See More CryptosHome

XLM

Stellar

Show Trading View Graph

Mentions (24Hr)

13

-23.53% Today

Reddit Posts

Apps & Tricks everybody should know

Will XLM recover because I’m a little worried

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Posting and Commenting is not the only way to get Moons

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Posting is not the only way to get Moons

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Is it finally time for XLM to shine??

Thoughts on XLM now that the Shitcoin cull has begun?

Free Crypto Faucet / Game Manangos Hop

Reminder of the 51% attack

#RoastMe. Look at my portfolio and tell me where I have messed up and where I can improve.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Every ISO 20022 post on this sub gets ignored.

A costly lesson about 'stable' coins

It’s not about the end of red, it’s about the ticking clock

I will lose my kids, my family and my home. Please 🙏 help me. I don't know what I should do now 🥺

A Beginner’s Guide to Crypto

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Stellar and Stellar USDC is going to thrive

What's your plan/strategy during this winter/bear??

r/CryptoMarketsSee Post

What happened to USD?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

What happened to USD?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Which is more stable UST or XLM?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

For crpyto to survive long term 99% of all active coins need to cease to exist. The fat needs to be trimmed

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Celesti+ is now here!

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

An unexpected "win" amid the chaos

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Don't do what I did. In trying to save $35, I lost $200

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

No one’s talking about the SWIFT banking rework this a November

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Transferring out of CDC. How?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Can someone please help me exchange BNB to CAD

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Just a reminder that Gate.Io is closing the doors to US customers

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Transaction fee estimator and comparator (for many coins)

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

cashing out a large sum - are you familiar with CDC

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Coinbase Card: Introducing Rotating Rewards

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Coinbase officially releases rotating rewards

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Is Stellar Lumens (XLM) the best crypto for fast and cheap transactions? Change my mind.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Crypto hacks that helped me a lot

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Looking for an exchange that has the cheapest conversion fees while also having the cheapest BTC withdrawal fees.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Unbanked.com Blockcard - the negative 3.7% rewards card

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Hypothetical question to you but real to me - Life savings + 4x = What coin?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

I can not find this answer anywhere. transfer help

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

If you're trying to minimize fees when moving crypto between exchanges, consider swapping your tokens for XLM before sending.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

There's no excuse to NOT use a cryptocurrency Debit card.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Yield farming experiences/recommendations/warnings?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Where is the Algo hype?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

🐃 Bull or Bear 🐻 — what are you looking at accumulating in 2022?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Coinbase just announced 0 fees to spend crypto with their crypto debit card and rotating rewards

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Moons tax

r/CryptoMoonShotsSee Post

SDEXEXPLORER; A ranking website for all the tokens on the Stellar Network.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

TradeFlow token sale is live on P2PB2B, Buy TFLOW tokens with ETH, USD, BTC, USDT and XLM

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

We should talk about AQUA.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

What "life-hack" do you think all newbies should be using from the start?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

cheap (legit) crypto to get into now

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Please help stop the reliance of USDT, stop using USDT trading pairs. Use BTC/ETH trading pairs if fiat alternatives are not available.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Thoughts on Blockchain.com

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Another crypto tax question regarding sales of staking rewards

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Please help

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Trading Platform For USD to [crypto currency] to EURO on Paypal

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

XLM About To Breakout As Stellar Launches Ethereum Bridge • ProCoinNews

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Accepting crypto as a business

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

I Made A Guide For My Family To Access My Crypto After I Die, So You Don't Have To

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

XLM price unfazed by sellers as it marches towards $0.25

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

I’m new to crypto

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Grayscale Launch ex-Ethereum fund and Cardano (ADA) takes the lead!

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Greyscale's new fund aimed for "Ethereum Competitors" isn't great.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

XLM vs XRP

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Hiii, i wanted some help with my NSFW content and how to sell via crypto

r/CryptoMoonShotsSee Post

Have you ever looked at the back of a $20 bill, man? Screw fiat! Stellar Cannacoin will bridge the financial gap necessary for protecting the Cannabis industry! Come help in the next phases!

r/CryptoMarketsSee Post

Coinbase Sued For Selling 79 Crypto Assets, Including XRP, ADA, SOL, XLM, SHIB, DOGE, XTZ, As Unregistered Securities

r/CryptoMarketsSee Post

Coinbase Sued For Selling 79 Crypto, Including XRP, ADA, SOL, XLM, SHIB, DOGE, XTZ, As Unregistered Securities

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Coins vs Tokens

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

So Frustrating!

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

What are the 10 cryptos with lowest transaction fees?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

what are the 10 cryptos with lowest transaction fees?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Coin to Coin trade cost basis question

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

getting wXLM off polygon mainnet

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

HODL is not always best, but swing trading is worse

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Have I got this right?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Cut losses in XLM and XRP and consolidate in ETH?

r/CryptoMarketsSee Post

Should we be concerned about the negative environmental impact of crypto currency adoption, or should we look for more efficient alternatives to widely used coins like Ethereum and bitcoin which pollute the enciornment? Here's my take on the situation!!

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

A point of view of my Portafolio value and Token Amount

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

a swap from FIL-XLM took 8 days to process on simpleswap.io careful with them

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

First Year Reflections

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

A built-in crypto reward system for Cannabis communities & businesses?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Best Rewards - Highest APY - Earn Crypto - XRP BTC ETH USDC USDT XLM

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

I am noob, with noob question. (abra wallet)

r/CryptoMarketsSee Post

The cryptocurrency ecosystem is exploding at an alarming rate around the world. A growing number of people are seeing the true economic and social potential of decentralised platforms.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Coinbase fees?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Zilliqa is doomed to fail.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

I got a CoinBase Debit Card but I don't want to pay to fund it. What can I do?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

What are, in your opinion, the best ways to distribute a cryptocurrency?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

alot of people say "long term hold" or "10 year hold"...but how many actually mean it?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

I made the IDEAL crypto faucet!

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Did you buy the project or the FOMO?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Chainlink a confusing investment

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

ETH gas transparency is killing long term market growth

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Looking for a portfolio tracker

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

I made an XLM & XLM-assets faucet that doesn't suck.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

I made an XLM & XLM-assets faucet that doesn't suck.

r/CryptoMoonShotsSee Post

Presenting: Stellar (fast and cheap) Cannacoin (when cannabis and crypto collide!) If that made you go "huh?!?" It's worth checking things out! Strong community growth! 5.2 bill locked supply

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Ineligible to use Binance services

r/CryptoMarketsSee Post

High-powered computers compete for coins by verifying transactions. Complex algorithms necessitate a lot of electricity to run. So, why aren't more people using greener cryptos?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Reddit moons but for Cannabis-related subreddits?

Mentions

I also just grabbed up more ALGO. Great buy right now. I think ADA, ONE, XLM, and XTZ may come out of this well. Hoping for CKB too.

The problem with merchants adding not so well know coins is very few people pay with them. I've never really heard about XLM, if it is a POS coin I'm not interested as it will be hard work to implement and POS coins are not something I actually class as crypto, if it is a POW coin, I could possibly be convinced. Exactly how stable is it, was it not effected by the recent crypto crash?

Mentions:#XLM#POS

You can use XLM or NANO

Mentions:#XLM

#Bitcoin Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by roberthonker which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > **Taken from u\/maleficent_plankton's submission from the last round** > > In general, the typical crypto enthusiast has accepted that Bitcoin's conservative blockchain has failed to keep up with other DLTs technology-wise, which have evolved features and efficiencies way beyond Bitcoin. If all the cryptocurrencies were re-released today simultaneously, there is no way Bitcoin would make it into the top 10 by market cap, and likely not even the top 100. It's still #1 only because it continues to maintain strong security because it was the first, and thus has the largest adoption and protection against Sybil attacks. > > ------------- > > These are its flaws: > > **Redundancy inefficiencies**: To protect against Sybil and 51% attacks, Bitcoin's PoW consensus achieves greater security through greater redundancy. The more miners (specifically mining pools) there are, the harder it is to execute a 51% attack. This also means that there could be a million miners performing redundant actions vying for the next Bitcoin block. Nodes also hold redundant copies of the blockchain ledger, and inefficiency present for nearly all cryptocurrencies. > > **Mining energy Inefficiency**: PoW mining is inherently extremely energy inefficient because it's a competition. The more miners there are, the harder the mining puzzle becomes, adjusted every 2 weeks. The amount of energy needed for a single Bitcoin transaction in [Sept 2021, ~1800 kWh](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption), is roughly the same as the amount of energy used by a typical US household over 62 days. Blockchains require extra redundancy for computations and storage from each node that interacts with or validates the transaction. In comparison, other Byzantine Fault Tolerant distributed consensus methods such as BFT-Paxos and RBFT, SBFT used by Hyperledger Fabric are [10^7 x more efficient for energy use](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x) and 10^4 x for storage. > > **Mining Centralization**: Mining is not something the average crypto user can do by themselves unless they join a mining pool. You also need an expensive and specialized high-end ASIC miner for SHA-256 mining in order to have a good chance of making a profit. Individual miners have no financial incentive to run full nodes or verify their mining pool operator's decisions, leading to centralization with mining pools. > > **Fees and Rising cost of transactions**: Layer 1 transfer fees are currently $2-10+ USD and even briefly rose [past $50 in May 2021](https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee). That's way more than [its competitors](https://blog.nano.org/cryptocurrency-fee-comparison-which-crypto-has-the-lowest-fees-4e9118590e1f) (e.g. XLM, XRP, Nano, BCH) that have average transfer fees under 0.5 US cents. The fees are so high you can't use them for everyday transactions. People complain about bank fees, but if I had to use Bitcoin for everday transactions for my bank and credit cards, I'd be racking $10000+ in fees yearly. As halvings continue and the BTC price can no longer keep up, the block reward will keep decreasing. Either transaction costs will eventually rise to cover the cost of block rewards, or Bitcoin will experience an ice age where all miners drop out except for the few miners who can acquire cheap ASIC rigs and the cheapest energy costs, leading to more centralization. > > **Layer 2 adoption issue**: In general, Layer 2 solutions have much less decentralization (e.g. fewer validation nodes) than Layer 1 and face low adoption issues. The Lightning Network, a Layer 2 network of state channels that use Hash TimeLock Contracts for Bitcoin, has seen very little adoption by volume even years after introduction. It's a hassle to use for many reasons. It requires you to lock funds in a state channel, which also costs a transaction fee to open and close. It requires nodes to be online most of the time for connectivity. If the node you're connecting to goes offline, you lose your connection, and you could have your channel auto-closed. Channels can also be unilaterally force-closed, which is a common complaint among users. Basically, it's still too much of a hassle for the average crypto user. > > **Slow Finality**: Transactions take 10 minutes to record, but exchanges generally wait up to [60 minutes](https://academy.binance.com/en/glossary/finality) for probabilistic-finality. Given that the largest mining pools have 30% hash power, that's still only a 74% chance of actual finality after 6 block recordings due to possibility of a withholding attack. (The probability of a successful 51% attack given in Satoshi's original Bitcoin whitepaper was greatly underestimated because it did not take into account PoW block withholding attacks.) > > **Lack of privacy**: All transaction history is public. Public blockchains are only pseudononymous, and one can use a Transaction Graph Analysis or Taint Analysis tool to figure out who you are by linking transactions. People can also guess your wealth by tracing your transactions through the blockchain. It only takes 1 mistake to link the rest of your transactions. Individual tokens are also not fungible for this same reason. > > **Slow updates**: Bitcoin evolves slowly due to requiring social consensus and Blockchain bureaucracy. Hard forks are voluntary and can take weeks to complete. The Bitcoin Core foundation is extremely conservative and averse to hard forks, as seen with the fork that created Bitcoin Cash. That's not necessarily bad, but it does mean that most developments to Bitcoin end up turning into separate coins instead of evolving the canonical chain. There are often months-long debates and years between before making updates. As a result, it is a conservative blockchain while other DLTs have evolved technologies and features way beyond it. > > **Limitations to transaction speed**: Due to aversion to change, Bitcoin is likely at its limit for transaction speed. It is a poor Medium of Exchange due to slow transaction speeds. > > - Increase block size: requires a hard fork, results in longer network propagation time) > - Decrease block time by lowering puzzle difficulty: increases chance of natural forks, increases acceleration of block size, leading to more storage bloat, all exchanges need to adjust the number of blocks until probabilistic finality, and increases the chance of miners holding orphaned blocks. > - Decrease the transaction size: requires a hard fork (e.g. SegWit 2017 fork, which after all that work, only reduced the size by 50%) > > **Smart Contracts**: Bitcoin doesn't support complex "smart" contracts with its very basic (procedural, stack-oriented, Forth-like) Bitcoin Script. The contracts enabled by Bitcoin Scripts are so basic that they're often non-script features built directly into other blockchains like timelock releases and multi-signature. It's extremely limited because you can't easily validate them, and miners typically put huge restrictions on what is allowed for security purposes. It's possible taproot could change that if it gets a ton of developer support, but Bitcoin Script is way behind all of its competitors in adoption, and it won't evolve fast enough due to Bitcoin's conservative governance. It would be pretty tedious to program anything complex using Bitcoin Script, but I suppose there's always someone who enjoys a challenge. > > **Unstable Store of Value**: Like most non-stablecoins, it has too much volatility to be considered a stable store of value, losing up to 80% of its purchasing-power after crashes. Like gold/silver, it is more of a speculative investment. > > (Disclaimer: I only own trace amounts of BTC.) ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/pz3duc/rcc_cointest_top_10_bitcoin_conarguments_october/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Bitcoin) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/umsqe8/monthly_optimists_discussion_may_2022/).

Lol.. why are you just interested in XLM alone? Is that the only alt you are invested in or you are a whale there? Seems you forgot about diversification either by going into one project like DVDX or picking random ones like ETH XLM BTC ... You wouldn't be this worried if you diversified..

XLM can serve good purpose here. It’s very fast and with almost non existent fees. Good luck!

Mentions:#XLM

Jesus christ. So i got absolutely demolished for selling 60 moons. I was curious how it would work to swap them for XLM and send them to binance. Oh well shit happens

Mentions:#XLM

XLM and Ripple are compliant. Interesting stuff.

Mentions:#XLM

I’d say use crypto. I’m partial to ALGO or XLM for moving funds. The only hold up would be any wait period to withdraw if using an exchange, but that probably varies by country and may not be an issue with many banks blending into crypto assets.

Mentions:#ALGO#XLM

if XLM starts to randomly pump, then i'll be scared! xD

Mentions:#XLM

#Bitcoin Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by roberthonker which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > **Taken from u\/maleficent_plankton's submission from the last round** > > In general, the typical crypto enthusiast has accepted that Bitcoin's conservative blockchain has failed to keep up with other DLTs technology-wise, which have evolved features and efficiencies way beyond Bitcoin. If all the cryptocurrencies were re-released today simultaneously, there is no way Bitcoin would make it into the top 10 by market cap, and likely not even the top 100. It's still #1 only because it continues to maintain strong security because it was the first, and thus has the largest adoption and protection against Sybil attacks. > > ------------- > > These are its flaws: > > **Redundancy inefficiencies**: To protect against Sybil and 51% attacks, Bitcoin's PoW consensus achieves greater security through greater redundancy. The more miners (specifically mining pools) there are, the harder it is to execute a 51% attack. This also means that there could be a million miners performing redundant actions vying for the next Bitcoin block. Nodes also hold redundant copies of the blockchain ledger, and inefficiency present for nearly all cryptocurrencies. > > **Mining energy Inefficiency**: PoW mining is inherently extremely energy inefficient because it's a competition. The more miners there are, the harder the mining puzzle becomes, adjusted every 2 weeks. The amount of energy needed for a single Bitcoin transaction in [Sept 2021, ~1800 kWh](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption), is roughly the same as the amount of energy used by a typical US household over 62 days. Blockchains require extra redundancy for computations and storage from each node that interacts with or validates the transaction. In comparison, other Byzantine Fault Tolerant distributed consensus methods such as BFT-Paxos and RBFT, SBFT used by Hyperledger Fabric are [10^7 x more efficient for energy use](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x) and 10^4 x for storage. > > **Mining Centralization**: Mining is not something the average crypto user can do by themselves unless they join a mining pool. You also need an expensive and specialized high-end ASIC miner for SHA-256 mining in order to have a good chance of making a profit. Individual miners have no financial incentive to run full nodes or verify their mining pool operator's decisions, leading to centralization with mining pools. > > **Fees and Rising cost of transactions**: Layer 1 transfer fees are currently $2-10+ USD and even briefly rose [past $50 in May 2021](https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee). That's way more than [its competitors](https://blog.nano.org/cryptocurrency-fee-comparison-which-crypto-has-the-lowest-fees-4e9118590e1f) (e.g. XLM, XRP, Nano, BCH) that have average transfer fees under 0.5 US cents. The fees are so high you can't use them for everyday transactions. People complain about bank fees, but if I had to use Bitcoin for everday transactions for my bank and credit cards, I'd be racking $10000+ in fees yearly. As halvings continue and the BTC price can no longer keep up, the block reward will keep decreasing. Either transaction costs will eventually rise to cover the cost of block rewards, or Bitcoin will experience an ice age where all miners drop out except for the few miners who can acquire cheap ASIC rigs and the cheapest energy costs, leading to more centralization. > > **Layer 2 adoption issue**: In general, Layer 2 solutions have much less decentralization (e.g. fewer validation nodes) than Layer 1 and face low adoption issues. The Lightning Network, a Layer 2 network of state channels that use Hash TimeLock Contracts for Bitcoin, has seen very little adoption by volume even years after introduction. It's a hassle to use for many reasons. It requires you to lock funds in a state channel, which also costs a transaction fee to open and close. It requires nodes to be online most of the time for connectivity. If the node you're connecting to goes offline, you lose your connection, and you could have your channel auto-closed. Channels can also be unilaterally force-closed, which is a common complaint among users. Basically, it's still too much of a hassle for the average crypto user. > > **Slow Finality**: Transactions take 10 minutes to record, but exchanges generally wait up to [60 minutes](https://academy.binance.com/en/glossary/finality) for probabilistic-finality. Given that the largest mining pools have 30% hash power, that's still only a 74% chance of actual finality after 6 block recordings due to possibility of a withholding attack. (The probability of a successful 51% attack given in Satoshi's original Bitcoin whitepaper was greatly underestimated because it did not take into account PoW block withholding attacks.) > > **Lack of privacy**: All transaction history is public. Public blockchains are only pseudononymous, and one can use a Transaction Graph Analysis or Taint Analysis tool to figure out who you are by linking transactions. People can also guess your wealth by tracing your transactions through the blockchain. It only takes 1 mistake to link the rest of your transactions. Individual tokens are also not fungible for this same reason. > > **Slow updates**: Bitcoin evolves slowly due to requiring social consensus and Blockchain bureaucracy. Hard forks are voluntary and can take weeks to complete. The Bitcoin Core foundation is extremely conservative and averse to hard forks, as seen with the fork that created Bitcoin Cash. That's not necessarily bad, but it does mean that most developments to Bitcoin end up turning into separate coins instead of evolving the canonical chain. There are often months-long debates and years between before making updates. As a result, it is a conservative blockchain while other DLTs have evolved technologies and features way beyond it. > > **Limitations to transaction speed**: Due to aversion to change, Bitcoin is likely at its limit for transaction speed. It is a poor Medium of Exchange due to slow transaction speeds. > > - Increase block size: requires a hard fork, results in longer network propagation time) > - Decrease block time by lowering puzzle difficulty: increases chance of natural forks, increases acceleration of block size, leading to more storage bloat, all exchanges need to adjust the number of blocks until probabilistic finality, and increases the chance of miners holding orphaned blocks. > - Decrease the transaction size: requires a hard fork (e.g. SegWit 2017 fork, which after all that work, only reduced the size by 50%) > > **Smart Contracts**: Bitcoin doesn't support complex "smart" contracts with its very basic (procedural, stack-oriented, Forth-like) Bitcoin Script. The contracts enabled by Bitcoin Scripts are so basic that they're often non-script features built directly into other blockchains like timelock releases and multi-signature. It's extremely limited because you can't easily validate them, and miners typically put huge restrictions on what is allowed for security purposes. It's possible taproot could change that if it gets a ton of developer support, but Bitcoin Script is way behind all of its competitors in adoption, and it won't evolve fast enough due to Bitcoin's conservative governance. It would be pretty tedious to program anything complex using Bitcoin Script, but I suppose there's always someone who enjoys a challenge. > > **Unstable Store of Value**: Like most non-stablecoins, it has too much volatility to be considered a stable store of value, losing up to 80% of its purchasing-power after crashes. Like gold/silver, it is more of a speculative investment. > > (Disclaimer: I only own trace amounts of BTC.) ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/pz3duc/rcc_cointest_top_10_bitcoin_conarguments_october/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Bitcoin) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/umsqe8/monthly_optimists_discussion_may_2022/).

Why does Binance have such crappy customer service? I am a Canadian with 1000 XLM coins I sent to binance from kraken years ago but missed a note. I tried doing the steps online, didn't accept my ID. I submitted multiple tickets and gave up when the video of my kraken to binance was too big. Why do you make it so hard for people who made a minor mistake to get their coins? Mass adoption will only come when crypto is simple imo

Mentions:#XLM

You can use Coinbase if you want to use iDEAL for a quick money transfer and then buy XLM for a cheap transfer to Binance.

Mentions:#XLM

just use Kraken for depositing and withdrawing Euro. If you want to trade then buy XLM and send to Binance/Kucoin

Mentions:#XLM

XLM is a copy of XRP - the difference is that Ripple is making deals with banks and i institutions on behalf of XRP and getting implementation

Mentions:#XLM#XRP

Nice to see ol litecoin got this upgrade! Since it's mainly used for transactions and less hodlers I was starting to have some doubts about litecoin because most people back then used litecoin for purchases/transfers cause of its speed and low transaction fees but now there's competitors that will send ur transactions faster and for less fees (XLM, XRP, TRON) so for me it seemed pointless to use litecoin anymore but now with the privacy upgrade, it being a good transaction coin, and its max supply cap being juicy makes me have more faith in its future.

Mentions:#XLM#XRP

Wayyyy inefficient. Could reasonably work as a token but it'd need to be on a very fast and cheap chain to be worthwhile. Maybe ALGO or XLM or something. But you'd also need smart contracts to ensure an accurate payout and at that point why not just make a digital casino lol

Mentions:#ALGO#XLM

Defi is a combination of layer 1 and layer zero. You want exposure to DeFi then you’ll need Chainlink for layer zero and ETH, XLM, or Tezos for layer 1.

Mentions:#ETH#XLM

XLM has been on a downward trajectory. Minimal use case. Best used to move money around different exchanges. Don't see a huge value in that price wise.

Mentions:#XLM

#Bitcoin Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by roberthonker which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > **Taken from u\/maleficent_plankton's submission from the last round** > > In general, the typical crypto enthusiast has accepted that Bitcoin's conservative blockchain has failed to keep up with other DLTs technology-wise, which have evolved features and efficiencies way beyond Bitcoin. If all the cryptocurrencies were re-released today simultaneously, there is no way Bitcoin would make it into the top 10 by market cap, and likely not even the top 100. It's still #1 only because it continues to maintain strong security because it was the first, and thus has the largest adoption and protection against Sybil attacks. > > ------------- > > These are its flaws: > > **Redundancy inefficiencies**: To protect against Sybil and 51% attacks, Bitcoin's PoW consensus achieves greater security through greater redundancy. The more miners (specifically mining pools) there are, the harder it is to execute a 51% attack. This also means that there could be a million miners performing redundant actions vying for the next Bitcoin block. Nodes also hold redundant copies of the blockchain ledger, and inefficiency present for nearly all cryptocurrencies. > > **Mining energy Inefficiency**: PoW mining is inherently extremely energy inefficient because it's a competition. The more miners there are, the harder the mining puzzle becomes, adjusted every 2 weeks. The amount of energy needed for a single Bitcoin transaction in [Sept 2021, ~1800 kWh](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption), is roughly the same as the amount of energy used by a typical US household over 62 days. Blockchains require extra redundancy for computations and storage from each node that interacts with or validates the transaction. In comparison, other Byzantine Fault Tolerant distributed consensus methods such as BFT-Paxos and RBFT, SBFT used by Hyperledger Fabric are [10^7 x more efficient for energy use](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x) and 10^4 x for storage. > > **Mining Centralization**: Mining is not something the average crypto user can do by themselves unless they join a mining pool. You also need an expensive and specialized high-end ASIC miner for SHA-256 mining in order to have a good chance of making a profit. Individual miners have no financial incentive to run full nodes or verify their mining pool operator's decisions, leading to centralization with mining pools. > > **Fees and Rising cost of transactions**: Layer 1 transfer fees are currently $2-10+ USD and even briefly rose [past $50 in May 2021](https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee). That's way more than [its competitors](https://blog.nano.org/cryptocurrency-fee-comparison-which-crypto-has-the-lowest-fees-4e9118590e1f) (e.g. XLM, XRP, Nano, BCH) that have average transfer fees under 0.5 US cents. The fees are so high you can't use them for everyday transactions. People complain about bank fees, but if I had to use Bitcoin for everday transactions for my bank and credit cards, I'd be racking $10000+ in fees yearly. As halvings continue and the BTC price can no longer keep up, the block reward will keep decreasing. Either transaction costs will eventually rise to cover the cost of block rewards, or Bitcoin will experience an ice age where all miners drop out except for the few miners who can acquire cheap ASIC rigs and the cheapest energy costs, leading to more centralization. > > **Layer 2 adoption issue**: In general, Layer 2 solutions have much less decentralization (e.g. fewer validation nodes) than Layer 1 and face low adoption issues. The Lightning Network, a Layer 2 network of state channels that use Hash TimeLock Contracts for Bitcoin, has seen very little adoption by volume even years after introduction. It's a hassle to use for many reasons. It requires you to lock funds in a state channel, which also costs a transaction fee to open and close. It requires nodes to be online most of the time for connectivity. If the node you're connecting to goes offline, you lose your connection, and you could have your channel auto-closed. Channels can also be unilaterally force-closed, which is a common complaint among users. Basically, it's still too much of a hassle for the average crypto user. > > **Slow Finality**: Transactions take 10 minutes to record, but exchanges generally wait up to [60 minutes](https://academy.binance.com/en/glossary/finality) for probabilistic-finality. Given that the largest mining pools have 30% hash power, that's still only a 74% chance of actual finality after 6 block recordings due to possibility of a withholding attack. (The probability of a successful 51% attack given in Satoshi's original Bitcoin whitepaper was greatly underestimated because it did not take into account PoW block withholding attacks.) > > **Lack of privacy**: All transaction history is public. Public blockchains are only pseudononymous, and one can use a Transaction Graph Analysis or Taint Analysis tool to figure out who you are by linking transactions. People can also guess your wealth by tracing your transactions through the blockchain. It only takes 1 mistake to link the rest of your transactions. Individual tokens are also not fungible for this same reason. > > **Slow updates**: Bitcoin evolves slowly due to requiring social consensus and Blockchain bureaucracy. Hard forks are voluntary and can take weeks to complete. The Bitcoin Core foundation is extremely conservative and averse to hard forks, as seen with the fork that created Bitcoin Cash. That's not necessarily bad, but it does mean that most developments to Bitcoin end up turning into separate coins instead of evolving the canonical chain. There are often months-long debates and years between before making updates. As a result, it is a conservative blockchain while other DLTs have evolved technologies and features way beyond it. > > **Limitations to transaction speed**: Due to aversion to change, Bitcoin is likely at its limit for transaction speed. It is a poor Medium of Exchange due to slow transaction speeds. > > - Increase block size: requires a hard fork, results in longer network propagation time) > - Decrease block time by lowering puzzle difficulty: increases chance of natural forks, increases acceleration of block size, leading to more storage bloat, all exchanges need to adjust the number of blocks until probabilistic finality, and increases the chance of miners holding orphaned blocks. > - Decrease the transaction size: requires a hard fork (e.g. SegWit 2017 fork, which after all that work, only reduced the size by 50%) > > **Smart Contracts**: Bitcoin doesn't support complex "smart" contracts with its very basic (procedural, stack-oriented, Forth-like) Bitcoin Script. The contracts enabled by Bitcoin Scripts are so basic that they're often non-script features built directly into other blockchains like timelock releases and multi-signature. It's extremely limited because you can't easily validate them, and miners typically put huge restrictions on what is allowed for security purposes. It's possible taproot could change that if it gets a ton of developer support, but Bitcoin Script is way behind all of its competitors in adoption, and it won't evolve fast enough due to Bitcoin's conservative governance. It would be pretty tedious to program anything complex using Bitcoin Script, but I suppose there's always someone who enjoys a challenge. > > **Unstable Store of Value**: Like most non-stablecoins, it has too much volatility to be considered a stable store of value, losing up to 80% of its purchasing-power after crashes. Like gold/silver, it is more of a speculative investment. > > (Disclaimer: I only own trace amounts of BTC.) ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/pz3duc/rcc_cointest_top_10_bitcoin_conarguments_october/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Bitcoin) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/umsqe8/monthly_optimists_discussion_may_2022/).

NANO vs XLM thoughts?

Mentions:#XLM

I hope XLM sticks around after the bear market, best transfer coin still

Mentions:#XLM

With all the fud surrounding UST and Tether, USDC is attracting a lot of volume. Just in time for the Moneygram /Stellar app that will be released next month, and it uses... USDC. Could this option turn more people onto Stellar XLM as the need for fast transaction speed (transaction closing times under 5 seconds), and low fees (less than 1 cent to make over 10k transactions.) The increased volume and changing needs could very well point to some XLM price movement in the next month.

Mentions:#UST#USDC#XLM

#Bitcoin Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by roberthonker which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > **Taken from u\/maleficent_plankton's submission from the last round** > > In general, the typical crypto enthusiast has accepted that Bitcoin's conservative blockchain has failed to keep up with other DLTs technology-wise, which have evolved features and efficiencies way beyond Bitcoin. If all the cryptocurrencies were re-released today simultaneously, there is no way Bitcoin would make it into the top 10 by market cap, and likely not even the top 100. It's still #1 only because it continues to maintain strong security because it was the first, and thus has the largest adoption and protection against Sybil attacks. > > ------------- > > These are its flaws: > > **Redundancy inefficiencies**: To protect against Sybil and 51% attacks, Bitcoin's PoW consensus achieves greater security through greater redundancy. The more miners (specifically mining pools) there are, the harder it is to execute a 51% attack. This also means that there could be a million miners performing redundant actions vying for the next Bitcoin block. Nodes also hold redundant copies of the blockchain ledger, and inefficiency present for nearly all cryptocurrencies. > > **Mining energy Inefficiency**: PoW mining is inherently extremely energy inefficient because it's a competition. The more miners there are, the harder the mining puzzle becomes, adjusted every 2 weeks. The amount of energy needed for a single Bitcoin transaction in [Sept 2021, ~1800 kWh](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption), is roughly the same as the amount of energy used by a typical US household over 62 days. Blockchains require extra redundancy for computations and storage from each node that interacts with or validates the transaction. In comparison, other Byzantine Fault Tolerant distributed consensus methods such as BFT-Paxos and RBFT, SBFT used by Hyperledger Fabric are [10^7 x more efficient for energy use](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x) and 10^4 x for storage. > > **Mining Centralization**: Mining is not something the average crypto user can do by themselves unless they join a mining pool. You also need an expensive and specialized high-end ASIC miner for SHA-256 mining in order to have a good chance of making a profit. Individual miners have no financial incentive to run full nodes or verify their mining pool operator's decisions, leading to centralization with mining pools. > > **Fees and Rising cost of transactions**: Layer 1 transfer fees are currently $2-10+ USD and even briefly rose [past $50 in May 2021](https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee). That's way more than [its competitors](https://blog.nano.org/cryptocurrency-fee-comparison-which-crypto-has-the-lowest-fees-4e9118590e1f) (e.g. XLM, XRP, Nano, BCH) that have average transfer fees under 0.5 US cents. The fees are so high you can't use them for everyday transactions. People complain about bank fees, but if I had to use Bitcoin for everday transactions for my bank and credit cards, I'd be racking $10000+ in fees yearly. As halvings continue and the BTC price can no longer keep up, the block reward will keep decreasing. Either transaction costs will eventually rise to cover the cost of block rewards, or Bitcoin will experience an ice age where all miners drop out except for the few miners who can acquire cheap ASIC rigs and the cheapest energy costs, leading to more centralization. > > **Layer 2 adoption issue**: In general, Layer 2 solutions have much less decentralization (e.g. fewer validation nodes) than Layer 1 and face low adoption issues. The Lightning Network, a Layer 2 network of state channels that use Hash TimeLock Contracts for Bitcoin, has seen very little adoption by volume even years after introduction. It's a hassle to use for many reasons. It requires you to lock funds in a state channel, which also costs a transaction fee to open and close. It requires nodes to be online most of the time for connectivity. If the node you're connecting to goes offline, you lose your connection, and you could have your channel auto-closed. Channels can also be unilaterally force-closed, which is a common complaint among users. Basically, it's still too much of a hassle for the average crypto user. > > **Slow Finality**: Transactions take 10 minutes to record, but exchanges generally wait up to [60 minutes](https://academy.binance.com/en/glossary/finality) for probabilistic-finality. Given that the largest mining pools have 30% hash power, that's still only a 74% chance of actual finality after 6 block recordings due to possibility of a withholding attack. (The probability of a successful 51% attack given in Satoshi's original Bitcoin whitepaper was greatly underestimated because it did not take into account PoW block withholding attacks.) > > **Lack of privacy**: All transaction history is public. Public blockchains are only pseudononymous, and one can use a Transaction Graph Analysis or Taint Analysis tool to figure out who you are by linking transactions. People can also guess your wealth by tracing your transactions through the blockchain. It only takes 1 mistake to link the rest of your transactions. Individual tokens are also not fungible for this same reason. > > **Slow updates**: Bitcoin evolves slowly due to requiring social consensus and Blockchain bureaucracy. Hard forks are voluntary and can take weeks to complete. The Bitcoin Core foundation is extremely conservative and averse to hard forks, as seen with the fork that created Bitcoin Cash. That's not necessarily bad, but it does mean that most developments to Bitcoin end up turning into separate coins instead of evolving the canonical chain. There are often months-long debates and years between before making updates. As a result, it is a conservative blockchain while other DLTs have evolved technologies and features way beyond it. > > **Limitations to transaction speed**: Due to aversion to change, Bitcoin is likely at its limit for transaction speed. It is a poor Medium of Exchange due to slow transaction speeds. > > - Increase block size: requires a hard fork, results in longer network propagation time) > - Decrease block time by lowering puzzle difficulty: increases chance of natural forks, increases acceleration of block size, leading to more storage bloat, all exchanges need to adjust the number of blocks until probabilistic finality, and increases the chance of miners holding orphaned blocks. > - Decrease the transaction size: requires a hard fork (e.g. SegWit 2017 fork, which after all that work, only reduced the size by 50%) > > **Smart Contracts**: Bitcoin doesn't support complex "smart" contracts with its very basic (procedural, stack-oriented, Forth-like) Bitcoin Script. The contracts enabled by Bitcoin Scripts are so basic that they're often non-script features built directly into other blockchains like timelock releases and multi-signature. It's extremely limited because you can't easily validate them, and miners typically put huge restrictions on what is allowed for security purposes. It's possible taproot could change that if it gets a ton of developer support, but Bitcoin Script is way behind all of its competitors in adoption, and it won't evolve fast enough due to Bitcoin's conservative governance. It would be pretty tedious to program anything complex using Bitcoin Script, but I suppose there's always someone who enjoys a challenge. > > **Unstable Store of Value**: Like most non-stablecoins, it has too much volatility to be considered a stable store of value, losing up to 80% of its purchasing-power after crashes. Like gold/silver, it is more of a speculative investment. > > (Disclaimer: I only own trace amounts of BTC.) ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/pz3duc/rcc_cointest_top_10_bitcoin_conarguments_october/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Bitcoin) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/umsqe8/monthly_optimists_discussion_may_2022/).

#Bitcoin Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by roberthonker which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > **Taken from u\/maleficent_plankton's submission from the last round** > > In general, the typical crypto enthusiast has accepted that Bitcoin's conservative blockchain has failed to keep up with other DLTs technology-wise, which have evolved features and efficiencies way beyond Bitcoin. If all the cryptocurrencies were re-released today simultaneously, there is no way Bitcoin would make it into the top 10 by market cap, and likely not even the top 100. It's still #1 only because it continues to maintain strong security because it was the first, and thus has the largest adoption and protection against Sybil attacks. > > ------------- > > These are its flaws: > > **Redundancy inefficiencies**: To protect against Sybil and 51% attacks, Bitcoin's PoW consensus achieves greater security through greater redundancy. The more miners (specifically mining pools) there are, the harder it is to execute a 51% attack. This also means that there could be a million miners performing redundant actions vying for the next Bitcoin block. Nodes also hold redundant copies of the blockchain ledger, and inefficiency present for nearly all cryptocurrencies. > > **Mining energy Inefficiency**: PoW mining is inherently extremely energy inefficient because it's a competition. The more miners there are, the harder the mining puzzle becomes, adjusted every 2 weeks. The amount of energy needed for a single Bitcoin transaction in [Sept 2021, ~1800 kWh](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption), is roughly the same as the amount of energy used by a typical US household over 62 days. Blockchains require extra redundancy for computations and storage from each node that interacts with or validates the transaction. In comparison, other Byzantine Fault Tolerant distributed consensus methods such as BFT-Paxos and RBFT, SBFT used by Hyperledger Fabric are [10^7 x more efficient for energy use](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x) and 10^4 x for storage. > > **Mining Centralization**: Mining is not something the average crypto user can do by themselves unless they join a mining pool. You also need an expensive and specialized high-end ASIC miner for SHA-256 mining in order to have a good chance of making a profit. Individual miners have no financial incentive to run full nodes or verify their mining pool operator's decisions, leading to centralization with mining pools. > > **Fees and Rising cost of transactions**: Layer 1 transfer fees are currently $2-10+ USD and even briefly rose [past $50 in May 2021](https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee). That's way more than [its competitors](https://blog.nano.org/cryptocurrency-fee-comparison-which-crypto-has-the-lowest-fees-4e9118590e1f) (e.g. XLM, XRP, Nano, BCH) that have average transfer fees under 0.5 US cents. The fees are so high you can't use them for everyday transactions. People complain about bank fees, but if I had to use Bitcoin for everday transactions for my bank and credit cards, I'd be racking $10000+ in fees yearly. As halvings continue and the BTC price can no longer keep up, the block reward will keep decreasing. Either transaction costs will eventually rise to cover the cost of block rewards, or Bitcoin will experience an ice age where all miners drop out except for the few miners who can acquire cheap ASIC rigs and the cheapest energy costs, leading to more centralization. > > **Layer 2 adoption issue**: In general, Layer 2 solutions have much less decentralization (e.g. fewer validation nodes) than Layer 1 and face low adoption issues. The Lightning Network, a Layer 2 network of state channels that use Hash TimeLock Contracts for Bitcoin, has seen very little adoption by volume even years after introduction. It's a hassle to use for many reasons. It requires you to lock funds in a state channel, which also costs a transaction fee to open and close. It requires nodes to be online most of the time for connectivity. If the node you're connecting to goes offline, you lose your connection, and you could have your channel auto-closed. Channels can also be unilaterally force-closed, which is a common complaint among users. Basically, it's still too much of a hassle for the average crypto user. > > **Slow Finality**: Transactions take 10 minutes to record, but exchanges generally wait up to [60 minutes](https://academy.binance.com/en/glossary/finality) for probabilistic-finality. Given that the largest mining pools have 30% hash power, that's still only a 74% chance of actual finality after 6 block recordings due to possibility of a withholding attack. (The probability of a successful 51% attack given in Satoshi's original Bitcoin whitepaper was greatly underestimated because it did not take into account PoW block withholding attacks.) > > **Lack of privacy**: All transaction history is public. Public blockchains are only pseudononymous, and one can use a Transaction Graph Analysis or Taint Analysis tool to figure out who you are by linking transactions. People can also guess your wealth by tracing your transactions through the blockchain. It only takes 1 mistake to link the rest of your transactions. Individual tokens are also not fungible for this same reason. > > **Slow updates**: Bitcoin evolves slowly due to requiring social consensus and Blockchain bureaucracy. Hard forks are voluntary and can take weeks to complete. The Bitcoin Core foundation is extremely conservative and averse to hard forks, as seen with the fork that created Bitcoin Cash. That's not necessarily bad, but it does mean that most developments to Bitcoin end up turning into separate coins instead of evolving the canonical chain. There are often months-long debates and years between before making updates. As a result, it is a conservative blockchain while other DLTs have evolved technologies and features way beyond it. > > **Limitations to transaction speed**: Due to aversion to change, Bitcoin is likely at its limit for transaction speed. It is a poor Medium of Exchange due to slow transaction speeds. > > - Increase block size: requires a hard fork, results in longer network propagation time) > - Decrease block time by lowering puzzle difficulty: increases chance of natural forks, increases acceleration of block size, leading to more storage bloat, all exchanges need to adjust the number of blocks until probabilistic finality, and increases the chance of miners holding orphaned blocks. > - Decrease the transaction size: requires a hard fork (e.g. SegWit 2017 fork, which after all that work, only reduced the size by 50%) > > **Smart Contracts**: Bitcoin doesn't support complex "smart" contracts with its very basic (procedural, stack-oriented, Forth-like) Bitcoin Script. The contracts enabled by Bitcoin Scripts are so basic that they're often non-script features built directly into other blockchains like timelock releases and multi-signature. It's extremely limited because you can't easily validate them, and miners typically put huge restrictions on what is allowed for security purposes. It's possible taproot could change that if it gets a ton of developer support, but Bitcoin Script is way behind all of its competitors in adoption, and it won't evolve fast enough due to Bitcoin's conservative governance. It would be pretty tedious to program anything complex using Bitcoin Script, but I suppose there's always someone who enjoys a challenge. > > **Unstable Store of Value**: Like most non-stablecoins, it has too much volatility to be considered a stable store of value, losing up to 80% of its purchasing-power after crashes. Like gold/silver, it is more of a speculative investment. > > (Disclaimer: I only own trace amounts of BTC.) ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/pz3duc/rcc_cointest_top_10_bitcoin_conarguments_october/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Bitcoin) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/umsqe8/monthly_optimists_discussion_may_2022/).

A payment system that works. Also, it's not just the tech, but the people behind it that matters. XLM or ADA or some other fast crypto may be good technology for payments also, but they're not being put to the same use as Ripple is using XRP and any company planning to do that has a lot further to go than Ripple which has been laser focused for years. Trust & reliability matter a lot when your dealing with large payments and XRP is one of the really old & reliable cryptos. There's actually plenty of other companies using XRP also, but Ripple is the most prominent. Also, there's plenty of information out there. XRP Arcade is a good place to look, I've heard.

Mentions:#XLM#ADA#XRP

XLM/LTC have cheaper chain fees than BTC. Just need to check if you can cash that out directly or have to trade for something else that you can cash out. Use the trade fee calculator to see if it's worthwhile or if there are other coins you could work with instead of BTC.

Mentions:#XLM#LTC#BTC

Sure, and that's why XLM is the only project I'm still in on. Still, outside of a need that only affects large banks and businesses, I've yet to hear another compelling use case. My point on adoption is that Bitcoin has been around for 13 years. Webmail started in the 90s and 13 years later was already mass adopted. Considering how the internet has sped up our culture in the last 30 years, it's fairly damming of crypto to not see widespread use by now.

Mentions:#XLM

I do think LTC will be the payment coin when crypto becomes mainstream. I know BTC has lightning, XLM and NANO have feeless aswell, XMR has privacy aswell and if ETH sort gas out it'll be a contender but it just works. 0 downtime, not too much price fluctuation and it just works

#Bitcoin Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by roberthonker which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > **Taken from u\/maleficent_plankton's submission from the last round** > > In general, the typical crypto enthusiast has accepted that Bitcoin's conservative blockchain has failed to keep up with other DLTs technology-wise, which have evolved features and efficiencies way beyond Bitcoin. If all the cryptocurrencies were re-released today simultaneously, there is no way Bitcoin would make it into the top 10 by market cap, and likely not even the top 100. It's still #1 only because it continues to maintain strong security because it was the first, and thus has the largest adoption and protection against Sybil attacks. > > ------------- > > These are its flaws: > > **Redundancy inefficiencies**: To protect against Sybil and 51% attacks, Bitcoin's PoW consensus achieves greater security through greater redundancy. The more miners (specifically mining pools) there are, the harder it is to execute a 51% attack. This also means that there could be a million miners performing redundant actions vying for the next Bitcoin block. Nodes also hold redundant copies of the blockchain ledger, and inefficiency present for nearly all cryptocurrencies. > > **Mining energy Inefficiency**: PoW mining is inherently extremely energy inefficient because it's a competition. The more miners there are, the harder the mining puzzle becomes, adjusted every 2 weeks. The amount of energy needed for a single Bitcoin transaction in [Sept 2021, ~1800 kWh](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption), is roughly the same as the amount of energy used by a typical US household over 62 days. Blockchains require extra redundancy for computations and storage from each node that interacts with or validates the transaction. In comparison, other Byzantine Fault Tolerant distributed consensus methods such as BFT-Paxos and RBFT, SBFT used by Hyperledger Fabric are [10^7 x more efficient for energy use](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x) and 10^4 x for storage. > > **Mining Centralization**: Mining is not something the average crypto user can do by themselves unless they join a mining pool. You also need an expensive and specialized high-end ASIC miner for SHA-256 mining in order to have a good chance of making a profit. Individual miners have no financial incentive to run full nodes or verify their mining pool operator's decisions, leading to centralization with mining pools. > > **Fees and Rising cost of transactions**: Layer 1 transfer fees are currently $2-10+ USD and even briefly rose [past $50 in May 2021](https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee). That's way more than [its competitors](https://blog.nano.org/cryptocurrency-fee-comparison-which-crypto-has-the-lowest-fees-4e9118590e1f) (e.g. XLM, XRP, Nano, BCH) that have average transfer fees under 0.5 US cents. The fees are so high you can't use them for everyday transactions. People complain about bank fees, but if I had to use Bitcoin for everday transactions for my bank and credit cards, I'd be racking $10000+ in fees yearly. As halvings continue and the BTC price can no longer keep up, the block reward will keep decreasing. Either transaction costs will eventually rise to cover the cost of block rewards, or Bitcoin will experience an ice age where all miners drop out except for the few miners who can acquire cheap ASIC rigs and the cheapest energy costs, leading to more centralization. > > **Layer 2 adoption issue**: In general, Layer 2 solutions have much less decentralization (e.g. fewer validation nodes) than Layer 1 and face low adoption issues. The Lightning Network, a Layer 2 network of state channels that use Hash TimeLock Contracts for Bitcoin, has seen very little adoption by volume even years after introduction. It's a hassle to use for many reasons. It requires you to lock funds in a state channel, which also costs a transaction fee to open and close. It requires nodes to be online most of the time for connectivity. If the node you're connecting to goes offline, you lose your connection, and you could have your channel auto-closed. Channels can also be unilaterally force-closed, which is a common complaint among users. Basically, it's still too much of a hassle for the average crypto user. > > **Slow Finality**: Transactions take 10 minutes to record, but exchanges generally wait up to [60 minutes](https://academy.binance.com/en/glossary/finality) for probabilistic-finality. Given that the largest mining pools have 30% hash power, that's still only a 74% chance of actual finality after 6 block recordings due to possibility of a withholding attack. (The probability of a successful 51% attack given in Satoshi's original Bitcoin whitepaper was greatly underestimated because it did not take into account PoW block withholding attacks.) > > **Lack of privacy**: All transaction history is public. Public blockchains are only pseudononymous, and one can use a Transaction Graph Analysis or Taint Analysis tool to figure out who you are by linking transactions. People can also guess your wealth by tracing your transactions through the blockchain. It only takes 1 mistake to link the rest of your transactions. Individual tokens are also not fungible for this same reason. > > **Slow updates**: Bitcoin evolves slowly due to requiring social consensus and Blockchain bureaucracy. Hard forks are voluntary and can take weeks to complete. The Bitcoin Core foundation is extremely conservative and averse to hard forks, as seen with the fork that created Bitcoin Cash. That's not necessarily bad, but it does mean that most developments to Bitcoin end up turning into separate coins instead of evolving the canonical chain. There are often months-long debates and years between before making updates. As a result, it is a conservative blockchain while other DLTs have evolved technologies and features way beyond it. > > **Limitations to transaction speed**: Due to aversion to change, Bitcoin is likely at its limit for transaction speed. It is a poor Medium of Exchange due to slow transaction speeds. > > - Increase block size: requires a hard fork, results in longer network propagation time) > - Decrease block time by lowering puzzle difficulty: increases chance of natural forks, increases acceleration of block size, leading to more storage bloat, all exchanges need to adjust the number of blocks until probabilistic finality, and increases the chance of miners holding orphaned blocks. > - Decrease the transaction size: requires a hard fork (e.g. SegWit 2017 fork, which after all that work, only reduced the size by 50%) > > **Smart Contracts**: Bitcoin doesn't support complex "smart" contracts with its very basic (procedural, stack-oriented, Forth-like) Bitcoin Script. The contracts enabled by Bitcoin Scripts are so basic that they're often non-script features built directly into other blockchains like timelock releases and multi-signature. It's extremely limited because you can't easily validate them, and miners typically put huge restrictions on what is allowed for security purposes. It's possible taproot could change that if it gets a ton of developer support, but Bitcoin Script is way behind all of its competitors in adoption, and it won't evolve fast enough due to Bitcoin's conservative governance. It would be pretty tedious to program anything complex using Bitcoin Script, but I suppose there's always someone who enjoys a challenge. > > **Unstable Store of Value**: Like most non-stablecoins, it has too much volatility to be considered a stable store of value, losing up to 80% of its purchasing-power after crashes. Like gold/silver, it is more of a speculative investment. > > (Disclaimer: I only own trace amounts of BTC.) ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/pz3duc/rcc_cointest_top_10_bitcoin_conarguments_october/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Bitcoin) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/umsqe8/monthly_optimists_discussion_may_2022/).

I love XLM. I love getting 4% XLM on my coinbase card. Sending it cheaply to another platform and converting to BTC. I love XLM.

Mentions:#XLM#BTC

#Ethereum Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by roberthonker which won 2nd place in the Ethereum Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > **Taken from u\/maleficent_plankton's submission from last round** > > **Gas Fees**: > > The biggest issues for Ethereum are its network gas fees. Every transaction needs gas to pay for storage and processing power, and gas prices vary based on demand. Gas price is very volatile and often changes 2-5x in magnitude within the same day. ERC20 transfers are used for a large percentage of cryptocurrencies, and it's the reason small ERC20 transactions on DeFi platforms under $1000 are impractical. If I wanted to send ERC20 tokens between exchanges, it's often cheaper to trade for XRP, ALGO, or some other microtransaction coin, transfer it using their other coin's native network, and then trade back into the original token. Pretty ridiculous. > > [Typical transaction fees were between $2-10 over the past year](https://etherscan.io/chart/avg-txfee-usd), but they have shot up to $70 on several occasions. It's very common for popular exchanges to set withdrawal fees to a flat $20-50 for ERC20 transfers due to expensive and unpredictable Ethereum network fees. > > And that's just for basic transactions. Anyone who has tried to use more complex smart contracts like moving MATIC from Polygon mainnet back to ETH L1 mainnet during a time of high gas fees in early 2021 probably saw $100-$200 gas fees. Staking MATIC also costs expensive ERC20 gas fees. (So much for MATIC's claim to reduce ETH gas fees.) > > **Inflation**: > > Ethereum has no supply limit and is still inflationary. It did have [three deflationary days](https://www.theblockcrypto.com/data/on-chain-metrics/ethereum/net-eth-emission-after-eip-1559) in September 2021 after EIP-1557, but it's still net inflationary of ~5K ETH daily. As other competitors join the smart contract space, it's likely we'll see fewer deflationary days in the future. > > **Smart Contract Competition**: > > Ethereum has enjoyed its lead as the smart contract blockchain because it had so few competitors historically. Now we have tons of efficient smart contract competitors like Algorand, Solana, and Cardano. While Ethereum has an enormous lead in smart contract project adoption, it is likely to gradually lose market share to its competitors, which are ahead of it in terms of efficiency and technology. Who wants to pay $20 gas fees when you can get similar transactions for under $0.01 with Algo and Solana or $0.30 transactions with Cardano? This will mainly depend on whether the PoS consensus Ethereum 2.0 can arrive fast enough, and whether it can deliver its claims. For now, we are stuck with PoW Ethereum with almost no adoption for Layer 2. > > **Layer 2 issues**: > > Layer 2 solutions are still extremely early and almost have no adoption. Considering how long it takes exchanges to roll out Layer 2 networks, it'll probably be 6-12 months before I can use any Ethereum Layer 2 solutions on Coinbase. (Polygon network still isn't available on any of the biggest US exchanges after half a year of becoming popular and claiming hundreds of partnerships). The majority of platforms do not currently support Layer 2 rollup networks. Very few fiat onramping/offramping exchanges allow for Optimistic or zk-Rollups. ZK Rollups are very limited in use until they have coordination between exchanges that both support them. > > **L2 - Plasma** has been around since 2017, and I couldn't find anyone still using this state-channel solution. It's [more or less abandoned](https://medium.com/dragonfly-research/the-life-and-death-of-plasma-b72c6a59c5ad) in favor of rollups. I guess some Polygon bridges still use Plasma. It required lots of work and always-online overhead to monitor the side chain for misbehavior. You also need to pay the ERC20 gas fee twice when opening and closing the state channel. It has all the downsides to Lightning, which itself is facing lack of adoption. There is a super long challenge period to exit a side chain via Plasma, which means a 1 week settlement. And a mass exit would complete congest the Ethereum blockchain. > > Both Optimistic and ZK Rollups are handled off-chain and require a separate network nodes or smart contracts as infrastructure to validate transactions or generate ZK Proofs. > > **L2 - Optimistic Rollups are expensive and slow**: > > They settle in [1 week](https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/05/rollup.html) because there is a challenge period where anyone can submit a fraud-proof to show if there was an illegitimate transaction. People get anxious over 30-minute finality. How are they going to deal with 1 week settlement? Also, optimistic rollups are inherently insecure by design in order to reduce fees because they outsource validation offchain. The operator can influence transaction ordering. You can have faster withdrawals if you pay a market maker or verifier to jump in and swap your transaction, but why bother with the additional hassle and fees? I don't think the average crypto user will have any use cases for optimistic rollups. Optimistic rollups currently cost [$1-2 on Arbitrum One and Optimism](https://l2fees.info/). Unless you need to use a smart contract (which aren't supported on ZK Rollups), why would anyone anyone want to babysit their transactions for 1 week when ZK Rollups are faster, cheaper, and more secure? > > **L2 - ZK Rollup limitations**: > > ZK Rollup require special infrastructure to generate ZK Proofs. These are very computationally-expensive (potentially [thousands of times](https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/05/rollup.html) more expensive that just doing the computation directly). On-chain cost of a ZK Rollup is cheap at about [$0.20 to $.40](https://l2fees.info/), but there is a separate infrastructure cost that is rarely mentioned. Loopring is rolling up its costs into its trading fees, currently 0.80%, so their feeless transfer claims are misleading. For transfers of $10K, that's $80 of fees. In any case, even at $0.40, these are still ~100x more expensive than transferring microtransaction-friendly coins such as XLM, XRP, Nano, etc. FWIW, it's a huge improvement over current Layer 1 costs ... when the platforms I use support them some year in the future. The big limitation is that smart contracts can't use ZK Rollups. > > **Ethereum 2.0 arriving later than competitors**: > > Ethereum is separated into Casper FFG (Friendly Finality Gadget) and Casper CBC (Correct by Construction). Casper FFG is a BFT PoS consensus overlay of PoW based on the GHOST protocol. We don't have much details on Casper CBC since its design is still in progress. Its main purpose is to increase transaction speeds and reduce energy costs while sacrificing decentralization and security. > > The ETH 2.0 Beacon chain, a completely separate blockchain from ETH, won't merge with the main blockchain [until 2022](https://decrypt.co/78690/ethereum-2-staking-tops-21-billion-merge-horizon), giving competitors plenty of time to steal a share of smart contract projects. Even then, Vitalik said that [scaling will still rely on ZK Rollups until the 64-chain sharding phase](https://decrypt.co/34204/ethereum-2-0-will-walk-and-roll-for-two-years-before-it-can-run) arriving later in 2022 or 2023. It'll likely lose some market share to existing alternatives like Algo, Solana, Cardano, and others. > > Unlike Cardano PoS staking, Ethereum 2.0 PoS staking uses slashing. The system cannot tell between being offline or being censored. It's pretty damn scary. > 50% downtime is breakeven (unless there's no prepare + commit). Slash punishment can be very harsh. In the first months, we already had multiple examples of large slashings on the Beacon ETH 2.0 chain caused by simple errors: [Bugs](https://medium.com/prysmatic-labs/eth2-medalla-testnet-incident-f7fbc3cc934a) can cause slashing. [Timestamp](https://medium.com/prysmatic-labs/eth2-medalla-testnet-incident-f7fbc3cc934a) being off and cause slashing. QoS and [redundancy mistakes](https://medium.com/stakefish/ethereum-2-0-the-first-slash-a-retrospective-99e4fdcd563a) can cause slashing. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/pz4vav/rcc_cointest_top_10_ethereum_conarguments_october/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Ethereum) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/umsqe8/monthly_optimists_discussion_may_2022/).

#Bitcoin Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by roberthonker which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > **Taken from u\/maleficent_plankton's submission from the last round** > > In general, the typical crypto enthusiast has accepted that Bitcoin's conservative blockchain has failed to keep up with other DLTs technology-wise, which have evolved features and efficiencies way beyond Bitcoin. If all the cryptocurrencies were re-released today simultaneously, there is no way Bitcoin would make it into the top 10 by market cap, and likely not even the top 100. It's still #1 only because it continues to maintain strong security because it was the first, and thus has the largest adoption and protection against Sybil attacks. > > ------------- > > These are its flaws: > > **Redundancy inefficiencies**: To protect against Sybil and 51% attacks, Bitcoin's PoW consensus achieves greater security through greater redundancy. The more miners (specifically mining pools) there are, the harder it is to execute a 51% attack. This also means that there could be a million miners performing redundant actions vying for the next Bitcoin block. Nodes also hold redundant copies of the blockchain ledger, and inefficiency present for nearly all cryptocurrencies. > > **Mining energy Inefficiency**: PoW mining is inherently extremely energy inefficient because it's a competition. The more miners there are, the harder the mining puzzle becomes, adjusted every 2 weeks. The amount of energy needed for a single Bitcoin transaction in [Sept 2021, ~1800 kWh](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption), is roughly the same as the amount of energy used by a typical US household over 62 days. Blockchains require extra redundancy for computations and storage from each node that interacts with or validates the transaction. In comparison, other Byzantine Fault Tolerant distributed consensus methods such as BFT-Paxos and RBFT, SBFT used by Hyperledger Fabric are [10^7 x more efficient for energy use](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x) and 10^4 x for storage. > > **Mining Centralization**: Mining is not something the average crypto user can do by themselves unless they join a mining pool. You also need an expensive and specialized high-end ASIC miner for SHA-256 mining in order to have a good chance of making a profit. Individual miners have no financial incentive to run full nodes or verify their mining pool operator's decisions, leading to centralization with mining pools. > > **Fees and Rising cost of transactions**: Layer 1 transfer fees are currently $2-10+ USD and even briefly rose [past $50 in May 2021](https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee). That's way more than [its competitors](https://blog.nano.org/cryptocurrency-fee-comparison-which-crypto-has-the-lowest-fees-4e9118590e1f) (e.g. XLM, XRP, Nano, BCH) that have average transfer fees under 0.5 US cents. The fees are so high you can't use them for everyday transactions. People complain about bank fees, but if I had to use Bitcoin for everday transactions for my bank and credit cards, I'd be racking $10000+ in fees yearly. As halvings continue and the BTC price can no longer keep up, the block reward will keep decreasing. Either transaction costs will eventually rise to cover the cost of block rewards, or Bitcoin will experience an ice age where all miners drop out except for the few miners who can acquire cheap ASIC rigs and the cheapest energy costs, leading to more centralization. > > **Layer 2 adoption issue**: In general, Layer 2 solutions have much less decentralization (e.g. fewer validation nodes) than Layer 1 and face low adoption issues. The Lightning Network, a Layer 2 network of state channels that use Hash TimeLock Contracts for Bitcoin, has seen very little adoption by volume even years after introduction. It's a hassle to use for many reasons. It requires you to lock funds in a state channel, which also costs a transaction fee to open and close. It requires nodes to be online most of the time for connectivity. If the node you're connecting to goes offline, you lose your connection, and you could have your channel auto-closed. Channels can also be unilaterally force-closed, which is a common complaint among users. Basically, it's still too much of a hassle for the average crypto user. > > **Slow Finality**: Transactions take 10 minutes to record, but exchanges generally wait up to [60 minutes](https://academy.binance.com/en/glossary/finality) for probabilistic-finality. Given that the largest mining pools have 30% hash power, that's still only a 74% chance of actual finality after 6 block recordings due to possibility of a withholding attack. (The probability of a successful 51% attack given in Satoshi's original Bitcoin whitepaper was greatly underestimated because it did not take into account PoW block withholding attacks.) > > **Lack of privacy**: All transaction history is public. Public blockchains are only pseudononymous, and one can use a Transaction Graph Analysis or Taint Analysis tool to figure out who you are by linking transactions. People can also guess your wealth by tracing your transactions through the blockchain. It only takes 1 mistake to link the rest of your transactions. Individual tokens are also not fungible for this same reason. > > **Slow updates**: Bitcoin evolves slowly due to requiring social consensus and Blockchain bureaucracy. Hard forks are voluntary and can take weeks to complete. The Bitcoin Core foundation is extremely conservative and averse to hard forks, as seen with the fork that created Bitcoin Cash. That's not necessarily bad, but it does mean that most developments to Bitcoin end up turning into separate coins instead of evolving the canonical chain. There are often months-long debates and years between before making updates. As a result, it is a conservative blockchain while other DLTs have evolved technologies and features way beyond it. > > **Limitations to transaction speed**: Due to aversion to change, Bitcoin is likely at its limit for transaction speed. It is a poor Medium of Exchange due to slow transaction speeds. > > - Increase block size: requires a hard fork, results in longer network propagation time) > - Decrease block time by lowering puzzle difficulty: increases chance of natural forks, increases acceleration of block size, leading to more storage bloat, all exchanges need to adjust the number of blocks until probabilistic finality, and increases the chance of miners holding orphaned blocks. > - Decrease the transaction size: requires a hard fork (e.g. SegWit 2017 fork, which after all that work, only reduced the size by 50%) > > **Smart Contracts**: Bitcoin doesn't support complex "smart" contracts with its very basic (procedural, stack-oriented, Forth-like) Bitcoin Script. The contracts enabled by Bitcoin Scripts are so basic that they're often non-script features built directly into other blockchains like timelock releases and multi-signature. It's extremely limited because you can't easily validate them, and miners typically put huge restrictions on what is allowed for security purposes. It's possible taproot could change that if it gets a ton of developer support, but Bitcoin Script is way behind all of its competitors in adoption, and it won't evolve fast enough due to Bitcoin's conservative governance. It would be pretty tedious to program anything complex using Bitcoin Script, but I suppose there's always someone who enjoys a challenge. > > **Unstable Store of Value**: Like most non-stablecoins, it has too much volatility to be considered a stable store of value, losing up to 80% of its purchasing-power after crashes. Like gold/silver, it is more of a speculative investment. > > (Disclaimer: I only own trace amounts of BTC.) ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/pz3duc/rcc_cointest_top_10_bitcoin_conarguments_october/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Bitcoin) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/umsqe8/monthly_optimists_discussion_may_2022/).

Actually some does...Bitcoin does not and is not intended to be one either ... Ethereum has product value so as Cardano, XLM, XRP and some host other cryptos...Monero and Litecoins donot as they are not intended to have one, they act as alternative to fiat ...

Mentions:#XLM#XRP

I'm clueless, I bought a bunch of DOGE and managed to get my money back. I then put it in other crypto and it all seems to be doing terribly. The first number in brackets is how many EUR I put in, and the second number is the current value. MATIC (187) (98.22) MANA (50) (44.64) DOGE (105) (33.85) DOT (45) (30) MINA (50) (11) SHIB (26) (9.57) XLM (50) (11) SUSHI (25) (4) ADA (25) (5) It feels pointless to sell at a loss, so I guess it'll just sit there and hope there is some upturn in them.

Yes because XLM is the best friend ay to send funds. Super cheap and fast

Mentions:#XLM

#Ethereum Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by roberthonker which won 2nd place in the Ethereum Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > **Taken from u\/maleficent_plankton's submission from last round** > > **Gas Fees**: > > The biggest issues for Ethereum are its network gas fees. Every transaction needs gas to pay for storage and processing power, and gas prices vary based on demand. Gas price is very volatile and often changes 2-5x in magnitude within the same day. ERC20 transfers are used for a large percentage of cryptocurrencies, and it's the reason small ERC20 transactions on DeFi platforms under $1000 are impractical. If I wanted to send ERC20 tokens between exchanges, it's often cheaper to trade for XRP, ALGO, or some other microtransaction coin, transfer it using their other coin's native network, and then trade back into the original token. Pretty ridiculous. > > [Typical transaction fees were between $2-10 over the past year](https://etherscan.io/chart/avg-txfee-usd), but they have shot up to $70 on several occasions. It's very common for popular exchanges to set withdrawal fees to a flat $20-50 for ERC20 transfers due to expensive and unpredictable Ethereum network fees. > > And that's just for basic transactions. Anyone who has tried to use more complex smart contracts like moving MATIC from Polygon mainnet back to ETH L1 mainnet during a time of high gas fees in early 2021 probably saw $100-$200 gas fees. Staking MATIC also costs expensive ERC20 gas fees. (So much for MATIC's claim to reduce ETH gas fees.) > > **Inflation**: > > Ethereum has no supply limit and is still inflationary. It did have [three deflationary days](https://www.theblockcrypto.com/data/on-chain-metrics/ethereum/net-eth-emission-after-eip-1559) in September 2021 after EIP-1557, but it's still net inflationary of ~5K ETH daily. As other competitors join the smart contract space, it's likely we'll see fewer deflationary days in the future. > > **Smart Contract Competition**: > > Ethereum has enjoyed its lead as the smart contract blockchain because it had so few competitors historically. Now we have tons of efficient smart contract competitors like Algorand, Solana, and Cardano. While Ethereum has an enormous lead in smart contract project adoption, it is likely to gradually lose market share to its competitors, which are ahead of it in terms of efficiency and technology. Who wants to pay $20 gas fees when you can get similar transactions for under $0.01 with Algo and Solana or $0.30 transactions with Cardano? This will mainly depend on whether the PoS consensus Ethereum 2.0 can arrive fast enough, and whether it can deliver its claims. For now, we are stuck with PoW Ethereum with almost no adoption for Layer 2. > > **Layer 2 issues**: > > Layer 2 solutions are still extremely early and almost have no adoption. Considering how long it takes exchanges to roll out Layer 2 networks, it'll probably be 6-12 months before I can use any Ethereum Layer 2 solutions on Coinbase. (Polygon network still isn't available on any of the biggest US exchanges after half a year of becoming popular and claiming hundreds of partnerships). The majority of platforms do not currently support Layer 2 rollup networks. Very few fiat onramping/offramping exchanges allow for Optimistic or zk-Rollups. ZK Rollups are very limited in use until they have coordination between exchanges that both support them. > > **L2 - Plasma** has been around since 2017, and I couldn't find anyone still using this state-channel solution. It's [more or less abandoned](https://medium.com/dragonfly-research/the-life-and-death-of-plasma-b72c6a59c5ad) in favor of rollups. I guess some Polygon bridges still use Plasma. It required lots of work and always-online overhead to monitor the side chain for misbehavior. You also need to pay the ERC20 gas fee twice when opening and closing the state channel. It has all the downsides to Lightning, which itself is facing lack of adoption. There is a super long challenge period to exit a side chain via Plasma, which means a 1 week settlement. And a mass exit would complete congest the Ethereum blockchain. > > Both Optimistic and ZK Rollups are handled off-chain and require a separate network nodes or smart contracts as infrastructure to validate transactions or generate ZK Proofs. > > **L2 - Optimistic Rollups are expensive and slow**: > > They settle in [1 week](https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/05/rollup.html) because there is a challenge period where anyone can submit a fraud-proof to show if there was an illegitimate transaction. People get anxious over 30-minute finality. How are they going to deal with 1 week settlement? Also, optimistic rollups are inherently insecure by design in order to reduce fees because they outsource validation offchain. The operator can influence transaction ordering. You can have faster withdrawals if you pay a market maker or verifier to jump in and swap your transaction, but why bother with the additional hassle and fees? I don't think the average crypto user will have any use cases for optimistic rollups. Optimistic rollups currently cost [$1-2 on Arbitrum One and Optimism](https://l2fees.info/). Unless you need to use a smart contract (which aren't supported on ZK Rollups), why would anyone anyone want to babysit their transactions for 1 week when ZK Rollups are faster, cheaper, and more secure? > > **L2 - ZK Rollup limitations**: > > ZK Rollup require special infrastructure to generate ZK Proofs. These are very computationally-expensive (potentially [thousands of times](https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/05/rollup.html) more expensive that just doing the computation directly). On-chain cost of a ZK Rollup is cheap at about [$0.20 to $.40](https://l2fees.info/), but there is a separate infrastructure cost that is rarely mentioned. Loopring is rolling up its costs into its trading fees, currently 0.80%, so their feeless transfer claims are misleading. For transfers of $10K, that's $80 of fees. In any case, even at $0.40, these are still ~100x more expensive than transferring microtransaction-friendly coins such as XLM, XRP, Nano, etc. FWIW, it's a huge improvement over current Layer 1 costs ... when the platforms I use support them some year in the future. The big limitation is that smart contracts can't use ZK Rollups. > > **Ethereum 2.0 arriving later than competitors**: > > Ethereum is separated into Casper FFG (Friendly Finality Gadget) and Casper CBC (Correct by Construction). Casper FFG is a BFT PoS consensus overlay of PoW based on the GHOST protocol. We don't have much details on Casper CBC since its design is still in progress. Its main purpose is to increase transaction speeds and reduce energy costs while sacrificing decentralization and security. > > The ETH 2.0 Beacon chain, a completely separate blockchain from ETH, won't merge with the main blockchain [until 2022](https://decrypt.co/78690/ethereum-2-staking-tops-21-billion-merge-horizon), giving competitors plenty of time to steal a share of smart contract projects. Even then, Vitalik said that [scaling will still rely on ZK Rollups until the 64-chain sharding phase](https://decrypt.co/34204/ethereum-2-0-will-walk-and-roll-for-two-years-before-it-can-run) arriving later in 2022 or 2023. It'll likely lose some market share to existing alternatives like Algo, Solana, Cardano, and others. > > Unlike Cardano PoS staking, Ethereum 2.0 PoS staking uses slashing. The system cannot tell between being offline or being censored. It's pretty damn scary. > 50% downtime is breakeven (unless there's no prepare + commit). Slash punishment can be very harsh. In the first months, we already had multiple examples of large slashings on the Beacon ETH 2.0 chain caused by simple errors: [Bugs](https://medium.com/prysmatic-labs/eth2-medalla-testnet-incident-f7fbc3cc934a) can cause slashing. [Timestamp](https://medium.com/prysmatic-labs/eth2-medalla-testnet-incident-f7fbc3cc934a) being off and cause slashing. QoS and [redundancy mistakes](https://medium.com/stakefish/ethereum-2-0-the-first-slash-a-retrospective-99e4fdcd563a) can cause slashing. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/pz4vav/rcc_cointest_top_10_ethereum_conarguments_october/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Ethereum) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/umsqe8/monthly_optimists_discussion_may_2022/).

When bitcoin bounces back,XLM will follow. If bitcoin dead, we all dead

Mentions:#XLM

#Bitcoin Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by roberthonker which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > **Taken from u\/maleficent_plankton's submission from the last round** > > In general, the typical crypto enthusiast has accepted that Bitcoin's conservative blockchain has failed to keep up with other DLTs technology-wise, which have evolved features and efficiencies way beyond Bitcoin. If all the cryptocurrencies were re-released today simultaneously, there is no way Bitcoin would make it into the top 10 by market cap, and likely not even the top 100. It's still #1 only because it continues to maintain strong security because it was the first, and thus has the largest adoption and protection against Sybil attacks. > > ------------- > > These are its flaws: > > **Redundancy inefficiencies**: To protect against Sybil and 51% attacks, Bitcoin's PoW consensus achieves greater security through greater redundancy. The more miners (specifically mining pools) there are, the harder it is to execute a 51% attack. This also means that there could be a million miners performing redundant actions vying for the next Bitcoin block. Nodes also hold redundant copies of the blockchain ledger, and inefficiency present for nearly all cryptocurrencies. > > **Mining energy Inefficiency**: PoW mining is inherently extremely energy inefficient because it's a competition. The more miners there are, the harder the mining puzzle becomes, adjusted every 2 weeks. The amount of energy needed for a single Bitcoin transaction in [Sept 2021, ~1800 kWh](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption), is roughly the same as the amount of energy used by a typical US household over 62 days. Blockchains require extra redundancy for computations and storage from each node that interacts with or validates the transaction. In comparison, other Byzantine Fault Tolerant distributed consensus methods such as BFT-Paxos and RBFT, SBFT used by Hyperledger Fabric are [10^7 x more efficient for energy use](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x) and 10^4 x for storage. > > **Mining Centralization**: Mining is not something the average crypto user can do by themselves unless they join a mining pool. You also need an expensive and specialized high-end ASIC miner for SHA-256 mining in order to have a good chance of making a profit. Individual miners have no financial incentive to run full nodes or verify their mining pool operator's decisions, leading to centralization with mining pools. > > **Fees and Rising cost of transactions**: Layer 1 transfer fees are currently $2-10+ USD and even briefly rose [past $50 in May 2021](https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee). That's way more than [its competitors](https://blog.nano.org/cryptocurrency-fee-comparison-which-crypto-has-the-lowest-fees-4e9118590e1f) (e.g. XLM, XRP, Nano, BCH) that have average transfer fees under 0.5 US cents. The fees are so high you can't use them for everyday transactions. People complain about bank fees, but if I had to use Bitcoin for everday transactions for my bank and credit cards, I'd be racking $10000+ in fees yearly. As halvings continue and the BTC price can no longer keep up, the block reward will keep decreasing. Either transaction costs will eventually rise to cover the cost of block rewards, or Bitcoin will experience an ice age where all miners drop out except for the few miners who can acquire cheap ASIC rigs and the cheapest energy costs, leading to more centralization. > > **Layer 2 adoption issue**: In general, Layer 2 solutions have much less decentralization (e.g. fewer validation nodes) than Layer 1 and face low adoption issues. The Lightning Network, a Layer 2 network of state channels that use Hash TimeLock Contracts for Bitcoin, has seen very little adoption by volume even years after introduction. It's a hassle to use for many reasons. It requires you to lock funds in a state channel, which also costs a transaction fee to open and close. It requires nodes to be online most of the time for connectivity. If the node you're connecting to goes offline, you lose your connection, and you could have your channel auto-closed. Channels can also be unilaterally force-closed, which is a common complaint among users. Basically, it's still too much of a hassle for the average crypto user. > > **Slow Finality**: Transactions take 10 minutes to record, but exchanges generally wait up to [60 minutes](https://academy.binance.com/en/glossary/finality) for probabilistic-finality. Given that the largest mining pools have 30% hash power, that's still only a 74% chance of actual finality after 6 block recordings due to possibility of a withholding attack. (The probability of a successful 51% attack given in Satoshi's original Bitcoin whitepaper was greatly underestimated because it did not take into account PoW block withholding attacks.) > > **Lack of privacy**: All transaction history is public. Public blockchains are only pseudononymous, and one can use a Transaction Graph Analysis or Taint Analysis tool to figure out who you are by linking transactions. People can also guess your wealth by tracing your transactions through the blockchain. It only takes 1 mistake to link the rest of your transactions. Individual tokens are also not fungible for this same reason. > > **Slow updates**: Bitcoin evolves slowly due to requiring social consensus and Blockchain bureaucracy. Hard forks are voluntary and can take weeks to complete. The Bitcoin Core foundation is extremely conservative and averse to hard forks, as seen with the fork that created Bitcoin Cash. That's not necessarily bad, but it does mean that most developments to Bitcoin end up turning into separate coins instead of evolving the canonical chain. There are often months-long debates and years between before making updates. As a result, it is a conservative blockchain while other DLTs have evolved technologies and features way beyond it. > > **Limitations to transaction speed**: Due to aversion to change, Bitcoin is likely at its limit for transaction speed. It is a poor Medium of Exchange due to slow transaction speeds. > > - Increase block size: requires a hard fork, results in longer network propagation time) > - Decrease block time by lowering puzzle difficulty: increases chance of natural forks, increases acceleration of block size, leading to more storage bloat, all exchanges need to adjust the number of blocks until probabilistic finality, and increases the chance of miners holding orphaned blocks. > - Decrease the transaction size: requires a hard fork (e.g. SegWit 2017 fork, which after all that work, only reduced the size by 50%) > > **Smart Contracts**: Bitcoin doesn't support complex "smart" contracts with its very basic (procedural, stack-oriented, Forth-like) Bitcoin Script. The contracts enabled by Bitcoin Scripts are so basic that they're often non-script features built directly into other blockchains like timelock releases and multi-signature. It's extremely limited because you can't easily validate them, and miners typically put huge restrictions on what is allowed for security purposes. It's possible taproot could change that if it gets a ton of developer support, but Bitcoin Script is way behind all of its competitors in adoption, and it won't evolve fast enough due to Bitcoin's conservative governance. It would be pretty tedious to program anything complex using Bitcoin Script, but I suppose there's always someone who enjoys a challenge. > > **Unstable Store of Value**: Like most non-stablecoins, it has too much volatility to be considered a stable store of value, losing up to 80% of its purchasing-power after crashes. Like gold/silver, it is more of a speculative investment. > > (Disclaimer: I only own trace amounts of BTC.) ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/pz3duc/rcc_cointest_top_10_bitcoin_conarguments_october/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Bitcoin) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/umsqe8/monthly_optimists_discussion_may_2022/).

#Bitcoin Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by roberthonker which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > **Taken from u\/maleficent_plankton's submission from the last round** > > In general, the typical crypto enthusiast has accepted that Bitcoin's conservative blockchain has failed to keep up with other DLTs technology-wise, which have evolved features and efficiencies way beyond Bitcoin. If all the cryptocurrencies were re-released today simultaneously, there is no way Bitcoin would make it into the top 10 by market cap, and likely not even the top 100. It's still #1 only because it continues to maintain strong security because it was the first, and thus has the largest adoption and protection against Sybil attacks. > > ------------- > > These are its flaws: > > **Redundancy inefficiencies**: To protect against Sybil and 51% attacks, Bitcoin's PoW consensus achieves greater security through greater redundancy. The more miners (specifically mining pools) there are, the harder it is to execute a 51% attack. This also means that there could be a million miners performing redundant actions vying for the next Bitcoin block. Nodes also hold redundant copies of the blockchain ledger, and inefficiency present for nearly all cryptocurrencies. > > **Mining energy Inefficiency**: PoW mining is inherently extremely energy inefficient because it's a competition. The more miners there are, the harder the mining puzzle becomes, adjusted every 2 weeks. The amount of energy needed for a single Bitcoin transaction in [Sept 2021, ~1800 kWh](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption), is roughly the same as the amount of energy used by a typical US household over 62 days. Blockchains require extra redundancy for computations and storage from each node that interacts with or validates the transaction. In comparison, other Byzantine Fault Tolerant distributed consensus methods such as BFT-Paxos and RBFT, SBFT used by Hyperledger Fabric are [10^7 x more efficient for energy use](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x) and 10^4 x for storage. > > **Mining Centralization**: Mining is not something the average crypto user can do by themselves unless they join a mining pool. You also need an expensive and specialized high-end ASIC miner for SHA-256 mining in order to have a good chance of making a profit. Individual miners have no financial incentive to run full nodes or verify their mining pool operator's decisions, leading to centralization with mining pools. > > **Fees and Rising cost of transactions**: Layer 1 transfer fees are currently $2-10+ USD and even briefly rose [past $50 in May 2021](https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee). That's way more than [its competitors](https://blog.nano.org/cryptocurrency-fee-comparison-which-crypto-has-the-lowest-fees-4e9118590e1f) (e.g. XLM, XRP, Nano, BCH) that have average transfer fees under 0.5 US cents. The fees are so high you can't use them for everyday transactions. People complain about bank fees, but if I had to use Bitcoin for everday transactions for my bank and credit cards, I'd be racking $10000+ in fees yearly. As halvings continue and the BTC price can no longer keep up, the block reward will keep decreasing. Either transaction costs will eventually rise to cover the cost of block rewards, or Bitcoin will experience an ice age where all miners drop out except for the few miners who can acquire cheap ASIC rigs and the cheapest energy costs, leading to more centralization. > > **Layer 2 adoption issue**: In general, Layer 2 solutions have much less decentralization (e.g. fewer validation nodes) than Layer 1 and face low adoption issues. The Lightning Network, a Layer 2 network of state channels that use Hash TimeLock Contracts for Bitcoin, has seen very little adoption by volume even years after introduction. It's a hassle to use for many reasons. It requires you to lock funds in a state channel, which also costs a transaction fee to open and close. It requires nodes to be online most of the time for connectivity. If the node you're connecting to goes offline, you lose your connection, and you could have your channel auto-closed. Channels can also be unilaterally force-closed, which is a common complaint among users. Basically, it's still too much of a hassle for the average crypto user. > > **Slow Finality**: Transactions take 10 minutes to record, but exchanges generally wait up to [60 minutes](https://academy.binance.com/en/glossary/finality) for probabilistic-finality. Given that the largest mining pools have 30% hash power, that's still only a 74% chance of actual finality after 6 block recordings due to possibility of a withholding attack. (The probability of a successful 51% attack given in Satoshi's original Bitcoin whitepaper was greatly underestimated because it did not take into account PoW block withholding attacks.) > > **Lack of privacy**: All transaction history is public. Public blockchains are only pseudononymous, and one can use a Transaction Graph Analysis or Taint Analysis tool to figure out who you are by linking transactions. People can also guess your wealth by tracing your transactions through the blockchain. It only takes 1 mistake to link the rest of your transactions. Individual tokens are also not fungible for this same reason. > > **Slow updates**: Bitcoin evolves slowly due to requiring social consensus and Blockchain bureaucracy. Hard forks are voluntary and can take weeks to complete. The Bitcoin Core foundation is extremely conservative and averse to hard forks, as seen with the fork that created Bitcoin Cash. That's not necessarily bad, but it does mean that most developments to Bitcoin end up turning into separate coins instead of evolving the canonical chain. There are often months-long debates and years between before making updates. As a result, it is a conservative blockchain while other DLTs have evolved technologies and features way beyond it. > > **Limitations to transaction speed**: Due to aversion to change, Bitcoin is likely at its limit for transaction speed. It is a poor Medium of Exchange due to slow transaction speeds. > > - Increase block size: requires a hard fork, results in longer network propagation time) > - Decrease block time by lowering puzzle difficulty: increases chance of natural forks, increases acceleration of block size, leading to more storage bloat, all exchanges need to adjust the number of blocks until probabilistic finality, and increases the chance of miners holding orphaned blocks. > - Decrease the transaction size: requires a hard fork (e.g. SegWit 2017 fork, which after all that work, only reduced the size by 50%) > > **Smart Contracts**: Bitcoin doesn't support complex "smart" contracts with its very basic (procedural, stack-oriented, Forth-like) Bitcoin Script. The contracts enabled by Bitcoin Scripts are so basic that they're often non-script features built directly into other blockchains like timelock releases and multi-signature. It's extremely limited because you can't easily validate them, and miners typically put huge restrictions on what is allowed for security purposes. It's possible taproot could change that if it gets a ton of developer support, but Bitcoin Script is way behind all of its competitors in adoption, and it won't evolve fast enough due to Bitcoin's conservative governance. It would be pretty tedious to program anything complex using Bitcoin Script, but I suppose there's always someone who enjoys a challenge. > > **Unstable Store of Value**: Like most non-stablecoins, it has too much volatility to be considered a stable store of value, losing up to 80% of its purchasing-power after crashes. Like gold/silver, it is more of a speculative investment. > > (Disclaimer: I only own trace amounts of BTC.) ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/pz3duc/rcc_cointest_top_10_bitcoin_conarguments_october/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Bitcoin) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/umsqe8/monthly_optimists_discussion_may_2022/).

#Bitcoin Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by roberthonker which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > **Taken from u\/maleficent_plankton's submission from the last round** > > In general, the typical crypto enthusiast has accepted that Bitcoin's conservative blockchain has failed to keep up with other DLTs technology-wise, which have evolved features and efficiencies way beyond Bitcoin. If all the cryptocurrencies were re-released today simultaneously, there is no way Bitcoin would make it into the top 10 by market cap, and likely not even the top 100. It's still #1 only because it continues to maintain strong security because it was the first, and thus has the largest adoption and protection against Sybil attacks. > > ------------- > > These are its flaws: > > **Redundancy inefficiencies**: To protect against Sybil and 51% attacks, Bitcoin's PoW consensus achieves greater security through greater redundancy. The more miners (specifically mining pools) there are, the harder it is to execute a 51% attack. This also means that there could be a million miners performing redundant actions vying for the next Bitcoin block. Nodes also hold redundant copies of the blockchain ledger, and inefficiency present for nearly all cryptocurrencies. > > **Mining energy Inefficiency**: PoW mining is inherently extremely energy inefficient because it's a competition. The more miners there are, the harder the mining puzzle becomes, adjusted every 2 weeks. The amount of energy needed for a single Bitcoin transaction in [Sept 2021, ~1800 kWh](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption), is roughly the same as the amount of energy used by a typical US household over 62 days. Blockchains require extra redundancy for computations and storage from each node that interacts with or validates the transaction. In comparison, other Byzantine Fault Tolerant distributed consensus methods such as BFT-Paxos and RBFT, SBFT used by Hyperledger Fabric are [10^7 x more efficient for energy use](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x) and 10^4 x for storage. > > **Mining Centralization**: Mining is not something the average crypto user can do by themselves unless they join a mining pool. You also need an expensive and specialized high-end ASIC miner for SHA-256 mining in order to have a good chance of making a profit. Individual miners have no financial incentive to run full nodes or verify their mining pool operator's decisions, leading to centralization with mining pools. > > **Fees and Rising cost of transactions**: Layer 1 transfer fees are currently $2-10+ USD and even briefly rose [past $50 in May 2021](https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee). That's way more than [its competitors](https://blog.nano.org/cryptocurrency-fee-comparison-which-crypto-has-the-lowest-fees-4e9118590e1f) (e.g. XLM, XRP, Nano, BCH) that have average transfer fees under 0.5 US cents. The fees are so high you can't use them for everyday transactions. People complain about bank fees, but if I had to use Bitcoin for everday transactions for my bank and credit cards, I'd be racking $10000+ in fees yearly. As halvings continue and the BTC price can no longer keep up, the block reward will keep decreasing. Either transaction costs will eventually rise to cover the cost of block rewards, or Bitcoin will experience an ice age where all miners drop out except for the few miners who can acquire cheap ASIC rigs and the cheapest energy costs, leading to more centralization. > > **Layer 2 adoption issue**: In general, Layer 2 solutions have much less decentralization (e.g. fewer validation nodes) than Layer 1 and face low adoption issues. The Lightning Network, a Layer 2 network of state channels that use Hash TimeLock Contracts for Bitcoin, has seen very little adoption by volume even years after introduction. It's a hassle to use for many reasons. It requires you to lock funds in a state channel, which also costs a transaction fee to open and close. It requires nodes to be online most of the time for connectivity. If the node you're connecting to goes offline, you lose your connection, and you could have your channel auto-closed. Channels can also be unilaterally force-closed, which is a common complaint among users. Basically, it's still too much of a hassle for the average crypto user. > > **Slow Finality**: Transactions take 10 minutes to record, but exchanges generally wait up to [60 minutes](https://academy.binance.com/en/glossary/finality) for probabilistic-finality. Given that the largest mining pools have 30% hash power, that's still only a 74% chance of actual finality after 6 block recordings due to possibility of a withholding attack. (The probability of a successful 51% attack given in Satoshi's original Bitcoin whitepaper was greatly underestimated because it did not take into account PoW block withholding attacks.) > > **Lack of privacy**: All transaction history is public. Public blockchains are only pseudononymous, and one can use a Transaction Graph Analysis or Taint Analysis tool to figure out who you are by linking transactions. People can also guess your wealth by tracing your transactions through the blockchain. It only takes 1 mistake to link the rest of your transactions. Individual tokens are also not fungible for this same reason. > > **Slow updates**: Bitcoin evolves slowly due to requiring social consensus and Blockchain bureaucracy. Hard forks are voluntary and can take weeks to complete. The Bitcoin Core foundation is extremely conservative and averse to hard forks, as seen with the fork that created Bitcoin Cash. That's not necessarily bad, but it does mean that most developments to Bitcoin end up turning into separate coins instead of evolving the canonical chain. There are often months-long debates and years between before making updates. As a result, it is a conservative blockchain while other DLTs have evolved technologies and features way beyond it. > > **Limitations to transaction speed**: Due to aversion to change, Bitcoin is likely at its limit for transaction speed. It is a poor Medium of Exchange due to slow transaction speeds. > > - Increase block size: requires a hard fork, results in longer network propagation time) > - Decrease block time by lowering puzzle difficulty: increases chance of natural forks, increases acceleration of block size, leading to more storage bloat, all exchanges need to adjust the number of blocks until probabilistic finality, and increases the chance of miners holding orphaned blocks. > - Decrease the transaction size: requires a hard fork (e.g. SegWit 2017 fork, which after all that work, only reduced the size by 50%) > > **Smart Contracts**: Bitcoin doesn't support complex "smart" contracts with its very basic (procedural, stack-oriented, Forth-like) Bitcoin Script. The contracts enabled by Bitcoin Scripts are so basic that they're often non-script features built directly into other blockchains like timelock releases and multi-signature. It's extremely limited because you can't easily validate them, and miners typically put huge restrictions on what is allowed for security purposes. It's possible taproot could change that if it gets a ton of developer support, but Bitcoin Script is way behind all of its competitors in adoption, and it won't evolve fast enough due to Bitcoin's conservative governance. It would be pretty tedious to program anything complex using Bitcoin Script, but I suppose there's always someone who enjoys a challenge. > > **Unstable Store of Value**: Like most non-stablecoins, it has too much volatility to be considered a stable store of value, losing up to 80% of its purchasing-power after crashes. Like gold/silver, it is more of a speculative investment. > > (Disclaimer: I only own trace amounts of BTC.) ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/pz3duc/rcc_cointest_top_10_bitcoin_conarguments_october/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Bitcoin) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/umsqe8/monthly_optimists_discussion_may_2022/).

There's a few people who get lucky and use the opportunity like the crash of a few days ago to buy a coin really low and then make money off of it. I made 35% overnight on XLM. Other than that, after having lost 30ish percent in the december crash, I more than made my money back with all these crashes and spikes. So for people who do this professionally, I simply don't understand why 20% apy is too high.

Mentions:#XLM

Could be but our cycles are also lengthening, and new cycles are popping up (NFTs for instance). I wouldn’t be surprised to see coins like XLM eventually detach from the bitcoin halvening cycle and go their own way. It could be a while and it could not happen, but in a mature crypto market those coins would surprise me if they still followed bitcoin halving (which get less significant every time in terms of total coins issued)

Mentions:#XLM

XLM hasn’t even pumped yet

Mentions:#XLM

I hold lots of free XLM from CB Visa....when it pumps even a little I sell and trade for BTC and Eth...this is the way!

Mentions:#XLM#CB#BTC

Did anyone else do a stupid and primarily hold something like an LTC or XLM during the last bull run? I regret, much regret :(

Mentions:#LTC#XLM

#Bitcoin Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by roberthonker which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > **Taken from u\/maleficent_plankton's submission from the last round** > > In general, the typical crypto enthusiast has accepted that Bitcoin's conservative blockchain has failed to keep up with other DLTs technology-wise, which have evolved features and efficiencies way beyond Bitcoin. If all the cryptocurrencies were re-released today simultaneously, there is no way Bitcoin would make it into the top 10 by market cap, and likely not even the top 100. It's still #1 only because it continues to maintain strong security because it was the first, and thus has the largest adoption and protection against Sybil attacks. > > ------------- > > These are its flaws: > > **Redundancy inefficiencies**: To protect against Sybil and 51% attacks, Bitcoin's PoW consensus achieves greater security through greater redundancy. The more miners (specifically mining pools) there are, the harder it is to execute a 51% attack. This also means that there could be a million miners performing redundant actions vying for the next Bitcoin block. Nodes also hold redundant copies of the blockchain ledger, and inefficiency present for nearly all cryptocurrencies. > > **Mining energy Inefficiency**: PoW mining is inherently extremely energy inefficient because it's a competition. The more miners there are, the harder the mining puzzle becomes, adjusted every 2 weeks. The amount of energy needed for a single Bitcoin transaction in [Sept 2021, ~1800 kWh](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption), is roughly the same as the amount of energy used by a typical US household over 62 days. Blockchains require extra redundancy for computations and storage from each node that interacts with or validates the transaction. In comparison, other Byzantine Fault Tolerant distributed consensus methods such as BFT-Paxos and RBFT, SBFT used by Hyperledger Fabric are [10^7 x more efficient for energy use](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x) and 10^4 x for storage. > > **Mining Centralization**: Mining is not something the average crypto user can do by themselves unless they join a mining pool. You also need an expensive and specialized high-end ASIC miner for SHA-256 mining in order to have a good chance of making a profit. Individual miners have no financial incentive to run full nodes or verify their mining pool operator's decisions, leading to centralization with mining pools. > > **Fees and Rising cost of transactions**: Layer 1 transfer fees are currently $2-10+ USD and even briefly rose [past $50 in May 2021](https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee). That's way more than [its competitors](https://blog.nano.org/cryptocurrency-fee-comparison-which-crypto-has-the-lowest-fees-4e9118590e1f) (e.g. XLM, XRP, Nano, BCH) that have average transfer fees under 0.5 US cents. The fees are so high you can't use them for everyday transactions. People complain about bank fees, but if I had to use Bitcoin for everday transactions for my bank and credit cards, I'd be racking $10000+ in fees yearly. As halvings continue and the BTC price can no longer keep up, the block reward will keep decreasing. Either transaction costs will eventually rise to cover the cost of block rewards, or Bitcoin will experience an ice age where all miners drop out except for the few miners who can acquire cheap ASIC rigs and the cheapest energy costs, leading to more centralization. > > **Layer 2 adoption issue**: In general, Layer 2 solutions have much less decentralization (e.g. fewer validation nodes) than Layer 1 and face low adoption issues. The Lightning Network, a Layer 2 network of state channels that use Hash TimeLock Contracts for Bitcoin, has seen very little adoption by volume even years after introduction. It's a hassle to use for many reasons. It requires you to lock funds in a state channel, which also costs a transaction fee to open and close. It requires nodes to be online most of the time for connectivity. If the node you're connecting to goes offline, you lose your connection, and you could have your channel auto-closed. Channels can also be unilaterally force-closed, which is a common complaint among users. Basically, it's still too much of a hassle for the average crypto user. > > **Slow Finality**: Transactions take 10 minutes to record, but exchanges generally wait up to [60 minutes](https://academy.binance.com/en/glossary/finality) for probabilistic-finality. Given that the largest mining pools have 30% hash power, that's still only a 74% chance of actual finality after 6 block recordings due to possibility of a withholding attack. (The probability of a successful 51% attack given in Satoshi's original Bitcoin whitepaper was greatly underestimated because it did not take into account PoW block withholding attacks.) > > **Lack of privacy**: All transaction history is public. Public blockchains are only pseudononymous, and one can use a Transaction Graph Analysis or Taint Analysis tool to figure out who you are by linking transactions. People can also guess your wealth by tracing your transactions through the blockchain. It only takes 1 mistake to link the rest of your transactions. Individual tokens are also not fungible for this same reason. > > **Slow updates**: Bitcoin evolves slowly due to requiring social consensus and Blockchain bureaucracy. Hard forks are voluntary and can take weeks to complete. The Bitcoin Core foundation is extremely conservative and averse to hard forks, as seen with the fork that created Bitcoin Cash. That's not necessarily bad, but it does mean that most developments to Bitcoin end up turning into separate coins instead of evolving the canonical chain. There are often months-long debates and years between before making updates. As a result, it is a conservative blockchain while other DLTs have evolved technologies and features way beyond it. > > **Limitations to transaction speed**: Due to aversion to change, Bitcoin is likely at its limit for transaction speed. It is a poor Medium of Exchange due to slow transaction speeds. > > - Increase block size: requires a hard fork, results in longer network propagation time) > - Decrease block time by lowering puzzle difficulty: increases chance of natural forks, increases acceleration of block size, leading to more storage bloat, all exchanges need to adjust the number of blocks until probabilistic finality, and increases the chance of miners holding orphaned blocks. > - Decrease the transaction size: requires a hard fork (e.g. SegWit 2017 fork, which after all that work, only reduced the size by 50%) > > **Smart Contracts**: Bitcoin doesn't support complex "smart" contracts with its very basic (procedural, stack-oriented, Forth-like) Bitcoin Script. The contracts enabled by Bitcoin Scripts are so basic that they're often non-script features built directly into other blockchains like timelock releases and multi-signature. It's extremely limited because you can't easily validate them, and miners typically put huge restrictions on what is allowed for security purposes. It's possible taproot could change that if it gets a ton of developer support, but Bitcoin Script is way behind all of its competitors in adoption, and it won't evolve fast enough due to Bitcoin's conservative governance. It would be pretty tedious to program anything complex using Bitcoin Script, but I suppose there's always someone who enjoys a challenge. > > **Unstable Store of Value**: Like most non-stablecoins, it has too much volatility to be considered a stable store of value, losing up to 80% of its purchasing-power after crashes. Like gold/silver, it is more of a speculative investment. > > (Disclaimer: I only own trace amounts of BTC.) ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/pz3duc/rcc_cointest_top_10_bitcoin_conarguments_october/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Bitcoin) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/umsqe8/monthly_optimists_discussion_may_2022/).

Not sure what MC has to do with it, but ALGO for the win. Others will promote XLM which I hear is excellent for the purpose of moving to and from exchanges as well.

Mentions:#ALGO#XLM

#Bitcoin Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by roberthonker which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > **Taken from u\/maleficent_plankton's submission from the last round** > > In general, the typical crypto enthusiast has accepted that Bitcoin's conservative blockchain has failed to keep up with other DLTs technology-wise, which have evolved features and efficiencies way beyond Bitcoin. If all the cryptocurrencies were re-released today simultaneously, there is no way Bitcoin would make it into the top 10 by market cap, and likely not even the top 100. It's still #1 only because it continues to maintain strong security because it was the first, and thus has the largest adoption and protection against Sybil attacks. > > ------------- > > These are its flaws: > > **Redundancy inefficiencies**: To protect against Sybil and 51% attacks, Bitcoin's PoW consensus achieves greater security through greater redundancy. The more miners (specifically mining pools) there are, the harder it is to execute a 51% attack. This also means that there could be a million miners performing redundant actions vying for the next Bitcoin block. Nodes also hold redundant copies of the blockchain ledger, and inefficiency present for nearly all cryptocurrencies. > > **Mining energy Inefficiency**: PoW mining is inherently extremely energy inefficient because it's a competition. The more miners there are, the harder the mining puzzle becomes, adjusted every 2 weeks. The amount of energy needed for a single Bitcoin transaction in [Sept 2021, ~1800 kWh](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption), is roughly the same as the amount of energy used by a typical US household over 62 days. Blockchains require extra redundancy for computations and storage from each node that interacts with or validates the transaction. In comparison, other Byzantine Fault Tolerant distributed consensus methods such as BFT-Paxos and RBFT, SBFT used by Hyperledger Fabric are [10^7 x more efficient for energy use](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x) and 10^4 x for storage. > > **Mining Centralization**: Mining is not something the average crypto user can do by themselves unless they join a mining pool. You also need an expensive and specialized high-end ASIC miner for SHA-256 mining in order to have a good chance of making a profit. Individual miners have no financial incentive to run full nodes or verify their mining pool operator's decisions, leading to centralization with mining pools. > > **Fees and Rising cost of transactions**: Layer 1 transfer fees are currently $2-10+ USD and even briefly rose [past $50 in May 2021](https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee). That's way more than [its competitors](https://blog.nano.org/cryptocurrency-fee-comparison-which-crypto-has-the-lowest-fees-4e9118590e1f) (e.g. XLM, XRP, Nano, BCH) that have average transfer fees under 0.5 US cents. The fees are so high you can't use them for everyday transactions. People complain about bank fees, but if I had to use Bitcoin for everday transactions for my bank and credit cards, I'd be racking $10000+ in fees yearly. As halvings continue and the BTC price can no longer keep up, the block reward will keep decreasing. Either transaction costs will eventually rise to cover the cost of block rewards, or Bitcoin will experience an ice age where all miners drop out except for the few miners who can acquire cheap ASIC rigs and the cheapest energy costs, leading to more centralization. > > **Layer 2 adoption issue**: In general, Layer 2 solutions have much less decentralization (e.g. fewer validation nodes) than Layer 1 and face low adoption issues. The Lightning Network, a Layer 2 network of state channels that use Hash TimeLock Contracts for Bitcoin, has seen very little adoption by volume even years after introduction. It's a hassle to use for many reasons. It requires you to lock funds in a state channel, which also costs a transaction fee to open and close. It requires nodes to be online most of the time for connectivity. If the node you're connecting to goes offline, you lose your connection, and you could have your channel auto-closed. Channels can also be unilaterally force-closed, which is a common complaint among users. Basically, it's still too much of a hassle for the average crypto user. > > **Slow Finality**: Transactions take 10 minutes to record, but exchanges generally wait up to [60 minutes](https://academy.binance.com/en/glossary/finality) for probabilistic-finality. Given that the largest mining pools have 30% hash power, that's still only a 74% chance of actual finality after 6 block recordings due to possibility of a withholding attack. (The probability of a successful 51% attack given in Satoshi's original Bitcoin whitepaper was greatly underestimated because it did not take into account PoW block withholding attacks.) > > **Lack of privacy**: All transaction history is public. Public blockchains are only pseudononymous, and one can use a Transaction Graph Analysis or Taint Analysis tool to figure out who you are by linking transactions. People can also guess your wealth by tracing your transactions through the blockchain. It only takes 1 mistake to link the rest of your transactions. Individual tokens are also not fungible for this same reason. > > **Slow updates**: Bitcoin evolves slowly due to requiring social consensus and Blockchain bureaucracy. Hard forks are voluntary and can take weeks to complete. The Bitcoin Core foundation is extremely conservative and averse to hard forks, as seen with the fork that created Bitcoin Cash. That's not necessarily bad, but it does mean that most developments to Bitcoin end up turning into separate coins instead of evolving the canonical chain. There are often months-long debates and years between before making updates. As a result, it is a conservative blockchain while other DLTs have evolved technologies and features way beyond it. > > **Limitations to transaction speed**: Due to aversion to change, Bitcoin is likely at its limit for transaction speed. It is a poor Medium of Exchange due to slow transaction speeds. > > - Increase block size: requires a hard fork, results in longer network propagation time) > - Decrease block time by lowering puzzle difficulty: increases chance of natural forks, increases acceleration of block size, leading to more storage bloat, all exchanges need to adjust the number of blocks until probabilistic finality, and increases the chance of miners holding orphaned blocks. > - Decrease the transaction size: requires a hard fork (e.g. SegWit 2017 fork, which after all that work, only reduced the size by 50%) > > **Smart Contracts**: Bitcoin doesn't support complex "smart" contracts with its very basic (procedural, stack-oriented, Forth-like) Bitcoin Script. The contracts enabled by Bitcoin Scripts are so basic that they're often non-script features built directly into other blockchains like timelock releases and multi-signature. It's extremely limited because you can't easily validate them, and miners typically put huge restrictions on what is allowed for security purposes. It's possible taproot could change that if it gets a ton of developer support, but Bitcoin Script is way behind all of its competitors in adoption, and it won't evolve fast enough due to Bitcoin's conservative governance. It would be pretty tedious to program anything complex using Bitcoin Script, but I suppose there's always someone who enjoys a challenge. > > **Unstable Store of Value**: Like most non-stablecoins, it has too much volatility to be considered a stable store of value, losing up to 80% of its purchasing-power after crashes. Like gold/silver, it is more of a speculative investment. > > (Disclaimer: I only own trace amounts of BTC.) ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/pz3duc/rcc_cointest_top_10_bitcoin_conarguments_october/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Bitcoin) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/umsqe8/monthly_optimists_discussion_may_2022/).

Also you addressed XLM but ignored NANO, it may not be PoW but it could be argued that its distribution method was even more fair than what PoW allows, especially now in the era of warehouses full of miners

Mentions:#XLM

"it's just a different product"... that already serves one of the vital applications you're championing BCH for (quick transactions) and does it better (feeless). And that's kind of the problem here. BCH seems like "jack of all trades, master of none." It doesn't hold value like BTC (which even BTC isnt great at recently lol), it's not anonymous like XMR, it's not feeless like XLM or NANO. BTC Lightning network cleans up whatever applications are left. I just don't see an impetus for anyone to actually use it if they don't share your philosophical views on BCH.

> XLM Not trying to knock XLM but its premined and centralised. Use it like you use XRP, no problem, its just a different product.

Mentions:#XLM#XRP

What about everything else in my previous comment though? If speed is the issue, XLM or NANO work. If you're philosophically committed to the implications of BCH, I get that, I see XMR that way, but just having philosophical commitment doesn't create a use case for it (XMR [which has a huge monopoly on anonymous transactions already](https://monero.com/charts/shielded)) I've transferred Bitcoin tons of times and I usually pay more like $0.20, maybe $50 is possible in theory but it's certainly not common in practice.

Mentions:#XLM#BCH#XMR

Can you convert to something like XLM and send for virtually zero fees ?

Mentions:#XLM

XLM is one of the oldest still-kicking cryptos around so, although I honestly have no idea, but quick google search says it's decentralized and open-source. XLM is 100% premined (or, if you prefer, there is no mining). But premine or no premine only seems like an issue if you're using it for speculation/investing. If you're just using it for transactions then, as long as it holds value from the time you buy it to the time you spend it, it doesn't seem like you'd really need to care if it was premined or not. And as investments go, I have a hard time seeing the logic in BCH when Bitcoin is the most established by far and it can handle the public PoW transactions just fine, and Monero is a better candidate for private transactions. NANO apparently had 4.5% premine then distributed all of the remaining supply quietly through a CAPTCHA faucet, which is pretty cool actually, didn't know that until I just checked

Mentions:#XLM#BCH

Hmm, makes sense, but if you're not concerned with anonymity and just concerned with scaling (which mostly translates to transaction speed for the end user), why use BCH at all over something like NANO or XLM? Agreed Monero interface needs a lot of work.

Mentions:#BCH#XLM

>Has been DDOS attacked during its whole existence and can't seem to find a solution. If it has, then it's been successful for 7 years in not being stopped by DDOS attempts up to now then, hasn't it? v21 was Spammed (a totally different attack vector) a year ago, and that attack vector was totally closed by Issue 3208 in v22 ​ >Does exactly the same thing (less actually) as other chains that don't get attacked daily (XRP, XLM, ALGO just to name a few) Doesn't. Doesn't do anything like the same thing. Not even close. * XRP: * Is not hard money. Nearly half of it is still to be distributed. * Has a minimum wallet balance, which excludes it from being used by over half the world's population * Forgot its first 30,000 blocks. No one seems to care that it's therefore an unprovable chain * 4 second confirmations. Tolerable, but only just, in a long queue of customers * XLM: * See XRP. Really much of a muchness * ALGO: * Has a 22.7% inflation rate. Were you having a laugh comparing hard money Nano with this one? ​ >"Why would anyone use Nano?": To get instant feeless zero-inflation peer-to-peer digital payments without passing through a financial institution

#Bitcoin Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by roberthonker which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > **Taken from u\/maleficent_plankton's submission from the last round** > > In general, the typical crypto enthusiast has accepted that Bitcoin's conservative blockchain has failed to keep up with other DLTs technology-wise, which have evolved features and efficiencies way beyond Bitcoin. If all the cryptocurrencies were re-released today simultaneously, there is no way Bitcoin would make it into the top 10 by market cap, and likely not even the top 100. It's still #1 only because it continues to maintain strong security because it was the first, and thus has the largest adoption and protection against Sybil attacks. > > ------------- > > These are its flaws: > > **Redundancy inefficiencies**: To protect against Sybil and 51% attacks, Bitcoin's PoW consensus achieves greater security through greater redundancy. The more miners (specifically mining pools) there are, the harder it is to execute a 51% attack. This also means that there could be a million miners performing redundant actions vying for the next Bitcoin block. Nodes also hold redundant copies of the blockchain ledger, and inefficiency present for nearly all cryptocurrencies. > > **Mining energy Inefficiency**: PoW mining is inherently extremely energy inefficient because it's a competition. The more miners there are, the harder the mining puzzle becomes, adjusted every 2 weeks. The amount of energy needed for a single Bitcoin transaction in [Sept 2021, ~1800 kWh](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption), is roughly the same as the amount of energy used by a typical US household over 62 days. Blockchains require extra redundancy for computations and storage from each node that interacts with or validates the transaction. In comparison, other Byzantine Fault Tolerant distributed consensus methods such as BFT-Paxos and RBFT, SBFT used by Hyperledger Fabric are [10^7 x more efficient for energy use](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x) and 10^4 x for storage. > > **Mining Centralization**: Mining is not something the average crypto user can do by themselves unless they join a mining pool. You also need an expensive and specialized high-end ASIC miner for SHA-256 mining in order to have a good chance of making a profit. Individual miners have no financial incentive to run full nodes or verify their mining pool operator's decisions, leading to centralization with mining pools. > > **Fees and Rising cost of transactions**: Layer 1 transfer fees are currently $2-10+ USD and even briefly rose [past $50 in May 2021](https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee). That's way more than [its competitors](https://blog.nano.org/cryptocurrency-fee-comparison-which-crypto-has-the-lowest-fees-4e9118590e1f) (e.g. XLM, XRP, Nano, BCH) that have average transfer fees under 0.5 US cents. The fees are so high you can't use them for everyday transactions. People complain about bank fees, but if I had to use Bitcoin for everday transactions for my bank and credit cards, I'd be racking $10000+ in fees yearly. As halvings continue and the BTC price can no longer keep up, the block reward will keep decreasing. Either transaction costs will eventually rise to cover the cost of block rewards, or Bitcoin will experience an ice age where all miners drop out except for the few miners who can acquire cheap ASIC rigs and the cheapest energy costs, leading to more centralization. > > **Layer 2 adoption issue**: In general, Layer 2 solutions have much less decentralization (e.g. fewer validation nodes) than Layer 1 and face low adoption issues. The Lightning Network, a Layer 2 network of state channels that use Hash TimeLock Contracts for Bitcoin, has seen very little adoption by volume even years after introduction. It's a hassle to use for many reasons. It requires you to lock funds in a state channel, which also costs a transaction fee to open and close. It requires nodes to be online most of the time for connectivity. If the node you're connecting to goes offline, you lose your connection, and you could have your channel auto-closed. Channels can also be unilaterally force-closed, which is a common complaint among users. Basically, it's still too much of a hassle for the average crypto user. > > **Slow Finality**: Transactions take 10 minutes to record, but exchanges generally wait up to [60 minutes](https://academy.binance.com/en/glossary/finality) for probabilistic-finality. Given that the largest mining pools have 30% hash power, that's still only a 74% chance of actual finality after 6 block recordings due to possibility of a withholding attack. (The probability of a successful 51% attack given in Satoshi's original Bitcoin whitepaper was greatly underestimated because it did not take into account PoW block withholding attacks.) > > **Lack of privacy**: All transaction history is public. Public blockchains are only pseudononymous, and one can use a Transaction Graph Analysis or Taint Analysis tool to figure out who you are by linking transactions. People can also guess your wealth by tracing your transactions through the blockchain. It only takes 1 mistake to link the rest of your transactions. Individual tokens are also not fungible for this same reason. > > **Slow updates**: Bitcoin evolves slowly due to requiring social consensus and Blockchain bureaucracy. Hard forks are voluntary and can take weeks to complete. The Bitcoin Core foundation is extremely conservative and averse to hard forks, as seen with the fork that created Bitcoin Cash. That's not necessarily bad, but it does mean that most developments to Bitcoin end up turning into separate coins instead of evolving the canonical chain. There are often months-long debates and years between before making updates. As a result, it is a conservative blockchain while other DLTs have evolved technologies and features way beyond it. > > **Limitations to transaction speed**: Due to aversion to change, Bitcoin is likely at its limit for transaction speed. It is a poor Medium of Exchange due to slow transaction speeds. > > - Increase block size: requires a hard fork, results in longer network propagation time) > - Decrease block time by lowering puzzle difficulty: increases chance of natural forks, increases acceleration of block size, leading to more storage bloat, all exchanges need to adjust the number of blocks until probabilistic finality, and increases the chance of miners holding orphaned blocks. > - Decrease the transaction size: requires a hard fork (e.g. SegWit 2017 fork, which after all that work, only reduced the size by 50%) > > **Smart Contracts**: Bitcoin doesn't support complex "smart" contracts with its very basic (procedural, stack-oriented, Forth-like) Bitcoin Script. The contracts enabled by Bitcoin Scripts are so basic that they're often non-script features built directly into other blockchains like timelock releases and multi-signature. It's extremely limited because you can't easily validate them, and miners typically put huge restrictions on what is allowed for security purposes. It's possible taproot could change that if it gets a ton of developer support, but Bitcoin Script is way behind all of its competitors in adoption, and it won't evolve fast enough due to Bitcoin's conservative governance. It would be pretty tedious to program anything complex using Bitcoin Script, but I suppose there's always someone who enjoys a challenge. > > **Unstable Store of Value**: Like most non-stablecoins, it has too much volatility to be considered a stable store of value, losing up to 80% of its purchasing-power after crashes. Like gold/silver, it is more of a speculative investment. > > (Disclaimer: I only own trace amounts of BTC.) ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/pz3duc/rcc_cointest_top_10_bitcoin_conarguments_october/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Bitcoin) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/umsqe8/monthly_optimists_discussion_may_2022/).

- Has been DDOS attacked during its whole existence and can't seem to find a solution. - Does exactly the same thing (less actually) as other chains that don't get attacked daily (XRP, XLM, ALGO just to name a few) Why would anyone use Nano?

#Bitcoin Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by roberthonker which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > **Taken from u\/maleficent_plankton's submission from the last round** > > In general, the typical crypto enthusiast has accepted that Bitcoin's conservative blockchain has failed to keep up with other DLTs technology-wise, which have evolved features and efficiencies way beyond Bitcoin. If all the cryptocurrencies were re-released today simultaneously, there is no way Bitcoin would make it into the top 10 by market cap, and likely not even the top 100. It's still #1 only because it continues to maintain strong security because it was the first, and thus has the largest adoption and protection against Sybil attacks. > > ------------- > > These are its flaws: > > **Redundancy inefficiencies**: To protect against Sybil and 51% attacks, Bitcoin's PoW consensus achieves greater security through greater redundancy. The more miners (specifically mining pools) there are, the harder it is to execute a 51% attack. This also means that there could be a million miners performing redundant actions vying for the next Bitcoin block. Nodes also hold redundant copies of the blockchain ledger, and inefficiency present for nearly all cryptocurrencies. > > **Mining energy Inefficiency**: PoW mining is inherently extremely energy inefficient because it's a competition. The more miners there are, the harder the mining puzzle becomes, adjusted every 2 weeks. The amount of energy needed for a single Bitcoin transaction in [Sept 2021, ~1800 kWh](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption), is roughly the same as the amount of energy used by a typical US household over 62 days. Blockchains require extra redundancy for computations and storage from each node that interacts with or validates the transaction. In comparison, other Byzantine Fault Tolerant distributed consensus methods such as BFT-Paxos and RBFT, SBFT used by Hyperledger Fabric are [10^7 x more efficient for energy use](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x) and 10^4 x for storage. > > **Mining Centralization**: Mining is not something the average crypto user can do by themselves unless they join a mining pool. You also need an expensive and specialized high-end ASIC miner for SHA-256 mining in order to have a