On September 1, Vitalik Buterin had an interview with the economics author Noah Smith and the co-founder of Ethereum said an awful deal about Bitcoin and the network’s long-term security. Buterin also addressed the recent meltdown of the cryptocurrency market, during which he stated that he was “surprised that the crash did not happen earlier.”
Buterin has stated that Bitcoin is “not succeeding at getting the level of fee revenue required to secure what may be a multi-trillion-dollar system.”
Ethereum’s co-founder Vitalik Buterin recently gave an interview with the economics author Noah Smith and Buterin had a lot to say about the current situation of crypto. Smith began by inquiring about Buterin’s perspectives on the recent crash in the cryptocurrency market, and Buterin responded by stating that he believed it would have occurred earlier.
During the course of the discussion, Buterin expressed his shock at the fact that the catastrophe had not occurred earlier. The typical duration of a cryptocurrency bubble is between six and nine months after it has surpassed its previous all-time high, after which the price begins to rapidly decline. This time, the bull market extended for close to a year and a half,” the developer mentioned.
Buterin also spent a lot of time discussing the Bitcoin (BTC) network and The Merge, which is Ethereum’s widely anticipated move from proof-of-work (PoW) to proof-of-stake. Both of these topics were covered in great detail (PoS). According to him, Bitcoin is not successful in generating sufficient revenue through transaction fees and block subsidies.
“Bitcoin is simply not succeeding at collecting the level of fee revenue required to secure what may be a multi-trillion dollar system,” said Buterin. Long-term, Bitcoin security is going to come solely from fees, and Bitcoin is just not succeeding at getting that level of revenue.
When Smith questioned Buterin about the amount of energy that Bitcoin uses, the co-founder of
by saying that Proof-of-Stake will not only lessen the negative impact on the environment, but it will also keep the blockchain secure.
“A consensus system that needlessly costs huge amounts of electricity is not only bad for the environment, but it also requires issuing hundreds of thousands of BTC or ETH every year,” Buterin emphasized. “A consensus system that needlessly costs huge amounts of electricity is bad for the environment.” “Eventually, of course, the issuance will decrease to near zero, at which point that will stop being an issue, but then Bitcoin will start to deal with another issue: how to make sure that it stays secure.” [Citation needed] “Eventually, of course, the issuance will decrease to near zero, at which point that will stop being an issue.” Buterin also said that:
And these security motivations are also a fairly major motivator driving Ethereum’s transition to proof-of-stake.
The early proof-of-work era of Ethereum, according to one of its co-founders, was “Unsustainable and It’s Not Coming Back.”
Buterin is aware that the Bitcoin consensus process will not change, at least not in the near future; nonetheless, he feels that the topic of a hybrid PoS algorithm may become relevant in the event that the chain was attacked.
The software developer said to Smith, “Of course, if Bitcoin is actually attacked, I do expect that the political will to switch to at least hybrid proof of stake will quickly appear, but I expect that to be a painful transition.” “Of course, if Bitcoin is actually attacked, I do expect that the political will to switch to at least hybrid proof of stake will quickly appear,” The co-founder of Ethereum has stated that he believes that people have the false concept about Proof-of-Stake giving the largest stakeholders power over the network. He expressed this in a recent interview.
Buterin asserted, “There are also those who try to claim that PoS allows huge stakeholders to control the protocol, but I think those arguments are simply plain false.” “There are also people who try to claim that PoS allows major stakeholders to control the protocol.” “They are based on the fallacy that Proof of Work and Proof of Stake are governance tools, whereas in fact, those are the mechanisms for reaching consensus. All they do is assist the network in reaching a consensus on the appropriate chain.
Buterin proceeded by stating that he feels the early version of Proof of Work was a good starting point; but, he believes that it is now outdated, on its way out the door, and most likely won’t return in the foreseeable future.
The extremely democratized early proof-of-work era was a beautiful thing, and it helped greatly in making cryptocurrency ownership more equal, but it is not sustainable, and it will not return in the foreseeable future.