On September 1, Vitalik Buterin did an interview with economics author Noah Smith and Ethereum co-founder who said a lot of terrible things about Bitcoin and the long-term security of the network. Buterin also discussed the collapse of the crypto economy and said that he was “surprised that the crash didn’t happen before.”
Buterin: Bitcoin ‘Failed to Reach the Fee Revenue Required to Insure What Could Be a Trillion Dollar System’
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin recently made a interview with economics author Noah Smith and Buterin has a lot to say about the current state of cryptocurrencies. Smith first asked Buterin for his thoughts on the recent crypto crash, and Buterin said he thought it would crash sooner.
Buterin said in the interview: “I’m surprised the accident didn’t happen sooner. “Normally a crypto bubble lasts about 6-9 months after breaking through the previous top, after which the rapid drop happens pretty quickly. This time, the bull market lasted almost a year and a half,” added the developer.
Buterin also talked a lot about Bitcoin (BTC) Internet and UnifyEthereum’s highly anticipated transition from proof of work (PoW) to proof of stake (PoS). He asserts Bitcoin does not cut it when it comes to block subsidy fee revenue.
“In the long run, Bitcoin security will come entirely from fees, and Bitcoin fails to achieve the level of fee revenue needed to secure what could be a trillion dollar system,” Buterin said. speak.
When Smith asked Buterin about Bitcoin’s energy use, the Ethereum co-founder noted that PoS will not only reduce harm to the environment, but also about keeping the blockchain secure.
“A consensus system that does not need to consume large amounts of power is not only bad for the environment, it also requires the issuance of hundreds of thousands of BTC or ETH every year,” Buterin emphasized. “Of course, eventually issuance will drop to close to zero, at which point that won’t be a problem anymore, but then Bitcoin will start to solve another problem: how to make sure it stays safe.” Buterin added:
And these security dynamics are also a really important driver behind Ethereum’s move to proof-of-stake.
Ethereum Co-Founder Emphasizes Early Proof-of-Work Era as ‘Unsustainable and It Won’t Come Back’
Buterin understands that Bitcoin will not change its consensus mechanism, at least for now, but if the chain is hacked, he believes that the discussion about hybrid PoS algorithms could begin.
“Of course, if Bitcoin really gets hacked, I would expect that the political will to move to at least hybrid proof-of-stake will emerge quickly, but I think it will be a painful transition. ,” the software developer told Smith. The Ethereum co-founder says he thinks people have a misconception about PoS giving the biggest stakeholders control of the network.
Buterin said: “There are also people who try to claim that PoS allows large stakeholders to control the protocol, but I think those arguments are completely wrong. “They are based on a misconception that PoW and PoS are governance mechanisms, when in reality they are consensus mechanisms. All they do is help the network agree on the right chain.”
Buterin went on to note that he thought the first version of PoW was a good starting point but today he believes it is outdated, is on its way out the door and likely won’t come back.
The highly democratized early proof-of-work era was a great thing and it helped a lot in making crypto ownership more equal, but it’s not sustainable and it’s not going to come back. come back.
What do you think of Vitalik Buterin’s comments on crypto crash, Bitcoin network and PoW vs. PoS? Let us know what you think about this topic in the comments section below.
Image credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This newspaper only gives true information. It is not a direct offer or solicitation to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement for any product, service or company. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Neither the Company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods, or materials. goods or services mentioned in this article.