Yesterday’s blog post from Prysmatic Labs (the team behind the most popular Eth2 client) mentioned this:
> Over the past few years, the set of changes being done to Ethereum’s consensus and its future adopted the name “Eth2” or “Ethereum 2.0” as a convenient way to separate it from the current work done on Ethereum core dev, which mostly concerns proof-of-work clients. As time went on, the name has become quite popular. However, as we get closer to “the merge” of Ethereum proof-of-work and proof-of-stake, we want to question the utility of the term. We are very concerned for newcomers to Ethereum questioning why there is an eth2 after the merge is completed. We believe after the merge:
> * There is no Ethereum 2.0 beacon chain, there is only the Ethereum beacon chain
> * There is no Ethereum 2.0 cryptocurrency, there is only ETH
> * There is no difference Ethereum 1.0 and 2.0 for end users
> * Ethereum 2.0 core dev is just Ethereum coredev
> In essence, we believe it is in the best interest of the future of Ethereum to just call it what it is. We want to avoid anyone asking “should I buy this ETH2 coin on this exchange vs. ETH?”. The way people interact with Ethereum post-merge will be identical to Ethereum today. Using the term eth2 for end users implies there is a difference between eth and eth2 when there is none after the merge. Making it seem like there is a new asset enables scammers to create a dangerous user experience for beginners.
I do think the “Ethereum 2.0” name is very misleading, since it’s basically just a marketing term to refer to a whole bunch of changes, and it’s like every day I see someone asking “will I have to sell my ETH to buy ETH2?”.
At the same time, the term is so popular, it might be hard to escape it.
What do you think about this?