Conversation

Replying to

and

the btc insistence on easy verification on older hardware, refusal to add features that eg 2x utility but add a 1% tail risk, etc are a real difference between btc and eth—btc is actually way better at the adversarial money use case (at the obvious expense of everything else)

Replying to

and

the dialogue in the thread is interesting too, but it kind of presupposes that btc is just an older less full featured version of eth that has adoption for reasons no one really understands—not the case imo

Replying to

what are the arguments for it other than being older and unmodified?

Replying to

and

analogy to an m1 abrams vs a toyota rav4. you can do lots of things in the rav4 quite well—drop the kids off, do some light offroading, go grab some in n out. the only thing the abrams is good for is war, but it's very good at that since it can ignore tradeoffs.

Replying to

and

specifically, btc has: 1. higher quality codebase 2. much higher cultural barrier to breaking changes 3. more robust networking layer code tho eth has improved 4. smaller attack surface both at the code & economic level 5. more censorship resistant, due to ease of fullnode

Replying to

meh what % of hashpower comes from people who couldn't gather up the technology to run an ETH node? I suspect it's irrelevant from a censorship point of view. (1), (3), and (4) can all change I feel like (2) is the real one here

Replying to

and

ah, the s2x debacle proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that hashpower is not in charge of btc, and that an ornery army of grumpy full-node runners can effectively resist changes that would make btc less censorship resistant!

Replying to

and

also i think you dismissed 1 3 and 4 wayyy too casually, particularly 4. both projects have some of the best minds in the world working on them, but BTCers have a way easier job on the security front, simply because BTC tries to do so much less than ETH.

Replying to

and

eth is preparing a massive update that completely changes the security assumptions; sharding in particular is incredibly tricky. even without that, the economic security issues of e.g. tokens eclipsing the value of eth itself or other weird scenarios just dont exist for btc

Replying to

Oh yeah totally agree that ETH2.0 has been a mess, I'm just talking about ETH 1 here.

Replying to

and

Do tokens eclipsing ETH create a security concern for ETH or for the tokens? I would have guessed mostly the tokens. Also -- what if there were $500m omni USDT. Would you still be saying that, and saying that was a black mark on BTC?

6:11 PM · Sep 22, 2020Twitter Web App

Retweet