BITCOIN VS ETHEREUM

[HCLivess]

Ethereum is not a scam. It works and is under development. Just because somebody does not hastily release unfinished code does not mean it is a scam. I will buy Ethereum over NXT, NEM or Ripple any day.

[Nxtblg]

It's really a shame about Etherium. When it was first announced, there was a lot of excitement - but as the teamwork slowed to committee-work speed, the excitement faded. So has the momentum. If you're excited by Etherium's vision, you can do something with that excitement right now by joining the NXT world or pitching in with the development of NEM. All you need is Java skills and you can "start today!" If you like running with an established federation of devs, NXT is the place to be. If you're thrilled at the chance to build from the ground floor up, you belong with NEM. Either way, you can pitch in whenever you're ready to instead of cooling your heels waiting for a pushed-back IPCO.

Etherium? You wait...and wait...and wait...

As I said, it's really a shame but Etherium seems destined to become Ripple 2.0. Other than the long-term hope of hooking up to the mainstream payments systems, Ripple's a backwater.

[Nxtblg]

nxt was supposed to overcome bitcoin...and look what it is now..

Really, that's inevitable. Every new innovation begins with promise, self-hype and Utopian visions. Then the real world sets in, and the exciting hopes turn into a daily grind with the hope and promise keeping your morale up.

The true winner, long term, is the solution that has the talent willing to slog through the scut work during the lean years. In my biased in-the-tank opinion, Nxt has that talent on-board.

The interesting question is, will NEM? To be counterintuitive, I hope it does. Rivalry drives innovation, and friendly rivalry makes for a nice race.  I really don't give a damn if Nxters complain about NEM sucking away $ from Nxt; there's a bigger picture in play.

And no, I have no stake in NEM.   

[YarkoL]

Where do you guys get the idea that there is rivalry between Ethereum and Bitcoin?

Ethereum is not trying to be "new" bitcoin.. it is a different concept altogether. Bitcoin is excellent for transferring monetary value, whereas Ethereum,
like Mastercoin or Counterparty is aimed at enabling smart contracts etc. But unlike them, it is based on its own blockchain, which is probably for the best, since building another layer on Bitcoin chain does not really add value for BTC users.

If Ethereum takes off, it will be good publicity for Bitcoin too, since it is basically an expansion of bitcoin technology.

[Nxtblg]

Where do you goys get the idea that there is rivalry between Ethereum and Bitcoin?

Debates are always more popular than speeches.

[JoeyD]

It was also the way the OP started this "discussion" in a bit flamebate-ish manner.

The thing that ticks me off with some of the fanboyish remarks about Ethereum is that they paint a misleading picture for non-technical people. It also doesn't help that quite a few bitcoin-media-sites seem to be really happy to be a fanboy instead of taking a more objective approach, or even mentioning other possible solutions to the same problem(s).

I'm also uncomfortable with the way the E-team is selling their idea, centering around the buzzword "Turing-completeness" suggesting that they can do absolutely everything, while all other coins are somehow "incomplete" or incapable of doing what's theoretically possible in Ethereum. That does not make them a scam, but I do feel they are deceiving people when they do not make the limitations and risks very clear.

To give one ridiculous example I've heard a E-spokesperson say, is how they could "easily" replicate Wall Street with a few basic math-functions in an Ethereum script. The way it was said gives people the idea that you could run Wall Street and everything else on top of Ethereum, which is of course completely unrealistic if you consider bandwidth, speed, reliability, etcetera, especially if you want to use the E-network for other things as well. Another one I've heard is that you could run all other alt-coins on top of Ethereum, which also makes no sense at all.

YarkoLs' naming it another experiment for smart-contracts on top of a blockchain, is one of the most accurate ones I've heard and also makes the target niche-market very clear. Mastercoin and Ethereum could be considered competitors in the same market. Still I don't think this will make the limitations of Ethereum clear to everyone, nor that Ethereum cannot and will not do everything people are ascribing to it. Most of the pie-in-the-sky ideas I've heard as examples of things-you-could-do on Ethereum seem to be more efficiently written in a couple of Turing-complete languages on their own blockchain either via merged mining (not only in line with Satoshis ideas, but seems to be the consensus among the current bitcoin-devs as well), written from scratch, or with the help of something like the DAC-toolkits in development at Invictus/Bitshares.

EDIT
Somewhat related to this subject, I just took a look at bitshares.org and even though it appears to be wip, it does look like a nice effort to combine and discuss ideas to create practical decentralized solutions. From a quick scan of their website-in-construction and most forum posts by the devs, they appear to be fairly neutral and willing to look at all solutions, even ones not developed by them. One big plus in my book is how the projects-website lists "competitors" (Namecoin, Ripple, NXT, Ethereum and probably others) in the respective categories at the bottom, without belittling them or subjective connotations (that I could see at first glance anyway). Some of the projects being discussed on their forums also looked very interesting, especially their discussion about an alternative proof of stake that seems to be a mix of ripple, nxt and decentralized mining-pools.

[jibble]

Ethereum would give more value to bitcoin.

This is an example of the way it is intended to work.

For example you could set up a completely automated and decentralised crypto currency exchange. Each and every single contract would be tied to a   specific trading pair. BTC/LTC for example.  Kept live and up to date with the current market value. I have a receive address, Now i have written a "contract" to pay out the litecoin market value equivalent of the bitcoin i have just received. This contract is fully automated, this contract is not always on, this contract only turns on when money is deposited into that address, once it has got the bitcoin and given out the litecoin equivalent it shuts off. Ether is used when the contract is running. the more it runs the more ether i use, the more it runs the more trades i am doing and the more money i am earning. Ether is what i pay for running my contract, yet i am able to trade whatever crypto i like. 

do that same example 100 more times with 100 different contracts on 100 other different trading pairs and i have a fully automated crypto currency exchange ( i obviously have to stock the crypto's i am selling)

This is also great because this is where my ether's derive their value from. If each of my contracts are making me on average 1 btc a week, then the cost of ether will be related to the amount i can earn thru using it. Not more or as much as my profit, why would i run contracts at a loss i am running a business after all. But ether's value will be in relation to the money they can generate thru the contracts they run.

Now say you have a business owner who was to accept crypto currency for the goods/services he is offering. Now he has the ability to be able to deal in every single crypto currency while only ever having to deal in bitcoin.

He runs his main bitcoin contract, taking in payments in bitcoin. While in the background he has set up 200 other contracts, all accepting the 200 other crypto currencies. But what these contracts do is instantly convert the crypto they are built to accept and convert them into bitcoin, he never has to touch anything other than bitcoin yet he can accept every single crypto currency that has trade value, and other than the initial contracts he doesn't have to do anything else because they are automated.  Plus the only time he will ever need to pay for those contract is when they are being used, which is making him money. the only time he has to pay for them is when he makes money using them. the rest of the time they are not being charged because they are not running.

I am only ever paying for my contract when it is in use and when my contract is in use it is making me money.


I am guessing the trust element that is gained through offering reliable services and making a name from yourself will give you the ability to command certain percentages per service you offer. Because lets face it nothing is free from scammers, you will get people attempting to steal from you no matter where you are or what you do. it's the way of life, and if its harder to catch someone because its based completely online behind a computer then more people are going to be drawn towards it, less risk, greater reward. 

I say this because with ethereum lets say a bank decides to convert to the way of ethereum and tries to put its business into the blockchain, they offer services, they have their own contracts. They now offer a decentralised way to get fiat and crypto . i could quite easily offer the exact same service and under cut them in every aspect of their business. every contract they have i could make and offer it for less cost.

Obviously the banking institute would have many million or billions of dollars more than me, so the amount of volume they could offer would be huge in comparison, they would also already have customers, giving them a much higher trust rating. Meaning most people would still pay for trust and reliability (Yes using trust and reliability in the same sentence as banking is an oxymoron, but just purely based off the trust system of ethereum previous atrocities aside) But it also allows for competition, without restriction. If i tried to compete with a bank currently....well i simply couldn't, it would be impossible for me to even consider trying it.   

I could offer the same service as the bank and then build my own trust rating up, taking on more business and more profits allowing me to deal in greater volumes. Once i have reached a high enough trust rating i could simply either do as the banks do and offer a higher fee for using my service and running my contracts, or i can be robin hood and offer the same service at the same cost under cutting the banks but giving your average individual the choice to use someone reliable and cheaper than the banks.






If ethereum is built the way it is intended to be. then it will add value to bitcoin and all other crypto currencies.

[Equate]

Bitcoin is the boss.

[JoeyD]

@jibble: So you're saying you want to create an autonomous wallet for all tradeable cryptocurrencies and then code that into ethereum scripts which then copies your wallet across the globe. You'd better be damn sure not a single one of those copies figures out how to get your private keys then or your profitability will end up being very short lived.

Also think about trading speed, you're going through several layers each with their own problems, quirks, bugs and latencies. Honestly I very much doubt an interpreted language with the added lag of global distribution and the blockchain-security-model will be in any way competitive with compiled solutions like for example the one being built into NXT, let alone the optimized solutions with ripple like speeds such as bitsharesX (novel solution for an exchange that could possibly work on bitcoin as well, albeit more slowly) promises to deliver.

Even the fastest ones of those will have some serious trouble matching the speed and trust of the existing exchange and bank systems in the eye of the general public. Plus Ripple and OpenTransactions will work just fine for the current existing financial systems, still not as fast as centralized solutions, but faster than just about any blockchain solution out there. (just to be sure, I don't own and I'm not involved with Ripple or OT).

@Equate: Agreed.

[blueface]

Bitcoin rules, Ethereum?? what is it? a junk coin

I agree with you
another scam coin

[jabo38]

As of right now Bitcoin exists and Ethereum doesn't.  So any pro-Ethereum argument comes down to, "my hypothetical and theoretical platform is better than your real one".  IF IF IF Ethereum delivers on its promises and someday does become live, what will be born from it will be magnitudes more robust than bitcoin.   

[msin]

There are 1000x (not an exaggeration) more smart minds working on BTC improvement features/technologies than people working on Ethereum.  There will be millions $ invested in BTC related companies this year by legitimate US VC firms.  Realistically, Ethereum won't launch until 2015, assuming they are even allowed to hold an IPO by government regulators, and their creators are at risk because they are public figures.  BTC will always hold an advantage because there is no centralized authority.

[georgem]

bitcoin is still considered worldwide as something extremely geeky.
Just talk to your relatives or co-workers about it, and see how much adoption it has... not very much.

Etherium is even ten times geekier than that. It's for the select few bitcoin geeks who actually know how the bitcoin protocol works an who want to build new stuff on top of the blockchain.

So I don't see etherium as competition for bitcoin, ...  more like coopetition.