In the world of Web3, the mantra 'more nodes = more security' has almost become a truth. It stems from the ideology of decentralization: the more control is distributed among many nodes, the less likely the system has a single point of failure, making it harder to censor or attack. But is that always true? Or does the pursuit of more nodes bring hidden costs that could undermine the very performance and security we are chasing?

In this article, we will dissect the reality of decentralization, the trade-offs behind it, and see if there is a smarter approach to balance security, performance, and usability based on the insights of Altius's CTO, Anit Chakraborty, in the podcast Behind the Screens.

The dream of decentralization: Why do we need more nodes?

Decentralization, by nature, is meant to increase resilience. When the operation of a blockchain is distributed across thousands of nodes, like Bitcoin (~15,000 nodes) or Ethereum (~8,000 nodes), there is no central entity that can be attacked or controlled. The ideal of 'more nodes' is often associated with:

  • Increased security: No single party can manipulate the network.

  • Fault tolerance: If one node fails, the others continue to operate.

  • Difficult to censor: The more distributed, the harder it is to block or control.

This is why Bitcoin and Ethereum are considered the gold standard of decentralization. But as Anit points out, things are not so simple if we go beyond these two giants.

The hidden costs of 'more nodes'

Increasing the number of nodes may seem like an easy choice, but in reality, it creates hidden complexities that can reduce both security and performance. Why?

1. The risk of software uniformity

Even in a decentralized network, many nodes run the same software. Anit points out that about 50-60% of Ethereum nodes run Geth. If Geth has a bug, a large part of the network can be affected.

Although Ethereum has diverse clients like Besu and Nethermind, the reliance on a few dominant clients shows that 'more nodes' does not equate to 'more secure' if all run the same piece of code.

2. Performance sacrificed

Decentralization often comes with trade-offs in speed. Global nodes must reach consensus, and as Anit says, 'there are physical limits to the speed of light.' Data takes time to move between nodes, creating a natural limit:

  • Ethereum processes ~15-30 TPS, while Visa processes ~24,000 TPS.

  • Adding more nodes can increase latency due to the need for more consensus steps.

  • Some chains like Solana choose to sacrifice decentralization for speed, requiring powerful hardware to achieve ~65,000 TPS, but at the cost of fewer people being able to run nodes → reducing decentralization.

3. Complex operations

Running a node is not simple. It requires technical skills, stable hardware, and continuous maintenance. Many current Layer 2s only have one sequencer, becoming a single point of failure. Many L2s have faced issues simply due to a lack of manpower or backup systems, while Web2 companies like Google have thousands of engineers to ensure 99.999% uptime.

4. Economic barriers

As hardware requirements increase (like Solana or high-performance L2), running a node becomes too expensive for the average user. Anit points out that 60% of the world's population only uses mobile phones, not laptops or servers. If only the wealthy can run nodes, then decentralization becomes a privilege — contrary to the spirit of democratizing blockchain.

The trustless system can also be very fragile.

The 'trustless' system sounds ideal, but in reality, it relies on many goodwill individuals who are not paid. Unlike Google, which has thousands of engineers and vast infrastructure to ensure Gmail always works, blockchain depends on the community to operate voluntary nodes, lacking central coordination.

This leads to:

  • Difficult to recover from failures: An L2 encountering a sequencer failure → recovery depends on a small dev team.

  • Prone to systemic failures: Uniform software leads to the risk of cascading failures.

  • Difficult to scale: Adding nodes can enhance security, but it slows down consensus.

Is there a smarter middle ground?

So is 'more nodes = more security' true? Not necessarily. Decentralization is not binary — it is a continuous spectrum. Anit suggests that the future lies in designing systems that balance decentralization with usability. This is how Altius approaches it.

Altius's approach: Smart decentralization

Altius is a VM-agnostic execution layer, separated from consensus, allowing for high performance while maintaining decentralization.

Highlights:

  • Parallel Scalable Storage (PSS): Splits the state and distributes it in parallel among nodes → reduces bottlenecks without the need for special hardware.

  • Instruction-Level Parallelism (ILP): Concurrently executing multiple smart contract instructions → achieving 1-2 Giga gas/s (compared to Ethereum ~250M gas/s).

  • Open Execution Network (OEN) (coming soon): A shared execution pool across multiple chains → scales linearly with the number of nodes while maintaining decentralization.

  • Application Code Assessor (ACA): Rewards developers for writing optimized code with fewer conflicts → increases overall network performance.

Altius runs on common hardware, supporting multiple VMs (EVM, MoveVM, CosmWasm, zkVM, BitVM...), ensuring broad accessibility and avoiding the centralization trap due to high hardware requirements. The controlled parallel execution model enhances security by only needing to reprocess conflicting orders, not all transactions.

Rethinking 'more nodes'

Instead of blindly adding nodes, Altius shows that security and performance can be improved simultaneously through smart design:

  • Software diversity: Encourages different types of clients → reduces the risk of systemic failures.

  • Modular architecture: Separates execution from consensus → easy to scale without sacrificing decentralization.

  • Rewarding efficiency: Optimized code reduces network load → all nodes benefit.

Quality over quantity

The statement 'more nodes = more security' simplifies a complex reality. While decentralization is essential for resilience, it carries limitations regarding performance, cost, and the fragility of software.

The future of Web3 does not lie in counting nodes, but in designing infrastructure that optimizes both security and usability.

Altius is paving a new path: a high-performance execution layer while still maintaining the spirit of decentralization. As Anit says, 'Decentralization is not binary, but a spectrum.' With a modular architecture, efficiency, and accessibility, Altius proves you don't need to sacrifice speed for security, or vice versa.

What do you think? Is 'more nodes' still the optimal solution? Or is it time for Web3 to shift to a smarter approach?

Follow Altius Labs on X and YouTube for updates on blockchain infrastructure. Check out technical documentation at altiuslabs.xyz or in the Docs section.