Table of contents
Understand the Blockchain Trilemma
Definition: an impossible balance between three priorities
The Blockchain Trilemma designates the idea that it is very difficult for a blockchain to simultaneously optimize decentralization , security , and scalability . If a blockchain network chooses to improve one of these characteristics, it will often have to sacrifice one of the others. For example, increasing scalability to treat more transactions per second could reduce security or decentralization .
The foundations of the Blockchain trilemma: decentralization, security, and scalability
These three pillars form the framework of any blockchain project. However, they often oppose each other. Here is a quick definition:
- Decentralization : the network is controlled by many participants, thus avoiding any centralized authority.
- Security : The network is protected against attacks and ensures the integrity of transactions.
- Scalability : network capacity to treat a large number of transactions quickly and effectively.
Origin of the Blockchain trilemma and why it has become an essential concept
The concept of Trilemme Blockchain was popularized by Vitalik Buerin , the co -founder of Ethereum . He found that blockchain developers faced an almost inevitable compromise between these three priorities. As blockchains become more adopted, this trilemma becomes an essential concern to design robust systems.
Exploration of the three pillars of the Blockchain Trilemma
Decentralization: freedom and autonomy for users
Decentralization is one of the founding principles of blockchains . It allows any user to participate in the network without central authority. Each node in the network plays a role in the validation and safety of transactions. This prevents censorship and manipulation , two common phenomena in centralized systems. For example, a government can block or manipulate transactions in a centralized system, as was the case in certain countries with restrictions on financial platforms.
In a decentralized system like Bitcoin , where thousands of nodes are distributed worldwide, handling is practically impossible. This is why Bitcoin is often considered the most decentralized . On the other hand, blockchains like Solana sacrifice part of this decentralization to gain scalability. Solana has chosen to have a limited number of powerful validators, which makes it possible to treat a large number of transactions more quickly, but reduces the independence of nodes.
Security: protection against attacks
Security is crucial for any blockchain, as it guarantees that transactions cannot be altered or falsified. Most blockchains use consensus mechanisms such as proof of work ( Proof of Work , POW) or proof of stake ( Proof of Stake , POS) to ensure this security. For example, in the case of Bitcoin , proof of work implies that minors solve complex mathematical problems to validate transactions, making any attempted falsification very expensive.
However, there are potential flaws, such as the 51 % attack , where an attacker controls more than 50 % of the network's calculation power. In this case, the attacker could reorganize the blockchain and potentially double spend the tokens. That said, the more decentralized a network, the more difficult it becomes to carry out an attack of the 51 %, because the control of the majority of nodes becomes almost impossible. There are also other types of attacks such as Sybil attacks , where an attacker creates several nodes to take control of the network, or even the attacks by rejection of service (back) which aim to saturate a network to prevent it from functioning properly.
Scalability: a challenge for blockchain
Scalability refers to the capacity of a blockchain to treat a large number of transactions quickly and efficiently . This challenge is particularly important to allow massive adoption of blockchain technologies. For example, Visa deals on average 24,000 transactions per second ( TPS ), while Bitcoin treats only 7 TPS. This offset prevents Bitcoin or Ethereum from being used on a large scale for daily transactions.
Some blockchains, such as Solana or Su , stand out by their scalability . Solana can treat up to 65,000 TPS thanks to its unique consensus model called Proof of History (POH) , which effectively synchronizes transactions over time. However, this performance is accompanied by compromise in terms of decentralization. By reducing the number of validators and requiring powerful material infrastructure to operate (which limits the participation of small validators), Solana promotes scalability to the detriment of decentralization.
The compromises of the Blockchain trilemma in modern blockchains
The compromise between decentralization and scalability
In blockchain systems, the more decentralized a network, the more difficult it becomes to make it scalable . Indeed, each transaction must be validated by many nodes, which can slow the entire network. This is seen in particular with Bitcoin , who has chosen to favor decentralization and security, but whose scalability is limited. Conversely, Solana opted for a model where decentralization is reduced, which makes it possible to treat thousands of transactions per second, but with greater centralization around specific validators.
Compromise between security and scalability
Another compromise concerns scalability and security . To improve scalability, some blockchains can "soften consensus rules". This means reducing the number of nodes which must validate each transaction or shorten the validation time of the blocks. This type of compromise can make the network more vulnerable to attacks. For example, high -scalability blockchains like Solana or Suit can sacrifice part of their safety to treat a large number of transactions quickly.
The Rollups on Ethereum Layer 2 solution , move the calculations and transactions outside the chain to reduce the load of the main network. safety and decentralization challenges . By moving the calculations out of the main channel, the verification of transactions is less transparent, which can reduce decentralization and introduce vulnerability points if the Layer 2 protocols are not properly secure.
Compromise between security and decentralization
decentralized network is generally more secure, as an attack would require taking control of the majority of nodes. However, this also implies that the more independent nodes there are, the more difficult it can be to ensure that everyone respects the same consensus rules. Some nodes could slow down validations or be compromised, which could affect the overall security of the network.
This is why some blockchains, like Ripple or EOS , have chosen to limit decentralization to improve safety. By reducing the number of validators, they can better control security, but this raises questions about long -term resilience and resistance to censorship.
Current solutions to overcome the Blockchain trilemma
Layer 2 solutions: a response for scalability
Layer 2 solutions , such as Rollups on Ethereum or Lightning Network on Bitcoin, offer a way to get around the Blockchain trilemma. These solutions make it possible to treat transactions outside the main channel, which increases scalability without sacrificing the safety of the main network.
The Rollups include transactions outside chain and only send a summary of the Layer 1 results, which reduces the costs and increase the number of TPS. However, it is crucial that these systems are properly audited and secure, as faults in these layers could compromise the overall security of the network.
Hybrid blockchains: towards a better balance?
Some blockchains, such as Avalanche , adopt hybrid models to try to reconcile scalability , security and decentralization . Avalanche uses an innovative consensus model, where several independent subnets deal with transactions in parallel ways. Each subnet (or subnet ) can operate according to its own rules, which introduces modularity in the network. This means that subnets can be configured for different applications, which allows Avalanche to maintain a certain balance between these three trilemma pillars.
TheAvalanche consensus model is based on an architecture inspired by evidence, but with a rapid validation process which makes it possible to deal with thousands of transactions while ensuring sufficient decentralization.
Proof of stake (Proof of Stake): a promising alternative
The proof of stake (POS) is increasingly considered a viable solution to the Blockchain trilemma. Unlike proof of work, which requires considerable calculation power, proof of stake allows users to validate transactions according to the quantity of tokens they have. This improves scalability while maintaining a high level of security .
Ethereum , with its transition to proof of stake thanks to Ethereum 2.0 , aims to improve scalability while maintaining a relatively strong decentralization. However, even after this transition, Ethereum remains relatively slow, with a TPS lower than what blockchains like Solana or Avalanche .
Blockchains case studies and their choices against the Blockchain trilemma
Bitcoin: security and decentralization above all
Bitcoin has chosen to maximize security and decentralization thanks to its consensus mechanism by evidence of work . With thousands of nodes in the world, Bitcoin is extremely decentralized. However, this approach is at the expense of scalability , with only 7 TPS. To overcome this problem, solutions such as Lightning Network make it possible to treat micropaments outside the main channel.
Solana : priority to scalability, but at what price?
Solana has chosen to prioritize scalability using an innovative consensus model called Proof of History (POH) , which synchronizes transactions in a very effective way. This system allows Solana to treat up to 65,000 TPS, but at the cost of a reduction in decentralization . With a limited number of validators and high material requirements, Solana is criticized for its dependence on a limited number of powerful nodes, which compromises decentralization.
Avalanche : find a balance between the three pillars
Avalanche uses a consensus model based on evidence with a multi-chaînes architecture. Each chain is responsible for certain specific tasks, and the subnets can be configured for particular uses, thus offering a modularity which allows Avalanche to better balance the three pillars of the trilemma.
The impact of the Blockchain trilemma on the adoption of blockchain technologies
Scalability and mass adoption: the main brake
One of the main brakes on the massive adoption of blockchains is scalability . If blockchains cannot compete with systems like Visa (24,000 TPS), they will be able to be adopted on a large scale for daily payments. Layer 2 solutions like Rollups and Blockchains like Su and Toncoin aim to take up this challenge.
Security and trust: an essential prerequisite
Without safety , user confidence in a blockchain can collapse. Pontages of bridges (bridges) , which make it possible to transfer assets between different blockchains, are a frequent example of vulnerability. These bridges are often the target of hacking, endangering user funds.
The future of the Blockchain Trilemma
To come innovations to resolve the Blockchain trilemma
The Blockchain Trilemma will continue to be a challenge, but innovations like Sharding , which divides a blockchain into fragments to treat transactions in parallel, offer promising tracks. Rising blockchains like Solana , Toncoin , Near , Suis , or Aptos offer innovative approaches to improve scalability while preserving security and decentralization.
Faq
What is the Blockchain Trilemma? It is a concept that stipulates that a blockchain cannot simultaneously maximize scalability , security , and decentralization without compromising on one or more of these aspects.
How does a 51 % attack work? An attack of the 51 % occurs when an attacker takes control of more than half of the calculation power (or tokens) of a network, allowing him to modify the transactions or to spend the same funds twice.
What are the compromises made by Solana ? Solana has chosen to favor scalability by reducing the number of validators and demanding powerful material infrastructure, which limits decentralization .
What solutions LAYER 2 improve scalability without compromising security? Rollups and Lightning Network it possible to treat transactions outside chain while maintaining the safety of the main network.
Investments in cryptocurrencies are risky. Crypternon could not be held responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused following the use of a property or service put forward in this article. Investments linked to cryptocurrencies are risky by nature, readers must do their own research before undertaking any action and investing only within the limits of their financial capacities. This article does not constitute an investment .
Certain links of this article are affiliated, which means that if you buy a product or register via these links, we will collect a commission from our partner. These commissions do not train any additional cost for you as a user and some even allow promotions.
AMF recommendations. There is no guaranteed high yield, a product with high performance potential implies a high risk. This risk taking must be in line with your project, your investment horizon and your ability to lose part of this savings. Do not invest if you are not ready to lose all or part of your capital .
To go further, read our pages legal notices , privacy policy and general conditions of use .
Yohan Uzzan
Training engineer, I quickly became interested in the field of finance. Convinced that decentralized finance has a bright future ahead of it, I participate in its democratization by developing Crypternon.
