The 1984 Processor Problem in Blockchain
I was reading this piece about Web3 scaling, and it made me think about something I hadn’t considered before. The author draws this interesting parallel between current blockchain development and what happened in computing back in the 1980s. You know, when engineers kept trying to push single-core processors faster and faster until they hit physical limits with heat and power consumption.
The article suggests we’re doing the same thing with blockchains today. Everyone’s focused on making faster chains that can handle millions of transactions per second. But maybe that’s missing the point entirely. It’s like trying to solve a grocery shopping problem by paying for each apple individually instead of just settling the total bill at checkout.
Structural Issues Holding Web3 Back
Gas fees are probably the most obvious problem. Even on “low-cost” chains, you still have to pay something for every single interaction. That creates both economic and psychological barriers. Most daily interactions in a truly adopted Web3 world would need to be gasless, I think.
Then there’s the liquidity fragmentation issue. Assets are scattered across hundreds of different chains, creating these isolated pools. Cross-chain bridges have become security nightmares—billions have been stolen through them. In just the first half of 2025, hackers took over $2.17 billion, mostly through bridge and access control exploits.
Developers face their own challenges too. Building a cross-chain application today is incredibly complex. They spend more time managing the plumbing between chains than actually working on the application layer itself. No wonder so many Web3 apps feel clunky and difficult to use.
A Different Approach: P2P Clearing Layers
The article proposes something different from the usual Layer-2 rollup approach. Instead of another L2 that still relies on the main chain for execution, it suggests creating Layer-3 networks that specialize in high-frequency, peer-to-peer clearing.
This L3 would handle the bulk of transactional activity off-chain, using something similar to the TrustFi technology that banks use. Millions of transactions get cleared daily between banks, but only the net balances actually settle through the central bank. In this model, the L1 blockchain becomes the central bank for final settlement, while the L3 acts as a decentralized clearing house.
What This Could Mean for Adoption
If this approach works, most user interactions could become gasless. That removes a major barrier to entry. The L3 could also serve as a “network of networks,” unifying fragmented liquidity without relying on risky bridges. Developers could build applications that hide the underlying complexity of multiple blockchains from users.
The history of computing shows us something important here. Real scaling breakthroughs came from architectural innovation, not just brute force. We stopped trying to build faster single-core processors and moved to multi-core systems with specialized functions.
Maybe Web3 needs to follow a similar path. Instead of trying to build one chain to rule them all, we might need specialized layers that handle different types of transactions efficiently. The future might not be about bigger blocks or faster chains, but about creating trustless P2P clearing systems that work alongside existing blockchains.
It’s an interesting perspective, though I’m not entirely sure how practical it would be to implement. The security considerations alone would be massive. But the comparison to the 1984 processor problem does make you stop and think about whether we’re heading down the right path with current scaling approaches.
