Topic: Justin Bons Said Ethereum is More Decentralized Than Bitcoin (Read 566 times)

Last I checked updates have only ever been performed with vast majority consensus and have waited to get that consensus. So not sure what you're talking about there.

Yeah Bitcoin Core is the main dev team because it inherited from Satoshi, so that isn't surprising. My point was that is still a lot better than the situation with Ethereum where Vitalik and crew make all the decisions and hard forks to their hearts content and everyone has to go along with it or get kicked off. Bitcoin Core has at least settled on an inclusive strategy of not kicking anyone out, and only doing updates that get strong consensus. Bitcoin Core leads the direction of updates yeah, but the community controls if those updates actually get implemented, and any users who don't want to comply don't have to and are still part of the network once an update does get approved and implemented by the network participants.

The 1 cpu 1 vote argument doesn't even make sense tbh. It was NEVER 1 cpu 1 vote. That was the idea the concept was based upon, but in the actual protocol Satoshi had to do what is technically possible. There is no perfect way to assign a vote per computer or network participant without centralization, so ironically your desire for 1 cpu 1 vote would ONLY work on a very centralized system. If designing a 1 cpu 1 vote system was doable in a decentralized system he would have just done that. What is technically possible is 1 hash 1 vote, which of course is the system he actually set up. It's still the exact same system today, it's not like Bitcoin changed away from Satoshi's system to something different. It's just that Bitcoin is so popular and there's a huge economic engine driving that competition, which means instead of individuals competing with their home desktop we have individuals, companies, govts, etc competing in a grand global decentralized competition with purpose-built machines. Don't let unattainable ideals blind you to reality. Nothing has changed, you're just pretending an ideal existed that never did.



As I pointed out. Bitcoin decentralization ain't perfect (basically what I was referring to there is the development operations, in that Bitcoin Core is dominant, even though its still a lot better structure than at least most other cryptos including Ethereum), but its a hell of a lot more decentralized than any other cryptocurrency. Bitcoin's strong decentralization, as compared to the rest of Cryptos relatively rather tame decentralization, is one of the things that makes Bitcoin so unique! So the idea of claiming Bitcoin (by faaaaaarrrrrr the most decentralized cryptocurrency) isn't decentralized and that fairly centralized or even highly centralized cryptocurrencies are more decentralized....well that's just plain stupid. It gets claimed all the time and its always someone with an agenda to try to prop up specific cryptos by lying about Bitcoin. Honestly its shameful and is part of the scammy culture of the altcoin community. You aren't making a good argument by trying to defned that shameful lying simply because you're mad that Bitcoin is only very decentralized and not the perfect unattainable ideal of decentralization.

correction ill fix your quote

2. no other devs/team has been allowed to even propose a protocol change, let alone be left to see if anyone adopts it in years(REKT) without cores blessing or involvement
3. because of the trick of code core changed to not need network wide consensus to activate core new features
5. yes there are many farms dotted around the planet, but gone are the days of 1 cpu 1 vote

as for why we need to stop brushing things under the carpet while dreaming utopia. mentioning harsh truths will keep your eyes open to look at the central points of failure and be alert when they get even more worse..
dont just downplay it to old words of a decade ago pretending bitcoin cant become centralised, look for the weak points, dont shy from them. scrutinise them

pretending bitcoin is fine(fully decentralised) is what the frog thought when he was cozy and warm in the saucepan of water on the oven hob

Yes this. Every time anyone makes this claim its purely an agenda to hype up some crypto, and yes as in this case sometimes includes arbitrary "scores" in order to try to trick people like there was some sort of scientific analysis done haha, when really the numbers were simply chosen to make Bitcoin's score lower than altcoin scores.

Nobody serious would ever claim Ethereum is more decentralized than Bitcoin lol.

And yet you see these claims constantly. There are always people saying Ethereum, or any other random crypto, is more decentralized than Bitcoin. The reason is because everyone knows Bitcoin is the Gold standard for decentralization and nothing else comes close, so people feel they can prop up their favorite chosen crypto by claiming its even more decentralized than Bitcoin. It's a dumb argument and always has been. But it is by no means a new argument. The founders of other cryptos, as well as the fans of other cryptos, have for years made baseless claims about how Bitcoin is not decentralized but their centralized crypto is actually super decentralized haha.


Ethereum was never remotely as decentralized as Bitcoin when Ethereum was on PoW. The Switch to PoS made Ethereum a lot more centralized than it previously had been. So it used to be much less decentralized than Bitcoin, and now it is much much less decentralized than Bitcoin.



I'm sure most people already know this. The only people who claim other cryptos are more decentralized than Bitcoin are doing it for some agenda - because they are trying to shill some crypto.


Some real quick basic points that easily illustrate that Ethereum is far more centralized than Bitcoin:
1. Huge Premine
2. Vitalik essentially controls the protocol
3. Lots of forced hard forks that Vitalik and friends decide on
4. Nodes were already quite centralized for years (anyone remember when like a third of Ethereum nodes went down when AWS servers went down, because lots of people had to run ETH nodes on centralized cloud services rather than be able to run nodes at home)
5. Now under PoS staking is very centralized in a handful of staking services because its really hard for individuals to stake


Compare to Bitcoin:
1. No premine
2. Nobody controls the protocol, though Bitcoin Core is basically the group that guides development, but that's not nearly as bad as Vitalik and crew Ethereum Foundation entirely controlling the protocol
3. Soft forks only, nobody gets kicked off who doesn't agree with changes, and only implemented once high community consensus is achieved
4. Nodes are cheap and easy to run and very decentralized
5. Bitcoin PoW is a huge industry spanning the globe made up of myriad individuals, companies, govts in healthy competition



Honestly anytime someone says Bitcoin is not decentralized the only thing you should be doing is asking what the person's agenda is in lying to you.


Bitcoin by no means has perfect decentralization, but in most ways it is extremely good. And every other cryptocurrency, certainly including Ethereum, is a complete joke compared to Bitcoin when it comes to decentralization.

People who make such statements do it deliberately to show Bitcoin in a bad light though I don't understand their motive behind this, maybe because they are holding more ETH than Bitcoin and they want ETH to get more attention than Bitcoin but they probably don't understand that the market value of ETH mostly follow Bitcoin's price and it doesn't move up or down completely independently which should be enough reason for them to know which one is more decentralized.

The public shouldn't pay attention to such things that are mere attempts to glorify one and defame the other. His explanation and reasoning don't make much sense to me. The decentralization of a cryptocurrency is dependent on a lot of factors, the fact that Ethereum's consensus protocol and supply can be changed anytime is enough proof to prove this statement wrong.

Decentralization in what context?

In the context of my post, the network will start to scale in and decrease in node count if the Core Developers increase the block size like what you want. Bigger Blocks = Higher Hardware/Bandwidth Requirements. It's the simple truth, yet you always gaslight people that it's the Core Developers fault. Why? Because they didn't listen to your mentors? You should move on, frankandbeans. They were proven to be wrong. Bitcoin is OK, and it keeps producing block by block, incentivizing the participants in block production.

" decisions made by the Core Developers, Bitcoin wins.. " <- oxymoron
actually bitcoin hasnt grown in decentralised potential in many years of cores roadmap decisions
with softening consensus to open up alot more backward capability data ignorance.. has not helped with decentralised network/data security
with softening consensus to open up alot more backward capability data ignorance.. has reduced independent user full nodes importance
with defaulting network peer services to be off.. has not helped with peer data decentralisation/security/access

but with all issues core have politicised, altered, decided on to reduce the decentralisation potential of bitcoin..
bitcoin on every measure is still more decentralised than ethereum.. but bitcoin could do even better if the bitcoin gods/politicians were less centred and a few fixes were allowed

It's not about whether the network's Sybil Protection Mechanism is POW or POS. There are people who simply say/post "this is more decentralized than that" without an agreed upon definition on what "decentralization" is. Because it's absolutely not about full node decentralization, which because of the design decisions made by the Core Developers, Bitcoin wins if that's the way we choose to measure decentralization in OP's debate.

I don't think that pos coin could be more decentralized than pow

That is crystal clear that the validators in Ethereum network can be a bunch of gangs who happen to be near the founder of Ethereum and they have the right to validate,most people,most normal people do not have over 32 Ethereum to validate transactions so they are somewhat chosen ones and they can have an outcome and impact on the road map of the Ethereum in general,the Dapps were great at sometime ago yet I have not seen such activity lately or maybe I have missed them so in reality they are not decentralized at all let alone to be better decentralized than Bitcoin,that is pure nonsense.

What I think here is that this guy dares to compare Ethereum (shitcoin) with Bitcoin. In simple words those who founded Ethereum as still active and hold a lot of pre-mined ETH while the visionary of Bitcoin known as Satoshi Nakamoto is even a human or a group of humans still unknown. What is alarming about Ethereum is now using POS which is a centralized model and Bitcoin won't have any protocol changes like Ethereum did which makes it more decentralized. The only reason everyone wants a piece of ETH is because of its ecosystem as without it you are into a ditch.

Op, it would be nice to add a source to the post, so that people can read it themselves and see where the info is coming from. As you can see, not doing that results in confusion, some assuming that you even referred to a completely different person (Justin Sun), before Despairo found a Twitter account of Justin Bons.
In any case, that's just one man's opinion. As you can see here, there are other views, claiming that Ethereum is actually less decentralized than Bitcoin.
PoS naturally leads to more centralization than PoW, which is where Bitcoin is winning as a PoW cryptocurrency.

Doesn't prevent, but delay certain transaction from getting confirmation.


You're right, although whether it's wasting money or not depends on how many address or TX they want to block. Here's an analysis which detect some pools may exclude or block certain address, https://b10c.me/observations/08-missing-sanctioned-transactions/.

Antpool can right as well choose to censor legacy transactions, but that does not prevent the Bitcoin user from sending and receiving to segwit or legacy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but every attempt to censor a particular group of transactions by a pool has proved to be a failure, and wasted money. And that's because whatever is dumped by one pool is selected by another. Therefore, I think it is wrong to refer to the network as permission-requiring, since censorship resistance isn't merely a principle, but a side effect of the game theory.

As long as honest miners overthrow malicious, hereby do not intentionally reorg the chain to reverse transactions, the system is censorship resistant.

Because possibility of intentionally exclude transaction due to other reason than tx fee rate. For example, Antpool used to exclude SegWit TX while some politician have idea to force pool exclude certain transaction.

True, I don't really understand how anyone can call something more decentralized than BTC. It's is an example of decentralization.

Instead of keeping ETH as a POW that keeps its network secured, they've made it into a POS to make every who's already rich through it become richer.

If it's about the discussion about centralization and decentralization, the most decentralized cryptocurrency is none other than Bitcoin.

Keep that in mind and whoever tells shit about Bitcoin for being lesser decentralized and comparing it to a coin that has premined and changed its consensus favoring the rich is talking nonsense.

Justin is seriously wrong about this. It well known and has been spoken of many times that Ethereum is centralized. This occurred due to the move from proof of work to proof of stake, where a few entities now control a majority of staked Ethereum and we know how this potentially enabling censorship under government pressure.

Ethereum is more decentralized in what way? It's obvious that it's easier to sync a Bitcoin full node today than an Ethereum full node because Bitcoin has lower hardware requirements.

Plus don't mention "light nodes". Haha. Those are not actual nodes that download the blockchain, and actually validate the state of the chain. Those are mere pseudo-nodes.

Ethereum is the biggest scam on the internet and should have been shut down long ago for securities fraud.
It amazes me after all these years people still haven't figured it out yet and this CBDC garbage token still retains its second place status after bitcoin.

So many idiots "invest" their money without understanding what they are investing in. That is not investing it is straight up gambling.