable decentralized monetary base. For a considerable time, Bitcoin's strongest competitive advantage has been its unwavering decentralization, coupled with a base layer that remains understandable, conservative, and notoriously difficult to alter. Ethereum's strength, conversely, has been its flexibility and a willingness to scale through novel primitives, leaning heavily on rollups to handle the vast majority of user activity.
These two distinct paths are now beginning to converge. If Ethereum can effectively scale data availability while keeping node requirements manageable, and if it can successfully implement proof-based validation without compromising its core trust assumptions, the market will gain a second highly credible 'settlement-style' network. Such a network would be capable of handling high-bandwidth activity without morphing into a permissioned data center. This development could impact Bitcoin in three key ways:
- The Narrative Premium on Block Space: Bitcoin fees spike when demand is high; this is a natural market signal reflecting scarcity. Ethereum, however, is striving to make the rollup fee experience feel more akin to the internet: stable, inexpensive, and unremarkable. It aims to achieve this by expanding blob capacity and smoothing out its fee market. If Ethereum succeeds, Bitcoin's block space will indeed remain premium. However, the use cases that truly demand this premium settlement might narrow, focusing perhaps on high-value transfers, long-term custody movements, and the settlement of layered systems on Bitcoin itself.
- The Battle for Decentralized Rails for 'Everything Else': A significant portion of crypto's 'real-world' pitch, encompassing tokenized dollars, on-chain equity, and supply chain settlement, ultimately hinges on cost-effectiveness and throughput. Base's scaling report, for example, noted that its median fees dropped from approximately $0.30 to mere fractions of a cent during periods of frequent capacity increases. It also specifically pointed to Ethereum's data availability roadmap, including PeerDAS and subsequent blob increases, as the next critical unlock. When this kind of user experience becomes available at scale, capital and builders inevitably follow. Bitcoin's role, in this scenario, would become even more distinctly monetary, and less general-purpose. Some Bitcoiners might view this as a victory, while others might perceive it as Ethereum absorbing the segments of crypto that attract mainstream users.
- A New Centralization Battleground: Bitcoiners are well-versed in the risks of centralization, which currently concentrate in mining pools, ASIC supply chains, and regulatory oversight affecting custodians and large intermediaries. Ethereum's next set of risks, as acknowledged by Vitalik Buterin, will likely concentrate in prover markets and block building. His proposed solutions, such as distributed block building and mechanisms like inclusion lists, aim to address these. The Ethereum roadmap includes tools like enshrined proposer-builder separation (ePBS), fork-choice-enforced inclusion lists, and block-level access lists. The overarching goal is to prevent scaling advancements from inadvertently handing control to a small cadre of professional actors. Bitcoiners have witnessed this narrative before: scaling often shifts power dynamics. The most challenging aspect is preserving the system's neutrality when the underlying tooling and infrastructure become expensive to operate.
What the Next Four Years Could Look Like
No one in the crypto space can declare absolute victory without numerous 'if' statements, and even Ethereum's own sources are clear that zkEVM safety remains a primary area of ongoing work. Therefore, an honest assessment requires considering various scenarios and their potential impact on Bitcoin:
- Scenario One: Slow and Careful, Fewer Surprises. PeerDAS continues to expand blob capacity through its scheduled parameter forks. zkEVM security milestones take time to achieve, and proof-based validation remains an optional feature for longer than enthusiasts might prefer. In this world, Ethereum significantly improves the fee experience for rollups. The market gradually comes to view Ethereum as the most scalable 'credible neutral' settlement network, secondary only to Bitcoin. Bitcoin, in turn, solidly remains the most conservative monetary base. The competitive tension between the two primarily stays ideological and investor-driven.
- Scenario Two: Demand Pulls the Roadmap Forward. Rollups rapidly consume blob capacity, usage remains consistently high after each BPO step, and Ethereum continues to 'turn the dial upward.' In this scenario, the narrative of 'cheap crypto user experience' largely consolidates around Ethereum's rollup ecosystem. Bitcoin becomes even more definitively a settlement and savings layer. The market then begins to question whether Bitcoin's own Layer 2 ecosystem can offer a comparable user experience while still adhering to Bitcoin's core social and technical conservatism.
- Scenario Three: zk Proofs Become Normal, and the Argument Changes. Ethereum successfully hits its ambitious security targets, proof verification becomes the default method for validators, and higher gas limits become significantly more feasible without imposing prohibitive hardware requirements on every participant. In this impactful world, Ethereum's claim to 'high-bandwidth decentralization' becomes increasingly difficult to dismiss. Bitcoin's differentiation would lean even more heavily on its simplicity, immutability, and predictable monetary policy. The investor conversation would shift from viewing Bitcoin as the sole base layer amidst a crowd of speed-racing altchains, to recognizing two distinct base layers, each with profoundly different philosophies and strengths.
What Users Actually Feel
Most users don't wake up excited about the intricacies of data availability sampling. What frustrates them is when moving money costs too much, or when a cryptocurrency swap fails, or when a memecoin mint consumes a significant chunk of their paycheck in exorbitant fees. Bitcoiners are intimately familiar with this pain, particularly when the mempool becomes congested and fees effectively price out casual users.
Ethereum's promise here is a future where the base layer remains decentralized enough for ordinary validators, while the everyday user experience primarily occurs on rollups with costs that feel more like typical application fees, rather than weighty settlement fees.
If this vision materializes, it won't 'kill' Bitcoin. Instead, it will likely clarify Bitcoin's fundamental role. Bitcoin would solidify its position as the ultimate trust anchor, the secure asset you turn to when you want to exit the volatile 'casino' of wider crypto speculation. Ethereum, on the other hand, would become the network diligently working to make that 'casino' scale efficiently, without collapsing into the hands of a single, centralized operator. The inherent risk, however, is that Ethereum's ambitious path requires a greater number of moving parts and more sophisticated cryptography, which naturally introduces new vectors for complexity and potential vulnerabilities.
Post a Comment