It is 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
Pay attention To The Episode Right here:
Tomer Strolight: I actually basically see Bitcoin and Ethereum as virtually opposites of one another. Or possibly not even virtually, as near as opposites of one another as might be. Once I consider the Blocksize Wars, I believe firms inside Bitcoin and miners inside Bitcoin have been testing the system in a way, to see if they might take over management of Bitcoin. In a short time and really instantly and really merely, Bitcoiners stated no.
After we put our cash the place our mouth is and we wrote and ran quite simple software program that will forestall the seizure of management of Bitcoin by the mining cartel, we stated, “We wish segwit to activate. And in case you do not activate segwit by a sure date, your blocks shall 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 brief model of the in all probability 35-minute learn of my article for you guys.
The Merge is one thing totally different. I really feel like Ethereum’s at all times 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’s going to cease operating it doesn’t matter what, until you do a tough fork as dictated by the builders. One factor is assured to run perpetually. The opposite factor is assured to not run until you do what the builders inform you to do by way of the type of a tough fork. Now we have now this tough fork scheduled for the Merge and low-and-behold, folks have found another occasion may be capable of seize management due to the best way that proof-of-stake mining works: You must have a minimal quantity of eth, which not sufficient folks have. So folks 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 will’t even withdraw the cash from. And so what we have had is that this huge centralization and this recognition following the week in the past occasions surrounding this Twister Money factor. Now that these firms maintain all of the eth that is said, and that is the consensus algorithm, they are often ordered or they will take management of what’s the fact in Ethereum.
Now there’s this entire debate about whether or not or not a UASF, a person activated software program, is feasible and needs to be pursued in Ethereum, however the algorithm is so difficult and so untested for slashing and proof-of-stake, it is simply not straightforward.
It is very simple to know bitcoin mining with somewhat bit of coaching. I do not assume anyone understands precisely all of the nuances and particulars of this new Ethereum proof-of-stake system underneath the Merge. My expectation is though there’s some speak of doing a UASF to threaten the massive firms with penalties if they do not do what’s meant to be finished, which is ambiguous. I do not assume that it may be coordinated as a result of not sufficient folks run nodes. It is not possible to run an precise full archival node for a traditional individual with out hundreds of {dollars}. It is not possible to stake until you have got tens of hundreds of {dollars} price of cash and a really meaty system. So these items will not be the identical. I simply do not see these items as even remotely related. I’ve a really dim view of proof of stake on the whole 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’s going to and what will not be the state of the blockchain.
