10,000 TPS on Ethereum Mainnet? Really? We've heard promises before, haven't we? Justin Drake's "Lean Ethereum" roadmap, with its ambition to boost Ethereum's performance to rival traditional payment networks, sounds fantastic on paper. But hold on a minute there speedy driver. Is this moment a one-off, or a genuine opportunity for greater scalability to go further and faster? Or is this merely another crypto pipe dream masquerading as a technical specification? I’m hoping for the latter, and here’s why.

Security Vs. Speed: Can We Have Both?

The core tension here boils down to this: security versus speed. Drake’s original roadmap briefly mentions “fort mode” for security and “beast mode” for performance. Is it really possible to achieve both concurrently, particularly in a decentralized system?

Think of it like this: it's like trying to build a high-speed train that's also a fortress. You can keep adding armor plating and security systems, but eventually the increased weight will make you less agile. Likewise, each security feature adds its own overhead, which could further impact performance.

The potential of Ethereum to increase in value alongside the Internet itself is remarkable to consider. It’s important that we not ignore the price tag of this assertion. There is never no cost to pay and that’s the opportunity cost.

Hash Functions: Silver Bullet or Single Point?

Unfortunately, the “Lean Ethereum” roadmap as it exists today relies almost entirely on hash-based cryptography, which is touted as the primitive underlying security and efficiency. For such a powerful tool to be relied upon so heavily is troubling at best.

Is this reliance on one single source creating a single point of failure? What if a new vulnerability in these hash functions is found? In a malicious widespread compromise, the damage would be immense, possibly threatening the very foundation of the Ethereum network. It’s as foolish as trying to build your whole house on one foundation stone – beautiful when it works, but unimaginably dangerous.

I’m prompted to think of the lessons learned during the financial crisis of 2008. The crisis wasn’t the result of one single bubble, it was the product of interconnectedness. The same applies here.

SNARKs, zkVMs: Too Good To Be True?

SNARKs and zkVMs are very cool technologies, no doubt, and they have the potential to make execution and verification much more efficient. Drake’s roadmap calls for potentially executing smart contracts on real-time zkVMs, while utilizing Data Availability Sampling (DAS) for data throughput. Let’s not succumb to all the hype buzz excitement exuberance.

These technologies are complex and relatively new. They introduce their own sets of challenges, including:

  • Computational Overhead: SNARKs and zkVMs can be computationally intensive, potentially offsetting some of the performance gains.
  • Trust Assumptions: zk-SNARKs require a trusted setup, which introduces a degree of centralization and potential vulnerability.
  • Complexity: Increased complexity can lead to unintended consequences and make the system harder to audit and secure.

Keep in mind, the more complicated the system, the easier it is to attack it. By adding additional rooms to your home, you can enjoy much more space. That means you have more doors and windows to try to protect!

Decentralization: The Sacrificial Lamb?

The roadmap purports to do all of this, while focusing on decentralization and increasing these performance improvements. I'm skeptical. The history of tech “advancement” is filled with examples of decentralization traded away on the altar of systemic efficiency.

Are there going to be compromises to reach 10,000 TPS with regards node hardware requirements, meaning it could be too costly for some smaller players to join the network? Will all the extra complexity in the system deter the average person from running their own node? That would risk only increasing the concentration of power in the hands of a few.

Those are all excellent questions for us to answer. After all, if Ethereum becomes more centralized, it just becomes like every other chain without censorship resistance or decentralization. Dismantling a community garden to replace it with a corporate farm increases the land’s production capabilities. In doing so, it saps the very spirit of collaboration and shared ownership that defines Open.

The Quantum Threat: An Existential Risk?

Further down the roadmap, it’s recognized that making Ethereum quantum-computing-attack-resistant will be necessary. This is an important factor to consider, especially with the quantum computer of the future able to destroy today’s cryptographic algorithms.

Is hash-based cryptography really the answer? Though some hash-based algorithms are indeed quantum-resistant, the field is changing rapidly. We need more research and testing to ensure that these algorithms can withstand the onslaught of a fully functional quantum computer. It is not merely a question of technical feasibility. This issue strikes at the heart of existential risk.

Is Lean Ethereum Just Another Fad?

Ultimately, the “Lean Ethereum” roadmap comes off as a lot of buzzwords and idealistic thinking, rather than any real plan. The reintroduction is long on ambition and short on details, leaving us with more questions than answers.

Will it succeed? Maybe. For that reason, I suspect that “Lean Ethereum” will fizzle just like so many other crypto projects. They delivered the moon in promises but then didn’t deliver anything at all. It's a fascinating thought experiment, but I'm not holding my breath. I'll be watching closely, though, because if they do pull it off, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. Until that day, I am an incredulous, doubtful witness. And you should be too.