Bitcoin 10 minute block generation times is an inherent problem that unless changed, will doom the protocol to its eventual death.
It's like trying to make a 56k modem work, when broadband is available.
When litecoin came around a few years ago these were abstract problems, but now that transactions with $10 fees take 36 hours to confirm... the issues are real and a switch needs to happen. Lightning network or not, these hacks to speed up the network unequivocally make more sense to do on a network with faster block generation times. Necessity will force this outcome.
What the hell is up with economist.com proofreading. A grammatical or spelling error in the article title is a red flag to me that screams "I'm a piece of garbage, don't read me".
Time to reestablish quality over quantity.
Erm... it hasn't been the only crypto in town for a long time now. But I guess these kind of publications have only relatively recently caught up with the fact Bitcoin exists at all.
I wish people would stop using market cap as if it was meaningful for cryptocurrencies. A lot of these coins are traded at low volumes on unregulated exchanges that allow wash trading and other means of manipulating prices.
Even were that not the case and they had meaningful price discovery mechanisms 'market cap' would be a meaningless metric because if someone were to buy all the coins, they'd have destroyed the value of them because they've ruined the network value of the currency. This isn't the case for stocks in an actual company, because if you buy all the shares of a company with a 10 billion dollar market cap, you now own a company worth approximately 10 billion dollars.
"Even Facebook has reportedly started looking into creating a token. Should the world’s biggest social network ever make that move, bitcoin’s days as the leading crypto-currency would almost certainly be numbered" > this is a paradox, blockchain technology's best use case is decentralization of data (and power from companies like facebook). And if Facebook issues crypto coin and it starts dominating the market (not necessarily) then we are back at square one.
There is important work being done to create a general framework for valuing cryptoassets. We might consider a few key concepts, total addressable market (TAM), percent penetration of that market, velocity, and number of coins outstanding. It's essential to understand the token velocity, and the degree by which a network is effectively capturing some of the value it delivers to its users/token holders.
Chris Burniske, a crypto fund manager writes "these aren’t companies; they don’t have cash flows. Hence, using a discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis is not suitable. Instead, valuing cryptoassets requires setting up models structurally similar to what a DCF would look like, with a projection for each year, but instead of revenues, margins and profits, the equation of exchange is used to derive each year’s current utility value (CUV). Then, since markets price assets based on future expectations, one must discount a future utility value back to the present to derive a rational market price for any given year".
“Cryptoasset Valuations” @cburniske https://medium.com/@cburniske/cryptoasset-valuations-ac83479...
I recommend you check out https://raiblocks.net if you're looking for a currency that could compete with Bitcoin as a means of payment. The tech is smart as hell.
There are not meaningful differences between different proof of work coins. All PoW is based on the same principles, has the same security costs, and the same scaling challenges. Bitcoin remains the top dog and will likely stay that way due to network effect.
PoS could be interesting, but it's largely untested in the way that Bitcoin is. We need to see how mineres/voters behave and whether large holders can exert undue influence. Ethereum is by far my favored coin to see this tested, and if successful, would actually have more security for a given network cost. This is potentially disruptive.
DAG-coins or whatever you'd like to call them seem to like they're getting 'free wins' and I suspect that their security model is not sound. They're interesting but extremely risky.
Ripple is simply not a cryptocurrency by any reasonable definition.
Bitcoin is also one of the least interesting when it comes to innovation. Bitcoin has one of the worst max tx rate.
What bitcoin has is the network effect and security, but if the friction from tx fees becomes too high it could be dethroned.
Craigslist is no longer the only game in classifieds town.
I wish we could stop posting articles under a paywall