Hacker News Reader

Comment by kang | Hacker News Reader

You are right, ease of use matters but it is so because ether was sold and got a lot of money whereas no such body exists in bitcoin. With that money ethereum could fund coding.

That is a good thing unless the whole point of the system is decentralization. This is similar to Amazon selling AWScoin and launching a SETI-like software so anyone can run their system as an AWS server & earn AWScoins.

View on HN

I'm not sure what you're arguing? Ethereum is fully decentralized and open source. There happens to be a well funded non-profit that the community funded in order to speed up development (EthDEV). Ethereum and EthDEV are not one in the same thing. If EthDEV disappeared, ethereum would continue. That's a little different than some Amazon owned and operated "AWScoin".

Bitcoin also has the "Bitcoin Foundation" which employs lead developer Gavin Andresen, so it's very similar.

Gavin is no longer lead developer and hasn't been for years now.

Yes, he is no longer "the lead" developer, but he's still a core contributor, and is Chief Scientist of the Bitcoin Foundation, so the point stands.

He is not a Core contributor anymore. He's been effectively frozen out.

I meant lowercase core, not uppercase Core. His most recent contribution is to the "Bitcoin Classic" fork rather than the "Core" fork. He's still a key developer in the Bitcoin community. I wasn't trying to wade into the Bitcoin political issues. It's all "Bitcoin"

Whats relevant to first post is that Bitcoin Foundation is a non profit aimed at bettering the Bitcoin ecosystem, similar to EthDEV, not some corporate owner of Ethereum IP, and they help move forward development of "Bitcoin"

Saying bitcoin is less centralized than Ethereum is a joke given the current civil war on block size, and some devs being "frozen out". Also, some core devs made a lot of money with bitcoin and that's funding their commitment. Same same, but different.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com