[freejulian]

Raiden is a poor and incomplete implementation of Lightning. Bitcoin has 3 independent implementations and a developing ecosystem of software around it.

Proof of stake is a pipe dream. Such a system can’t reliably achieve consensus due to the nothing-at-stake problem. Additionally, randomly selecting a winner in a distributed yet unpredictable way continues to be an unsolved problem.

Sharding has the cost of weakening security.

Bitcoin is addressing scaling better than any other blockchain. It’s making transactions more efficient through technologies like Segwit and Schnorr. It’s adding robust smart contracts and instant payments using second layer sidechains like rootstock and lightning.

Ethereum is already imploding under its own weight — it’s impossible to even sync a full node on basic hardware. In a few years it’ll be dead.

[zodiac]

> Raiden is a poor and incomplete implementation

How so?

> Sharding has the cost of weakening security.

Why?

[CryptoPunk]

>>Raiden is a poor and incomplete implementation of Lightning.

Raiden is a comprehensive implementation that includes Lightning Networks for ERC20 tokens, something that Bitcoin doesn't even have.

>>Proof of stake is a pipe dream.

Your information is incorrect. Ethereum's proof of stake is close to complete conceptually and the first version, a hybrid PoW/PoS protocol called Casper the Friendly Finality Gadget, is currently under development and will be implemented in Ethereum soon.

>>Such a system can’t reliably achieve consensus due to the nothing-at-stake problem.

Your criticism is long out of date. Vitalik Buterin addressed how the Nothing at Stake problem can be solved in 2014:

https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-lov...

>>Bitcoin is addressing scaling better than any other blockchain. It’s making transactions more efficient through technologies like Segwit and Schnorr. It’s adding robust smart contracts and instant payments using second layer sidechains like rootstock and lightning.

Bitcoin's lack of Turing Completeness at the base layer is a critical weakness that limits the range of second layer solutions that are possible. Ethereum has far more sophisticated and numerous scaling solutions in development as a result.

>>Sharding has the cost of weakening security.

That is not certain to be true. There are a lot security impacting variables at play that sharding affects, and some of them positively. Even if security were reduced, it wouldn't mean the trade off for more scalability wouldn't be worth it. Sharding enables massive scaling while preserving the ability for consumer grade nodes to contribute to validation. That seems like a good trade off.

>>Ethereum is already imploding under its own weight — it’s impossible to even sync a full node on basic hardware.

That is highly misleading. SSDs have been syncing fine. HDDs have been having syncing problems, but that was solved in the most recent Geth release.

>>In a few years it’ll be dead.

Disingenuous FUD.

Ethereum is the primary Dapp platform, with 30X more developers working on it than the next most active platform. It has a multipronged scaling strategy that is in an advanced state of development and dwarfs that of any other blockchain. It is now the most widely used blockchain in the world, processing 3X more transactions per day than #2 Bitcoin. And in all of these categories, its momentum is growing.

[freejulian]

> Raiden is a comprehensive implementation

Is the lone implementation which is still on testnet and no ecosystem surrounding it.

> ERC20 tokens, something that Bitcoin doesn't even have.

Bitcoin has no interest in implementing an equivalent as a layer-1 feature. This should be a surprise to no one. Off-chain scaling is the official direction of the Bitcoin community. There's no interest in adding bloat to the layer 1 protocol. Ethereum is the "everything including the kitchen sink" approach. Anyways, saying Bitcoin does'nt have ERC20 is factually incorrect: Rootstock implements ERC20 tokens as a second layer network.

> Your information is incorrect. Ethereum's proof of stake is close to complete conceptually and the first version

It's not any where near complete, which is why the difficulty bomb was rolled back (which in and of itself is hilarious -- Ethereum only pretends to be decentralized).

> Vitalik Buterin addressed how the Nothing at Stake problem can be solved in 2014

He described how to solve it 4 years ago, yet they still can't release even a hybrid PoS solution. Slasher does not solve the nothing at stake problem, it merely obfuscates it. Long range attacks are still possible.

I noticed you completely glossed over how PoS systems will agree on randomness. Good luck. I'm sure it's just another 4 years away.

> Bitcoin's lack of Turing Completeness at the base layer is a critical weakness that limits the range of second layer solutions that are possible.

Lack of Turing Completeness is a feature and intentional. If you want a general purpose distributed computer use rootstock. Which, by the way, is 100% compatible with the Eth VM.

> Sharding enables massive scaling while preserving the ability for consumer grade nodes to contribute to validation.

That's cute. Ethereum doesn't even have any "consumer grade" nodes today. Anyways, sounds like you're taking the long way around to agreeing with me: Sharding sacrifices security.

> That is highly misleading. SSDs have been syncing fine. HDDs have been having syncing problems,

Again, taking the long way around to agreeing with me. A full archive node currently requires a 400GB SSD! You're only option is to run a light node, which further contributes to your networks centralization.

> Disingenuous FUD.

Eh, you'll see. The monolithic approach of Ethereum is very naive.

> with 30X more developers working on it than the next most active platform

Easily proved false, anyone reading can take a look at the respective github repos. Bitcoin currently has over 550 contributors, Ethereum only has 200. Bitcoin has over 16k commits. Ethereum has only 9k. This doesn't even take into account the larger ecosystem of software Bitcoin has.

> Ethereum is the primary Dapp platform,

A little early to make any of these claims...the only popular Dapp in recent memory is cryptokitties and it brought the Ethereum network to its knees. Anyways, like I've said, Bitcoin has a fully compatible Ethereum VM running as a layer 2 network.

> It has a multipronged scaling strategy that is in an advanced state of development

I wouldn't call it multipronged -- Vitalik has it all hinging on PoS and that has been officially delayed until late 2018 at best.

> dwarfs that of any other blockchain.

Well, until you look at actual commit and contributor count. Then it's clear Bitcoin has far more development happening.

> It is now the most widely used blockchain in the world, processing 3X more transactions per day than #2 Bitcoin

I mean, bitcoin is operating at capacity. I'm sure Ethereum has more spam transactions though, I agree. Saying Ethereum is the most widely used blockchain in the world his hilarious. People know Bitcoin. A small fraction of those people know Ethereum.

> And in all of these categories, its momentum is growing.

As its network continues to crumble. Best of luck. We'll reconvene when Casper finally launches...hopefully while we're still young.

[zodiac]

> A full archive node currently requires a 400GB SSD! You're only option is to run a light node,

Uh, what about running a full archive node? The bitcoin txo set is also much larger the the utxo set

[freejulian]

Bitcoin doesn’t need an ssd to sync. Additionally, a bitcoin full node requires just 149gb — and it’s been around much longer than Ethereum! Ethereum is broken.

[zodiac]

Do you mean full node or archive node? (ie is the 149gb a requirement for storing the txo set or the utxo set)

[freejulian]

149gb for the txo set, the entire history.

[CryptoPunk]

>>Is the lone implementation which is still on testnet and no ecosystem surrounding it.

You're right that it's incomplete, in the sense that it's not completely finished, but not much more incomplete than the LN implementations on Bitcoin. They're on mainnet, but the developers say it's just there for testing purposes, and large amounts should be transacted on it. Its ecosystem is limited to buying sweaters from Blockstream and buying a VPN subscription.

To claim that the Raiden implementation is significantly behind the Bitcoin ones is misleading.

>>Bitcoin has no interest in implementing an equivalent as a layer-1 feature.

Which is a disastrous technical decision based on absurd self-defeating dogma. Ethereum already has 92% of the token market capitalization, up from 73% in July 2017. All the while, the token market grew from $4 billion to $60 billion.

Network effects matter, and the destructive dogma you're promoting resulted in Bitcoin letting Ethereum becoming the dominant crypto-asset platform, with a growing share of a rapidly growing market.

In any case, the fact that Raiden has ERC20-compatibility is another example of why your characterization of it as being "a poor and incomplete implementation of Lightning" is absurd. It's a comprehensive, full-featured implementation that is very nearly complete.

>>It's not any where near complete, which is why the difficulty bomb was rolled back (which in and of itself is hilarious -- Ethereum only pretends to be decentralized).

I didn't say it is "anywhere near complete". I said that Ethereum's proof of stake is close to complete conceptually and the first version, a hybrid PoW/PoS protocol called Casper the Friendly Finality Gadget, is currently under development and will be implemented in Ethereum soon.

>>Easily proved false, anyone reading can take a look at the respective github repos. Bitcoin currently has over 550 contributors, Ethereum only has 200. Bitcoin has over 16k commits. Ethereum has only 9k. This doesn't even take into account the larger ecosystem of software Bitcoin has.

Ethereum developers are working on all of the Dapps being built on top of Ethereum, each of which has its own set of repositories.

Only comparing the repositories for the Bitcoin and Ethereum official projects, which are centred only around the main clients, is an absolutely ridiculous measure of total development activity with respect to the platform.

And even this comparison is extremely disingenuous. You're comparing ONE repository hosted by the Ethereum project to one repository hosted by the Bitcoin project, when the Ethereum project has its work divided across a far larger number of repositories (151 vs 4):

https://github.com/ethereum

https://github.com/bitcoin/

It seems like every single argument you've made is misleading.

>>He described how to solve it 4 years ago, yet they still can't release even a hybrid PoS solution.

Good development takes time. The fact that the implementation has taken time to develop is not an indictment of the solution provided by VB to the Nothing at Stake problem.

>>Slasher does not solve the nothing at stake problem, it merely obfuscates it.

Ethereum is not developing Slasher, which was a very early proposal that does not contain the solution to the Nothing at Stake problem that VB proposed in the linked article.

At least learn the basic facts before confidently criticizing Ethereum.

>>Lack of Turing Completeness is a feature and intentional.

The lack of Turing Completeness limits the range and sophistication of second layer solutions that can be built on top of a blockchain. Ethereum's range of second layer solutions is far larger than Bitcoin as a result of having it. Turing-Completeness is an incredible benefit, and it's very shortsighted (or malicious) to discounts its value.

>>That's cute. Ethereum doesn't even have any "consumer grade" nodes today.

Sure it does. SSDs are consumer grade hardware, and the recent Geth update allows HDDs to sync as well. Sharding allows massive scaling while still preserving the ability of nodes to run consumer grade hardware. You have no response to this point except your snarky "that's cute".

>>Anyways, sounds like you're taking the long way around to agreeing with me: Sharding sacrifices security.

I explicitly disagreed with you. You can't even respond honestly to my comments at a basic level.

>>Again, taking the long way around to agreeing with me.

I just disagreed with you!

Here I'll past the comment again:

"HDDs have been having syncing problems, but that was solved in the most recent Geth release."

Translation: HDDs work fine now. You do not need an SSD. So I disagreed with you. Please stop lying so much.

>>A full archive node currently requires a 400GB SSD!

A full archive node is not necessary for full validation. Full validation only requires 30 GB, and like I just explained, it's now possible with HDDs as well.

>>A little early to make any of these claims...the only popular Dapp in recent memory is cryptokitties

It is currently the most widely used Dapp platform. That's factually true. And the development happening on new Dapps dwarfs anything happening on any other platform.

>>it brought the Ethereum network to its knees.

Even at its most congested, Ethereum did not get anywhere near as congested as Bitcoin, so you are implicitly arguing that Bitcoin is regularly brought to its knees, to a much more severe degree than Ethereum, and while processing one-third as many transactions.