Ctrl-F "Plasma", "Sharding", "Proof of Stake"... 0 Results. Not trying to be a dick but if you are writing an article on how ethereum will not succeed because it can't scale then I would mention how ethereum is at least trying to scale. I understand this blog is very much an op-ed, but it makes that opinion come off as uneducated if you aren't at least addressing the fact that ethereum is working towards scalability.
3,000 developers and entrepreneurs, largely men in their 20s and 30s, cannot save the world. Ethereum doesn’t scale, and it won’t be able to scale in 2019 any better than in 2018. That’s a fact, let’s kill the fiction and hype from crypto. Ethereum might not be the one.
This is the main theme of the article, the lack of scaling. I wish the author would go into at least somewhat more technical details into why he thinks it's absolutely hopeless "in 2019" as he puts it. 2019 hasn't even started.
Failures of leadership are rife in nearly every industry and system of human society in 2018. We see it in corrupt politicians, greedy tech executives, unethical engineers and, of course, crypto profiteers who especially abused the ICO system. EOS is a perfect example of this. Ethereum might be more attractive to developers, but it may not have as bright a future as blockchain-as-a-service in the Cloud does, led by the likes of Alibaba and Amazon. The market necessitates centralized blockchains before we are ever near decentralization taking place.
Here I can understand the point. I'm pretty skeptical of "open source" governance that itself isn't centralized. Centralized creation, whether it's R&D in a corporation, a university principal investigator, or a Linux kernel, MUST be centralized to some degree. However, I don't think any blockchain development is particularly decentralized.
He might be right that a successful blockchain that's centralized (a bank or an Amazon or something) might be the 'proof of concept' needed before the decentralized demand is there.
It's a shame that so much capital had to come and go before any successful projects made it to the mainstream - assuming they ever do.
Wow, the arguments are just so bad, I feel dumber after having read this article. My first hint of trouble ahead was when the author wrote that Eth lost 10X it's value.
You can lose 90 percent, but not 10 times. You can GAIN 10 times.
4 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 22.2 ms ] threadwho cares how much it costs? who cares if ethereum itself wins or it gets replaced by something new? the value to humanity is in the research
3,000 developers and entrepreneurs, largely men in their 20s and 30s, cannot save the world. Ethereum doesn’t scale, and it won’t be able to scale in 2019 any better than in 2018. That’s a fact, let’s kill the fiction and hype from crypto. Ethereum might not be the one.
This is the main theme of the article, the lack of scaling. I wish the author would go into at least somewhat more technical details into why he thinks it's absolutely hopeless "in 2019" as he puts it. 2019 hasn't even started.
Failures of leadership are rife in nearly every industry and system of human society in 2018. We see it in corrupt politicians, greedy tech executives, unethical engineers and, of course, crypto profiteers who especially abused the ICO system. EOS is a perfect example of this. Ethereum might be more attractive to developers, but it may not have as bright a future as blockchain-as-a-service in the Cloud does, led by the likes of Alibaba and Amazon. The market necessitates centralized blockchains before we are ever near decentralization taking place.
Here I can understand the point. I'm pretty skeptical of "open source" governance that itself isn't centralized. Centralized creation, whether it's R&D in a corporation, a university principal investigator, or a Linux kernel, MUST be centralized to some degree. However, I don't think any blockchain development is particularly decentralized.
He might be right that a successful blockchain that's centralized (a bank or an Amazon or something) might be the 'proof of concept' needed before the decentralized demand is there.
It's a shame that so much capital had to come and go before any successful projects made it to the mainstream - assuming they ever do.
You can lose 90 percent, but not 10 times. You can GAIN 10 times.