The Ethereum killer storyline part 2 might be beginning

[nelson4lov]

I don't know mate,  throughout crypto's supposedly storyline, there are not success so far,

a. There is this thought that Ethereum is the so called Bitcoin killer, as it overtake Bitcoin in early to mid 2018, but that didn't happen, and others dub it "the Flippening"

b. Ripple as well, in the same breathe that time, that it will overtake Bitcoin, "The Rippening" as they dub it.

Both didn't succeed, so I doubt that by 2024, we could be hearing this so called "X" killer mentality, in my opinion. SOL is just hype, just like ADA in 2020 and others who had their chance to challenge Ethereum before.

I was there for the flippening and rippening moments and none of them happened and a lot of Ethereum and Ripple fanatics have abandoned the idea for now because they have bigger problems competing with these newer horses like Solana/SUI/aptos, etc than to compete with Bitcoin and lose (again).

Having high TPs right now is a meme because everyone knows that if any of these chains handle anywhere near the volume that Bitcoin or Ethereum faces, they'll bend the knees as well. Solana itself has been down close to 5 times over the years and they had to *restart the blockchain * to get it work again.

[markm]

Maybe "don't beat them join them" could come to mind here?

Things like GRouPcoin, DeVCoin, IXCoin, I0Coin, heck even NaMeCoin, by merged-mining alongside bitcoin, seem to present a possibility of provisioning a bit of bandwidth for themself and not actually competing with bitcoin but, rather, simply offering its miners some potential extra income?

I have not tracked what has been happening with merged mining alongside litecoin but maybe it is time for the original scrypt coins, TeneBriX and FairBriX, to look into merged mining too if they didn't already?

-MarkM-

[bbc.reporter]

[...] higher TPS is beginning to be an important argument for the success of other blockchains.

The discussion about TPS is missing the point that TPS is always a function of centralization. The more TPS a layer-1 blockchain claims to allow, the more capacity/bandwidth/CPU/RAM requirements for full nodes. You have to pay a quite high performance computer already to operate an Ethereum full node, but with Solana "at full capacity" it is even worse. Solana compared to Ethereum has basically the same relation as BSV to Bitcoin.

For a simple SOL node you already need 128 GB RAM and a 12-core CPU and a 10 Gbps network connection, so called "RPC nodes" (which are the real full nodes) need even more. ETH "only" needs a 16GB RAM computer (see here), while a Bitcoin node can run still on the year-long standard of 4MB RAM. SOL claims to have >4000 nodes, but that number seems to include light nodes (correct me if I'm wrong here) which process the blockchain in real time but don't store it fully.

Ethereum is increasing its capacity via Layer-2's, like Bitcoin, and this is the way to go IMO. Not every tiny speculative memecoin transaction or every cup of coffee bought has to be recorded by all full nodes on the world. It's just a matter of resource allocation. I'm myself not a big Ethereum fan but even less a Solana (and even less a BNB/Tron) supporter.

If really Solana had discovered a breakthrough in bandwidth usage that can often be adopted by other blockchains like ETH and BTC too.

I also distrust predictions from such an "objective"    source like VanEck which are those who have applied for an US Solana ETF.

And at $143 SOL is quite far away from its ATH of $260 (current price is 55% of its ATH). Not much more than Ethereum (currently $2450, ATH $4800, so it's at 51%).

On centralization and higher transactions per second, I very much understand and I very much agree on the argument. However, my argument is that it appears that no one is anymore considering this as an issue. After Ethereum's DAO hack, the argument for developers presently is if a blockchain is attacked or hacked, the development team can reverse transactions and continue very much like nothing has happened hehehe. Also, development teams can hire lawyers and they appear to that they can get help from the government to prosecute hackers.

In any case, we can witness that developers, users, investors, venture capitalists and other people causing high net inflows on Solana do not anymore care about some centralization. They want a blockchain where they can use it cheaply and create projects that are not restricted by low transaction capabilities.

[markm]

Well I suppose that as long as this planet is what the Traveler RPG would call "balkanised", government is itself decentralised, not sure if that makes it "fair enough then" though.

-MarkM-

[d5000]

However, my argument is that it appears that no one is anymore considering this as an issue. [...] In any case, we can witness that developers, users, investors, venture capitalists and other people causing high net inflows on Solana do not anymore care about some centralization. They want a blockchain where they can use it cheaply and create projects that are not restricted by low transaction capabilities.

Yes, you may be correct that some investors and developers may not care about centralization risks.

However, Solana has still to do a huge amount of catching up with Ethereum. A *5 of the market cap -- assuming that Ethereum price doesn't increase anymore -- isn't an easy task for an already somewhat established altcoin like SOL which is currently struggling to reach even towards its old highs of >$200. I think it could be easier if Solana had some "real" technical advantage which was impossible to copy on ETH without changing it completely. But ETH itself is moving towards a layer-2 fueled high TPS model via its rollups.

I think if SOL achieves to get at least close to 30-40% of ETH's market cap, then the technical concept to achieve high TPS will probably be discussed ferociously in the altcoin community, and the winner could depend on the answer which one is "better" "objectively". And I think that a L2-fueled model is indeed superior as simply it has overall inferior costs and can scale much, much better. On a L2-fueled blockchain in theory each citizen on the earth could release their own token. The tradeoff - complexity - can be hidden via the interface once the tech matures.

For me it would be interesting what happens if SOL (or any other "ethereum killer", TRX for example is growing much faster than SOL but has a lower marketcap) and ETH come closer though, if ETH is able to defend its position or if ETH investors tend then to panic and sell more coins when the #2 status is seriously challenged. I'll be eating popcorn at the sideline

[jaberwock]

I believe Solana has the capacity to flip Ethereum. At least the owner and lead developer of Solana believes in the project unlike Ethereum where the owner Vitalik Buterin is dumping ethereum

Even though there are also other good candidates in this regard but I also think that Solana is far better than them. It is because it is also bulkier other than just being popular and has the same use case as ETH.

It is sad to know that there are devs who are only after the money, in a way that they will dump most of their coin/tokens supply but even them, they also believe on their project that it will rise in value because that is the only way for them to profit. I do not know if it's really true that ETH dev (Vitalik Buterin) is dumping its ETH to the max level but even if let say yes, I'm still quite impressed to the fact that he keeps on developing it and didn't drop his project right after profiting just like the others out there.

[bbc.reporter]

However, my argument is that it appears that no one is anymore considering this as an issue. [...] In any case, we can witness that developers, users, investors, venture capitalists and other people causing high net inflows on Solana do not anymore care about some centralization. They want a blockchain where they can use it cheaply and create projects that are not restricted by low transaction capabilities.

Yes, you may be correct that some investors and developers may not care about centralization risks.

However, Solana has still to do a huge amount of catching up with Ethereum. A *5 of the market cap --

Does this imply that Solana is very much undervalued or it might be Ethereum is overvalued? If this positive netflow on Solana will continue while the negative netflow on Ethereum will also continue then it appears that the market capitalization on one of these blockchains is a mistake hehehehe.

Also, what is the latest news update on Vitalik's sharding? Is he continuing this to be his solution for scaling Ethereum?