[spottybanana]

> (b) is why Bitcoin core development has stagnated. And that's fine if people just want it to be like gold, however Ethereum doesn't aspire to not evolve.

How stagnated is Bitcoin development? Yeah it is not progressing super fast, but I think it is still progressing. Taproot has been accepted by miners and will be activated this year. Improvements are being done.

As Bitcoin is the biggest crypto by market gap, I think risk-aversiveness is a good thing. While I was initially a big blocker, now I think that going without a hard fork was probably quite a good idea. Bitcoin still works nicely and I still use it a lot, now I just use LN transactions in addition to onchain txes.

[textbookrental]

I just find it unbelievable that after a decade of the smartest people moving into the crypto space, the best crypto solution is the first one, created by a single person 13 years ago.

It makes Bitcoin look like an anti-technology.

[kristofferR]

True, Taproot is looking promising. Yet, it's the only major change since 2017, I don't think they're moving fast enough.

And what's the next major improvement on the cards for Bitcoin after Taproot? I haven't heard much, and that is worrying in and of itself IMO.

[bluebit]

I'm not sure we should treat the base money of the internet the same way we do tech startups - to "move fast and break things". I would like to know that my BTC is stored in a network backed by code that is secure with slow and steady progress.

[kristofferR]

There's certainly a good middle ground between moving slowly and moving quickly, I think Ethereum has found that middle ground.

Half of this article is complaints about how Ethereum is moving too slowly with the PoS transition. They're certainly not of the "move fast and break things" mindset.

[keymone]

eth feels like wild west of script kiddies writing javascript to manage billions of USD. far from being middle ground, it's quite the opposite of btc's "let's not ruin the foundation even if we'll be called unnecessarily conservative" stance.

in fact, i would even argue that btc's stance is closer to middle ground as they are clearly working towards making it easier to run all sorts of wild experiments in the upper layers while protecting and minimizing what's going on in the base layer.

[TomSwirly]

> the base money of the internet

You can't. Be serious.

What percentage of internet transactions are performed in Bitcoin? 1%? 0.1%?

[sanderjd]

Way less than that.

[keymone]

how about trying to be more charitable with your interpretations? the statement you're quoting isn't necessarily factual but aspirational.

[TimJRobinson]

I agree. Bitcoin is a better store of value, Ethereum is a better tech stack for innovation. They serve different purposes and so should have different development schedules and risk aversion.

[paulgb]

At its core, a store of value is just something that other people will desire as much now as they do at some later point in time. In that sense, Bitcoin runs the risk of being left behind if PoW at 7tx/sec becomes seen as the dial-up modem of crypto.

[lottin]

A store of value is a meaningless term. Value can't be stored. Stuff can be stored. And no assurances can be made as to whether stuff will keep its value over time. Anyone who does that is a charlatan.

[keymone]

https://bitcoinops.org/. bitcoin is far from stagnant, there's a ton of research and development going on, it's just not being treated as "move fast and break things" kind of project.

it is really sad state of affairs when you only consider something as not stagnant when it's constantly putting people's money at tremendous risk.

at least the market seems to understand it.