What is the “walkaway test?”
Vitalik Buterin’s “walkaway test” is a method for evaluating Ethereum’s long-term credibility. The core idea is that the network should remain secure and functional even if its primary developers cease active upgrades. Buterin likens a protocol that passes this test to a tool one owns, such as a hammer, rather than a service that deteriorates if its creators lose interest or face external constraints. The ultimate goal is an Ethereum that can “ossify if we want to,” meaning its value proposition would not be contingent on future promised features that have yet to be implemented.
In a comprehensive analysis, Buterin outlined several critical areas Ethereum must address to make long-term ossification a viable option. These include:
- •
Full quantum resistance, which is a central focus of this discussion.
- •
A scalability architecture capable of handling thousands of transactions per second (TPS). This involves solutions like zero-knowledge Ethereum Virtual Machine validation combined with PeerDAS, with further scaling achieved through parameter adjustments.
- •
A state architecture designed for long-term durability, incorporating partial statelessness, state expiry, and future-proof storage mechanisms.
- •
A general-purpose account model, often referred to as full account abstraction, moving beyond the current Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA).
- •
A gas schedule hardened against denial-of-service risks, encompassing both execution and zero-knowledge proving.
- •
Proof-of-stake economics structured for sustained decentralization, while ensuring Ether (ETH) remains a useful form of trustless collateral.
- •
Block-building mechanisms that resist centralization and maintain censorship resistance even under challenging future conditions.
What the walkaway test is measuring
Buterin’s walkaway test fundamentally assesses whether Ethereum can continue to fulfill its core function as a platform for trustless and trust-minimized applications without relying predominantly on continuous, high-stakes protocol changes for its viability. In his articulation, the protocol should eventually function more like a durable tool than a constantly evolving service. Once the foundational elements are established, Ethereum should be capable of “ossifying if we want to,” with advancements primarily stemming from client optimizations and safer parameter tuning, rather than recurrent architectural redesigns. This distinction is crucial, as Buterin differentiates between features that are already implemented and those that remain only as promises. The objective is to reach a state where Ethereum’s value proposition is not strictly dependent on any features not yet present in the protocol.
Did you know? Protocol ossification is a concept from network engineering. As a protocol gains widespread adoption, coordinating significant changes becomes increasingly difficult. Its evolution naturally slows, often due to the growing complexity and inertia of the surrounding ecosystem.
Why quantum changes the risk model
The primary uncertainty surrounding quantum risk is its timing. Even the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) acknowledges the difficulty in predicting precisely when, or even if, quantum computers will be capable of breaking current widely used public-key cryptography at scale. Despite this, quantum risk remains a consideration in long-term security planning because cryptographic transitions are typically protracted processes. NIST highlights that transitioning from a standardized algorithm to widespread real-world deployment can take between 10 to 20 years, requiring extensive redesign and rollout of products and infrastructure. Furthermore, there is a distinct risk independent of immediate breakthroughs: the “harvest now, decrypt later” model, where encrypted data is collected today with the possibility of it being deciphered in the future. This risk is driving many standards bodies to move from research to implementation. NIST finalized its initial set of post-quantum cryptography standards in 2024 and actively encourages early adoption efforts.
Did you know? The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) now treats post-quantum cryptography migration as a deadline-driven project. Its guidance establishes clear milestones: 2028 for discovery and planning, 2031 for priority migration, and 2035 for complete migration.
What “quantum readiness” means for Ether in practice
For Ethereum, quantum readiness signifies the network’s ability to migrate away from current signature assumptions without compromising usability. Buterin explicitly identifies full quantum resistance as an objective, linking it to the necessity of a more versatile account model for signature validation. This is where account abstraction plays a pivotal role. Instead of Ethereum being permanently bound to a single signature algorithm, a more flexible account model can permit accounts to validate transactions using diverse rules. In theory, this facilitates a phased adoption of post-quantum signatures, circumventing the need for a network-wide “flag day” migration. Research discussions have explored the practicalities of employing post-quantum schemes like Falcon for Ethereum-style transaction signatures, along with their associated trade-offs, such as increased complexity and performance costs. Importantly, this work is still in progress. Ethereum’s roadmap includes efforts towards quantum resistance, often categorized under “the Splurge,” but a complete solution has not yet been deployed.
Did you know? Account abstraction is already operational at scale on the mainnet. Ethereum.org reports that the Ethereum Improvement Proposal 4337 EntryPoint contract was deployed on March 1, 2023. As of its October 2025 update, it has enabled over 26 million smart wallets and more than 170 million UserOperations.
A protocol-surface problem for Ethereum
A more technical perspective on the walkaway test involves questioning whether Ethereum can modify its cryptographic primitives without resorting to emergency coordination. Currently, Ethereum utilizes multiple signature surfaces. User transactions originating from externally owned accounts depend on recoverable ECDSA over secp256k1 at the execution layer, while proof-of-stake validators employ BLS12-381 keys and signatures at the consensus layer. In practice, a post-quantum migration would likely entail several steps: introducing and standardizing new verification paths; enabling secure rotation of key and signature schemes for both accounts and validators; and accomplishing this without disrupting the user experience assumptions relied upon by wallets and infrastructure. Account abstraction remains central to achieving greater flexibility in signature validation, for instance, by delegating validation logic. This approach can reduce the dependency of cryptographic agility on one-off emergency upgrades.
Designing for long-term Ethereum resilience
Buterin’s walkaway test ultimately serves as a demand for credibility. Ethereum should strive for a state where it can “ossify if we want to,” and where its value proposition is not dependent on features that are not yet integral to the protocol. Quantum readiness fits within this framework as it represents a long-term transition challenge rather than a simple switch that can be activated instantly. The NIST has explicitly advised organizations to begin preparing for post-quantum migration early, even amidst uncertainties regarding precise timelines. The broader implication is whether Ethereum can evolve its security assumptions without becoming a system that only functions when a limited group continuously intervenes to support it.