I simply can't help but think this entire community (blockchain tech / cryptocurrency, not just Ethereum) tends to get wrapped up in hype / wishful thinking... it's way to easy to get deluded sometimes.... especially when you have a lot of emotions involved and want dApps that can literally cure cancer etc.
We're a space of people that want societal change... global revolution even. Then there's the Sunk Cost Fallacy.... having invested in Ethereum gets you in a frame of mind where it becomes really easy to dismiss any other projects that make similar attempts (EOS, Tron, etc) whilst going completely blind regarding the faults of the Ethereum development... this goes for just about any crypto project out there. Replace Ethereum with Bitcoin and the sentence is still true.
We need critical thinking and objective facts. To me it seems like the Ethereum is a minimum of 2 years away from even scaling to the degree that they originally planned. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQwpRKoELZM Not my words... but the words of an actual dev. This is serious. They are still struggling to scale to a degree that other blockchains have already achieved and are now moving further away from. 2 years in crypto space is a lifetime. In just half a year, EOS managed to pulverize all other networks in terms of transactions per second and network activity. How much can they achieve in 4 x that time frame? It seems like Ethereum needs to either step up their game or completely pivot their project for some niche.
Please elaborate if you think I'm wrong. Don't just reply "FU".
Do you know that EOS is a centralized system? You compare apples with oranges. There is no fully decentralised system out there that is scalable today. EOS was designed from the get go to generate this kind of headline ("is fast!") at the expenses of everything else.
"At the expenses of everything else" seems a little harsh... I am in no way being a fan-boy regarding this, but it seems like EOS had the great opportunity of learning from the faults of other projects, primarily Ethereum. And there are obvious pitfalls to the approach of Ethereum and many other chains. Being a software developer myself, the primary concern that comes to mind is the difficulty at which serious bugs can be effectually patched at pace with the uncovering of the fault. It is extraordinarily tedious to upgrade the software and thus fix the bugs that show up in Bitcoin and Ethereum and many other chains, at least if the bugs lie deep enough, compared to what EOS have apparently accomplished. I know not whether or not we can attribute some of the ease to their different consensus algorithm, but I know that from the very get-go software upgrades where taken closely into consideration. The upgrades that are coming to Ethereum (still just empty promises!) will require forking the blockchain and we've all seen what chaos erupts in the case of Bitcoin and its many forks. We've seen the confusion that splits otherwise healthy communities and actually damages the project. With EOS, they don't have to fork the chain... I cannot go in depth with why this is, but all I know is that this is potentially huge if you look at this from an evolutionary perspective. Consider that pace at which they can roll out updates... We could compare different blockchain projects and see them as different species fighting in an evolutionary arms race. Now, if EOS is the sole project out that that is capable of rapid generational shifts in structural design... that means they can grow at an exponential pace, whilst all other projects are stuck in a linear modus operandi. What do you think?
If you take out decentralization from a decentralized system you are left with something that is basically beside the point. It won't matter how fast. Just it won't.
\>> I cannot go in depth with why this is, but all I know is that this is potentially huge if you look at this from an evolutionary perspective.
From an evolutionary perspective what will make the difference will be having the best technology. I doubt that is what EOS care about... on its main goal EOS has already delivered (grabbing cash).
Serious project like Dfinity that do not have to fork anything yet (still developed by a self-sovereign team) are not coming up any quicker than Ethereum. The reason why takes time is that the real new technology and science is invented as we go and that takes decades.
Just look at the previous IT/CS revolutions. The first microprocessor was designed in 1971. Were they done by 1974 (3yrs later, as old as Ethereum today)?
I won't argue with you on your first paragraph, since I absolutely agree.
I guess whether or not EOS is actually less decentralized is still up for debate. Sure, there are more nodes in Eth and Bitcoin... That is, I don't know the exact numbers, so if you do, please update me. In EOS they have block producers that are not only timeshifted, but also elected and in constant competition with other BPs as to who can provide the most stable network, dApps, resources, community involvement etc.
The people running Bitcoin and Ethereum are merely in control because they have a ton of resources, but do they have a lot of community trust? What happens when one PoW farm becomes corrupt? You cannot easily vote out the assailant. On EOS, you can. So there's that as a major point on the overall blockchain security.
If the main goal of the original EOS team -> [Block.One](https://Block.One) was to simply money grab... why have they already given away 1 Billion $ of the 4 they "moneygrabbed" solely for furthering dApp development on the network? That doesn't sound like a moneygrab... that sounds like good intentions.
I don't think transistor technology etc. is a perfect analogy to go by for this comparison.
Ethereum and Bitcoin have a approximately 10,000 (ten thousand) nodes running at any given moment. In EOS there are 21 (twenty one) block producers (you can count the slices in the first pie yourself). The chart pie you posted is not particularly relevant IMHO at the very least (others might say is outright misleading) as it compares block producers (21) and mining pools that indeed aggregate thousands of nodes. So again, it is comparing apples with oranges. If a pool misbehaves, miners can point their miners elsewhere.
In its short life, EOS has already had a couple of instances of censorship and collusion ([https://news.bitcoin.com/report-censorship-prone-eos-needs-to-re-architect-its-infrastructure/](https://news.bitcoin.com/report-censorship-prone-eos-needs-to-re-architect-its-infrastructure/)) ... these would have been absolutely impossible in a decentralized system. For the record... i am not a big fan of PoW and I look forward to switching to PoS ASAP... so I grant your comment on PoW farms in principle... but dPoS is not a good enough solution.
Regarding you query on whether or not miners have community's trust... I do not mean to sound arrogant but seems to me you should refresh a bit the material from decentralization 101: **the whole point of a blockchain system is that you do not need to have trust in them:** the system works equally well with 100% scumbags or 100% white hats. This is the real genius of Satoshi.
As per the transistor revolution... the relevance is that no technological revolution has ever been delivered over a few years but rather over decades. Ethereum is no exception: it is not "running late" because it is still clunky 3 years after its birth. Query... if all these brilliant open source Ethereum killers out there have have so many cutting-edge technological solutions that solve all these problems... why we cannot just take their solutions and recycle them for Ethereum???
As a rule of thumb, I am suspicious of any project portraying itself as the final solution to all the problems plaguing other projects (EOS, Tron, ...) and I have the uttermost respect for those teams working hard heads down over delivering technology. IMHO, all these "Ethereum's killers" spend a bit too much time talking about Ethereum and bragging about themselves. Usually the people that end up changing the world are rather humble, concrete and sober. They focus on themselves, not the competition.
All the scalability in the world doesn't help the fact that the entire platform is a wild west shit show of dumb contracts being executed by people who can't verify the security of the underlying code, and this is somehow the future of finance because errrr you all want to get rich without doing any work.
Every day will be another DAO in the world of Ethereum. It takes all of the headaches of Bitcoin and slaps an entire layer of infosec vulnerabilities over the top of it until it becomes a sort of meta Rube Goldberg machine that hosts thousands of other Rube Goldberg machines, each of which has an attack surface comparable to NU-110
You’re also forgetting that there will always be people vetting the code of contracts that grow in popularity. If a vulnerability is spotted, the contract can be redeployed by the entity that launched it or by someone else.
>there will always be people vetting the code
Ahh, as the saying goes "assumption is the mother of all fuck ups", see the DAO, and all derivatives thereon. You can't count on a popular contact being safe, because we already know that isn't true. So when is it really safe? When do you **know** it's safe? When you inspect the code yourself. Well, I ask you, who the fuck is going to be bothered to do that?
So why bring up shitshows that are badly programmed. There are already ones that are well written and sec audited.
Any details on the vulnerabilities? Or details about which public system is fully free of vulnerabilities?
>Or details about which public system is fully free of vulnerabilities?
Yes, here's one. It's called an Exchange Traded Fund. If you can tell me of some high profile instances where ETFs have been hacked and the funds irretrievably lost, that would be great.
Now let's look at the Ethereum equivalent: a DAO. Well, the first instance of that was an unmitigated shitshow.
So, I ask you, at what point do I **know** a dumb contact is secure? The truth is you have to perfectly verify the code yourself. That is the only way. Anything else is simply *hoping* that somebody else has done this for you, and there's no fucking insurance for you if it all goes to shit.
What a nightmare.
Good points, but you're comparing a decades old system with something just brewing with high potential and head room for maturing.
I think eventually this will become standardized and even probably automatised.
Certainly not easy to get there, but your valid points surely can be mitigated to a higher extent than currently seems.
As someone who has been both an Eth investor and skeptic, this is a vastly helpful article in sorting out the current landscape of development and prospects. It also increases my confidence in the long term prospects of both UXTO and state driven models for crypto.
It is long and involved, but well worth a read for anyone that has or is thinking about any significant investment in crypto.
It's a well written article about second layer solutions for different economic cases, and how they already work and help, in parallel to what serenity on chain scaling will bring.
A tremendous effort is being done, and in use. There's a lot of myth around how ethereum can't scale. This shows well from a technical and economic perspective that it scales already with a list of possibilities.