Hacker News Reader

Comment by capableweb | Hacker News Reader

"In a different blockchain they go by different rules" yeah no shit, of course.

Ethereum is not Bitcoin because Ethereum doesn't want to be Bitcoin, otherwise Ethereum wouldn't have existed in the first place. That's like complaining that GCP is not following the advice of AWS "leaders", of course they are not gonna do that, otherwise they would work together, not on two different projects...

Also, no matter what Satoshi wrote in 2010, multiple implementations of Bitcoin does exist today, most of them relatively stable: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Clients

And the integrity of the network is not harmed by multiple clients either, just harms the users of that client, not other clients so not sure what the harm is. Yes, it's difficult, but so is a lot of problems in the cryptocurrency space.

View on HN

> "In a different blockchain they go by different rules" yeah no shit, of course.

That's a terrible summary! It's like saying it's obvious that GM should ignore anything Henry Ford ever said about making cars. There might be good reasons to act differently, but simply being a different organization isn't one.

I think you have it backwards. It's more like saying that not every single thing Henry Ford ever said actually describes the best possible way of making cars. Henry Ford was capable of getting things wrong.

I don't think anyone is claiming that Ethereum should do things differently just to be different. The claim is that actually that Ethereum isn't necessarily worse just because it is different.

The market itself has shown resilience through all kinds of previously theoretical problems

51% attacked coins dont “crash to zero” because market participants decided it wants to buy them up and attempt double spending. In other cases the proactive disabling of only some off-ramps just creates greater scarcity, ensuring amplified value to the coin being acquired

A lot of what satoshi said can be ignored because the market can simply bear it

These are products which can attract value for reasons satoshi and enthusiasts did not predict, just like any economist fails to predict what actual individual humans will do

> Ethereum is not Bitcoin because Ethereum doesn't want to be Bitcoin, otherwise Ethereum wouldn't have existed in the first place

This isn't exactly true. Vitalik only created Ethereum because the new core devs ( Blockstream ) were actively limiting what types of things could be done with Bitcoin. They were moving away from programmable money in favor of "digital gold".

Source: https://twitter.com/vitalikbuterin/status/929805462052229120...

Here's a more detailed telling of the events by one of the Decred developers: https://old.reddit.com/r/decred/comments/6wxueo/your_best_pi...

TLDR: Ethereum actually does want to be Bitcoin but that's only because Bitcoin doesn't really want to be Bitcoin anymore. They've dumbed down their protocol. They've dumbed down their infrastructure. Hell, they've even managed to dumb down their users. Ethereum will make a fine Bitcoin.

Developers have no ability to coerce what software bitcoin users run -- that's the entire point of bitcoin. If a competing developer fails to gain user adoption, it's on them that they haven't convinced users to switch consensus rules. It makes for a convincing inflammatory, but false story, for detractors or grifters though (see the myriad of Bitcoin clones: "Bitcoin" KYC, "Bitcoin" Diamond, "Bitcoin" Cash etc etc)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com