Ethereum has addressed a key issue that Bitcoin is unwilling to resolve on its own network – but what’s the reason?

Several years back, the simplest method to clarify Bitcoin for a newcomer was to emphasize its straightforward, gradual, and robust nature.

Ten-minute intervals for blocks. Limited capacity. Every participant verifies everything. No one receives preferential treatment.

This structure is a characteristic feature. It contributes to Bitcoin’s foundational feel.

It also explains why every bullish market cycle ends up revisiting the same discussion. Block space becomes constrained, fees rise, users voice their frustrations, and developers propose solutions that exist above the base layer.

This week, Vitalik Buterin presented a significantly different assertion regarding Ethereum’s future, one that directly challenges Bitcoin’s domain.

In a post on X, he contended that the blockchain “trilemma” is addressed by integrating PeerDAS on the mainnet with zkEVMs achieving “alpha” performance, while security efforts persist.

He outlined a trajectory from 2026 to 2030 where proofs gradually take the place of re-execution as Ethereum’s method for validating blocks.

He also identified a third component: increasing distribution of block building over time, making it more challenging for a small group of builders to monopolize transaction inclusion.

Related Reading

Vitalik Buterin declares Ethereum solved crypto Trilemma, yet his 2030 roadmap exposes a massive ideological risk

Vitalik Buterin details how Ethereum's world computer roadmap seeks to challenge the subscription-based internet model

Jan 5, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

If you primarily inhabit the Bitcoin ecosystem, it may be tempting to dismiss this. Ethereum always has a roadmap, a new acronym, while Bitcoin continues its established practices.

This particular development warrants a more thorough examination. It transcends mere upgrades and pertains to redefining what a “decentralized network” can achieve, at least theoretically, with existing code.

The aspect that is tangible today

Ethereum’s Fusaka upgrade was activated on December 3, 2025, at a designated mainnet slot. The Ethereum Foundation disclosed the specific slot timing, and the standout feature was PeerDAS.

PeerDAS is one of those concepts that seems theoretical until you distill it into a single inquiry.

When a rollup submits data to Ethereum, how can we ascertain that this data is genuinely accessible to the network without necessitating every node to download every byte?

PeerDAS provides an answer through sampling.

Nodes subscribe to a small segment of the blob data. They verify enough random fragments to assure the network with a high degree of confidence that the entirety is present.

The underlying mathematics employs erasure coding so that missing elements can be reconstructed if sufficient parts of the complete set are available.

The straightforward takeaway is that Ethereum aims to enhance throughput while preventing the workload on “regular nodes” from skyrocketing.

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

This is significant because bandwidth is one of the silent threats to decentralization.

As the expenses of remaining in sync escalate, home operators tend to exit. The network may appear distributed but function similarly to a limited group of professional operators.

Fusaka also introduced a seemingly minor feature that has the potential to grow significantly over time: blob parameter-only forks.

These are preprogrammed mini-upgrades that modify blob targets and maxima without the full drama associated with a traditional hard fork.

The concept is to allow Ethereum to incrementally raise blob capacity as the network demonstrates its ability to handle it.

The Ethereum Foundation released a timeline where BPO1 increased the blob target and maximum to 10 and 15 on December 9, 2025. BPO2 is scheduled to elevate the target and maximum again to 14 and 21 on January 7, 2026.

Coin Metrics characterized this as the initiation of Ethereum managing blob throughput like a dial it can adjust.

The report also highlights that blobs had been operating near the previous six-blob target, and blob fees often hovered around 1 wei, a subtle way of indicating that the market was hardly charging for the resource.

This “barely charging” situation explains why another EIP continues to emerge in the background.

It establishes a reserve price to prevent blob base fees from plummeting to near zero in relation to execution costs.

If you are a Bitcoiner, this should already resonate.

Block space in Bitcoin is costly due to its scarcity, and scarcity is intentional. Ethereum is attempting to expand blob space for rollups without allowing it to become a free-for-all that invites spam and centralizes validation.

Related Reading

Will Fusaka keep users on L2? Upcoming Ethereum upgrade eyes up to 60% fee cuts

The Fusaka upgrade solidifies Ethereum’s modular vision: L1 as settlement, L2 as the user interface.

Oct 30, 2025 · Andjela Radmilac

The zkEVM component: fast enough now, safe enough later

PeerDAS is operational today. The zkEVM assertion pertains to what occurs next.

In December, the Ethereum Foundation released a second “Shipping an L1 zkEVM” update that is straightforward about the change in focus: speed is no longer the primary concern. Verifiable security is.

The Foundation outlined milestones through 2026. This includes a goal of achieving 100-bit verifiable security by the end of May 2026 and 128-bit by the end of 2026, along with caps on proof sizes.

Here’s why that is significant for Bitcoin.

Bitcoin’s base-layer security narrative is straightforward enough to convey at a dinner table. Miners hash, nodes validate, invalid blocks are rejected, and the network continues.

Ethereum’s narrative is evolving toward a scenario where the network can accommodate significantly more activity because validators confirm succinct proofs instead of repeating every execution step themselves.

This represents a different type of trust. It remains decentralized in the sense that anyone can validate, but it relies more on cryptography, implementation accuracy, and the economics of who generates proofs.

And it comes with a timeline.

Vitalik’s post sketches 2026 as the year of substantial gas-limit increases driven by other enhancements, alongside the first genuine opportunities to operate a zkEVM node.

He positions 2027–2030 as the timeframe in which zkEVM validation emerges as the predominant method for block validation.

Why Bitcoin should be attentive, even if there are no changes on Bitcoin

Bitcoin does not need to “win” in terms of throughput. It must continue to earn trust.

For a long time, Bitcoin’s most significant competitive advantage has been decentralization combined with a base layer that remains comprehensible, cautious, and exceedingly difficult to alter.

Ethereum’s advantage has been adaptability and a readiness to scale through innovative primitives, subsequently relying on rollups to handle the majority of user activities.

These paths are now converging.

If Ethereum can enhance data availability while maintaining bounded node requirements, and advance proof-based validation without undermining trust assumptions, the market will gain a second credible “settlement-style” network.

This network would be capable of managing high-bandwidth activities without resembling a controlled data center.

This affects Bitcoin in three key ways.

First, the narrative premium on block space.

Bitcoin fees surge when demand escalates. This is typical, and serves as the market indicator.

Ethereum is striving to make the rollup fee experience resemble the internet: stable, affordable, and uneventful, by increasing blob capacity and smoothing the fee market.

If Ethereum succeeds, Bitcoin’s block space will remain premium. However, the use cases that necessitate premium settlement may become confined to high-value transfers, long-term custody transitions, and settlements of layered systems.

Second, the competition over decentralized infrastructure for everything else.

A significant portion of crypto’s “real world” proposition—tokenized dollars, on-chain equity, supply-chain settlement—depends on cost and throughput.

Base’s scaling analysis indicates that its median fees dropped from about $0.30 to mere fractions of a cent during frequent capacity enhancements. It also highlights Ethereum’s data availability roadmap, which includes PeerDAS and further blob expansions, as the next breakthrough.

When this type of user experience is realized at scale, capital and developers will follow. Bitcoin’s role will become more distinctly monetary and less broadly applicable.

Some Bitcoin advocates may view this as a victory. Others may perceive it as Ethereum absorbing the elements of crypto that appeal to mainstream users.

Third, a new centralization battleground that Bitcoin is already familiar with.

Bitcoin’s risks concentrate within mining pools, ASIC supply chains, and regulations affecting custodians and large intermediaries.

Related Reading

Bitcoin's transaction finality now takes over a week due to mining centralization, developer claims

Calls for decentralization intensify as Bitcoin's transaction security faces challenges from centralized mining pools.

Feb 10, 2025 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

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

On the Ethereum roadmap, the tools that are expected to emerge include enshrined proposer-builder separation, fork-choice-enforced inclusion lists, and block-level access lists. The aim is to continue scaling without transferring control to a small group of professional actors.

Bitcoiners have witnessed this scenario before.

Scaling often reallocates power elsewhere. The most challenging aspect is maintaining system neutrality when the tooling becomes costly.

What the next four years may look like

No one can claim victory in crypto without a few “if” conditions, and Ethereum’s own sources indicate that zkEVM safety remains a primary focus.

Thus, the most candid approach to addressing this is through scenarios. The impact on Bitcoin varies depending on which trajectory unfolds.

Scenario one: slow and cautious, fewer surprises. PeerDAS continues to expand blob capacity through scheduled parameter forks. zkEVM security milestones require time, and proof-based validation remains optional longer than enthusiasts desire.

In this scenario, Ethereum enhances the fee experience for rollups. The market gradually regards ETH as the most scalable “credible neutral” settlement network aside from Bitcoin.

Bitcoin persists as the most conservative monetary foundation. The competitive tension remains ideological and investor-driven.

Scenario two: demand accelerates the roadmap. Rollups rapidly absorb blob capacity, usage remains high after each BPO increment, and Ethereum consistently adjusts upward.

In this scenario, the “affordable crypto UX” narrative solidifies around Ethereum’s rollup framework. Bitcoin becomes even more distinctly a settlement and savings layer.

The market begins to query whether Bitcoin’s L2 ecosystem can provide a comparable experience while maintaining Bitcoin’s social and technical conservatism.

Scenario three: zk proofs become standard, and the discourse shifts. Ethereum meets its security benchmarks, proof verification becomes the default for validators, and elevated gas limits become more achievable without increasing hardware demands for all.

In this scenario, Ethereum’s assertion of “high-bandwidth decentralization” becomes increasingly difficult to dismiss. Bitcoin’s differentiation leans more heavily on simplicity, immutability, and monetary policy.

The investor dialogue shifts toward two base layers with distinct philosophies, rather than a single base layer and a multitude of alt chains vying for speed.

Related Reading

Ethereum’s 2026 roadmap includes this validator risk that's bigger than you think

The anticipated increase in capacity relies on a delicate transition to ZK-proof verification that could falter under network pressure.

Dec 28, 2025 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

What users truly experience

Most users do not awaken enthusiastic about data availability sampling.

They wake up irritated that transferring funds is too costly, or that a swap fails, or that a memecoin mint consumes a paycheck in fees.

Bitcoiners are familiar with this frustration, especially when the mempool gets congested, and fees exclude casual users.

Ethereum’s vision here is a future where the base layer remains sufficiently decentralized for ordinary validators, while the user experience occurs on rollups with costs that resemble app fees, not settlement fees.

If that transpires, it does not undermine Bitcoin. It clarifies Bitcoin’s role.

Bitcoin becomes the asset you trust when you wish to exit the casino.

Ethereum evolves into the network that strives to scale the casino without devolving into a single operator.

The risk lies in the fact that Ethereum’s trajectory necessitates more moving parts, more cryptography, more intricate markets for constructing and validating blocks, and more opportunities for concentration to sneak in unnoticed.

Vitalik nearly implies this when he emphasizes distributed block building as an area that requires further development.

Bitcoin’s risk is distinct. It remains slow, it stays scarce, and it becomes expensive when demand surges.

The industry continues to attempt to reconstruct the world on layers above it.

Final thoughts

Vitalik’s “trilemma solved” statement is a headline. The essence is a roadmap, with tangible code already implemented on the data side and a significant security push on the proof side.

Bitcoin should be attentive because the most compelling argument for Bitcoin as crypto’s sole credibly neutral base layer diminishes if Ethereum can scale without excluding regular validators.

Bitcoin should also maintain composure. Bitcoin’s value proposition is not centered on throughput.

It resides in restraint, predictability, and a base layer that remains comprehensible under pressure.

The more Ethereum progresses toward a high-bandwidth settlement framework, the more Bitcoin’s position as the conservative monetary anchor appears intentional rather than obsolete.

This represents the type of competition that crypto necessitates: two networks advancing differing definitions of trust, compelling the remainder of the market to cease conflating speed with decentralization.

The post Ethereum just solved a critical problem Bitcoin doesn’t want to fix on its own network – but why? appeared first on CryptoSlate.