Bitcoin Maximalist PlanB Calls Out Ethereum: Is ETH Losing Its Decentralization Edge?
PlanB Sparks Fresh Crypto Debate, Slams Ethereum as “Centralized and Premined”
In a fiery return to the crypto spotlight, PlanB, the pseudonymous analyst behind Bitcoin’s stock-to-flow (S2F) model, has reignited a long-standing feud between the Bitcoin and Ethereum communities. Taking aim at Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin, PlanB labeled ETH a “centralized and premined” token, drawing attention to Ethereum’s shift to proof-of-stake (PoS) and its network governance changes.
The critique comes with a throwback twist: PlanB reposted a 2022 jab from Buterin criticizing the S2F model, captioning his latest tweet with a twist — “Ethereum is really not looking good now.”
Hitting Where It Hurts: Node Size, Centralization, and Rollbacks
In a deeper critique, PlanB argued that Ethereum’s infrastructure makes decentralization practically inaccessible to everyday users. He pointed out that a full Ethereum archival node demands more than 21.8 terabytes of disk space, a massive leap from the 1.28 TB needed for standard full nodes. By contrast, Bitcoin’s full nodes require under 700 GB, making it significantly easier to run and maintain.
“I can’t run Ethereum on my hardware,” PlanB said bluntly, citing the enormous resource demand.
He also revisited a critical event in Ethereum’s history — the 2016 DAO hack — where Ethereum developers rolled back the chain to recover lost funds. PlanB warned that this rollback sets a troubling precedent:
“The fact that this is even possible should worry you.”
But Not Everyone Agrees: Ethereum Defenders Speak Up
Jeremiah O’Connor, CTO of crypto security firm Trugard, dismissed PlanB’s comments as “classic Bitcoin maxi energy” — passionate but one-sided. According to O’Connor:
“Ethereum isn’t just digital gold. It’s a global computer. Of course, it’s heavier.”
He acknowledged the issue of centralized infrastructure providers like Infura but emphasized that every blockchain makes trade-offs — and Ethereum’s are evolving fast. O’Connor added:
“Calling ETH a shitcoin because it’s not Bitcoin is like calling smartphones scams because they aren’t landlines.”
He stressed the complementary nature of both networks, describing Bitcoin as “rock-solid value storage” and Ethereum as the place “where the builders are.”
Is Vitalik Buterin a “Single Point of Failure”?
Another bold claim from PlanB: Vitalik Buterin’s influence poses a centralization risk to Ethereum. However, Ethereum insiders have recently stated that Buterin is stepping back from daily operations to focus on research — a move that could decentralize Ethereum’s leadership over time.
Still, PlanB’s broader concern touches on governance risks — suggesting that Ethereum’s move to PoS and evolving monetary policies undermine its credibility as a decentralized and trustless network.
Bitcoin Had Its Own Rollback Too
Critics were quick to point out Bitcoin’s not-so-perfect past. In 2010, a vulnerability led to the creation of 184 billion BTC — an error that Satoshi Nakamoto himself helped roll back by reverting to an earlier block.
So, while PlanB warns against Ethereum’s rollback capacity, Bitcoin once did the same, albeit in its infancy.
Final Take: A Clash of Visions, Not Just Coins
PlanB’s attack on Ethereum may resonate with Bitcoin purists, but it also reignites a broader philosophical debate in crypto: Should decentralization come at all costs, or can functionality evolve with trade-offs?
In a fast-changing Web3 world, both Bitcoin and Ethereum serve unique roles. Bitcoin remains the bedrock of digital value. Ethereum is the ever-expanding frontier of decentralized applications. Whether one is “better” than the other may ultimately depend on what kind of future the crypto community is building.
Share This
