Bitcoin vs Ethereum – A really good read from Dan Held of how BTC and ETH chooses different paths to solve problems

Bitcoin vs Ethereum – A really good read from Dan Held of how BTC and ETH chooses different paths to solve problems

View Reddit by Jimbley_NeutralonView Source


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings


  1. That was an interesting read, thanks for posting it! I like them both, there are trade offs for each and I think that’s OK! Ethereum is emerging as such a versatile platform, but at the same time Bitcoin as the oldest and most battle-tested crypto has tremendous value. Don’t make me choose! 🙂

  2. Thanks, OP, stimulating read!

    A couple highlights and things I agree/disagree with:

    >Bitcoin is distinctly different than all the other blockchains because it has had a persistent narrative since day one: Gold 2.0/SoV

    Many DLTs have a persistent narrative, and as the chart points out the Gold 2.0/SoV one wasn’t the dominate narrative in the early days of BTC (although it was always pervasive).


    >The Ethereum community has endorsed radical changes/pivots, trying to find narrative fit

    2 things.

    1. the narrative of the personal computer (for instance) will necessarily be more storied than the narrative of say, A wall safe. There’s no particular need to read into this. The more versatile instrument will have more narratives. In part because each use-case has it’s own story, but also…
    2. “the ethereum community endorsing radical pivots” is actually Ethereum attracting and creating and growing many unique new communities.


    >Ethereum is an aggregator of these narratives, trying each one out over the years in an attempt to seduce Bitcoin and other believers.

    ???. The lady doth protest too much, methinks

    (Later talking about EIPs)

    >These constant changes leave Ethereum open to exploits and attacks. As evidenced recently by the near constant stream of DeFi thefts, and weakened decentralization.

    IMHO, Eth decentralization remains a real pain-point. But is the author citing real exploits enabled by Eth protocol changes? Or is he causally relating the hacks of poorly audited food coins with protocol level Eth changes? Genuinely asking. I suspect the later, but welcome corrections.


    >”The [Ethereum] annual issuance rate with all those annotations kind of looks like it was drawn by a Bitcoiner making fun of Ethereum”

    Lyn Aldeen is a fucking national treasure!


    >With Ethereum, they’ve embraced a constantly changing monetary policy. In effect, they’ve replaced suits (central bankers) with devs. This is no different than existing fiat money where we have to trust in a group of individuals not to change the monetary policy.

    IMHO this idea carries the entire piece. Of course there are caveats (Eth monetary changes do require community consensus / governance, etc). But at the end of the day the stability and reliable monetary policy is what makes bitcoin Bitcoin.

  3. The Ethereum community has chosen to embrace features of centralization such as having Vitalik remain as the leader of Ethereum, and increasing the difficulty of running a full node.

    With Ethereum, the community has embraced accelerating costs of running nodes, which pushes developers and users to be increasingly reliant on trusted 3rd party node operates such as Infura.

    “The [Ethereum] annual issuance rate with all those annotations kind of looks like it was drawn by a Bitcoiner making fun of Ethereum, but instead that’s from an Ethereum source. Various Ethereum Improvement Proposals or ‘EIPs’ by developers have changed its monetary policy over time as needed for various reasons.” How can we trust that Ethereum’s monetary policy won’t change again? How can we be sure that it won’t be a detrimental change? Even if the Ethereum community agrees it will never change, and it honors that, it will perpetually be 12 years behind the trust that has been built with Bitcoin.

  4. Lyn Aldens was way better. I can’t believe he skipped over POW vs POS. It’s the most important difference. POS has Nothing at stake essentially becoming another version of fiat where wealth is created out of thin air, wealth is never distributed well, energy is, pow has unforgeable costliness, pow provides a base price with a cartel to defend it, pow tells time on its own, pow is useless if forked because you can’t copy paste the miners, pow incentivized nation state level industrial buy in, listen to some Saylor on What is money or Bitcoin Audible and Tales From the Crypt have many episodes describing the need for pow for a sov and monetary base, Antonopoulos covers it too. Pos is great for a utility coin. Probably better. No need to waste as much energy just for an NFT or some such. Imo they are very different and we have yet to see if Eth can find a permanent fit but I wouldn’t bet against it, just don’t bet on it to replace Bitcoin.

  5. I usually agree with a lot of what Dan Held says, but after watching his debate on bitcoin Vs alts with Eric Voorhes, Dan failed to justify his opinion sufficiently in my eyes. At the end of the day opening the innovativation door and immediately shutting it behind yourself is not very fair or smart. There is more to come in this space that Bitcoin set the scene and paved the way for.



What do you think?

Great buying opportunity? The Biden administration will soon have to settle a Bitcoin fight it didn’t even start.