Comment by current_call | Hacker News Reader

Comment by current_call | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This article is FUD, but then so is this post. People on both sides have huge incentives. And don't be deluded into thinking there aren't sides. The wealth at stake and the ability to dodge banks makes it impossible to be deeply invested in this and not have an agenda.

Here are the paragraphs where I thought the FUD was most obvious. Worth looking over.

Developer mindshare is the most important thing to have in digital currency. The only reason these networks (Bitcoin, Ethereum) and their tokens (bitcoin, ether) have value is because there is a future expectation that people will want to acquire those tokens to use the network. And developers create the applications which drive that demand. Without a reason to use the network, both the network and its currency are worth nothing.

In contrast, Bitcoin has had a leadership vacuum since Gavin Andresen stepped aside after other core developers did not get on board with his (in my opinion rational and convincing) arguments to increase the block size. “Core developers” as they now stand are also relatively fragmented.

Beyond a leadership vacuum, Bitcoin’s “leadership” is less clear and toxic. Greg Maxwell, technical leader of Blockstream which employs a solid chunk of core developers, recently referred to other core developers who were working with miners on a block size compromise as “well meaning dipss.” A second discussion board needed to form on reddit, /r/btc, because of censorship on the original /r/bitcoin. The content on the Bitcoin discussion boards feels like squabbling while Ethereum’s is talking about relevant issues and new ideas. In summary, Ethereum leadership (and as a result its community) is moving forward while things need to get worse before they can get better in Bitcoin.*

What is very real, though, is the possibility that Ethereum blows past Bitcoin entirely. There is nothing that Bitcoin can do which Ethereum can’t. While Ethereum is less battle tested, it is moving faster, has better leadership, and has more developer mindshare. Developers → apps → users → network success. First mover advantage is challenging to overcome, but at current pace, it’s conceivable.

Also, I still don't understand why I'd want a programming language in my currency.

See my other comment for your question why you might want a programming language in your currency. An example of a real world "programming" language in your currency is a legal contract (e.g., insurance contract, escrow contract, corporate bylaws with dividend rules).

Contracts don't exist within currencies; contracts exist on top of currencies. Sticking a turing complete language into the currency doesn't remove the problem of third party management; it forces the currency to absorb some of the complexity. Is there any reason why this can't just be layered over an existing crypto currency instead of needing to be built in?

Blockchains aren't about currencies. They're about providing a single immutable scroll for a society to write entries on. You can use a scroll to record transactions for a currency, but you could also use it for any interaction between people.

Associative arrays aren't about phone books. They're about providing key value storage. You can use an associative array to record phone numbers, but you could also use it for any key value pairing.

Why the same hash table for two different things? Why the same block chain for two different things?

Blockchains aren't plain old data structures. Their value comes from consensus, and it's way easier to use an existing consensus than to establish a new one.

Is Ethereum not on its own blockchain?

It is. Establishing a new blockchain is a hard thing to do. Ethereum also benefits from network effects between contracts: any contract can call another one to use its functionality.

What does "establishing" mean? There are lots of block chains.

> Also, I still don't understand why I'd want a programming language in my currency.

Actually, I think you're looking at it wrong. It's not a programming language in your currency. It's a currency in your programming language.

Okay. Why would I want a currency in my programming language? This obviously isn't the same as having a library for using a currency.

You might disagree with his viewpoint but that isn't FUD. This is a very even handed description of what is going on.

Agreed. This article projects no actual Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, so it's not FUD.

Fear of being left behind. Uncertainty about the future of Bitcoin. Doubt in the community.

I don't disagree with his viewpoint; his arguments are irrelevant. A good way to understand the purpose of a piece of writing is to summarize the purpose of each passage into a single sentence.

Here is my attempt; feel free to skip it.

Bitcoin apps aren't innovative.

The Bitcoin scripting language is restrictive. Ethereum has been successful.

Nothing. (It may or may not be so.)

The restrictiveness of Bitcoin's scripting language is a legacy issue, and the scripting language is very important.

Bitcoin is amazing to some, but not all.

Bitcoin hasn't innovated for seven years, but Ethereum is innovating right now.

Ethereum is the future of digital currency.

Bitcoin's scripting language is restrictive and hard to use.

Ethereum is easy for developers to use.

Ethereum looks more familiar.

Ethereum can do things bitcoin can't.

Ethereum has everything in the same protocol, which is better than layers.

Ethereum has better developer resources.

Bitcoin applications aren't innovative.

Ethereum has lots of new innovative applications and more to come.

A digital currency is only as good as its applications. The creator of Ethereum is a good leader and a nice person.

The leader of Bitcoin left and the remaining people don't work together.

Bitcoin developers and figureheads are mean and petty.

Bitcoin isn't growing and that's bad.

The Ethereum developers are innovative.

Bitcoin isn't changing quickly and that's bad.

Ethereum is faster and provides money to more miners.

Nothing (It may or may not be so.)

Ethereum hasn't had any large schisms or internal conflict.

Ethereum allows you to do more than you currently can in Bitcoin.

There are security risks, but it isn't Ethereum's fault.

Proof of stake is awesome.

Nothing. (It may or may not be so.)

Nothing. (It may or may not be so.)

In summary, Ethereium may replace Bitcoin because it is innovating faster, has a nicer community, and has a better developer community. (This is the thesis!)

I am neutral

Digital currencies are rapidly changing.

Technology is great.

And now we've located the thesis! What is very real, though, is the possibility that Ethereum blows past Bitcoin entirely. There is nothing that Bitcoin can do which Ethereum can’t. While Ethereum is less battle tested, it is moving faster, has better leadership, and has more developer mindshare. First mover advantage is challenging to overcome, but at current pace, it’s conceivable.

In summary, Bitcoin is restrictive, inferior, stagnant, and has a community that is fragmented, lacking innovative developers, filled with mean people, and has no leader. That's the message this blog post deliberately sends. However, none of these arguments are valid. Being restrictive is not a bad thing in itself. Being simple isn't a bad thing. Being stable isn't a bad thing. Calling a community fragmented does not make it so. Developers don't matter; digital currency is valuable because it's a way of storing and exchanging value, not because of related software. How much someone in the community cusses doesn't mater. That Gavin is gone doesn't matter. Calling a community leaderless does not make it so. The people who have bitcoin matter, because the point of a digital currency is to store and exchange value.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com