Vitalik Buterin supports a multi-proposer block design to protect Ethereum neutrality and resist censorship, despite potential legal risks for validators.
Vitalik Buterin has emphasized the importance of Ethereum neutrality. He highlighted the “dumb pipe” aspect of its Layer‑1 as essential. That refers to its rule that all valid transactions are processed without bias. This was said in response to the issue of legal risks of U.S. validators.
Multiple Proposers Per Slot Could Boost Ethereum Neutrality
In particular, Ameen Soleimani had posed a question of whether the centralization of block building potentially put validators at risk of sanctions. In response, Buterin proposed several layers of protection of neutrality. He described some of the actions to promote the impartial functionality of Layer 1.
Related Reading: Vitalik Buterin Supports Ethereum Treasury Growth, But Warns Against Leverage Risks | Live Bitcoin News
The first is that the mempool should be resistant and healthy. That guarantees that blocks can be constructed in a straightforward “naive” manner, by using transactions out of the mempool. Second, the extra-protocol distributed block building technologies are to be created. This gives further strength to the core protocol. Thirdly, several channels of inclusion of transactions are required. With these in place, even when builders of central blocks were in the majority in production, censorship would be avoided.
Further, FOCIL (Fork Choice Enforced Inclusion Lists) has been suggested as one such solution. It proposes numerous proposers per block slot as opposed to a single proposer per block slot. One of the proposers may be selected to place the order, but the others should be listed as attesters. That makes censorship by an individual builder far more difficult. In effect, FOCIL prevents block builders from using force to inhibit valid transactions.
In comparison, Soleimani said that the current system of Ethereum already manages the risk of censorship. He observed that even when most block builders omit some transactions, the majority of validators would still work on them. That establishes a market-induced equilibrium, even with the possible oligopolies. In such a manner, he doubted whether FOCIL gives any significant protection without legal costs. He cautioned that the enforcement of inclusion of some transactions could bring legal liability to the U.S. validators.
Ethereum Eyes Long-Term Sustainability Through Inclusion Mechanisms
Nevertheless, Buterin advocated that such legal risks are necessary trade‑offs. The purpose should be the security of the neutrality of the chain, even at the expense of legal complexity. This is a wider principle that Ethereum should not discriminate between transactions that are valid.
The outlook of FOCIL is that it might be used as an extra screen. It is made to be neutral despite the emergence of a more centralized block building. At the same time, the discussion within the Ethereum community is still ongoing regarding the necessity of a balance between decentralization and safety in terms of the law.
Critics such as Soleimani prefer less direct intervention to hope that the existing decentralized set of validators will be used. It has been argued that formalism mechanisms such as FOCIL enhance trust and sustainability in the long run. Finally, the argument points to the emerging censorship resistance approach of Ethereum.
To conclude, the impartiality of Ethereum Layer 1 is its principal asset. Such measures as FOCIL are aimed at strengthening this principle without relying on external systems. The discussion will continue, but the point is obvious: Ethereum should become a network where all legitimate transactions flow freely, regardless of any legal or technological pressure.
