Ethereum's state is a centralizing force because its exponential growth mandates expensive, high-performance hardware for full nodes, pushing validation to centralized providers like Infura and Alchemy.
the-ethereum-roadmap-merge-surge-verge
Blog
Verkle Trees and Proof Verification Limits
An analysis of how Verkle Trees, the core of Ethereum's 'Verge' upgrade, fundamentally solve the state witness problem, enabling stateless clients and unlocking the next phase of scalability and decentralization.
introduction
THE VERIFICATION WALL
The Unspoken Bottleneck: Ethereum's State is a Centralizing Force
Ethereum's state growth creates a hardware barrier that centralizes node operation, which Verkle Trees and statelessness are designed to dismantle.
Statelessness is the architectural goal that separates execution from verification, allowing nodes to validate blocks without storing the entire state, fundamentally altering the trust model.
Verkle Trees enable stateless clients by replacing Merkle Patricia Tries with a cryptographic structure that produces proofs 20-30x smaller, making witness data feasible for bandwidth-constrained devices.
The current proof verification limit is a temporary bottleneck; EIP-3102 and subsequent upgrades will integrate Verkle Trees, shifting the burden from storage to computation for light clients and the Portal Network.
key-trends
SCALING THE WITNESS
The State of the State: Why Verkle Trees Are Non-Negotiable
Ethereum's stateless future is gated by proof size; Verkle Trees are the cryptographic breakthrough that makes it practical.
01
The Problem: Witness Bloat Breaks Statelessness
Current Merkle-Patricia proofs are too large for stateless clients to handle, requiring ~1 MB of data per block. This creates a bandwidth bottleneck, making it impossible for lightweight validators to participate without storing the entire state.\n- Witness size scales with state size, not transaction complexity.\n- Stateless clients are a prerequisite for single-slot finality and PBS.
~1 MB
Witness Size
>1 TB
State Size
02
The Solution: Vector Commitment Magic
Verkle Trees replace hashes with KZG polynomial commitments, enabling constant-sized proofs regardless of state depth. A single ~150 byte proof can attest to thousands of storage slots.\n- Proof size is O(1), not O(log n).\n- Enables efficient stateless validation for rollups and light clients.
~150 B
Proof Size
1000x
More Efficient
03
The Enabler: Parallelized Execution & Finality
With tiny witnesses, execution clients can verify blocks without local state, unlocking massive parallelism. This is the core infrastructure for Ethereum's Verge and a prerequisite for single-slot finality.\n- Decouples execution from state storage.\n- Enables proposer-builder separation (PBS) at scale by reducing validator hardware requirements.
~12s
Target Finality
Parallel
Execution
04
The Precedent: Polkadot's Jellyfish Merkle Tree
Polkadot's Jellyfish Merkle Tree (JMT) is a production Verkle Tree variant, proving the concept at ~$500M TVL. It uses a Sparse Merkle Tree with Pedersen commitments for similar stateless benefits.\n- Demonstrates operational viability in a major ecosystem.\n- Highlights the trade-off between proof size and computational cost for verification.
Live
In Production
Pedersen
Commitment
05
The Trade-off: Prover Compute vs. Bandwidth
Verkle Trees shift the burden from network bandwidth to prover computation. Generating a KZG proof is ~1000x more CPU-intensive than a Merkle proof, but this is an acceptable trade for the network.\n- Centralizes proof generation (a known trade-off).\n- Optimizes for the most constrained resource: validator bandwidth.
1000x
More Compute
Network
Bottleneck Solved
06
The Mandate: Non-Negotiable for Scaling
Without Verkle Trees, Ethereum hits a statelessness wall, capping validator decentralization and blocking the roadmap to Verkle → The Splurge. It's not an upgrade; it's the enabling layer for EIP-4444 (history expiry), state expiry, and full danksharding.\n- Gatekeeps the next 10-100x in scalability.\n- Essential for zk-EVMs and universal interoperability.
Roadmap
Core Dependency
10-100x
Scale Required
deep-dive
THE STATE PROOF
From Merkle to Verkle: A First-Principles Breakdown
Verkle trees replace Merkle trees to make stateless clients viable by compressing proof size from kilobytes to bytes.
Stateless clients require small proofs. A Merkle proof for a single Ethereum account is ~1KB, making stateless validation impractical for bandwidth. Verkle proofs are ~150 bytes, enabling nodes to validate without storing state.
Verkle trees use vector commitments. Unlike Merkle's hash-based structure, Verkle trees use polynomial commitments (like KZG) to commit to multiple values in a node. This allows a single proof to verify all sibling nodes along a path.
The bottleneck shifts to proof generation. The prover complexity increases, but this is centralized to block builders and rollup sequencers (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism). The network's verifiers receive a massive efficiency gain.
Ethereum's Verkle transition is a multi-year hard fork. The EIP-6800 specification details the migration. This upgrade is a prerequisite for Verkle-based statelessness, which is foundational for future scaling via danksharding.
STATE PROOF VERIFICATION
MPT vs. Verkle: The Proof is in the Proof Size
A comparison of cryptographic accumulator structures for stateless client verification, focusing on proof size and verification cost.
| Feature / Metric | Merkle-Patricia Trie (MPT) | Verkle Tree (KZG) | Verkle Tree (IPA) |
|---|---|---|---|
Core Proof Mechanism | Merkle Proof (SHA-256) | KZG Polynomial Commitment | Inner Product Argument |
Witness Size for 1k Accounts | ~3 KB | ~150 B | ~600 B |
Gas Cost for State Proof (est.) |
| < 20k gas | < 50k gas |
Enables Stateless Clients | |||
Requires Trusted Setup | |||
Post-Quantum Secure | |||
Primary Proponent / Use Case | Ethereum Execution Layer (Pre-Cancun) | Ethereum Execution Layer (Post-Cancun) | Alternative for no trusted setup |
future-outlook
THE VERIFIER'S DILEMMA
The Post-Verge World: Statelessness and Beyond
Verkle trees enable stateless clients by shrinking proof sizes, but they expose a new bottleneck in proof verification speed.
Statelessness requires tiny proofs. Verkle trees compress witness data from ~1 MB to ~150 bytes, enabling nodes to validate blocks without storing state. This solves Ethereum's state growth problem but shifts the bottleneck to the CPU.
Proof verification is the new gas limit. A node's transaction throughput is now capped by its ability to verify thousands of Verkle proofs per second. This creates a hardware-dependent ceiling, unlike the predictable gas model.
Ethereum's roadmap addresses this with EIP-3102 and EIP-7002, which standardize proof formats and execution layer APIs. The goal is to make verification a predictable, bounded cost for client diversity.
Evidence: A single Ethereum block with 10,000 transactions would require a node to verify ~200,000 proofs. Without hardware acceleration, this saturates a modern CPU core, capping practical TPS for stateless verification.
takeaways
STATEFULNESS AT SCALE
TL;DR for CTOs and Architects
Verkle Trees are the cryptographic data structure enabling stateless clients, the prerequisite for scaling Ethereum's validator set beyond its current hardware limits.
01
The Problem: State Bloat Chokes Decentralization
Full Ethereum nodes require storing ~1TB+ of state data, creating prohibitive hardware costs. This limits the validator set size and centralizes consensus. Stateless clients are the only viable path to millions of validators.
- Bottleneck: Storage I/O, not compute.
- Consequence: High hardware reqs = fewer home validators.
- Goal: Reduce node requirements to ~50GB for a stateless verifier.
1TB+
State Size
~50GB
Target
02
The Solution: Vector Commitments & KZG Proofs
Verkle Trees replace Merkle Patricia Tries with Vector Commitments (using KZG polynomial commitments). This allows a single, constant-sized proof to witness any number of values, solving Merkle proof size explosion.
- Key Benefit: ~200 byte proofs vs. Merkle's ~1KB per proof.
- Key Benefit: Enables single-proof witness for entire execution traces.
- Enables: Practical stateless verification for blocks.
~200B
Proof Size
1→N
Witness Ratio
03
The Architect's Dilemma: Proof Aggregation Overhead
Even with Verkle proofs, a block may contain thousands of individual proofs. Naive verification would be O(n). The solution is proof aggregation (e.g., SNARK/STARK recursion) to create a single proof for the entire block's state transitions.
- Challenge: Balancing aggregation latency with verification speed.
- Trade-off: Prover cost vs. verifier simplicity.
- Ecosystem Need: Specialized hardware (GPUs/ASICs) for efficient aggregation.
O(1)
Target Verify
1000s
Proofs/Block
04
The Endgame: Stateless Clients & Light Nodes
With Verkle Trees, all clients become light clients. Validators only need the block header and a single proof to verify execution. This radically lowers sync time and hardware requirements, enabling validator decentralization and trust-minimized bridges (like Across).
- Result: Near-instant syncing for new nodes.
- Result: Mobile phones can verify chain validity.
- Impact: Reduces L2 bridge security assumptions.
Seconds
Sync Time
Mobile
Node Tier
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall