Conversation

Earnestly/naively curious: what are the best first-principles arguments for why Bitcoin should not end up fully superseded by Ethereum? (Please don’t make me regret asking this! This is a truth-seeking q; I have no dog in this fight)
Quote Tweet
Replying to @BrantlyMillegan
They have completely given up. The narrative now is “hodl,” as if you could ever change the world by sitting on your hands and literally doing nothing.
25
8
124
Most of ’s arguments for ETH are good. But it just serves a different purpose than BTC. Ethereum is programmable finance. Bitcoin is digital gold. Even EIP-1559 won’t change that because it signals that Ethereum *has* a mutable monetary policy.
16
19
147
It’s like when people used to say that Twitter was just one feature of Facebook, the status update. Products that appear superficially similar early on develop shared cultures and use-cases and differentiate over time. So too for coins.
3
1
47
Immutability (BTC) and financial innovation (ETH) are both incredibly valuable, but by their very nature can’t be the same thing. A constantly changing and improving platform (Ethereum) is culturally different from a finished, reliable, immutable coin (Bitcoin).
8
7
86
If Ethereum isn’t reliable, then it’s idiotic to put the future of finance on it, no? So in the end, Ethereum is reliable and in the worst case scenario you can put an immutable-supply token on it. Also, Bitcoin will have to break 21M or make major protocol changes in the end.
2
2
11
Because without the block subsidy it will not be secure enough to ensure a hash rate that can support large transactions without risk of a double spend.
1
9
If there’s truly enough volume for BTC to hit gold mcap, then no, I don’t see how that could be enough to secure the chain: gold’s trading volume is more than five times that *per day*! Am I missing something?
3
2
Show replies
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Show