4 ms·

Do you have a link going over the ways in which Bitcoin is superior to Ethereum?

by nikivi 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
xiphias2 6y ago
It’s not even trying to solve the same problem. Bitcoin is a store of value, Ethereum is an universal computer with a Turing-complete language. I personally use Bitcoin because it has a smaller attack surface, and it’s excellent for my needs. The bug in the multisig contract in one of the Ethereum implementations a few years ago was where I decided never to trust Ethereum as a store of value, as multisig is very important for me. Another important difference is that with Bitcoin I can verify the whole blockchain on my computer, with Ethereum it’s much harder. Also the hard forks in Ethereum means that it’s not yet ready to be a store of value.
- davidmurdoch 6y ago
  To be clear to others, the EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) wasn't the problem, it was a smart contract (software that runs on Ethereum) that had a bug.
  - chriswarbo 6y ago
    From my outside perspective, it sounds like Ethereum makes it hard to avoid subtle bugs when writing contracts. Some of its competitors specifically try to avoid this, e.g. https://docs.cardano.org/en/latest/ https://docs.cardano.org/en/latest/
    - xiphias2 6y ago
      The most probable language that’s safe enough to be adopted by Bitcoin is Simplicity. It’s based on algebraic data types, tries to be a superset of the Bitcoin scripting language, but still guarantee a verification time that’s linear to the program length (not Turing complete)
  - xiphias2 6y ago
    It was not just that bug that decreased my confidence, but the lack of testing for the smart contract. Even the bug fix commit didn't have any unit tests. We're talking about a type of smart contract that holds billions of dollars for store of value, not some rare edge case. Also for Bitcoin I myself was able to read and verify and understand the whole smart contract code base (a few hundreds of lines altogether in 1 file), which increased my confidence.
  - garmaine 6y ago
    But it's also important to be clear that a complex script large enough to have (critical!) security holes was required to do something as simple and as foundational as multi-sig: the basic building block of all distributed or decentralized protocols. How can possibly expect something more complex to be secure? Bitcoin, on the other hand, builds these core crypto competencies into the base layer, so that scripting can exist purely in the application domain.
627467 6y ago
Bitcoin ecosystem (so far) is focused in maintaining a secure system with a predictable monetary policy VS ethereum which is trying to do the same and everything else that a global computer is supposed to allow you to do.
garmaine 6y ago
I don't know if there is an excellent writeup out there I can point to; this field is full of a bunch of BS advertisement articles, and a quick google search found nothing worthwhile on either side of the debate. My opinion in the parent post to yours is based on my decade of experience with bitcoin, and having been there every step of the way in its evolution and the birth and erratic journey of Ethereum. In short summary, Bitcoin seeks to provide a secure, stable, no-BS minimal base layer upon which financial contracts of all sorts can be written. The Lightning Network is an example of a smart contract on Bitcoin, one that has been quite stable and secure compared with frothy DAO, ICO, DeFi, or whatever the latest marketing term for smart contracts is in the Ethereum space. Bitcoin adds small, targeted features to the base protocol after a truly intense amount of work goes in to proving their correctness and the way in which they interact with other parts of the base layer. Ethereum chases after whatever the fad of the moment is and crams everything into a gigantic toolbox of everything and the kitchen sink, and makes you use all that complexity for even things as simple as multi-sig and replay protection. To stretch an analogy, Bitcoin is a minimal RISC architecture while Ethereum is x86, with all the history of legacy features and obsolete stuff included. Now your task as a cryptocurrency application engineer is to build a secure protocol that must survive without mercy from attackers. Would you rather do this on x86 or a minimal, proven-correct RISC platform? The choice to me is obvious. Going into the details of why is way more than could possibly fit in a HN comment, however.

Do you have a link going over the ways in which Bitcoin is superior to Ethereum?

by nikivi 6y ago

Do you have a link going over the ways in which Bitcoin is superior to Ethereum?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

xiphias2 6y ago

It’s not even trying to solve the same problem. Bitcoin is a store of value, Ethereum is an universal computer with a Turing-complete language. I personally use Bitcoin because it has a smaller attack surface, and it’s excellent for my needs. The bug in the multisig contract in one of the Ethereum implementations a few years ago was where I decided never to trust Ethereum as a store of value, as multisig is very important for me. Another important difference is that with Bitcoin I can verify the whole blockchain on my computer, with Ethereum it’s much harder. Also the hard forks in Ethereum means that it’s not yet ready to be a store of value.

davidmurdoch 6y ago
To be clear to others, the EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) wasn't the problem, it was a smart contract (software that runs on Ethereum) that had a bug.
- chriswarbo 6y ago
  From my outside perspective, it sounds like Ethereum makes it hard to avoid subtle bugs when writing contracts. Some of its competitors specifically try to avoid this, e.g. https://docs.cardano.org/en/latest/ https://docs.cardano.org/en/latest/
  - xiphias2 6y ago
    The most probable language that’s safe enough to be adopted by Bitcoin is Simplicity. It’s based on algebraic data types, tries to be a superset of the Bitcoin scripting language, but still guarantee a verification time that’s linear to the program length (not Turing complete)
- xiphias2 6y ago
  It was not just that bug that decreased my confidence, but the lack of testing for the smart contract. Even the bug fix commit didn't have any unit tests. We're talking about a type of smart contract that holds billions of dollars for store of value, not some rare edge case. Also for Bitcoin I myself was able to read and verify and understand the whole smart contract code base (a few hundreds of lines altogether in 1 file), which increased my confidence.
- garmaine 6y ago
  But it's also important to be clear that a complex script large enough to have (critical!) security holes was required to do something as simple and as foundational as multi-sig: the basic building block of all distributed or decentralized protocols. How can possibly expect something more complex to be secure? Bitcoin, on the other hand, builds these core crypto competencies into the base layer, so that scripting can exist purely in the application domain.

627467 6y ago

Bitcoin ecosystem (so far) is focused in maintaining a secure system with a predictable monetary policy VS ethereum which is trying to do the same and everything else that a global computer is supposed to allow you to do.

garmaine 6y ago

I don't know if there is an excellent writeup out there I can point to; this field is full of a bunch of BS advertisement articles, and a quick google search found nothing worthwhile on either side of the debate. My opinion in the parent post to yours is based on my decade of experience with bitcoin, and having been there every step of the way in its evolution and the birth and erratic journey of Ethereum. In short summary, Bitcoin seeks to provide a secure, stable, no-BS minimal base layer upon which financial contracts of all sorts can be written. The Lightning Network is an example of a smart contract on Bitcoin, one that has been quite stable and secure compared with frothy DAO, ICO, DeFi, or whatever the latest marketing term for smart contracts is in the Ethereum space. Bitcoin adds small, targeted features to the base protocol after a truly intense amount of work goes in to proving their correctness and the way in which they interact with other parts of the base layer. Ethereum chases after whatever the fad of the moment is and crams everything into a gigantic toolbox of everything and the kitchen sink, and makes you use all that complexity for even things as simple as multi-sig and replay protection. To stretch an analogy, Bitcoin is a minimal RISC architecture while Ethereum is x86, with all the history of legacy features and obsolete stuff included. Now your task as a cryptocurrency application engineer is to build a secure protocol that must survive without mercy from attackers. Would you rather do this on x86 or a minimal, proven-correct RISC platform? The choice to me is obvious. Going into the details of why is way more than could possibly fit in a HN comment, however.