Anthony Sassano, a prominent Ethereum advocate and educator, shared his views on Dec. 30, 2024, regarding why he believes Bitcoin is less decentralized than Ethereum. In his post on social media platform X, Sassano detailed several points comparing the two blockchain networks.
Sassano began by stating that Bitcoin’s reliance on Bitcoin Core—the dominant implementation of the protocol—reflects a lack of client diversity, making Bitcoin Core effectively the protocol’s specification. He compared this to Ethereum, which has over ten independent clients supported through funding by the Protocol Guild, a collective initiative for Ethereum’s layer 1 research and development.
He highlighted centralization in Bitcoin mining, noting that two KYC-compliant mining pools in the U.S. dominate Bitcoin’s hash rate. Sassano argued that Bitcoin’s proof-of-work (PoW) mechanism inherently centralizes due to economies of scale, making at-home mining unprofitable. In contrast, he claimed Ethereum’s proof-of-stake (PoS) system avoids similar issues, as it lacks the same economies of scale. He also noted that Ethereum allows users to stake at home profitably, particularly through services like Rocket Pool and Obol Collective, which reduce the minimum staking requirement.
Discussing long-term security, Sassano expressed concerns about Bitcoin’s sustainability as mining rewards diminish over the next two to three halvings. He suggested this could lead to further mining centralization and vulnerabilities, including potential attacks. He contrasted this with Ethereum’s “tail issuance,” designed to maintain a sustainable security budget. Ethereum also features mechanisms to generate more fee revenue and offset issuance through fee burning.
Sassano claimed Bitcoin’s core developer base is dwindling, with fewer than five active contributors, while Ethereum benefits from a larger pool of over 170 active core developers and researchers.
He also commented on the differing social dynamics of the two networks. Bitcoin’s community, he said, is unified under the “digital gold” narrative, which he argued limits diversity of thought. He believes that Ethereum’s social layer, which lacks a singular guiding narrative, allows for broader experimentation and innovation.
Sassano pointed to Ethereum’s response to the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions on Tornado Cash as a test of its decentralization. He noted Ethereum’s efforts to enhance censorship resistance through research into mechanisms like inclusion lists, also known as FOCIL. Bitcoin, he stated, has faced sanctions on a smaller scale, targeting specific addresses, and he described China’s mining ban as the closest comparable test of Bitcoin’s decentralization.
Sassano emphasized that his analysis was not intended as criticism but as a candid comparison of the two blockchain networks based on his observations.
Featured Image via Pixabay
