You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Big Long – Bitcoin Dominance Continuing to Deteriorate as Predicted – 12/20/17
Cryptokitties clogging up the network has nothing to do with long term potential. If sharding works, it will provide orders of magnitude more scalability without sacrificing decentralization.
They have to completely overhaul their consensus mechanisms before they even attempt to implement sharding. Other coins still have >7 transactions per second and much higher utility. Is sharding going to offer 400k transactions per second?
What coins offer 400k transactions per second now in production without sacrificing decentralization? Eventually, several chains will be capable of it, but they had better not trade too much security for performance.
BTS can pull 100,000 tps now without optimization (X6666 of ETH's max). EOS should to 400,000+ tps by release this summer. I'm seeing that decentralization is a debatable term, so not going to make an argument for BTS or EOS regarding that (though I believe NEM/XEM is). Though ETH's development is decentralized, their mining is not.
If you consider ETH development centralized, then all development is centralized. As you alluded, centralization vs decentralization is subjective. The end goal is security, so I think the FUTURE POTENTIAL of each system is sound. It remains to be seen which chains become dominant over time. ETH will eventually most likely rival the throughput of BTS or EOS, with perhaps higher levels of security because of casper.
Fair enough. I said DEcentralized for development of ETH FYI.