<h1>We are finally getting rapid iteration at the app layer. 

<h1> Ethereum’s programming languages lets you do much more than Bitcoin’s
![GitHub Logo](https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1400/1*xBishq5PiHaJFFKF8XR2QQ.png)
<h6>As mentioned above, Bitcoin’s scripting language is intentionally restrictive. You might liken it to programming with an advanced graphing calculator — functionality is limited. As a result, you can only do basic things. It is also hard to understand and use. Rather than most modern programming languages where the code is almost readable like a sentence, it looks like unintelligible machine code. As a result, it took Mike Hearn, a talented ex-Google developer, a whopping 8 months to write a first version of a fairly simple crowdfunding application.
In contrast, Ethereum’s programming languages (Solidity for those who like Javascript, Serpent for those who like Python) let you do pretty much anything an advanced programming language would let you do. This is why they are said to be “Turing complete”. Equally important, they are easy to use. It is simple for any developer to pick it up and quickly write their first app.Developers at Coinbase have written simple Ethereum apps in a day or two.
I cannot overemphasize enough how important this combination of full programming functionality and ease of use is. People are doing things in Ethereum that are not possible right now in Bitcoin. It has created a new generation of developers which never worked with Bitcoin but are interested in Ethereum.
Bitcoin could have this advanced functionality, but it would be through a series of other layers that work with the Bitcoin protocol that haven’t been created yet, while Ethereum is providing it out of the box.
Beyond the radical difference in scripting languages, developer tools are much better in Ethereum. Bitcoin has never had a set of developer tools that caught on much, and they are sorely needed given it is much harder to work with Bitcoin out of the box. Ethereum has made life as a developer much easier. It has a welcoming homepage for devs and its own development environment (Mix IDE) amongst others.

<h2> Ethereum has a more robust developer community<h2>  


<h6>The developer community in Bitcoin feels fairly dormant. Bitcoin never really made it past the stage of simple wallets and exchanges. The most notable thing to be released recently is an implementation of the Lightning Network (a way of making transactions, especially microtransactions, more efficient) called Thunder. This is an additional protocol layer, not an application, however, and could be used by both Bitcoin and Ethereum.
In contrast, Ethereum’s developer community feels vibrant and growing. Most importantly, entirely new things are being tried on Ethereum. While most are experiments or toys at the moment, you can see a list of apps that developers from around the world which is rapidly expanding.
Developer mindshare is the most important thing to have in digital currency. The only reason these networks (Bitcoin, Ethereum) and their tokens (bitcoin, ether) have value is because there is a future expectation that people will want to acquire those tokens to use the network. And developers create the applications which drive that demand. Without a reason to use the network, both the network and its currency are worth nothing.

<h2> Ethereum’s core development team is healthy while Bitcoin’s is dysfunctional

<h6>Vitalik Buterin, the creator of Ethereum, has shown early promise as the leader of an open source project. He seems both comfortable as a community and technical leader. As an example, here’s what he sent us when we added Ethereum to GDAX, our exchange.
In contrast, Bitcoin has had a leadership vacuum since Gavin Andresen stepped aside after other core developers did not get on board with his (in my opinion rational and convincing) arguments to increase the block size. “Core developers” as they now stand are also relatively fragmented.
Beyond a leadership vacuum, Bitcoin’s “leadership” is less clear and toxic. Greg Maxwell, technical leader of Blockstream which employs a solid chunk of core developers, recently referred to other core developers who were working with miners on a block size compromise as “well meaning dips***s.” A second discussion board needed to form on reddit, /r/btc, because of censorship on the original /r/bitcoin. The content on the Bitcoin discussion boards feels like squabbling while Ethereum’s is talking about relevant issues and new ideas. In summary, Ethereum leadership (and as a result its community) is moving forward while things need to get worse before they can get better in Bitcoin.

<h2> Ethereum has a growth mindset while Bitcoin has a false sense of accomplishment

<h6>The general mindset of the two communities feels different as well. Many in Bitcoin seem to have a false sense of “we’ve got this really valuable network we need to protect!”. In my opinion that view is wrong and dangerous. Bitcoin is still orders of magnitude smaller than the major financial networks of the world at ~$200m/day in transaction volume (Visa $18 billion/day, SWIFT wire $5 trillion/day) and ~10 million users (5 billion in banks). And while transactions per day on Bitcoin seem to be increasing at a healthy pace, the actual $ volume of transactions on Bitcoin is not growing much.

Bitcoin transaction volume in peak times compared to other networks — we’ve got a long way to go
Meanwhile, the core development team in Ethereum is focused. This is evident from the Ethereum blog. When I started reading it, it was everything I found myself thinking about for the present and future of Bitcoin but didn’t see being discussed much: scaling the network, the viability of proof of stake, how to create a stable digital currency, what a blockchain based company (DAO) would look like, amongst other topics. These are very ambitious ideas and some won’t work. But some probably will work, and they will be important — moving to proof of stake and eliminating physical mining being one of the most promising.

<h2> Ethereum is making faster and more consistent technical progress on the core protocol

<h6>In Bitcoin, we have mostly been stuck on the block size debate for the last year and a half. Some minor improvements have been made (CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY to enable the time locking functionality mentioned earlier), and others are in development but not yet live (Segregated Witness to make the network more efficient). None of these changes have sparked much in the way of application development yet.
Meanwhile, beyond the more robust programming language, Ethereum is making advancements that are core to even basic transactions. Its mining allows for much quicker blocks, and thus, transaction confirmation times — about 14 seconds on Ethereum compared to 10 minutes on Bitcoin (not an apples to apples comparison, but the larger point holds). This is largely due to the concept of miners getting paid for the work they put in whether or not they are the first to solve the next block (a system called “uncle blocks”). While this system isn’t perfect yet, it’s meaningful forward progress towards quicker transaction confirmations.

<h2> Counterargument and caveats

<h1>Ethereum is young and it’s prudent to highlight the risks:
<h6>Ethereum has been able to take more risk with new features because it is has had less to lose. Most of Ethereum’s history has occurred while it has held in the hundreds of millions of dollars, while Bitcoin is in the billions. As Ethereum continues to grow, it may not be able to “move fast and break things” in the same way. In practice I think this mostly comes down to the quality of the core development team — if they continue to make progress and build trust with the community execution can still be rapid, as shown by Linus Torvalds with Linux as an open source project.

Ethereum hasn’t gone through a governance crisis. Vitalik acknowledged this at an Ethereum meetup we hosted at Coinbase. Like any project that has success, it’s inevitable to hit bumps as peoples’ vested interests get bigger.
Ethereum allows you to do more than you currently can in Bitcoin, and that brings increased regulatory risk. This is less of a systemic risk to Ethereum as a network, rather more of a risk to specific applications of Ethereum. A good example would be decentralized organizations (ex: the DAO) and regulation which would normally apply to a corporation.

There is a greater security risk with Ethereum. Having a more robust programming language creates a greater surface area for things to go wrong. Bitcoin has been battle tested for 7 years. Ethereum has been live for 9 months and now stores about $1bn. While there hasn’t been a major issue yet, it is possible there are issues people are not yet aware of. This probability goes down with each passing day. People will definitely create smart contracts with bugs in Ethereum. This won’t be because of a failure of the core Ethereum protocol though, much like the failure of Mt. Gox was not an error in the Bitcoin protocol.

This remains to be seen. It’s possible Bitcoin remains the protocol that people are comfortable storing their value in because it is more stable and reliable. This would allow Ethereum to continue to take more risk by trying less tested advancements. In this scenario, Bitcoin is more of a settlement network while Ethereum is used to run decentralized applications (where most of the transaction volume occurs is up in the air). The two could be quite complementary.
What is very real, though, is the possibility that Ethereum blows past Bitcoin entirely. There is nothing that Bitcoin can do which Ethereum can’t. While Ethereum is less battle tested, it is moving faster, has better leadership, and has more developer mindshare. First mover advantage is challenging to overcome, but at current pace, it’s conceivable.

<h2> What does all this mean?

<h6>It’s all good news for digital currency. Ethereum is pushing the envelope and I am more excited than ever. Competition and new ideas create better outcomes for everyone. Even if Ethereum goes up in flames our collective knowledge in digital currency will have leveled up significantly. I have not given up on Bitcoin and it’s hard to argue with a network that has been so resilient. I, and Coinbase, plan on supporting both. We’ll probably support other things that haven’t been invented yet in the future. At the end of the day, I have no allegiance to any particular network; I just want whatever brings the most benefit to the world.

<h1>Taking a step back, it feels like the rate of change in digital currency is accelerating.

<h6>Digital currency is a unique field because of how ambitious the scope is: creating a better transaction network for the entire world (for currency, assets, our online identities, and many other things). Like the Internet itself, this is not one company selling its own proprietary product, it is a series of low-level protocols that will connect everyone someday. And, like the Internet, it will (and has) taken longer to develop, but the impact will be immense.

*_Fasten your seatbelts._*