Bitcoin and Ethereum. Ethereum and Bitcoin. For the past few weeks, both networks have been in the eye of the hurricane, especially Ethereum. However, The controversy has reached unimaginable proportions, which is mainly driven by a few Bitcoiners who are advisers on a project that uses this criticized network for its own purposes. Controversy was the order of the day.
Let’s go by parts to better understand the entanglements and disputes between some of the “influencers” of the Bitcoin world.
First of all, remember that a few weeks ago, Ethereum was the target of multiple criticism after the so-called “supply gate”. This has been a network controversy, especially on Twitter, started by Pierre Rochard of Kraken. The main dispute Rochard believes that there was no way (and it is not yet clear whether there is) to check all of the ETH in circulation in real time.
ETH pension ceiling: 100 million.
ETH offer (estimated): 112 million.
– PierreRochard.com (@pierre_rochard) August 13, 2020
This topic was brought up for discussion due to the spread of the idea that ETH is money. For Rochard, the differentiating element of a cryptocurrency compared to fiat money is its verifiability, especially in the case of Bitcoin, whose ledger is open, public and accessible to everyone. This guarantees that everyone can know the current currency of the network without having to trust third parties or other users.
Also, The verifiability of the entire BTC in circulation is an uncomplicated process that takes a few minutes and shows only minor deviations, especially when compared to the results of the ETH.
However, as Andreas Antonopoulos later explained, it is unfair to examine the two networks in the same way – “stupid” as the Greek specialist himself described it.
You might be interested: Stablecoin holders would let the price of Bitcoin go up quickly
And how do “Bitcoin Influencers” connect with it? Well, Samsom Mow, CSO of Blockstream, had a direct discussion with Vitalik Buterin, the inventor of Ethereum, first on Twitter and then directly on Peter McCormack’s podcast “What Bitcoin Did?”.
Mow repeatedly referred to Ethereum as a poor technology that couldn’t be scaled and was used to create scams and low quality products just to speculate. He even described this network and its development as a product where “everything is done until something comes out”.
The conclusion of this discussion and of the supply gate in general was clear: Bitcoiners and Ethereans do not have the same interest in what these chains offer. For the Ethereans, the freedom and plasticity that smart contracts offer are more important. On the contrary, for Bitcoiners the strength of the protocol and the immobility of the BTC emission limit, as well as the verifiability of the numbers responsible for this monetary policy, are important.
Mow’s stance in particular seemed incompatible with Ethereum … until now.
INX: a practical project on Ethereum
Developer and security specialist Jameson Lopp has a Tweet Referencing a project called INX. It is an exchange for security tokens that is registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, but specifically created using the ERC-20 protocol, which is native to Ethereum.
Don’t combine permissionless altcoins trying to compete with Bitcoin with this regulated security token for a specific company.
This is a very different animal; I find it interesting because historically the most profitable companies in the crypto ecosystem have been exchanges.
– Jameson Lopp (@lopp) August 25, 2020
Lopp, who calls himself a cypherpunk and is one of Bitcoin’s security specialists, has been heavily criticized for his relationship with the token, particularly as a consultant The starting price was USD 0.01, while the initial public offering (IPO) will have a price of USD 0.90.
Also, The way to present the “investment opportunity” with a “secured cash flow” sounded more like a sponsor of a 2017 Initial Coin Offering (ICO) than a security and technology specialist.
Mowing is also part of the advisors. Despite the fact that “Ethereum is rubbish” for him and the controversy that arises from the supply gate and his discussion with Buterin; Back in mid-2018, Mow decided to invest in INX to make sure there wasn’t a better option at the time (Liquid, Blockstream’s federated sidechain, hadn’t launched yet) and, even if it had already been announced, didn’t have the technical elements to create security tokens, a fundamental element to understanding this IPO.
“”INX has incurred high costs and millions of dollars in regulatory approvals and third party audits for over 2.5 years. You might not like the structure, but it’s not a scam”, stressed. More than 130 million INX tokens are being sold and the minimum investment amount is $ 1000.
Is there any difference to the hundreds of “scams” apologizing for ICOs on Ethereum that Mow has been so strongly critical of? Well, the regulation before the SEC and the fact of being an ICO, but in the face of the most radical bitcoiners, it’s an excuse for the same thing that is being criticized, that is, a blatant contradiction.
Also, After qualifying and reiterating that Ethereum is tech junk, and clarifying their preference for using Liquid, the excuse that things “can’t be changed” is lame.
This fact and the background have sparked a discussion within the Bitcoin community itself. On the one hand, The most radical bitcoiners are starting to describe Lopp, Mow and the others as simple “influencers” without having a real relationship with the community and being ready to make noise on any investment project.
On the other hand, The organizers see themselves as good investors who did nothing wrong and who actually never claimed to be “Bitcoin maximalists”. This felt even worse when you consider both the criticism of Ethereum’s technology and the constant opinion of these spokesmen about Bitcoin as the only valuable cryptocurrency in the ecosystem.
It seems that fraud and bad technology are just those that in no way favor us in this case, with a potential economic return of more than 9000%. The INX case only shows how contradictory the “crypto industry” can be, especially for its most vocal executives.