The impossible triangle of blockchain: why is there no perfect public chain? How should ordinary people choose?
Recently, many friends in the background have asked me about the 'impossible triangle of blockchain'—
Some say 'certain public chains have broken the triangle',
Some people are torn between 'choosing ETH or Solana',
Some still don't understand 'why Bitcoin transfers are both slow and expensive'.
Actually, it's not that mysterious! Today, I'll explain it clearly in simple terms:
From what the triangle actually is, to how to choose between mainstream public chains, to how ordinary people should choose, I'll explain it all at once!
First, let's get to the conclusion
The impossible triangle of blockchain can never be 'broken', but a balance can be found through technological means.
Just like finding a partner—tall, handsome, and wealthy is highly unlikely. You have to first clarify what you value the most;
Public chains are the same: The three core features of decentralization, security, and scalability cannot all be maximized simultaneously; trade-offs must be made based on the scenario.
1. First, understand: What exactly is the impossible triangle?
Newcomers may not be clear about the meanings of these three terms, so I will explain in the simplest terms to ensure it’s easy to understand:
✅ Decentralization: No 'big boss'
There is no single central node that can make decisions in the network; data is maintained jointly by countless computers (nodes) worldwide.
For instance, with Bitcoin, anyone can be a node as long as they meet the conditions—no one can unilaterally tamper with transactions or arbitrarily freeze your assets.
✅ Security: Not afraid of being attacked, not afraid of being tampered with
For example, the commonly heard 51% attack: as long as you control more than 51% of the computing power or nodes in the entire network, you can tamper with the data.
The higher the degree of decentralization, the higher the cost of attacks, and naturally, the stronger the security; conversely, fewer and more centralized nodes make attacks much easier.
✅ Scalability: Speed and capacity of processing transactions
It can be understood as the 'throughput' of blockchain, measured in TPS (transactions per second).
WeChat Pay can process tens of thousands of transactions per second, which is high scalability;
In contrast, Bitcoin can only process about 7 transactions per second, which shows poor scalability—once it gets congested, fees soar, making it unaffordable for ordinary users.
🔥 Where do the contradictions of the three lie?
• Want high decentralization → More nodes → Slower data synchronization → Performance declines
• Want high performance → Reduce nodes, raise thresholds → Weaken decentralization → Security may also be compromised
• Want to balance security + decentralization → Multi-party verification → Speed will inevitably slow down
This is the framework of the 'blockchain impossible triangle' proposed by Vitalik Buterin (co-founder of Ethereum) in 2017, which later became an industry consensus.
📌 A small science popularization: Some say 'Chang Jia mentioned a similar concept in 2014,' but what he said then was 'security, environmental protection, decentralization,' which is not the same as the current mainstream 'three elements,' so don’t confuse them!
2. A comparison of mainstream public chains: How do they make trade-offs within the triangle?
Public chains on the market are varied, but none can escape the constraints of the impossible triangle. Let’s take a look at a few typical representatives:
1️⃣ Bitcoin (BTC): Extreme decentralization + security, sacrificing scalability
• Positioning: Digital gold, value storage
• Mechanism: PoW consensus, with countless nodes participating globally
• Security: Extremely high—51% attack cost astronomical
• Performance: TPS ≈ 7, peak transaction fees can reach hundreds of dollars (for example, during the 2023 Ordinals inscription craze)
✅ Suitable for: Storing large assets, fearing freezing, pursuing absolute censorship resistance
❌ Not suitable for: Daily transfers, playing DApps, high-frequency operations
The logic of Bitcoin is simple: I won’t compete with you on speed; I will just be the safest value warehouse.
2️⃣ Ethereum (ETH): Decentralization + security priority, relying on Layer 2 to supplement performance
• Ecosystem: A hub for DeFi, NFT, and Web3 projects
• Mechanism: PoS consensus, with hundreds of thousands of validating nodes globally, staking over 20 million ETH
• Mainnet performance: TPS 15–30, gas fees can reach thousands of dollars during peak periods
• Solution: Layer 2 (e.g., Arbitrum, zkSync)
→ Off-chain processing of transactions, the mainnet only handles settlement → TPS increases to thousands, transaction fees drop by over 90%
✅ Suitable for: Those who want both security and ecosystem, willing to use L2 for transactions
✅ Strategy: 'Mainnet stores value, L2 does transactions'
Ethereum does not rigidly adhere to the limitations of a single chain but breaks through with a layered architecture—this is long-termism.
3️⃣ Solana: Extreme scalability, sacrificing some decentralization
• Selling point: Fast + cheap! Theoretical TPS of 65,000, practically stable at a few thousand
• Mechanism: PoH (Proof of History) + PoS, with extremely high hardware requirements
• Problem: Few nodes, concentrated in cloud service providers → Has experienced multiple network outages (longest downtime over ten hours)
✅ Suitable for: Playing chain games, minting NFTs, small high-frequency trading
❌ Risk points: Weak censorship resistance, questionable stability, not suitable for large asset storage
Solana's positioning is clear: If you want speed, accept a certain cost of centralization.
4️⃣ BSC (Binance Smart Chain): Scalability + Security priority, weaker decentralization
• Mechanism: PoSA consensus, only 21–41 nodes, all selected by Binance
• Advantages: Compatible with Ethereum, TPS 100–1000, extremely low transaction fees
• Hidden dangers: Essentially 'Binance calls the shots' → If Binance has issues, BSC will be affected; weak censorship resistance
✅ Suitable for: Low-cost experience of Web3, new players in DeFi/NFT
❌ Not suitable for: Those who value decentralization and large asset holders
BSC is a typical example of 'easy to use but not free'—convenient but trusting centralized institutions.
5️⃣ Consortium chain (e.g., Fabric, FISCO BCOS): Security + Scalability priority, controlled decentralization
• Scenarios: Enterprise-grade/government applications (supply chain tracing, compliant payments, etc.)
• Features: Nodes are composed of several core institutions, controllable permissions, support for auditing, TPS in the hundreds to thousands
• Disadvantages: Not open, no censorship resistance, ordinary users have little contact
✅ Suitable for: Enterprises, governments, businesses requiring compliance
❌ Not suitable for: Ordinary crypto users, enthusiasts pursuing freedom and openness in Web3
Three, the future of the impossible triangle: it will not be broken, but it will become increasingly 'user-friendly'
Many people ask: 'Will there be a public chain that breaks the impossible triangle in the future?'
My answer is: It will never be broken, but it will continue to expand the boundary of balance through technology.
The core direction for the future is not 'achieving three extremes with a single chain,' but 'ecological coordination to achieve overall balance':
🔧 1. Modularization + Layer 2 becoming mainstream
• Ethereum has verified: L1 is responsible for security, L2 is responsible for performance
• Emerging modular public chains like Celestia: only focus on data availability (DA), execution layer handed over to others → Low-cost reuse of security
🔒 2. Security reuse lowers the threshold for new projects
• EigenLayer: Allows ETH stakers to 're-stake' for L2, cross-chain bridges, etc. → New projects do not need to build security from scratch
🔐 3. Continuous upgrades in cryptography
• ZK technology (zero-knowledge proof): zk-Rollup compresses transactions, protects privacy, and enhances efficiency
• Post-quantum cryptography: Responding to future quantum computer threats
🌐 4. Cross-chain collaboration forming 'the internet of chains'
• High-value settlement → BTC/ETH
• High-frequency trading → Solana/BSC/L2
• Business applications → Consortium chains
• Interoperability through protocols like LayerZero, Cosmos → Resource scheduling on demand
📜 5. Compliance + AI Empowering Practicality
• Tokenization of RWA (real-world assets), popularization of on-chain KYC/AML tools
• AI optimizes smart contracts, monitors MEV, assists governance (but also needs to guard against algorithmic bias and centralization)
4. How should ordinary people choose? Match your needs!
After all this, what ordinary people care most about is: Which one should I use? Where should I store my assets?
✅ 1. Large asset storage, focusing on censorship resistance
→ Choose BTC mainnet or ETH mainnet
Although slow and expensive, it is the most secure and decentralized, serving as a 'digital safe.'
✅ 2. High-frequency trading, playing DeFi/NFT, chain games
→ First choice ETH Layer 2 (Arbitrum / zkSync)
Balancing ETH security + low fees + high speed
→ Second choice Solana / BSC (but don’t go all in, be aware of risks)
✅ 3. Small daily payments (like buying coffee, transferring money)
→ Use Lightning Network (Bitcoin) or state channels
Off-chain rapid transactions, with the mainnet settling occasionally, balancing efficiency and security
✅ 4. Enterprise/government cooperation
→ Choose consortium chains (like FISCO BCOS)
Meeting compliance, efficiency, and controllable demands
📊 Comparison of mainstream public chains (visual version)
Public chain Degree of decentralization Performance (TPS/Efficiency) Security
Ethereum ★★★★★ ★★★☆☆ ★★★★★
BNB Chain ★★★☆☆ ★★★★★ ★★★☆☆
Solana ★★★★☆ ★★★★★ ★★★★☆
Bitcoin ★★★★★ ★☆☆☆☆ ★★★★★
Avalanche ★★★★☆ ★★★★★ ★★★★☆
Polygon ★★★★☆ ★★★★★ ★★★★★
Note: Polygon here refers to its PoS sidechain, with security relying indirectly on Ethereum.
A final reminder: Don't believe the myth of 'breaking the triangle!'
Many niche projects claim to have 'broken through the impossible triangle'—
Either exaggeration,
Either secretly sacrificing decentralization or security (e.g., highly concentrated nodes, opaque consensus mechanisms).
✅ Reliable choice criteria:
• Mature ecosystem
• Architecture transparency
• Clear logic of trade-offs
The core of the blockchain impossible triangle is not 'pursuing perfection,' but 'clear trade-offs.'
Just like in life—there is no perfect choice, only the one that best suits you.
I hope this article helps you truly understand the 'impossible triangle,'
In the future, selecting public chains and making investments will be clearer and more rational!
