Bitcoin and Ethereum: Two Paths, One Garden
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Bitcoin and Ethereum: Two Paths, One Garden
Trustlessness is valuable, privacy is valuable.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: hua
Bitcoin uses PoW consensus; Ethereum uses PoS consensus. Bitcoin follows the UTXO model, while Ethereum adopts the account balance model. These seem to be the biggest differences between Bitcoin and Ethereum—but perhaps what drives them further apart isn't just their differences in "physical architecture," but also their divergence in "non-physical philosophy."
The latter is the focus of this article.
Development Under Constraints vs. Development Without Constraints
Bitcoin's development operates under two key constraints: limited block space and the preservation of privacy. When developers propose changes, regardless of their intent, they must ask: does this proposal waste block space? Does it compromise privacy? In other words, they must design solutions within these constraints to achieve their goals.
Ethereum works differently—it is goal-oriented. To achieve its objectives, other considerations can be compromised. Ethereum’s trade-offs lie only in determining which goals are more important and which are less so.
Development with constraints versus without constraints represents fundamentally different approaches. If we compare Bitcoin and Ethereum to two rare diamond stones, Bitcoin carves the stone while preserving its original characteristics, whereas Ethereum shapes it according to market demand.
These differing approaches lead to different products—neither clearly superior. But for an ecosystem, such diversity may be a blessing, allowing us to enjoy present prosperity while still hoping for a better future.
Public Infrastructure vs. Private Industry
In 2020, two cryptographic directions on Ethereum were particularly exciting: zero-knowledge proofs and statelessness. The former supports vertical Layer 2 development; the latter enables horizontal Layer 1 scalability. In my view, both are crucial technological pillars for Ethereum's scaling roadmap.
Both zero-knowledge proofs and statelessness are difficult—they require specialized talent, significant funding, and time. However, applications of zero-knowledge proofs can become private ventures, forming fundable projects. In contrast, stateless systems serve as public infrastructure—researching them brings little direct financial return.
Fast forward to 2023: zero-knowledge proof projects on Ethereum are countless, widely discussed everywhere. Statelessness, by comparison, remains neglected, progressing slowly. Although ZKPs started earlier, the vast difference in their current trajectories is striking.
On Ethereum, private industries thrive—especially in popular sectors. Public infrastructure continues to develop, but decision-making here is often political and opportunistic. (Note: "opportunism" here doesn’t refer solely to monetary gain, but also to favoring simple, fast-to-implement solutions whose negative impacts haven’t been thoroughly assessed.)
Bitcoin presents a different picture. First, zero-knowledge proofs and statelessness receive no preferential treatment—one isn’t systematically favored over the other—and in fact, work on statelessness arguably exceeds that on ZKPs. Second, zero-knowledge proofs are applied more broadly, not limited only to fundable use cases. On Bitcoin, public infrastructure advances steadily and reliably, with cryptography treated as a tool rather than an end in itself.
People sometimes describe blockchains as roads. Using that metaphor, today’s situation is this: Ethereum outsources road construction to private developers. These developers build their own roads or facilities to expand the network, earning revenue from user fees. The main purpose of Ethereum’s public infrastructure is to support and coordinate these private projects, helping them integrate efficiently into the main system.
On Bitcoin, most engineering efforts focus directly on the core system’s design and expansion. Even private developers typically work on projects that double as public infrastructure.
This divergence stems from both technical and cultural reasons. Technically, Ethereum and Bitcoin have chosen different scaling paths: Ethereum’s dominant approach is chain-based, relying on sidechains to increase capacity; Bitcoin’s is mesh-based, where adding new nodes in the future won’t be difficult—the key lies in what the UTXO model combined with a mesh structure can inherently achieve.
Culturally, on Bitcoin the priority is “Bitcoin itself,” which in a way discourages private commercial ventures. On Ethereum, the primary driver is “profit,” which can interfere with public infrastructure development. Different community cultures shape different choices among developers, users, and investors—and these choices in turn reinforce the culture, amplifying existing trends.
For me personally, when I look at Bitcoin projects—whether infrastructure or applications—the first question I ask is whether it harms or enhances Bitcoin. If the answer is harm, I usually stop there. But when I, the same person, evaluate Ethereum projects, the question shifts to whether it’s worth investing my time and money—in other words, will this project benefit my own wallet?
Private industry participation drives industry growth; robust public infrastructure forms the foundation of the industry’s existence. Yet I cannot naively claim that both should be equally prioritized, as a conclusion to this section. Because some ground must be held firmly—or lost forever—while others, once entered, lead to deeper entrenchment.
Trustlessness vs. Decentralization
The Bitcoin whitepaper opens with: “While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.”
It concludes: “We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust.”
From beginning to end, Bitcoin opposes trust-based models and aims to build a system that doesn’t rely on trust. Nowhere in the whitepaper is decentralization discussed as a primary goal—though centralized authorities are mentioned, it’s only by way of example, representing the typical trusted party in conventional trust models.
Now consider Ethereum. Its whitepaper is titled *A Next-Generation Smart Contract and Decentralized Application Platform*. “Decentralization” appears frequently throughout. Not only is it a central goal, but Bitcoin itself is viewed within Ethereum’s framework as a decentralized system—not a trustless one.
Trustlessness and decentralization are distinct concepts, even if they appear similar on the surface. Trustlessness can be achieved in multiple ways, including through decentralized consensus. But not every form of decentralized consensus achieves trustlessness—it depends on the consensus mechanism, participants, and many other factors. One could even argue that centralization cannot achieve trustlessness, and yet only very few decentralized systems truly do.
This philosophical difference leads to divergent development paths. On Bitcoin, problems are often solved via cryptography, because cryptographic proofs are the best path to trustlessness—they rely only on security assumptions. On Ethereum, solutions lean toward consensus mechanisms, since consensus offers a straightforward and rapid route to decentralization.
Thus, when we look at Bitcoin, we see an ordinary-looking signature—yet all the effort and sophistication lie hidden behind it. When we look at Ethereum, we see a massive stack of layered consensus upon consensus, each layer a potential wealth generator.
Conclusion
I’d like to close with a passage from Borges’ *The Garden of Forking Paths*. This article isn’t meant to declare one superior to the other—being part of this industry, I naturally hope both Bitcoin and Ethereum succeed. If there’s a personal wish behind this piece, it’s this: please don’t try to turn Bitcoin into another Ethereum. Trustlessness is precious. Privacy is precious.
“He slowly and precisely read out the two versions of the same chapter. One: an army crosses desolate mountains into battle, enduring hardship so great that soldiers value life little, thus winning victory easily. Two: the same army passes through a palace hosting a banquet, and their joyful battle becomes a continuation of the feast—they too win victory.”
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
