This can be a transcribed excerpt of the “Bitcoin Journal Podcast,” hosted by P and Q. On this episode, they’re joined by Tomer Strolight and Nico to debate the Ethereum merge and the way it proves that bitcoin and eth are fully totally different property and whose networks have very totally different architectures.
Watch This Episode On YouTube Or Rumble
Hear To The Episode Right here:
Tomer Strolight: I actually essentially see Bitcoin and Ethereum as nearly opposites of one another. Or possibly not even nearly, as near as opposites of one another as may be. After I consider the Blocksize Wars, I believe companies inside Bitcoin and miners inside Bitcoin have been testing the system in a way, to see if they may take over management of Bitcoin. In a short time and really instantly and really merely, Bitcoiners stated no.
Once we put our cash the place our mouth is and we wrote and ran quite simple software program that may forestall the seizure of management of Bitcoin by the mining cartel, we stated, “We wish segwit to activate. And in the event you do not activate segwit by a sure date, your blocks will likely be thought of invalid.”
That was the logic of the UASF (user-activated mushy fork) and sufficient of us ran it and sufficient of us advocated for it that they ran it. That is a really quick model of the most likely 35-minute learn of my article for you guys.
The Merge is one thing totally different. I really feel like Ethereum’s all the time in a way, been captured by the builders, proper? Bitcoin has a problem adjustment to make sure that it retains operating it doesn’t matter what; Ethereum has a problem bomb to make sure that it can cease operating it doesn’t matter what, until you do a tough fork as dictated by the builders. One factor is assured to run eternally. The opposite factor is assured to not run until you do what the builders inform you to do by the type of a tough fork. Now we now have this difficult fork scheduled for the Merge and low-and-behold, individuals have found another occasion may be capable to seize management due to the way in which that proof-of-stake mining works: You need to have a minimal quantity of eth, which not sufficient individuals have. So individuals have delegated, they’ve surrendered custody of their eth to those staking swimming pools, that are totally different from mining swimming pools as a result of mining swimming pools, you keep your mining {hardware}. You simply level it on the node of a miner. In a staking pool, you give up custody. The staking pool then stakes your cash in a contract that they’ll’t even withdraw the cash from. And so what we have had is that this large centralization and this recognition following the week in the past occasions surrounding this Twister Money factor. Now that these companies maintain all of the eth that is said, and that is the consensus algorithm, they are often ordered or they’ll take management of what’s the fact in Ethereum.
Now there’s this complete debate about whether or not or not a UASF, a consumer activated software program, is feasible and ought to be pursued in Ethereum, however the algorithm is so difficult and so untested for slashing and proof-of-stake, it is simply not simple.
It’s extremely simple to grasp bitcoin mining with slightly bit of coaching. I do not suppose anyone understands precisely all of the nuances and particulars of this new Ethereum proof-of-stake system beneath the Merge. My expectation is though there’s some discuss of doing a UASF to threaten the big companies with penalties if they do not do what’s meant to be performed, which is ambiguous. I do not suppose that it may be coordinated as a result of not sufficient individuals run nodes. It is unimaginable to run an precise full archival node for a traditional individual with out 1000’s of {dollars}. It is unimaginable to stake until you could have tens of 1000’s of {dollars} price of cash and a really meaty system. So these items should not the identical. I simply do not see these items as even remotely related. I’ve a really dim view of proof of stake typically as a result of it’s the “wealthy get richer” for no work apart from being wealthy and the wealthy additionally get management of the system. That is the entire thing we have been making an attempt to get away from. We wish work to be rewarded; honesty to be rewarded; no person to have the ability to seize management of the system. That is simply not what proof-of-stake is.
Each proof-of-stake system we see has a big majority of stakers who principally have all of the votes and resolve what is going to and what will not be the state of the blockchain.