Hacker News Reader

Comment by stupidcar | Hacker News Reader

It strikes me as an (non-invested) outsider that Ethereum seems to benefit from having a figure like Vitalik who can act as a Torvalds-esque figurehead, setting the project's technical direction. And that, in contrast, the non-participation of Satoshi Nakamoto has left a power vacuum at the heart of Bitcoin, which results in the kind of bloody and attritional battles required to move it forward. Because everybody and nobody can claim to be the heir to Nakamoto's technical vision.

Clearly Ethereum has had more than its share of problems, but as things stand, I feel it has a greater chance of becoming a truly disruptive technology than Bitcoin, which seems to have become stuck in a technical quagmire.

View on HN

> Ethereum seems to benefit from having a figure like Vitalik who can act as a Torvalds-esque figurehead

If Vitalik got hit by a bus tomorrow Ether price would drop 95%. A currency does not need a leader who directs it. Also it should be very difficult to make changes to a 150 Billion $ currency.

I don't see Ethereum as a 150 Billion $ currency, it's more like beta software or an experiment. The learnings made now could shape the future of tech, so it should be easy to make changes to.

It's cryptocurrency. Someone is leading the crypto part (also: smart contracts etc. etc.). You could even argue that traditional currencies to have a leader - those maintaining the fiat.

Ethereum is not a currency though. It's a decentralised platform to build apps on, like the App Store. ETH is the oil that pays for the decentralised processing resources used by said apps that are run on the platform.

A platform that isn't finished needs a leader, and I would say Ethereum needs a leader a lot more than Bitcoin. If all development on Bitcoin would stop tomorrow, it would still keep running and have a potential future as digital gold. If all development on Ethereum would stop tomorrow, it would most likely fail as a project. The value proposition is very different.

Also, since oil isn't very useful without something to use it in (a car, plane, other use cases), it actually makes perfect sense (to me).

ETH could very well also become a functional currency once the supply gets capped in a future hard fork. But for now, it's more oil than currency.

The talk by Lagarde [1] recently convinced me that we're ahead of a threshold where some blockchain technology will get some sort of mainstream backing and actually break through[2].

This could be some central bank for example.

Between ETH and BTC I think ETH has a better shot at being at the core of that, unless the Bus accident actually happens.

[1] https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2017/09/28/sp092917-cen...

[2] And break through means: I can realistically get rid of my Visa card and use blockchain tech for day to day transactions at many stores.

Plus the fact that Vitalik seems genuinely interested in the development of the underlying technology and isn't too fussed about making more money than he already has. An example of this is offering to fund Ethereum infrastructure projects from his own pocket because he was seeing what was happening with ICO money: https://www.ethnews.com/vitalik-buterin-responds-to-raiden-i...

> isn't too fussed about making more money than he already has

To be fair, he's already beyond set for life

If the point is to create a real currency which lasts longer than a single person's lifetime, the problem of leadership and succession will have to be solved one way or another. A BFDL can only remain in charge for so long.

But they are not really competitors. Bitcoin is digital gold. It may survive without any innovation in the future. For payment it is being distrupted by currencies like Dash. Ethereum is supposed to be a DApp platform, but because of its scalability problems there is a high chance that it will be distrupted by something like EOS. (The price of EOS skyrocketed after Vitalik's presentation about Ethereum scaling plans. Funny thing is that Vitalik even had a funny slide, where he jokingly stated that Ethereum 2.0 is obviously EOS.) (Because every mention of Dash results in downvote on each crypto related forum except a Dash forum, and the same is true for EOS, this comment will be probably downvoted to hell. But I don't care about my HN karma anymore.)

I'm not voting you down, but can you explain to me why EOS is (or could be) better than Ethereum? Everything I've read has been more negative than positive.

Do they have something up and running yet?

You have heard negative things because of enormous FUD against it on each forum. Even smart people can be affected by FUD. (The only reason I did not fall for it is that I found a pattern that if something is very heavily FUD-ed, it can be undervalued just because of it. So I researched the project deeply, on a source code level.)

EOS uses DPos (delegated proof of stake). This means that token holders vote for block producers: 21 block producers are voted in to produce blocks in a round-robbin manner. In the future these block producers will be huge computer clusters in data centers. The whole network has only 21x redundancy in it, and there is no proof of work. Ethereum currently has Nx redundancy, where N is the number of nodes, and nodes are supposed to be as small as laptops. This way currently EOS is the only blockchain that can reach VISA level transactions/second. There are tons of things I am excited about in EOS (like contracts are written in WebAssembly instead of Solidity.)

They have working software on Github, people are running their own testnets. There will be a public testnet in December. But what is more important is that the CTO is the creator of already working high-performance DPos blockchains: BitShares and Steemit. The Steemit blockchain has the highest traffic currently among all blockchains.

The only technical critisism against EOS I heard is that some people say that DPos easily becomes centralized. I think proof of work can become much more easily centralized because in the end if one entity can get the electricity even slightly cheaper than others, it will be the only entity that can be able to mine profitably. This is explained by EOS CTO in more detail here:

https://steemit.com/eos/@dan/in-defense-of-consortium-blockc...

> The whole network has only 21x redundancy in it, and there is no proof of work. Ethereum currently has Nx redundancy, where N is the number of nodes, and nodes are supposed to be as small as laptops.

Interesting. I have (one of the) standards by which I judge cryptocurrencies and that is, if tomorrow USD (or any major currency of a western country) is marred by hyperinflation, which currency is capable of allowing people to continue business as usual (of their consumer spending).

So far, no cryptocurrency is capable of doing that, and the most promising in this aspect were Ethereum's raiden network and IOTA (EOS wasn't even on my radar btw).

I respect your view, but I actually think that because ETH has proven to be difficult to secure, that it will continue to experience problems and as such, it is not a viable platform for future development.

You say that, but then Ethereum Classic is the 10th biggest altcoin currently.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com