|
May 21, 2018, 01:28:33 AM |
|
Christ, not this stupid bullshit again.
First - the whole metric they're using to compare is marketcap. Marketcap is a fucking useless metric in crypto, because its just Total Supply * Fiat Price. Bitcoin has 17 million coins @ ~8,488 Ethereum has 99 million coins @ ~720. For ETH to exceed the "marketcap", it would take a multiple of its existing level - either through coins or price.
Right now, the "marketcap" of BTC is ~144.6 Billion, and ETH is ~71.7 Billion. Ethereum would have to surge in price by at least 2x, which means a unit price of ~1,440. Even if ETH managed to do that, you're comparing two rather disparate coins, including their confirm times and inherent characteristics. BTC has rootstock and other protocols coming that could kick the knees out from under ETH and EOS, and ETH just has that "smart" contract stuff that has lost hundreds of millions in fiat for users.
If these idiots were at all introspective, they'd realize that with Rootstock (RSK), and Lightning soon with a proposed FULL ANONYMITY solution via Dandelion, will absolutely erase any competitive advantage that ETH has. Couple this with ETH's scaling problem - which still hasn't been solved - they are going to try a hybrid solution using Proof-of-Work and the highly risky Proof-of-(mis)Stake, which I'm sure will give Money Skeletor Vitalik a few brain clots trying to figure it out.
Point is, marketcap is bullshit, it doesn't show true utility -- and even if they make it there, it doesn't change that Bitcoin is evolving to become the default first-mover juggarnaut when it comes to features and network security. Moving fast and breaking things is the motto for short-sighted alts, being deliberate and not losing people money is the Bitcoin dev ethos.
I know which one I want - it isn't the one that had 100's of millions lost in production network "oopsies".
|