Gavin Andresen, probably the most notorious name in the Bitcoin Community and the person who took over the project from Satoshi Nakamoto, released what would look as a very plain assertion about the future of Ethereum a few days ago. His tweet reads as follows: “Ethereum has more nodes today than Bitcoin. Prediction: it’s lead will grow even as its blockchain size exceeds bitcoin’s”. There may be many reasons behind this tweet, but what is certain is that it was not a plain assertion at all. This tweet has many implications.
Bitcoin vs Ethereum?
The first thing that anyone can notice in Andresen’s tweet, is the fact that he compares Bitcoin’s blockchain and leadership status with that of Ethereum. Both are quite different and serve different purposes; both are supposed to coexist within a larger blockchain ecosystem. Nevertheless, the most striking difference between them, apart from the functions both fulfill and the technical aspects of each, is the organizational environment within which each of these blockchain projects developed. Comparing Bitcoin with Ethereum directly, or pitting them against each other, seems stranger than fiction, unless Andresen was trying to deliver a message.
Bitcoin Politics vs Ethereum Politics
It is possible that beyond the plain text about how Ethereum’s blockchain has more nodes than that of Bitcoin and how it will lead and eventually exceed bitcoin in size, Andresen could have been trying to make a point about governance. In this realm, both blockchains are also radically different. Bitcoin works by consensus, whereas Ethereum seems to work – if the hard fork can be taken as a precedent – by qualified majority. Bitcoin will stick to its principles because enough community members are purists; Ethereum has proved to be more pragmatic, with its core developers, led by Vitalik Buterin, wielding more power. Could Andresen be telling us then that Ethereum’s pragmatism will eventually win?
Andresen’s Frustration and the Future of Bitcoin
In fact, Andresen has been trying to promote some Bitcoin reforms without success. He might even be frustrated by the difficulty of updating the network given the consensus requirement. Andresen has also lost some allies to the consensus attrition, the most notable of whom is Mike Hearn who wrote scathingly critical blog posts about the situation that Bitcoin faces. This tweet could be taken as a warning, and it should be taken as such. Bitcoin must solve its issues, however painful its consensus mechanism might be.
Final Thoughts
The shadow of the future looms large, and Andresen might have been pointing that out concisely, with the goal of reaching people with influence within the Bitcoin community. Reforming Bitcoin is as much an exercise in proselytism as the constitution of Ethereum Classic was an act of protest. Both serve as a stark reminder that no matter how brilliant the technology, it will always be vulnerable to human flaws, therefore the biggest challenges for both, is social and political but not technological. The only question remaining is will the Bitcoin community step up to the challenge and foster its leadership role, or will it allow Ethereum to overshadow its achievements?
