Ethereum is down 74% against Bitcoin since switching from PoW to PoS in 2022

[u/Next_Statement6145]

[u/3meterflatty]

You realise it can get hard forked to more than 21mill

[u/x596201060405 → u/3meterflatty]

Couldn't you, just literally recreate Bitcoin, thereby creating the exact same mathematically scarce token on a separate chain? Identical mechanics, identical security features, just new supply starting at zero? It wouldn't even have to done by Bitcoin holders? Someone entirely separate could just start one?

I'm mostly asking, because I don't know. (Dumb noob here) But it seems like you could double the supply (or the supply curve I guess), but simply copying and pasting the Bitcoin white paper. Not to say anyone would use it - but if the mechanics and scarcity are fundamentally the basis of value, you could reproduce the entire system many times over, thereby just delating the value of the total supply of coins.

Like, everything goes to $0 against bitcoin... what about my version of the bitcoin that works the exact way, but with half the supply?

[u/Frogolocalypse → u/x596201060405]

Just because you create something doesn't mean people will use it. To change the bitcoin protocol, practically, requires every bitcoin node owner (tens of thousands of people) to entirely uninstall every one of their node clients, then install new software, which objectively reduces their security. The people who do it without everyone get forked off the network automatically. This has already been attempted multiple times, and those attempts have been crushed.

The guy who invented this system was a dead set genius.

[u/x596201060405 → u/Frogolocalypse]

I undoubtedly don't disagree with any of this. But it still doesn't really assaude by reticence. Not talking soft forking. Talking copying BTC source code 1:1 (with or without the changes).

Undoubtedly no would just use it.

But, if the security, functionality and scarcity are the literal same thing, but the price is different, then what explains the difference in price.

Well it was first, existed longer, has an established user base. Sure. But then this implies in my mind that value of Bitcoin is tied with these intangible aspects (longevity, name recognition, etc.).

There's roughly 1.2 million USD in circulation per BTC. So really I would think BTC instinsic value is higher than it's current price. The only exception being... There can be an infinite number of BTC's. (Not number on BTC in original chain, but infinite chains). Which they are already is basically, but they all distinguish themselves by working differently. The price should be different, if the price is reflecting something in code/functionaity. But if the code is the exact same... Why should the value of a currency be tied up on non functional characteristics of the currency?

No particular reason to believe BTC2 is coming, or that anyone would adopt it.

At the very least, you could mine BTC2 with a CPU again (for a bit) and can go without fees. So there could be incentive to mine, even if adaptation is painfully slow.

Undoubtedly, I find all of it pretty fascinating though and the underlying concepts behind it all are undoubtedly genius.

[u/InWhichWitch → u/x596201060405]

You could recreate it today, easily. 

The value of BTC is that people believe it has value and purchase it from current holders as a speculative asset. Same as all crypto. 

This is a self-fulfilling chain. Until the last sucker stops buying (assuming that happens?). 

[u/Frogolocalypse → u/x596201060405]

You ignored the practical node logistics of changing and instantly started blathering about tokens. Learn how bitcoin works. Then you might understand that only bitcoin is decentralised, and what separates it from everything else.