When will the marketcap of Ethereum surpass Bitcoin?

[btbrae]

There's not really any civil war with Bitcoin. There are different takes on the blockchain size issue and it will be resolved with time. This is a better way forward. Wise hands move slower.

What ? Read bitcoin's reddit. Panic all over, people in dissagreement, bitcoin core threatened to 51% atack nodes that don't signal segwit and so on. Read bitcoin reddit and latest bitcoin news.
What do you think it's changing this time for problems to be solved ? BTC dev team is incapable and inexperienced, they haven't gone through much because nothing can be actually developed and implemented because of the dissagreements. Miners went greedy, liked high fees, untill they will agree for forks / changes it will be too late. Bitcoin is there because it's a brand. I also like coca cola and i drink it alot, but mostly because it's much better than pepsi and other similar drinks, not because of the brand.

No offence but you sound melodramatic. I've been involved with BTC from the start and I've seen all manner of squabbles and events, hacks, thefts and heists, arrests, bankruptcies, political issues.

What I see today is Bitcoin ATMs rising, lots of easy to use lightweight wallets that don't require downloading the blockchain, many more fiat exchanges, a much better understanding of the technology of Bitcoin by businesses, increased adoption by non-techies etc.

There has always been a technical issue to work out and it always does. It works out. I can understand you being worried if you are new to Bitcoin.

However basing your decision-making process on a reddit is going to lose you money.

[mining1]

Exchange hacks, thefts and so on were different. Drops happened back then because people wanted to dump before the hacker dumped, but they believed in bitcoin as a brand. Now it is different. Bitcoin is clogged and people started losing faith in it after finding out that literally everything else is better, especially the average joe bitcoin maximalists who thought it would replace banks and that it was the best thing since sliced bread. Sentiment changed, everyone is unhappy with the network because it doesn't work anymore, fees of 2$, and bitcoin already lost 10% value because people jumped ships.

I don't want it to simply burn and die in a catastrophic failure because the crypto space will lose most of it's money. But there's 50% chance that the people who pull their value out move most of it into ethereum, which will cause the flippening. The volatility will set new records, whales will battle, this will go down straight into history of crypto. Interesting times.

If ethereum wins the battle with bitcoin this year before going to POS and scale visa level, it's mostly because of the civil war in bitcoin and the 3 year stagnation.

[XbladeX]

***Ethereum will be greater than that of Bitcoin.

Just math man when price of BTC = ETH that will = cost of all operations on ETH 20x.
When price will be equal the costs of sending also will be equal.
If many people will use ETH it will be victim to itself Blocksize like 20TB and high fees like BTC in 10 years.

Just look at any coin that would have 300 000 daily it will face same problem since ETH Dash size is small is easy to bash BTC but they will come to same end like BTC.
With price cost of sending are rising

[mining1]

No, because ethereum is now several times faster than BTC already. Which means it would handle it's volume just fine. Wouldn't be enough for massive adoption assuming some dapps will go mainstream, but that's what for they have scaling in the roadmap next year.

I was thinking in late 2016 to buy bitcoins for the next halving but this civil war that's still there for years and now erupting made it extremely risky. At this point bitcoin is more likely to lose crown than going to 2000$.

And this is with 15sec block time. Vitalik also demonstrated months ago 3-4 sec block times, which will make it another 4-5 times faster. And that without the actual sharding that aim to increase the scaling hundreds of times. There are some other projects as i recall with 4-5 sec block times but they are not doing it in a decentralized manner.

[btbrae]

Exchange hacks, thefts and so on were different. Drops happened back then because people wanted to dump before the hacker dumped, but they believed in bitcoin as a brand. Now it is different. Bitcoin is clogged and people started losing faith in it after finding out that literally everything else is better, especially the average joe bitcoin maximalists who thought it would replace banks and that it was the best thing since sliced bread. Sentiment changed, everyone is unhappy with the network because it doesn't work anymore, fees of 2$, and bitcoin already lost 10% value because people jumped ships.

I don't want it to simply burn and die in a catastrophic failure because the crypto space will lose most of it's money. But there's 50% chance that the people who pull their value out move most of it into ethereum, which will cause the flippening. The volatility will set new records, whales will battle, this will go down straight into history of crypto. Interesting times.

If ethereum wins the battle with bitcoin this year before going to POS and scale visa level, it's mostly because of the civil war in bitcoin and the 3 year stagnation.

[TeraBite]

This will only happen into only ETH bag holders dreams in real life this would never. ETH is still unstable with some bugs so I don't think it will surpass ever.

[mining1]

Every blockchain project has bugs. Bitcoin can be killed with 20million $. But no one has the incentive to do that, however, that doesn't make it invulnerable. And the fact that it's clogged is a bug in itself, because it's not working and it requires fixing.

[dinofelis]

btc is in civil war.

There's no civil war it's just two assholes Roger Ver and Jihan Wu stirring shit.

There is indeed no civil war.  What looks like it, is nothing else but the immutability mechanism protecting the protocol, by antagonism of all those that want to change it, and cannot come to consensus over change, so, de facto, come to consensus over not changing it --> immutability.

[mining1]

It is, it's just that the BU supporters now have a leadership and a pool supporting them. Otherwise their voice wouldn't matter. Yes, they're greatly outnumbered, but a civil war nonetheless. For a civil war to happen, you need a cause, leadership and an army. BU now has all 3. They had it before too but the leadership, cause and the support ( army ) were much weaker.

[dinofelis]

It is, it's just that the BU supporters now have a leadership and a pool supporting them. Otherwise their voice wouldn't matter. Yes, they're greatly outnumbered, but a civil war nonetheless. For a civil war to happen, you need a cause, leadership and an army. BU now has all 3. They had it before too but the leadership, cause and the support ( army ) were much weaker.

That is exactly what I call decentralisation: when no leadership is possible because of sufficient antagonism.

[mining1]

And that's why your definition of decentralization would do more harm than good. World at a standstill that can't move forward, a permanent cold war. Decentralization is supposed to good, not harm. That's why we make such a big deal about it in the first place.

Also, decentralization is not a constant value. There can be different types of decentralizations. Bitcoin is somewhat decentralized, because not all the mining power is in china. But because of bitcoin's old tech, losing 90% of it's mining power would kill it because it would take weeks to months to reach an equilibrium and for it to unstuck. And because it cannot adapt fast enough to lower mining power, i consider it centralized because it depends entirely on the chinese miners, on which the government has total control if it wants to.

[dinofelis]

And that's why your definition of decentralization would do more harm than good.

I'm not talking good or bad.  I'm talking phenomena.  I don't say whether gravity is good or bad.  It is a physical phenomenon.

Personally, I like decentralization, because nobody is in charge, and that's an idea I like.  I know three extremely well-working decentralized systems:

* science (the centralized version is "religion")
* evolution (the phenomenon that made living beings ; I don't know a centralized version)
* free markets (the centralized version is communism)

World at a standstill that can't move forward, a permanent cold war. Decentralization is supposed to good, not harm. That's why we make such a big deal about it in the first place.

Decentralization is the opposite of stand still.  Leadership is stand still, because in the end, just a thing that serves the purposes of the leader.

Look at my 3 examples: science, evolution, free markets.  Not exactly examples of standstill.  

In bitcoin, decentralisation is used to obtain immutability, but that's because it was designed that way.  Decentralization doesn't mean immutability.  In fact, in such systems, only centralization and leadership allows for BREAKING immutability.  But that was NOT the idea, because that leadership can use its power for its own advantage.

[mining1]

No. Your definition of decentralization cannot work and be applied everywhere, and blockchain / crypto science is one of the examples for now. Maybe in the future when we'll have some near perfect project that may not need leadership to take the hard decisions, yeah. For example ethereum foundation doesn't plan to be the leader of ethereum forever, it was implied that when the project will reach it's peak in development it's self government may start kicking in.

Examples:
-You cannot decentralize how the space exploration should proceed even though you can get decentralized funding. Because most people don't understand it and there will be people with knowledge that will become leaders by stepping up.
-Let's assume bitcoins  mining is fully decentralized. Still, not even in this case, you wouldn't be able to take decentralized decisions on technical aspects because most people don't understand it. You need leaders who do.
-You cannot have a civilization if you're fully decentralized with everything it implies, on every single aspect ( like you understand it ). Because then humanity would die before it could start, complete anarchy.
As i said, people aren't fully equal, and that's where you're wrong. And goin from there, you can apply this logic in most cases.

[dinofelis]

No. Your definition of decentralization cannot work and be applied everywhere, and blockchain / crypto science is one of the examples for now. Maybe in the future when we'll have some near perfect project

There is never a perfect project, like there is never a finished perfect scientific theory, there is never a perfect living being, and there is never the perfect product on the market.  What happens in decentralized systems, is that the less perfect system dies, and the better takes over.

There's nothing wrong with crypto currencies dying regularly, and new ones taking over.  I wouldn't mind bitcoin to die, I think it is high time for it to leave its place to the next one.   But that next one should also die after a while, to make place for yet a better one.  And so on.

I don't see why a crypto currency should "evolve". Let it be what it is, and when better comes around, let it die and let the better take over.

[dinofelis]

-You cannot decentralize how the space exploration should proceed even though you can get decentralized funding. Because most people don't understand it and there will be people with knowledge that will become leaders by stepping up.

Those people with knowledge are just the antagonists I talk about. If they have a better idea than their competitor, they might succeed.  They don't have to ask "the leader" to consider their idea.

When I talk about science as a decentralized system, I mean that there is no hierarchical leadership in IDEAS.  Every scientist can bring in an idea that makes an old idea crumble.  There is no hierarchy in science.  But of course, there are great scientists, and lesser scientists.  Look at Einstein.  Overthrew most of classical science.  Science is full of non-programmed, non-leadership events that set the course.

-Let's assume bitcoins  mining is fully decentralized. Still, not even in this case, you wouldn't be able to take decentralized decisions on technical aspects because most people don't understand it. You need leaders who do.

Bitcoin's protocol needs not to change.  It is what it is.  If it isn't good enough, bitcoin should simply stop existing and be overtaken by a better idea.  However, bitcoin clients (software) that conform to the fixed protocol can of course be written by anybody.

-You cannot have a civilization if you're fully decentralized with everything it implies, on every single aspect ( like you understand it ). Because then humanity would die before it could start, complete anarchy.

I am an anarchist.  Humanity lived much longer in anarchy (a few million years, depending on where you put the origin) than in hierarchy.  Hierarchy is, in my opinion, a parasite, and not an organiser, of society.

That said, if you are thinking that leadership and hierarchy are better, there's no point in being interested in decentralized systems.  Financial systems with leadership already exist since ages.

[mining1]

Not even then was anarchy. There were tribes with pack leader/s, and where the least power decision were that of the kids, then women. Their role was breeding.

[dinofelis]

In any case, if you want leadership/majority rule/voting/adaptable rules, you already have that, fiat.  If you have leadership, in any way it will have to comply to state rule, in the same way that fiat does.  So I don't see the point of crypto.

Crypto being permissionless, decentralized, it cannot have leadership, or we are back to fiat.  And it being permissionless and decentralized, but having to maintain a "belief" (a monetary belief), there have to be unrockable rules of which nobody has a mandate to change them.  That is immutability.

Of course you can change them.  Just any body can.  I can fork bitcoin on my own tomorrow.  Whether the brand name "bitcoin" will go to my new crypto currency (like ETH took over the name of the old ethereum, and ETC got to chose another name) or not, it is another, new, crypto currency. 

The only difference with another alt coin is that there was a premine, and that everybody got his new holdings in the new coin, equal to his old holdings in the old coin.

So, crypto currency has to be an anarchist concept, or it has no meaning, and is just fiat ; and if so, it has to be immutable.  Forking then just makes a new alt coin. 

Like with "evolution" the old animals die, and better adapted animals live, but existing animals don't "evolve".

[aioc]

btc is in civil war.

There's no civil war it's just two assholes Roger Ver and Jihan Wu stirring shit.

There IS civil war and it is killing BTC. Open your eyes.

Yes there is,the sudden jumped of ethereum on coinmarketcap is a big indication,this things happen because of Bitcoin's transaction issues,which needs to address,if this goes on ,it's possible eth could overtake BITCOIN..

[Charles Umphress]

It really just depends what happens in the future, BTC may top out at a certain price and at that point Ethereum could surpass BTC's market cap.

[Agaton]

I don't really believe that etherium surpass bitcoin, it s impossible to happen, because as what I have been noticed, that etherium is only depending on what bitcoin being moves, they are both the same member of crypto business but different in ranking system. Bitcoin is always the king of all cryptocurrency.  No one can defeat and replace bitcoin, and only the creator of cryptocurrency can decide the truth beyond the operation of cryptocurrency, if I'm not wrong, all cryptocurrencies coins are the same founder. They are group of cryptocurrency creator, with multiple personalities that has ability to handle cryptocurrency business, they are like a family that has a superior or a king.