Quote from: BenCodie on July 19, 2025, 03:03:03 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on July 19, 2025, 01:45:24 PM

Quote from: BenCodie on July 17, 2025, 12:40:29 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on July 16, 2025, 06:12:20 AM

Quote from: BenCodie on July 15, 2025, 12:09:36 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on July 15, 2025, 05:38:17 AM

Quote from: NotATether on July 13, 2025, 11:05:10 AM

Quote from: BenCodie on July 13, 2025, 10:45:47 AM

That's a great point too. I cryptocurrencies deserve a classing system better than just "altcoin", "shitcoin", and "memecoin". There's not really an official or unofficial grading system other than these terms and vague terms like "utility token" that help to differentiate one cryptocurrency or token from another in terms of quality, which is a problem.

Here, I got you covered:

But to be more serious, 99% of the other coins would just be dumped into the "Shitcoins" category.

Pardon me, and I don't want to offend you, but it's actually so laughable that you included Ethereum in the second row together with Monero.

Ethereum deserves to be BELOW the third row with the other Proof Of Stake shitcoins in my opinion. If their developers didn't throw Proof Of Work out of the window, then MAYBE it deserves to be in the third row.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It depends how you look at it. Ethereum's network works with POS, and it works well. It's not to say it's as good as Bitcoin, though it works (is all I'm saying).

If you think of aspects like age, supply distribution, tokenomics, etc. Ethereum is good for its use case (as is Monero, which has its ups and downsides too but good for its privacy use case).

Anyhow, NotATether did not make the image - it was just an example pulled from somewhere. I'd agree that the image needs a lot more work to make it accurate, it's pretty bad categorization but the concept of what they're attempting is good.

There's no "it depends" in this situation, because it's a FACT that Proof Of Stake doesn't work like what it's being "marketed" to be. There are trade-offs accepted in POS, and there's definitely a different security models, which "could be OK", but it's not the same as what we get from Bitcoin or any Proof Of Work network that has enough hashing power.

Therefore, "POS-Ethereum" is a lower form of "Ethereum".

It does depend on how you look at it,

Depending on how YOU think about it doesn't change the technical side of the network. What you believe WON'T change what it truly is and how it functions.

Quote

because it relates to the the blockchain trilemma, where scalability, decentralization and security are very difficult to achieve fully and perfectly. Bitcoin prioritizes security and decentralization with POW, while Ethereum prioritizes scalability with POS. Ethereum marketed itself primarily surrounding its smart contract feature, choosing POS was the right move to ensure that this feature and all that surrounded it could scale. I'd not call that the choice to transition to POS to become "a lower form", I'd call that a move that was required for their survival, and a good example of the trilemma.

Ser, you're not getting the context. What you just posted doesn't matter. Proof Of Stake simply has a security model that's NOT the same as what you're getting in Bitcoin. There's a trade-off there, and it may be a bad one because POS is consensus within the network, POW is consensus that's independent of the network.

I understand that security is stronger with bitcoin due to its consensus mechanism, I have not denied that. What I have said is that Ethereum has improved its scalability with POS, which is somewhat required for that network to survive considering its smart contract functionality and transaction frequency.

This pertains to the Blockchain trilemma, which if you properly understood it, you would not be telling me that I'm "not getting the context"

The trilemma is not how I think about it, it's about how researchers have thought about it. That's the difference between what you're concluding, and what I'm highlighting Wink

Ser, I understand the "blockchain trilemma", which makes my point. Ethereum chose to sacrifce security/to throw away the best part of its network out of the window for something that wasn't worth it. Did Ethereum "scale" enough onchain after throwing away Proof Of Work? Cool

Plus about Proof Of Stake,

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Gregory Maxwell and the other Core Developers were excited when the white paper about Proof Of Stake was released. But upon further analysis it was something that they couldn't work with because it is flawed - A perpetual motion machine.