Upgrading the Ethereum network from its current state to the 2.0 version is an event that the entire cryptocurrency community looks forward to, for very valid reasons. First, the change in Ethereum’s highly congested network is expected to lead to a reduction in clogging, a reduction in fee charges, and a higher transaction processing speed, amongst other significant changes.
But another event to look forward to is the possibility of Ethereum unseating Bitcoin in terms of network efficiency. Touching on this in a recent report, Bitcoiners are suggesting that Bitcoin may not be the “alpha” digital currency after all these years. That title may be stolen by Ethereum after the advanced version surfaces. Now, another crypto pundit is confidently challenging these viewpoints.
Marty Bent, a popular Bitcoin podcaster said: “Bitcoin, by scaling in layers, will be able to do anything any altcoin claims it can do. And it will do it significantly better because it will be doing so from an extremely strong base.”
This is a definite statement from a Bitcoin maximalist, and whether it is objectively valid or not will depend on the outcome of Bitcoin and other competing networks, (in this case, Ethereum as it happens to be the closest to Bitcoin). However, it is still possible to make an informed analysis of the possibilities.
Layering to maximize network efficiency has been debated by developers for years. So much that the general consensus is to await supply drying up before any major changes are made to the network. While Bitcoiners await this, Ethereum is already on its way to completing its proof of stake chain, while having already built sister-technologies on the network, which is already in high demand.
This has caused critics, and even Bitcoin users to doubt the possibilities. Moreover, the network is sufficient for the time being, hence the school of thought that proposes it stays untouched. Layering is, to many Bitcoiners a disservice to the network.
Bitcoiners chipped in their two cents saying ;
“Not the right direction for BTC at all. Bitcoin is good at being bitcoin. It’s good at being a scarce digital alternative to gold, a store of value, a new money. Keep it that way and don’t overcomplicate.”
Another Bitcoineir chimed in support of laying being put aside.
“As much as I love Bitcoin and agree scaling in layers is the correct architecture, this line of thinking is dangerous for the longevity of the project. Layers and rough consensus will never achieve solutions w/ resilience nor efficacy needed, particularly for privacy.”
