In ETH land, the wise guidance of Satoshi is regularly ignored.
Here are a few examples
Satoshi's Guidance: Bitcoin should function as cash
Source: https://bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf ( See the title )
Satoshi's Guidance: We shouldn't be limiting transaction capacity to accommodate low performance client hardware
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306
Satoshi's Guidance: The blocksize limit should be removed to maximize network capacity. The limit was only meant to be temporary.
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg153...
EDIT: formatting
I find it interesting how divisive the split in Bitcoin / SegWit / Lightning Network vs Bitcoin Cash has been.
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.
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.
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
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.
Ethereum started with its own code base, its own core. It's a completely different concept altogether and its a true 10x innovation on blockchain as a concept. Ethereum has many client implementations built on several different programming languages. The whole reason they have multiple clients is to make the network more resilient for moments like this.
Have you ever worked with a really smart, visionary guy who changed his opinion on something? Have you changed your opinion? Satoshi is gone, and we can't just assume what his opinions would be today.
I think death of the author definitely applies here. It's an open protocol. I respect Satoshi as a visionary and inventor, but he does not have the final say.
They are basically producing a competing product. Why should they ought to copy the exact formula of their competitors? How can they hope to be better than Bitcoin by doing everything the same way?
The more significant difference seems to be Ethereum is far more complicated (a Rube Goldberg machine, as critics like to say) and has trouble coordinating hard forks.
A hard fork of Bitcoin is considered a different network, so it’s no longer an issue.
However, there are (many!) stateful things that happen during Ethereum block-ingestion that occur outside of contract bytecode execution (i.e. not modelled by the EVM abstract-machine.) So even if you implement your EVM "to spec", there's this whole surrounding edifice of block-processing code that has no spec, that everyone's just guessing and "following the leader" on.
IMHO Ethereum badly needs a "Yellow Paper 2" that takes a step back and formalizes the whole block validation+execution flow. On top of that, there could be a C FFI spec for implementations of a "block processor" to follow, with type declarations for the ADTs such a library would consume/produce — making them into, essentially, plugin libraries (where any Ethereum node implementation could plug in any Ethereum block processor engine implementation.) Think "web browser" vs. "rendering engine" (where the "scripting engine" — i.e. the EVM — is just one part of the "rendering engine.")
If such a formal block-processor plugin interface existed, an Ethereum "node" could then just consist of the storage engine, the consensus engine's policy layer (while needing to rely on standardized consensus machinery existing within the block-processor), the P2P protocols, and the RPC backend. I.e., infrastructure code.
Powerfully, this would mean that networks that are essentially forks of Ethereum or which embed an Ethereum node in their network architecture (i.e. everything listed on https://chainid.network/) could all just link in an up-to-date upstream block-processor engine — rather than drifting away from it just because they've necessarily forked the storage+consensus+p2p+rpc code.
Chrisco writes:
> The whole reason they have multiple clients is to make the network more resilient for moments like this.
But to me, it seems like this was a minor bug in which more contracts were being added to access lists than needed to be. Ultimately, I think that the network could have functioned normally if either this implementation or the Geth implementation was the only one on the network, without causing problems for anyone.
Other sibling comments make reference to the fact that Ethereum is much more complex than Bitcoin. But doesn't this just make it even more suitable for all development energy to be concentrated on a single client, since it's inherently harder to maintain?
Certainly there are benefits to having multiple clients, but I think there are drawbacks as well.
Is this related to the conflict between devs and miners where devs want to reduce the mining fees and miners responded by creating a fork?
It’s “just” a client issue, and OpenEthereum is “only” used by ~11% of the nodes. I believe the former name is Parity, which had a major bug related to frozen coins some years ago.
See https://mobile.twitter.com/etherscan/status/1382662485832994...
These were non-mining nodes, so they were not participating in consensus (block ordering).
The chain did not split and nothing really happened, except cause a temporary outage of a "block explorer" website.
Nobody should be using their client software
Ethereum's DAO fork and the ETC debacle is why your OG's don't support Ethereum.
Might take a bit to sync
