Topic: When will the marketcap of Ethereum surpass Bitcoin? - page 4. (Read 3927 times)

I don't think this will happen soon but maybe when many companies has agree to used the ethereum contract and not only that when people began to see the beauty of the ethereum network over that of other coins. However, bitcoin dominant is still very high and it may taking some years for this to happen.

It will not be very soon. a few years later, BTC will stabilize and ETH will increase. I am always telling ETH investor that ETH is not a short term investment !!! 

I still do not understand Ethereum's step in market cap to be superior to Bitcoin. because what I see the development of Ethereum is still not fast. so in the 1-year market, Ethereum stamp is bigger than Bitcoin still doubt.

The market of the ethereum is mainly for business. Bitcoin is a means of accumulating and protecting its savings for all strata of citizens. Therefore, the ethereum will never be able to overtake bitcoin. In addition, bitcoin does not stand still and the tendency to develop. After a couple of years, all its shortcomings will be corrected

I don't think it's possible.
ETH may always be Top2, but beyond BTC is impossible.

I think it will never happen because the world's first currency bitcoin is probably because Ethereum now has an unprofitable dominant with Ethereum that allows it to pump to get past the bitcoin

When dependency is no more of a matter or an issue in the crypto world like it always happened to almost every coins to fall when BTC falls. Bitcoin was like the mother of all currency in a context and that, my friend, is why Ethereum goes at the same flow as Bitcoin. We can't say in the same way, because they have their own differences not just in the price in the market. I doubt that in the next decade that ETH will surpass it, unless it overcame the adoption that BTC have in different country. Getting a lot of attention in the public could help it, but government could be either be the threat or the opportunity for that.

This is not going to happen in my opinion. ETH performed exceptionally in 2017 but if you see the performance in 2018, it has completely failed. I think that now the hype given by media is over and there is real test of the exact potential of all coins. Most of the alt coins have reduced in their value by half.

Still, if you see return wise, it can give some competition to bitcoins in my opinion. This is because bitcoin is too costly and this is an entry barrier in my opinion.

Yes, it is highly possible that this would happen. Specially many projects and innovation do join the crypt market this days.

I don't really believe that etherium surpass bitcoin, it s impossible to happen, because as what I have been noticed, that etherium is only depending on what bitcoin being moves, they are both the same member of crypto business but different in ranking system. Bitcoin is always the king of all cryptocurrency.  No one can defeat and replace bitcoin, and only the creator of cryptocurrency can decide the truth beyond the operation of cryptocurrency, if I'm not wrong, all cryptocurrencies coins are the same founder. They are group of cryptocurrency creator, with multiple personalities that has ability to handle cryptocurrency business, they are like a family that has a superior or a king.

It really just depends what happens in the future, BTC may top out at a certain price and at that point Ethereum could surpass BTC's market cap.

Yes there is,the sudden jumped of ethereum on coinmarketcap is a big indication,this things happen because of Bitcoin's transaction issues,which needs to address,if this goes on ,it's possible eth could overtake BITCOIN..

In any case, if you want leadership/majority rule/voting/adaptable rules, you already have that, fiat.  If you have leadership, in any way it will have to comply to state rule, in the same way that fiat does.  So I don't see the point of crypto.

Crypto being permissionless, decentralized, it cannot have leadership, or we are back to fiat.  And it being permissionless and decentralized, but having to maintain a "belief" (a monetary belief), there have to be unrockable rules of which nobody has a mandate to change them.  That is immutability.

Of course you can change them.  Just any body can.  I can fork bitcoin on my own tomorrow.  Whether the brand name "bitcoin" will go to my new crypto currency (like ETH took over the name of the old ethereum, and ETC got to chose another name) or not, it is another, new, crypto currency. 

The only difference with another alt coin is that there was a premine, and that everybody got his new holdings in the new coin, equal to his old holdings in the old coin.

So, crypto currency has to be an anarchist concept, or it has no meaning, and is just fiat ; and if so, it has to be immutable.  Forking then just makes a new alt coin. 

Like with "evolution" the old animals die, and better adapted animals live, but existing animals don't "evolve".

Not even then was anarchy. There were tribes with pack leader/s, and where the least power decision were that of the kids, then women. Their role was breeding.

Those people with knowledge are just the antagonists I talk about. If they have a better idea than their competitor, they might succeed.  They don't have to ask "the leader" to consider their idea.

When I talk about science as a decentralized system, I mean that there is no hierarchical leadership in IDEAS.  Every scientist can bring in an idea that makes an old idea crumble.  There is no hierarchy in science.  But of course, there are great scientists, and lesser scientists.  Look at Einstein.  Overthrew most of classical science.  Science is full of non-programmed, non-leadership events that set the course.


Bitcoin's protocol needs not to change.  It is what it is.  If it isn't good enough, bitcoin should simply stop existing and be overtaken by a better idea.  However, bitcoin clients (software) that conform to the fixed protocol can of course be written by anybody.


I am an anarchist.  Humanity lived much longer in anarchy (a few million years, depending on where you put the origin) than in hierarchy.  Hierarchy is, in my opinion, a parasite, and not an organiser, of society.

That said, if you are thinking that leadership and hierarchy are better, there's no point in being interested in decentralized systems.  Financial systems with leadership already exist since ages.

There is never a perfect project, like there is never a finished perfect scientific theory, there is never a perfect living being, and there is never the perfect product on the market.  What happens in decentralized systems, is that the less perfect system dies, and the better takes over.

There's nothing wrong with crypto currencies dying regularly, and new ones taking over.  I wouldn't mind bitcoin to die, I think it is high time for it to leave its place to the next one.   But that next one should also die after a while, to make place for yet a better one.  And so on.

I don't see why a crypto currency should "evolve". Let it be what it is, and when better comes around, let it die and let the better take over.

No. Your definition of decentralization cannot work and be applied everywhere, and blockchain / crypto science is one of the examples for now. Maybe in the future when we'll have some near perfect project that may not need leadership to take the hard decisions, yeah. For example ethereum foundation doesn't plan to be the leader of ethereum forever, it was implied that when the project will reach it's peak in development it's self government may start kicking in.

Examples:
-You cannot decentralize how the space exploration should proceed even though you can get decentralized funding. Because most people don't understand it and there will be people with knowledge that will become leaders by stepping up.
-Let's assume bitcoins  mining is fully decentralized. Still, not even in this case, you wouldn't be able to take decentralized decisions on technical aspects because most people don't understand it. You need leaders who do.
-You cannot have a civilization if you're fully decentralized with everything it implies, on every single aspect ( like you understand it ). Because then humanity would die before it could start, complete anarchy.
As i said, people aren't fully equal, and that's where you're wrong. And goin from there, you can apply this logic in most cases.

I'm not talking good or bad.  I'm talking phenomena.  I don't say whether gravity is good or bad.  It is a physical phenomenon.

Personally, I like decentralization, because nobody is in charge, and that's an idea I like.  I know three extremely well-working decentralized systems:

* science (the centralized version is "religion")
* evolution (the phenomenon that made living beings ; I don't know a centralized version)
* free markets (the centralized version is communism)


Decentralization is the opposite of stand still.  Leadership is stand still, because in the end, just a thing that serves the purposes of the leader.

Look at my 3 examples: science, evolution, free markets.  Not exactly examples of standstill.  

In bitcoin, decentralisation is used to obtain immutability, but that's because it was designed that way.  Decentralization doesn't mean immutability.  In fact, in such systems, only centralization and leadership allows for BREAKING immutability.  But that was NOT the idea, because that leadership can use its power for its own advantage.

And that's why your definition of decentralization would do more harm than good. World at a standstill that can't move forward, a permanent cold war. Decentralization is supposed to good, not harm. That's why we make such a big deal about it in the first place.

Also, decentralization is not a constant value. There can be different types of decentralizations. Bitcoin is somewhat decentralized, because not all the mining power is in china. But because of bitcoin's old tech, losing 90% of it's mining power would kill it because it would take weeks to months to reach an equilibrium and for it to unstuck. And because it cannot adapt fast enough to lower mining power, i consider it centralized because it depends entirely on the chinese miners, on which the government has total control if it wants to.

That is exactly what I call decentralisation: when no leadership is possible because of sufficient antagonism.