Quote from: EarnOnVictor on August 03, 2022, 07:41:53 AM

Quote from: nullius on August 03, 2022, 05:05:22 AM

Quote from: EarnOnVictor on July 29, 2022, 03:09:46 PM

Ethereum as the most actively developed blockchain [...]

It’s not. Bitcoin is; but you obviously are not a developer. I follow Bitcoin Core development, and I am familiar with the codebases of some altcoins; I know first-hand whereof I speak.

I advise you to go for more learning and stop behaving as if you know it all, I know your type. I repeat, Ethereum is the most actively developed blockchain. I am not a coder like I had iterated, yet I research a lot and stand by everything I write on the Bitcointalk forum.

Well, besides the small fact that you evaded the major substance of my post to reply to the three sentences at the top, you have no idea what you are talking about. You are obviously just regurgitating whatever swill you drank down on “crypto Twitter”, on Youtube, or on some shitcoin shill site. That is “research”, to your type.

Given my familiarity with the development process, I feel like I am entering some bizarre alternate reality whenever I see altcoiners pretend that Bitcoin doesn’t have the most active development of any coin. It is a meme on so-called “crypto Twitter” and amongst “Youtube influencers”. No exaggeration: I have seen proponents of an altcoin based on a codefork of Bitcoin Core v0.11.2 claim that Bitcoin is way behind. (Bitcoin Core is on v23.0, soon v24; due to a renumbering, the v0.11.2 was equivalent to v11.2.)

How can this urban myth persist? One reason is that Ethereum and its competitors have a “move fast and break things” kind of attitude, whereas Bitcoin Core deliberately has a cautious, conservative development process. Their goal is not to chase fads, or to be first to ship glitzy features: Bitcoin’s goal is to be absolutely the most secure, most reliable financial network. Thus although Bitcoin Core development is so active that it’s difficult to keep up with it, most of the activity is beneath the surface where tweety-types and idiotic “influencers” never see it.

Since you are the type to learn best from videos, I suggest watching what Gloria Zhao says about security:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te-2ke6g3lU

With that being said, I do need to give credit where due. For all its many faults, Ethereum has been good at three things. I may cover those in another post sometime. It is not worthwhile here—especially not whereby the proper topic is that with its switch to POS, ETH is turning itself into an illegal unregistered security.

Now, lest my crypto-anarchist friends suppose that I have suddenly turned legalist, I should add what I recently remarked in another thread:

Quote from: nullius on August 03, 2022, 07:50:29 PM

The funny thing is that decentralization matters. And one of the only coins (arguably, the only coin) that is sufficiently decentralized to have some chance of resisting regulatory interference is—Bitcoin, the one coin that Mr. [Gensler] affirmatively said is not within his agency’s jurisdiction. Amazing how that works.

I will illustrate with only one example of what I mean. Beneath is marketing veneer of fake “decentralization”, the whole Ethereum ecosystem has a practical dependency on a single U.S.-based company: ConsenSys, the owners of Infura and of the vertically integrated Metamask wallet. If Infura were to go down, it would cause ecosystem-wide disruption in Ethereum that could not be caused in Bitcoin by eliminating any single party, or even any small group of parties.

You see, Mr. “EarnOnVictor”, you want to do something that is illegal in most jurisdictions: Trade an unregistered security, i.e. a near-future POS version of ETH. Whether or not it is wise or good, as a practical matter, Ethereum has no hope of getting away with it.

I do not have the foolish attitude of some Bitcoiners who believe that governments cannot shut Bitcoin down. However, Bitcoin is incomparably more difficult to stop. Regulators and politicians are not always so stupid as clueless Internet commentators presume; and I don’t doubt that some of the smarter ones take the cost of enforcement into consideration when they decide on their approach. With Bitcoin, thus far, it seems they want to regulate with a relatively light touch. I think that the cost of enforcement, combined with Bitcoin’s essential merit, constitute the major factors in the developing difference of regulators’ treatment of Bitcoin versus shitcoins.

I note that the Ethereum Foundation being in Swiss jurisdiction is meaningless, when the U.S. could throw the whole Ethereum ecosystem into turmoil simply by shutting down ConsenSys. Whereas Bitcoin does not even have a centralized foundation, let alone any centralized critical infrastructure run by companies amenable to enforcement actions. Bitcoin’s past experiment with a centralized foundation taught it lessons that Ethereum never learned; and it doesn’t really have any critical centralized infrastructure at all.