Vitalik Buterin Reconsiders Blockchain Design Tradeoffs as Zero-Knowledge Proofs and Real-World Failures Reshape Assumptions

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin says he no longer agrees with a position he publicly held in 2017, arguing that advances in zero-knowledge cryptography and a deeper appreciation for real-world failure modes have fundamentally changed how blockchains should balance decentralization, usability, and resilience.

Buterin was reflecting on an earlier debate with cryptographer Ian Grigg, who argued that blockchains should record transaction ordering but not explicitly commit to state, such as account balances, smart contract code, or storage. Under that model, state would be reconstructed locally by a computer and could then be discarded.

At the time, Buterin strongly opposed the idea. He argued that without committing to state, users would have only two options to verify the system: run a node that reprocesses the entire transaction history or trust an external party to provide correct information.

Ethereum took a different approach by committing the state root directly into each block header. This allows users to verify any individual value in the state using a Merkle proof, assuming an honest majority among consensus participants. If a majority of miners or validators act honestly, the chain with the most proof of work or proof of stake support is valid, and the state root can be trusted.

Buterin argued then, and still maintains, that trusting an honest majority is meaningfully better than trusting a single RPC provider. Fully self-verifying the entire chain by re executing every transaction remains theoretically ideal, but the computational cost makes it impractical for most users unless blockchain capacity is restricted so severely that the system becomes unusable.

Zero-Knowledge Proofs Change the Tradeoff

What has changed most since 2017, according to Buterin, is the emergence of ZK-SNARKs. Zero-knowledge proofs now allow users to verify the correctness of blockchain execution without re executing every transaction themselves.

This technology, he argues, effectively delivers the benefits of full verification without the prohibitive costs. In his view, the existence of ZK-SNARKs means that many of the tradeoffs accepted in earlier blockchain designs should be revisited, as better tools allow higher standards for both security and usability.

While limitations remain around block building centralization and data bandwidth, Buterin views those as separate challenges rather than fundamental blockers.

From Academic Models to Real-World Failure

Buterin also described a shift in how he evaluates blockchain assumptions. In 2017, his thinking was largely grounded in academic models that focused on which trust assumptions were acceptable under ideal conditions.

Over time, he says, he has become more aware of how frequently real systems fail. Peer to peer networks can experience outages or extreme latency spikes. Third party services that users rely on for years can suddenly shut down. When the fallback option requires technical expertise to deploy personal infrastructure, many users simply lose access altogether.

He also pointed to risks from validator or miner concentration, where majority attacks become plausible enough that consensus security must be evaluated under far weaker assumptions. Regulatory pressure can further constrain intermediaries, as seen when multiple service providers began censoring transactions related to Tornado Cash, leaving direct chain interaction as the only option.

The Case for a Credible Fallback

In this context, Buterin argues that a self sovereign blockchain designed to last for decades cannot rely on “calling the developers” as the solution to systemic failures. If developers become the ultimate backstop, they themselves become a centralizing force.

Instead, he frames extreme self reliance as a necessary fallback rather than a daily requirement. Using a metaphor he has returned to in recent years, the “Mountain Man’s cabin” represents a last resort that users can rely on when everything else breaks.

The existence of that fallback, he argues, improves outcomes even when it is rarely used. As a credible alternative, it strengthens users’ bargaining power and constrains the behavior of intermediaries. Buterin likens this dynamic to how peer to peer file sharing continues to discipline streaming platforms by limiting how exploitative they can become.

Ethereum, in this framing, does not require all users to live permanently in the cabin. But maintaining the broader ecosystem, which Buterin has described as an “infinite garden,” requires keeping that cabin functional and accessible for when it is needed.