What is a “pass test”?

Vitalik ButerinThe “walkaway test” is a way to assess the long-term credibility of Ethereum. The network is intended to remain secure and functional even if its main developers stop actively updating it.

In a recent analogy, Buterin suggested that a protocol should be like a tool you have, such as a hammer, rather than a service that gradually degrades if the “seller” loses interest or becomes narrow by external pressures.

The end state he points to is an Ethereum that can “fossify if we want,” where its value proposition does not depend on promised features that have not yet been delivered.

In the same post, Buterin provides a detailed checklist of the “boxes” Ethereum needs to tick to make ossification a more credible long-term option:

• Full quantum resistance (main topic of this article)

• Scalability architecture capable of expanding to thousands of transactions per second (TPS), such as Ethereum zero-knowledge virtual machine validation combined with PeerDAS, with additional scaling achieved by changing parameters

• A state architecture designed for decades, including partial statelessness, state extinction, and future storage structures

• A general-purpose account model, often described as a full account abstraction, moving away from the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)

• Denial-of-service protected gas delivery schedule, including both zero-knowledge execution and verification

• A proof-of-stake economy structured to remain decentralized for the long term while maintaining the utility of Ether (ETH) as a non-custodial security

• Block building mechanisms that resist centralization and maintain resistance to censorship in adverse future conditions.

What does the passage test measure?

Buterin’s test for leaving is uncomplicated. Can Ethereum continue to deliver on its core promise as a platform for trustless and trust-minimizing applications without relying primarily on constant, risky protocol changes to remain viable?

In his framesthe protocol should ultimately function more as a tool than a service. Once the “base” is complete, Ethereum should be able to “fossify if we want”, with most of the progress coming from client optimization and safer parameter tuning, rather than repeated redesigns.

Therefore, it draws a clear line between features that already exist and those that are only promised. The goal, as he puts it, is to reach a point where Ethereum’s value proposition “does not depend strictly on any features that are not already included in the protocol.”

Did you know? Protocol ossification is a term from network engineering. As a protocol becomes widely used, it becomes more hard to coordinate significant changes and its evolution naturally slows, often because the ecosystem around it becomes heavier and harder to navigate.

Why quantum changes the risk model

When people talk about quantum riskthe key uncertainty is time. Even NIST emphasizes that it is impossible to predict precisely when, or even if, quantum computers will be able to break currently widely used public key cryptography on scale.

The reason quantum risk continues to loom immense in long-term security planning is that crypto transitions are typically sluggish. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) notes that it can take 10-20 years to go from a standard algorithm to widespread real-world implementation as products and infrastructure need to be redesigned and deployed.

There is also a separate risk that is not dependent on a short-term breakthrough: the “collect now, decrypt later” model, in which encrypted data is collected today in case it becomes readable in the future.

This risk is why many standards bodies have begun to move from research to implementation, with NIST finalizing its first set of post-quantum cryptography standards in 2024 and explicitly encouraging early transition efforts.

Did you know? UK National Cyber ​​Security Center (NCSC) now delicacies Quantum cryptography migration as a deadline-driven project. Its guidelines set clear milestones: 2028 for discovery and planning, 2031 for priority migration, and 2035 for full migration.

What “quantum readiness” means for aether in practice

In Ethereum’s case, quantum readiness refers to whether the network can migrate away from today’s signature assumptions without disrupting usability.

In the test thread, Buterin explicitly lists full quantum resistance as a goal and connects it to the need for a more general account model for signature validation.

This is where account abstraction comes into play. Instead of confining Ethereum to a single signature algorithm indefinitely, a more pliant account model could allow accounts to validate transactions using different rules. Theoretically, this allows post-quantum signatures to be rolled out gradually without forcing a single “flag day” migration across the network.

Tests discussions we explored what using post-quantum schemes like Falcon for Ethereum-style transaction signatures might look like, along with the practical trade-offs this entails, including additional complexity and performance costs.

Most importantly, this work is still ongoing. Ethereum’s roadmap includes quantum resistance efforts, often grouped under Splurge, but no solution has yet been fully implemented.

Did you know? Account downloading is already available at scale on the mainnet. Ethereum.org notes that the Ethereum Improvement Proposal 4337 EntryPoint was implemented on March 1, 2023 and has enabled over 26 million bright wallets and over 170 million UserOperations.

Protocol surface problem for Ethereum

A more technical way to look at the walkaway test is to ask whether Ethereum can change its cryptographic primitives without relying on fallback coordination.

Currently, Ethereum has many distinctive surfaces. User transactions from external accounts rely on recoverable ECDSA via secp256k1 at the execution layer, while transaction validators operate BLS12-381 keys and signatures at the consensus layer.

In practice, post-quantum migration would likely involve:

• Introduction and unification of modern verification paths

• Allowing secure key and signature scheme rotation for both accounts and validators

• It does this without violating the user experience assumptions that underpin wallets and infrastructure.

Again, account abstraction is key to increasing signature validation flexibility, for example by delegating validation logic. It could make cryptographic prowess less dependent on one-time rescue updates.

Designing for Ethereum’s Long-Term Resilience

Buterina the walkaway test is ultimately a demand for credibility. Ethereum should strive for a state where it can “ossify if we want” and where its value proposition does not depend on features that are no longer part of the protocol.

Quantum readiness falls within this framework because it is a long-term transition problem, not a switch that can simply be flipped. NIST has clearly treated post-quantum migration as something that organizations should start preparing for early, even amid uncertainty about the exact time frame.

The broader question is whether Ethereum can evolve in its security assumptions without becoming a system that only works when a compact group continually steps in to save it.