But what these "bitcoin 2.0" or "bitcoin 3.0" (if we assume that Ethereum was sold as "bitcoin 2.0" to newbies) claims is that their security model doesn't need miners, because the validation is done by the people transacting, so fees are effectively out of the question.
Of course such an huge claim needs to be backed up. Thus far not a single of these models are better than what Proof of Work can deliver so far, rendering all these "this is the next bitcoin" altcoins as nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Of course such an huge claim needs to be backed up. Thus far not a single of these models are better than what Proof of Work can deliver so far, rendering all these "this is the next bitcoin" altcoins as nothing but smoke and mirrors.
I'm not 100% current on this. My impression is, the "bitcoin 2.0" or "bitcoin 3.0" transfer fee less implementations are like SETI's distributed computing model. They're similar to the old internet movement where server side functionality was gradually shifted client side via javascript, ajax, flash, html5 and similar frameworks which shift calculations from servers to an end users browser.
Bitcoin uses specialized and dedicated miners to generate hashrate. The inverse opposite to this model may be distributing hashrate across a large number of non-dedicated and non-specialized users in an attempt to compensate for quality with quantity. If that's the approach "bitcoin 2.0" projects are taking then perhaps its accurate to describe them as being similar to SETI where volunteers download software which runs in the background to compile a decent amount of computational power across a large number of end users.
There could also be some key algorithmic differences, like I said I'm not 100% current on it but the differences might be inferred or deduced on a fundamental level without knowing specifics.
