Ethereum's creation, as far as I know, isn't questionable. The thread around it, has had it that the cryptocurrency and its ecosystem was built and developed to bring added value to the bitcoin network, this is what I've come to hear and believe, but is that still the case in a competitive time like this?
The cryptocurrency industry has over a 12 years note, embraced great developments, success and undeniable expansion. Because of that, the market has become very competitive. While the industry has a common goal, the game has however taken a twist and each project runs to find its value in the entire network. By market cap, Bitcoin is currently the most exposed internet decentralized cash, with the largest share of the entire industry, it is followed by Ethereum, the network of smart contracts.
Firstly, I'd like to note that I'm a holder of both BTC and ETH, meaning I expect both networks to do well and though, selfishly, that would benefit me. But, Vitalik has however turned a new leaf so I may as well be seen differently today.
In a recent conversation, Vitalik had come off slamming El Salvador bitcoin law and it's got some publishers talking about it. Yes, I've also been observing the El Salvador bitcoin adoption approach, everything has its own flaws, but from what Vitalik had to contribute and the manner at which it was presented, it's a sell off that Vitalik has grown hate for the bitcoin community. A reddit Users Posted and I quote;
Unpopular opinion : El Salvador President Mr Nayab Bukele should not be praised by Crypto community
Reasons as follows, by the reddit user;
Since after making the Bitcoin legal tender in El Salvador,Mr Nayab Bukele got the attention of the whole world for his bold move. But most of the people here may not be aware of his other actions which made some people think that he could be the next dictator.
If you follow the thread here you'd discover where this comments are coming from. The reddit User highlight some information which, to me, was totally irrelevant. However, there was a bit of light shined on the word "decentralization" which I assume, he may have missed the president's approach, but Vitalik on the other hand, responded differently…
Yes, on Art 7, the El Salvador bitcoin law made it obligatory for all vendors to accept "bitcoin" as a payment for goods and services. Yes, that's a bit scary to think about, the whole "decentralized finance" is to promote freedom, but this section of the law went a bit out there.
However, El Salvador's President did lay his reasons for that law, and this was well explained by compiling Art. 7, 8 and 12 (coming back to that.)
In the meantime, this was Vitalik comment on the thread;
Nothing unpopular about this opinion. Making it mandatory for businesses to accept a specific cryptocurrency is contrary to the ideals of freedom that are supposed to be so important to the crypto space. Additionally, this tactic of pushing BTC to millions of people in El Salvador at the same time with almost no attempt at prior education is reckless, and risks a large number of innocent people getting hacked or scammed. Shame on everyone (ok, fine, I'll call out the main people responsible: shame on Bitcoin maximalists) who are uncritically praising him.
From the word "specific" Vitalik is basically upset about "Ethereum" not getting that attention there. Yes, the flaws are perceived, however, I don't suppose El Salvador's bitcoin law is stopping anyone from utilizing any other cryptocurrencies, the said law stated on Article 7 was only meant to get more people involved.
Now, considering the risks involved in holding crypto assets, the volatile nature is questionable and this is where Article 8 & 12 of the bitcoin law comes in. To enhance more clarity, here are the laws quoted;
Every economic agent must accept bitcoin as payment when offered to him by whoever acquires a good or service.
Without prejudice to the actions of the private sector, the State shall provide alternatives that allow the user to carry out transactions in bitcoin and have automatic and instant convertibility from bitcoin to USD if they wish. Furthermore, the State will promote the necessary training and mechanisms so that the population can access bitcoin transactions.
Those who, by evident and notorious fact, do not have access to the technologies that allow them to carry out transactions in bitcoin are excluded from the obligation expressed in Art. 7 of this law. The State will promote the necessary training and mechanisms so that the population can access bitcoin transactions.
Well noted, article 7 can't be dragged out as forcing the people on "unregulated money" even though the reddit user may have misunderstood the fact that forcing the people to accept bitcoin doesn't mean the president is controlling the currency, if we're being real bitcoin can't actually be controlled. That said, art 7 is better judged when 8 and 12 is weighed. However, Vitalik's statements sound more like a Hater speech than a truth speaker in my opinion.
And if critics must be included here, he mentioned the risks that are caused by El Salvador's president with this bitcoin law, but if we look at it, the Bitcoin network in comparison to the Ethereum network is a clear stand out when it comes to security. However, if he was looking at the "price volatility" then the ability to exchange those bitcoins to dollars immediately ain't restricted as stated on the law Art. 8. Meaning that no one is forced to hold bitcoin, only obligated to accept it, selling off is quite allowed, thereby laying one last point to summarize this is; the market is still independent and freedom is still the center of it all…
So It's Either Vitalik Is A Bitcoin Hater Or I'm Just A Maximalist…
This redditor made a contribution that is worth reading too;
My recent experience with my bank made me realize the figures I see in my account are basically just virtual numbers, no real time value!( story for another day)
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta