The Scalability Problem The scalability problem lies in the fact Ethereum does not scale on the base-layer. This is why even halfway popular decentralized applications (dapps) can cripple the network (e.g. Cryptokitties or past popular ICOs). The scalability problem is a barrier to mainstream adoption. As it stands, Ethereum could not handle even one dapp going mainstream. The Ethereum blockchain size has also . The problem with this is larger blocks require . The computational power needed exceeds the average user’s hardware and bandwidth. As a result, there are fewer and fewer full nodes that update the network. Fewer nodes mean more centralization. Thus, Ethereum’s growing blocksize is resulting in a more centralized network. exceeded 1 TB more powerful machines to verify Scaling Solutions and Why They Won’t Work Three main scaling solutions for the Ethereum Network have been proposed: Proof of Stake (PoS) verification, sharding and . Each of these have some serious limitations, which I describe below. Layer2 solutions . Unlike Bitcoin’s PoW, PoS verification is not anchored in material value because it does not need an external resource. With PoW, this resource is electricity. The need for electricity ensures it is not economically viable to attack a PoW blockchain. Using energy to back a block also gives its immutability objectivity. Non-energy-based verification ultimately requires a subjective interpretation of immutability. In contrast, attaching energy to a block gives it a material existence in the physical world. Proof of Stake (PoS) has no material basis . Increasing blocksize means power is concentrated with those who can afford to have full nodes, which is to say, those with the most money. Currently, the entrance barrier to staking a node on the Ethereum Network is 32 ETH. This is different from PoW where miners compete through the use of energy. PoS is centralizing is a technique where a blockchain is split in multiple parts (“shards”) with different validating responsibilities. The idea is to lessen the workload on any individual node so there can be more of them. Yet, this solution only prolongs the problem. Sharding takes a single blockchain and turns it into multiple blockchains but does not eliminate growing blocksizes and the increasing the cost of staking. In short, sharding does not fix the underlying problem. Sharding are the only viable scaling option . New projects such as Raiden and the Loom Network are offering such solutions. Loom is especially promising as it enables sidechains on top of the Ethereum base-layer. However, Layer2 solution have security issues. Moreover, if Ethereum adopts PoS it will have an insecure base-layer, and it not possible to build a secure second-layer on top of an insecure base. Layer2 solutions in my view Smart Contracts Smart contracts lack the potential for mass adoption. Here is why. They are (see the Parity and the DAO hacks for example) and they are (i.e. not real contracts). Securing a smart contract is like proving a computer program doesn’t have bugs. It is very difficult as every computer program in existence has bugs. Moreover, to write traditional contracts takes years of study and passing a bar exam. To have real-world utility, smart contracts need at least that level of competence. Yet, people who write them typically don’t understand the law and how secure a contract must be. hard to write not legally binding There is also the so-called Smart contracts rely on the accuracy of outside data. But where does this data come from? What guarantees these oracles or not wrong or even corrupt? oracle problem. Other Issues with Ethereum There are other issues with Ethereum. One is its . The issuance of ETH is not capped. This means there is a constant flow of newly minted Ether, which makes Ethereum an inflationary asset. A second issue is the The number one of which is tokenization, used almost exclusively by ICOs. As the ICO trend declines, the price of ETH will decline. With this, Ethereum’s second use case (a capital raising platform) also dies. Tokenized securities and cryptocollectibles (ERC721) are potential future markets, but they will get nowhere as big as some expect (a topic for another article). Finally, with (smart contracts) and (side chains) issuance policy limited use cases for Ethereum. BTC also increasingly cuts into these two use cases Rootstock Drivechain Final Thoughts Blockchains have advantages in very specific areas, namely censorship-resistance and . Implementing a blockchain makes sense in contexts where immutability and the prevention of centralized control are important. The best use case of this is money. I can’t imagine a future where everyone holds an Ethereum wallet with 345 different tokens for 345 specific services. I also doubt Ethereum’s capability to handle this kind of data load. Ethereum is not leaderless (Vitalik Buterin and dev-team), not entirely immutable (e.g. DAO-hack and subsequent fork), not a good store of value because of an uncapped supply, and does not scale on the base-layer. This is why I am bearish on Ethereum. immutability Subscribe to my channels Medium and Twitter if you like my articles and want to learn about blockchain and cryptocurrency projects. If you have any questions about this article, please comment in the section below. To support my writing: 1PUzB7FtURwikfUg4zgdULyyeQkcK6o9fh Thank you!

Flow

Dapp

Oracle

Twitter

Winner of Noonies 2020 for the award Hacker Noon Contributor of the Year - INVESTING.

I am Bearish on ETH and Here is Why

Too Long; Didn't Read

People Mentioned

Companies Mentioned

Coin Mentioned

Mina Down

About Author

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN...