Sure, it's in some sense "an AWS competitor" but something like a billion times less efficient, measured by throughput, energy efficiency, or cost. So, in practice, no it's not.

AWS actually made an interesting product, a distributed ledger that's 'trustless' as long as you trust Amazon, but with none of the overhead of blockchain so at least it's efficient

I think Ethereum is going big places, but the AWS ledger solution is probably also going to be good for smaller industries where competitors don't trust each other, they want a database that's shared, and they all might trust Amazon enough to control it (eg if they're all using AWS anyway)

(https://aws.amazon.com/qldb/)

> […] a distributed ledger that's 'trustless' as long as you trust Amazon […]

This has been possible since the 80’s due to public key encryption.

It’s not having to trust a central actor that’s the innovation behind e.g. Bitcoin.

Well put!

To put it another way, the problems that Ethereum will solve are not ones that could be solved by AWS.

Totally agree.

Despite both being energy/transport companies, Embraer and Tesla are solving two very different consumer problems.

I see it less of a computing platform and more like the spinning table from the beginning of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. The goal isn't to compute faster or better than others, it's for parties with competing interests to trust the computations that have taken place.

It's a git with stored procedures that can push commits.

Notably, there are rules that will block invalid commits, and tools that prevent git branches.

It's a hammer and nails. /s

Comparing Ethereum to AWS is an apples and oranges comparison at best. One is first order, and the other is second order.

You could make an argument it’s a competitor to AWS Lambda, but it would be akin to saying lxc is a serverless competitor.

I'm not comparing them, Ethereum marketing team pitched Ethereum as a world computer not me.

You are misunderstanding what they mean with “world” computer

Think of it as one, single "world computer" and it will be much closer to reality. Everyone can access that computer for free, and use it for a price.

> ... for free ... for a price

"access" vs "use".

Everybody can see the code/transactions that are run for free. Everybody can have their code run and execute transactions for a price.

I use quite a lot of AWS - and there's precisely zero chance I'll ever migrate, say, a mobile app backend platform to an Ethereum "unstoppable application"...

There are quite probably innovative new things that can be built using Etherium's "world computer", but my guess is that almost _none_ of what's currently running on (and paying for) AWS resources will move to it.

Can we get real for a second? Ethereum has no chance of taking on AWS or Microsoft.

Those are multi billion dollar business with billion dollar requirements in infrastructure investment on a yearly basis. Not going to happen.

I agree! But that's what Ethereum was pitched as.

Seems to me you're making invalid assumptions about what "world computer" means.

There's not a lot to go in in those two words, but claiming they mean Etherium is out to capture all (or any) of AWS's customers is a _very_ long stretch.