Scalability, Security, Decentralization. The so-called “blockchain trilemma” refers to the challenge of balancing these three crucial features that underpin blockchain technology.
On one hand, blockchains need to be scalable—able to process high transaction volumes and throughput—to support widespread use.
On the other hand, they must also be secure and decentralized. These latter aspects provide unique advantages, like tamperproof trust and censorship resistance. However, emphasizing any single trait seems to come at the cost of others.
For example, increasing transaction speeds via methods like centralizing validation weakens decentralization. How is it possible to boost scalability while retaining security and decentralization? This enduring puzzle is what’s known as the blockchain trilemma.
In this article, we will be exposing you to what the blockchain trilemma means and its functions.
Let us get to it.
What is Blockchain Trilemma?
At its core, the blockchain trilemma arises from the difficulty of attaining three main properties simultaneously in distributed ledger systems:
Scalability – The ability to support increased transaction volumes and throughput. This includes parameters like transactions per second (TPS), block sizes, and bandwidth.
Security – Resistance to attacks like hacking and fraud manipulation of the ledger through features like encryption and consensus rules that make tampering computationally difficult.
Decentralization – Dispersed control and participation in validation through nodes across many locations and entities, rather than a centralized authority.
Scenario:
As Bitcoin grows mainstream, its limited capacity of 7 transactions per second strains to meet user demand. Simply raising the block size would handle more transactions but risk centralizing control over validation to just mega-miners.
Alternatively, a Layer 2 network like Lightning enables scaling while retaining decentralization, however, its added complexity marginally reduces security. Bitcoin now faces tradeoffs between three crucial elements—the ability to handle high volumes, decentralized control, and bulletproof defenses against hacking.
Improving one aspect seems to hamper at least one other in this impossible trilemma of attaining scalability, security, and decentralization simultaneously. Most blockchains confront these intrinsic tensions when aspiring to mass adoption.
Scalability Challenges Facing Blockchain
One major hurdle confronting blockchain platforms is scalability – the ability to support surging transaction volumes and data as adoption spreads. Public blockchains today still handle a fraction of mainstream payment processors like Visa.
For perspective, Bitcoin maxes out at 7 transactions per second (TPS) and Ethereum around 15 TPS due to technical constraints. Yet Visa routinely handles 1,700 TPS on average and can peak around 56,000 TPS. A vast gap exists between current blockchain capabilities and the throughput needed for global ubiquity.
This limited capacity leads to network congestion and rising fees during high activity, – already witnessed in the past with Bitcoin and Ethereum. Users compete fiercely for scarce space on the blockchain. Without meaningful scalability solutions, even further adoption may grind progress to a halt.
Potential Scalability Solution
- Sharding – Sharding breaks transactions into smaller datasets called “shards.” These shards are simultaneously processed in parallel by the network, allowing for sequential work on numerous transactions simultaneously. This multiplies capacity as nodes reach consensus at shard-level rather than on the entire blockchain.
- Layer 2 Protocols – Processing transactions off-chain before batch settling net results to the underlying blockchain. By moving activity off the main chain, these ‘second layer’ networks ease congestion substantially. The Lightning Network offers one such Layer 2 solution for Bitcoin and Ethereum.
Maintaining Security
Robust security represents a foundational pillar underpinning blockchain’s appeal. By design, these distributed ledgers aim to offer tamper-proof trustlessness between transacting parties without intermediaries. This requires models that strongly disincentivize hacking or fraudulent manipulation of the recorded data.
Consensus protocols play a key role in cementing durable security. Proof-of-Work (PoW) used in Bitcoin requires miners to expend computational ‘work’ to validate transactions and create new blocks. Attacking the network demands amassing over 50% of the processing power, which is currently economically infeasible.
Meanwhile, Proof-of-Stake (PoS) opts for validators staking crypto coins as collateral to verify transactions, getting slashed if they act dishonestly. Securing blockchain networks via cryptography and penalties enables trustless peer-to-peer exchange globally.
However, the emerging threat landscape means blockchains must continually boost security to stay ahead of attacks through features like improved encryption, resilient consensus rules, and mechanisms like hardware wallets. User growth also requires balancing security with scalability demands.
Preserving Decentralization
Decentralization represents another central mantra within blockchain philosophy, eliminating central points of failure. Distributed operation across thousands of nodes worldwide makes censorship and manipulation vastly harder compared to centralized backends.
Enforcing transparency via publicly distributed ledgers instead of concealable private databases adds to decentralization’s appeal.
However, many technical shortcuts being proposed around the trilemma tend to gradually centralize authority in the hands of a few validators and developers. For example, adopting KYC-based permission reintroduces gatekeepers while shifting consensus participation towards large asset-rich stakes, contradicting the ethos underpinning decentralization.
Such control consolidation threatens censorship resistance within transaction validation and app development ecosystems.
Hence, the blockchain industry must remain vigilant against architectural choices that could unintentionally undermine open participation and distributed authority. The essence of decentralization’s advantages is weakened once a network skews towards centralized governance by any individual or small group.
Overall, retaining blockchain’s core features around security and decentralization involves significant tradeoffs with demands to scale transaction throughput. But sacrificing these pillars too much risks diluting the very aspects that make blockchain technology uniquely transformative.
Case Studies
Examining Bitcoin and Ethereum – the two largest blockchain networks – provides insights into the unique tradeoffs made around scalability, security, and decentralization.
Bitcoin prioritizes security and decentralization first. Its proof-of-work mining ensures distributed participation and resilience against manipulation by even state actors. However, the consensus model currently limits Bitcoin’s speed to under 10 transactions per second. Also, small average block sizes of 1MB constrain capacity and contribute to decentralization as miners dominate validation.
Ethereum takes a marginally more balanced approach between the three facets. Transitioning to proof-of-stake enhances scalability chances while still permitting distributed participation in validation. A higher throughput of around 15 TPS also comes via faster block creation times than Bitcoin. Additionally, Ethereum expresses a stronger emphasis on developmental decentralization for its smart contract ecosystem.
However, Ethereum’s scalability still lags behind traditional payment processors enormously. Its growing adoption also reveals tradeoffs between transaction speeds and fees currently. And accredited validator status for staking risks progressively centralizing control, contrary to purely permissionless participation in Bitcoin mining.
Overall, both networks skewed more towards security and decentralization historically over chasing raw scalability numbers. But their representative tradeoffs also underline how difficult attaining an ideal balance proves across the impossible trinity.
A platform enhancing any single trait seems to correspondingly trade-off at least one other. As base platforms mature, managing inherent tensions along the trilemma may well separate the most successful from the rest.
Possible Solutions
The blockchain space is actively exploring innovative approaches to achieve the vision of fully decentralized platforms with air-tight security guaranteeing that can handle vast transaction volumes. Some emerging options include:
Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs): DAG-based decentralized ledgers like Hedera Hashgraph spread validation across network participants via gossip protocol and asynchronous communication. By replacing blocks with a DAG data structure, they seek to attain speed competitiveness with payment processors without mining-related decentralization issues.
Quadratic Sharding: This sharding technique promises quasi-linear scalability gains as a network expands by partitioning nodes into randomized shards and processing transactions simultaneously. If shard security vulnerabilities get addressed, such approaches could hugely stretch transaction loads.
Hybrid Models: Bridging permissionless decentralization on base layers with the computational scalability of permissioned blockchains on higher layers might balance both worlds. This allows for retaining security and decentralization for high-value transactions while offering scalability for more flexible needs.
Also Read: Blockchain vs. Hashgraph vs. DAGs – Which is the best DLT?
Conclusion:
As blockchain platforms scale up and battle for supremacy, those solving the trilemma optimally while keeping users secure and decentralization intact would gain a significant competitive edge.
However, if dominant platforms cut corners around decentralization and security, they risk losing uniqueness, especially against traditional finance.
Hence the trilemma has profound implications on the continued penetration of blockchain technology. It acts as an unofficial yardstick for technical evolution within the crypto-verse.
Platforms should thus mitigate tradeoffs and inch closer to the sweet spot between the three vertices of scalability, security, and decentralization. Getting there would unlock blockchain technology’s truly groundbreaking and mainstream potential globally.
