Ethereum vs. Bitcoin: Which Crypto Is Better?

Ethereum vs. Bitcoin: Which Crypto Is Better?

The burgeoning interest of investors in the realm of cryptocurrencies is understandable. Bitcoin (BTC), which made its debut in 2009, initially held a value so minimal that these pioneering digital tokens could be acquired for just fractions of a cent. Over the subsequent decade, its price trajectory, although interspersed with considerable volatility, reached an unprecedented high of $68,865 by November 2021. Similarly, Ethereum's flagship digital currency, Ethereum (ETH), which was launched in 2015 at a modest $2.83, also witnessed remarkable growth, peaking at $4,857 in the same month.

To contextualize this meteoric rise, despite facing a significant downturn in the crypto market during 2022, Ether's recent valuation hovered around $1,891. This represents a staggering 667-fold increase in under eight years.

What Is Bitcoin?

Bitcoin operates as a completely decentralized digital currency system. Designed for peer-to-peer exchanges, it forgoes the necessity for a centralized, trusted intermediary. The total number of bitcoins is capped, with the limit set at 21 million, ensuring scarcity.

Owing to its decentralized design, Bitcoin is resistant to censorship. This means any transaction adhering to the network's regulations can be incorporated into its blockchain.

Such attributes position Bitcoin as a potential global reserve currency contender.

What Is Ethereum?

Ethereum stands distinct from Bitcoin, serving unique objectives and incorporating different architectural elements. More than just a cryptocurrency, Ethereum is best characterized as a framework for implementing financial smart contracts, akin to a decentralized global supercomputer.

While Ethereum supports an array of tokens, its foundational token is named ether (ETH). This is the currency utilized to compensate for transaction costs associated with executing smart contracts on the Ethereum network.

Why Ethereum Was Invented

In 2014, a divergence in perspective emerged within the Bitcoin community. A group of developers posited that Bitcoin's blockchain had the potential to be more than just a digital currency ledger; they envisioned it supporting a plethora of financial activities. However, a majority in the Bitcoin milieu advocated maintaining its simplicity, safety, and scalability. This ideological split culminated in the birth of Ethereum.

Ethereum was conceived with a unique foundation. Unlike Bitcoin's script, Ethereum introduced a more intricate scripting language named Solidity, which is Turing complete. This means it possesses the capability to run loops, allowing Ethereum contracts to exhibit more complexity and demand more computational power than Bitcoin transactions.

The Ethereum blockchain's versatility is evident in its capacity to support a diverse array of smart contracts, far surpassing Bitcoin's capability in this regard. Moreover, Ethereum provides a platform for the creation and issuance of numerous tokens, in contrast to Bitcoin's singular native token. Yet, Ethereum's expansive scope is not without trade-offs. Its inherent complexity and design nuances lead to debates about its level of true decentralization and potential scalability challenges.

What Are the Differences Between Bitcoin and Ethereum?

Functional Contrast: Drawing a parallel between Ethereum and Bitcoin, some analysts liken it to comparing electricity to gold.

Many contend that Bitcoin's primary role is a store of value, devoid of expansive utility. Ethereum, however, unveils a vast spectrum of applications. It serves as the bedrock for numerous other cryptocurrencies, facilitates the trading of NFTs, and pioneered the realm of decentralized finance through its robust smart contract capabilities.

Ethereum's Pricey Transactions: Ethereum's Achilles' heel, when juxtaposed with Bitcoin, is its transaction fees. Although transactions on the Ethereum network tend to execute more swiftly than those on Bitcoin, they come at a notable premium termed "gas fees."

These fees, intended to remunerate validators for transaction authentication, can skyrocket, often rendering small transactions financially impractical. Though there are ongoing efforts to enhance scalability and mitigate these fees, as of 2023, they can still be discouragingly high.

Proof-of-Work vs. Proof-of-Stake

Bitcoin operates on a "proof-of-work" (PoW) mechanism, a system where users deploy computational power to validate transactions and ensure the network's security. This process, termed "mining," entails solving complex mathematical problems, and in return, miners earn cryptocurrency rewards. However, mining is notoriously energy-intensive, which has stirred considerable debate around the environmental implications of Bitcoin and similar cryptocurrencies.

In contrast, Ethereum has recently transitioned to a "proof-of-stake" (PoS) framework. Unlike the energy-consuming mining of PoW, PoS hinges on "staking." Participants in this system lock up, or "stake," their cryptocurrency as collateral to validate and vouch for transaction authenticity. In doing so, they earn rewards, reminiscent of accruing interest in traditional banking systems.

Ethereum's switch to PoS marks a pivotal move towards sustainability, as it greatly reduces the blockchain's energy footprint. This positions Ethereum at the vanguard of environmentally-conscious blockchain projects. Meanwhile, some Bitcoin enthusiasts argue that its environmental concerns can be alleviated if the mining process primarily taps into renewable energy sources, making it greener and more sustainable. Nonetheless, Ethereum's PoS offers a more inherent solution to the energy dilemma faced by many PoW-based cryptocurrencies.

Bitcoin Monetary Policy vs. Ethereum Monetary Policy

Bitcoin, at its core, represents a monetary revolution more than a technological one. It stands as the inaugural asset boasting both indisputable scarcity and inimitability. Bitcoin's monetary principles have remained unchanged since its creation, fortifying trust in its enduring consistency.

True value is derived from an asset's "hardness" - its resistance to arbitrary expansion. While gold qualifies as "hard" money, given that its increase necessitates resource-intensive mining, Bitcoin epitomizes the concept. With its cap set firmly at 21 million coins, the energy and resources needed to produce the final bitcoin are boundless.

However, the intrinsic value of an asset's hardness is diminished if not paired with a sound monetary policy. "Sound" money is defined by its resilience against whimsical supply alterations. A centralized authority overseeing a currency can render its policy unsound due to the potential for erratic decisions. For instance, Ethereum's native token, Ether, could have its supply capped by its developers, but they might revert this decision later, reflecting past policy adjustments.

Ether's monetary strategy has witnessed several changes since its inception. A recent example from 2021 is the Ethereum Improvement Proposal 1559. Such capricious adjustments challenge the credibility of Ether's monetary system and cast doubts on its chances of achieving unassailable scarcity.

Bitcoin Nodes vs. Ethereum Nodes

Nodes hold a pivotal role in Bitcoin's decentralized architecture for several compelling reasons:

Enforcing Rules: Bitcoin's foundational guidelines are upheld by nodes, not merely by miners or the developer community. An extensive distribution of nodes across a wide range of operators is paramount. A centralized or monopolistic control over the nodes could undermine Bitcoin's foundational consensus, allowing unchecked changes.

Network Resilience: The sheer number of nodes ensures uninterrupted Bitcoin network availability. It boasts a remarkable uptime, outperforming even tech behemoths like Google, Amazon, and Facebook in terms of reliability.

Transaction Broadcast and Anti-Censorship: Nodes play a pivotal role in transmitting transactions to miners. In scenarios where a user connects solely to malicious nodes that intentionally block their transactions, the user's transaction remains unconfirmed. Thus, a robust node count is vital for transaction transparency and integrity.

Due to these factors, Bitcoin's blockchain expansion is deliberately paced and every modification is crafted to be backwards compatible. A key focus for Bitcoin's development team is ensuring that even users with modest hardware can engage with the network.

Contrastingly, the Ethereum ecosystem presents distinct challenges. Ethereum nodes demand higher computational and memory resources, pushing several users and platforms to lean on third-party services to engage with its blockchain. In historical contexts, certain exchanges have momentarily paused Ethereum trading or withdrawals when a limited number of nodes went offline. Such incidents underscore potential vulnerabilities and the relatively centralized nature of the Ethereum infrastructure.

Bitcoin Developers vs. Ethereum Developers

A cornerstone of decentralization is ensuring that decision-making power doesn't reside with a tight-knit group of developers when it comes to the governance and functionality of the network. While Bitcoin developers actively work on crafting code for updates and changes to the protocol, they judiciously avoid imposing these shifts onto the users. Instead, the responsibility rests with the nodes to either accept or reject these proposed updates.

In contrast, Ethereum's approach to upgrades and rule enforcement seems to be more centralized, being influenced by a limited group of developers. Unlike Bitcoin, where its elusive creator stepped back from active participation, Ethereum's developmental trajectory remains guided by its prominent founding figures. The repercussions of such centralization might not always be conspicuous but can manifest glaringly in challenging times.

Bitcoin Scalability vs. Ethereum Scalability

Scalability remains a pressing concern for blockchain ventures. Striking a balance between security, immutability, and decentralization naturally slows down blockchains, limiting their transaction processing capabilities.

Addressing this limitation has sparked a variety of solutions. Some skeptics doubt the potential of blockchains to ever scale sufficiently, while optimists believe in the evolution of the technology to overcome this hurdle. Another segment aims to bolster scalability by adding supplementary layers atop the core blockchain.

While Ethereum and some Bitcoin variants have ventured into on-chain scaling solutions, Bitcoin itself is harnessing off-chain methods, like the Lightning Network and the Liquid Network.

Directly scaling on the blockchain poses challenges. Firstly, it amplifies the resource requirements for maintaining a full node. Ethereum's blockchain, both in size and growth rate, already surpasses Bitcoin's, making the task of running a full Ethereum node daunting for the typical user.

Additionally, Ethereum's support for Turing-complete smart contracts has paved the way for a myriad of tokens to be integrated into its blockchain. This setup spawns a 'tragedy of the commons' scenario: the addition of every new decentralized application on Ethereum strains the nodes even further.

For Ethereum to be envisioned as the decentralized computing nexus of tomorrow, it must allow myriad decentralized apps to coexist harmoniously without vying for Ethereum's computational resources, leading to persistent elevated fees.

Bitcoin's layered scaling strategy enables the creation of similar apps without clogging the main Bitcoin blockchain. This approach fosters diverse economic activities, including an array of smart contracts, without burdening all Bitcoin nodes computationally. The key takeaway? There's no one-size-fits-all solution to blockchain scalability, and the eventual leaders in this space will likely be those that adapt and innovate the fastest.


The Ethereum platform continues its meteoric rise, propelled by an array of applications spanning finance (through decentralized finance or DeFi), art and collectibles (via non-fungible tokens or NFTs), gaming, and tech innovations. A significant step forward on Ethereum's horizon is the anticipated sharding implementation in 2023, aiming to boost its throughput.

Bitcoin isn't staying stagnant either. The recent introduction of the Taproot upgrade underscores Bitcoin's evolution, enabling more sophisticated smart contract functionalities. Additionally, the Bitcoin Lightning Network, an off-chain solution, is in the spotlight for its promise to amplify transaction speeds by taking them off the primary blockchain.

While the future trajectory of both Ethereum and Bitcoin remains speculative, it's undeniable that both have sparked transformative conversations about global financial structures. As these platforms evolve and adapt, they will likely continue challenging traditional norms, urging us to reimagine financial paradigms for the digital age.

Please note that Plisio also offers you:

Create Crypto Invoices in 2 Clicks and Accept Crypto Donations

12 integrations

6 libraries for the most popular programming languages

19 cryptocurrencies and 12 blockchains