Eventually this will be common knowledge, but it isn't yet. It's early days.
DeFi is being able to trade unregulated equities or lend on their collateral on decentralized exchanges with transactions guaranteed by code.
In other words, it's for degens that think avoiding taxes on shitcoin trading is peak crypto.
There are other interesting things on blockchains that can be done outside of decentralized finance. But trading shitcoins is what people are getting off on right now.
It reminds me of how porn is almost always first in new technology adoption.
ETH has been known to fork to change the blockchain and eradicate some transactions the leadership didn't like (see the DAO story).
That may be a good thing in some people's book. In the Bitcoin world, this kind of thing is not very popular.
See the "Value overflow incident" of 2010, which was fixed with human intervention which ultimately rolled back 53 blocks through a soft-fork.
Anyways, both this and theDAO incidents are far away in the past now.
Let's not forget Bitcoin's block subsidy (currently 6.25 BTC) is cut in half every 210,000 blocks or about every 4 years. Bitcoin is deflationary—88.44% of all Bitcoin that will ever be produced have already been issued.
We have no idea where Eth is with its production of currency.
You must be a EMH denier :)
> ETH supply is infinite
I never claimed that ETH supply is infinite, just that the issuance is unpredictable.
1. Bitcoin has some sort of "first mover" advantage which gives it a critical number of investors/PR that allows it to keep trading high, and no other coin will ever be able to catch up to it.
2. Bitcoin is actually technically superior to other coins, and it won't be supplanted until whatever the special sauce is, is replicated.
3. Something is hinky in the Bitcoin markets, eg, Tether, and this explains its divergence from other coins.
Can you elaborate? I was under the impression that it had notable failings, including privacy, compared to something like Monero
Perkins Coie released a report [0] saying that privacy coins are compatible with regulation.
[0] https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/news-insights/anti-money-laun...
If it's a breaking change, you would need to convince enough people to migrate to Bitcoin2(similar to what's happening in ETH right now).
Well, there's the fact that Ethereum supply isn't finite.
As a matter of fact, from a practical point of view, it's pretty much anyone's guess what the issuance's rate is (there is an algorithm buried somewhere in the code, but whenever you ask an ETH acolyte how many more ETH there will be in existence in X months, I've never gotten a straight answer).
Ethereum aspires to have fun.
And to be fair Ethereum has more scalability problems than Bitcoin.
The problem Bitcoin solves is creating a non-sovereign store of value that can't be manipulated/inflated by governments and central banks. That's a problem worth solving.
Bitcoin started with smart contracts on day one, but the focus has been on robustness. However, there's plenty of work going on with layer 2 and side chains to for DApps, etc.
https://blockstream.com/2020/10/22/en-blockstream-amp-issue-...
I believe they proposed the essentials of 2.0 years ago, and there were a lot of tutorials and workshops related to dapps that made it sound like a scalable, global compute network was just on the horizon.
Between that and the fork after the DAO got hacked, I’ve personally been staying away from it until 2.0 proves itself (phase 0 just came out this month).
I agree it’s very technically interesting, and think they’re responsible for the bulk of the innovation in the crypto space (them and monero for advances in privacy), but I don’t follow crypto super close/there might be others pushing the same ideas or better ideas in better ways.
Have you considered the possibility that this is a bug, not a feature?