See More CryptosHome

XRP

XRP

Show Trading View Graph

Mentions (24Hr)

27

-38.64% Today

Reddit Posts

What happens to XRP holders if they lose their lawsuit

Why is XRP the only cryptocurrency that has a cult like community?

Ripple Bought $8.4B XRP Since SEC Lawsuit ‘To Support Healthy Markets’

Ripple's On-Demand Liquidity Soars To Record Highs As XRP Army Eager To Receive Verdict On SEC Lawsuit

Is EOS/USDT pair good for scalping?

Coinbase To Relist XRP Now That There Is Regulatory Clarity?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Should i leave Bitcoin it in a Binance exchange (Long term)?

Will the LBRY Case Help Ripple/XRP?

To all the people who think the sub is ruined now

Ripple Sold $226M of XRP in Q4; Sees Strong Growth in On-Demand Liquidity Product

Potentially huge crypto win no one is talking about: Judge in the LBRY vs SEC case gets SEC to say ON RECORD that the token itself is NOT a security.

XRP Lawyer Scores Crucial Victory For Ripple And Crypto

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Crypto Whales Just Moved $150M Worth of DOGE and XRP

BTC dominance shows its colors

Big Banks Eyeing Ripple Court Case as XRP Price Holds Onto Gains

‘Grave Mistake’—Joe Biden Reveals Game-Changing Crypto ‘Roadmap’ After $2 Trillion Bitcoin, Ethereum, BNB, XRP, Cardano, Dogecoin, Polygon And Solana Price Crash

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Whales Abruptly Move Over $150,000,000 in XRP and Dogecoin As Bitcoin Floats Above $23,000 - The Daily Hodl

Ripple's Garlinghouse Hopeful On Outcome Of XRP Lawsuit As He Stays Bullish On Crypto Market

Does the SEC have a plan or just playing games?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

I wrote a haiku(ish) poem about the top 10 cryptos by market cap (excluding stablecoins). And one Moon flavored bonus!

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

XRP price signals breakout, Ripple bulls to eye 20% rally soon

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Oct. 16th 2020 BTC was at ~$11.4K and a new bull run was starting. Here's how crypto has performed since the beginning of the 2020/2021 bull run.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

XRP price gathers steam for 45% upswing as Brad Garlinghouse prepares for landslide victory against the SEC

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Crypto Price Warning: ‘Global Financial Meltdown’ Could Be About To ‘Smoke’ Bitcoin, Ethereum, BNB, XRP, Cardano, Dogecoin, Polygon And Solana

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Am I the only one investing in BNB?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Ripple XRP Market Cap Crosses $20B Amid $400M Marketwide Liquidation for Shortsellers

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Whether or not Ripple wins the case, XRP may not be a good buying opportunity this year

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP and Cardano have more meat on the bone, rank in undervalued assets in 2023

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

XRP Tops the Largest Estimated Locked Value

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Ripple Manipulating The XRP Price? Researcher Finds Evidence

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Ripple CEO: XRP lawsuit resolved by June, SEC conduct ‘embarrassing’

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Ripple CEO: XRP lawsuit resolved by June, SEC conduct 'embarrassing'

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

So here’s what I want to know, how many of you have now got £10-15 worth of different coins on various exchanges?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

You don't hear a lot about XLM these days: XRP Rival Stellar (XLM) Turns Green as Commercial Bank Runs Pilot Program for New Digital Currency System - The Daily Hodl

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Scammer returns the loot back after reading messages from community

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

‘Ready To Run’—Crypto Braced For A $10 Billion Earthquake As The Price Of Bitcoin, Ethereum, BNB, XRP, Cardano, Dogecoin, Polygon And Solana Soar

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Is working for Bitcoin actually possible?

r/CryptoMarketsSee Post

Ripple’s XRP: A Threat to the Current Monetary System?”

r/CryptoMoonShotsSee Post

New Big Potential Low Tax And High Reward Project : Introducing Nakama

r/CryptoMoonShotsSee Post

Introducing Nakama

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Info for Beginners to XRP:

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Litecoin vs Ripple: Differences, and Everything You Need to Know

r/BitcoinSee Post

…The Truth About CBDCs… Design Choices by ECB & FED Analysed… They Are Aiming At Tight Control Over Accounts, Interest and Spending... Is This a Digital Prison? [Due Diligence]

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Ripple’s XRP Gains 6.2% in 24 Hours

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Biggest Movers: ATOM Hits 2-Month High, as XRP Extends Recent Gains – Market Updates Bitcoin News

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Flare Tokens Airdropped to XRP Holders After Two Years; FLR Price Plummets

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Flare Tokens Airdropped to XRP Holders After Two Years; FLR Price Plummets

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Kraken Email (FLR Token Distribution)

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

New to Crypto, Best Crypto Practices

…The Truth About CBDCs… Design Choices by ECB & FED Analysed… Both Are Aiming At Tight Control Over Accounts, Interest and Spending... A Digital Prison Is Being Built in the Shadows… [Due Diligence]

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

The Coin Wars: XRP vs ETH

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Despite SEC Battle, XRP Investment Products Saw Record Inflows in 2022

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

…The Shocking Truth About CBDCs… Design Choices of ECB & FED Analysed… Both Are Aiming At Tight Control Over Accounts, Interest and Spending... A Digital Prison Is Being Built in the Shadows… [Due Diligence]

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

…The Shocking Truth About CBDCs… Design Choices of ECB & FED Analysed… Both Are Aiming At Tight Control Over Accounts, Interest and Spending... A Digital Prison Is Being Built in the Shadows… [Due Diligence]

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

…The Shocking Truth About CBDCs… Design Choices of ECB & FED Analysed… Both Are Aiming At Tight Control Over Accounts, Interest and Spending... A Digital Prison Is Being Built in the Shadows… [Due Diligence]

r/CryptoMarketsSee Post

Crypto Whales Move Over $670,000,000 in Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, Polygon and Curve

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Crypto Whales Move Over $670,000,000 in Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, Polygon and Curve – Here’s Where It’s All Going - The Daily Hodl

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

A dive into Stellar Lumens (XLM)

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Coins that have no business being in the Top 100 (useless/overhyped/obsolete/etc.)

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Ripple (XRP), Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), SUSHISWAP (SUSHI) & More Cr...

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

anybody here knows anything about the SEC lawsuit?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

What's the most probable course of action for cryptocurrency?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

A comparison of crypto and other investments this year. It's been a bad year for most investments, and there weren't too many options where your money was safe from the economic crisis. But despite a recession, Bitcoin is continuing to perform better in this bear market than in previous ones.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Hey you bear market degens. Need some help finding strong projects from these ashes? Here's some tips on how to determine value within this industry.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

XRP Lawyer Says SEC Chair Gary Gensler Will Drive Crypto Prices Lower With Future Lawsuit Against an Exchange

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

The new FOLIO of HATE for 2023 is ready. This is the subs most despised coins combined into a single awful folio. New entrants have joined the ranks. Will the folio fail? Do you hate it? Is it the same as yours?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

XRP chart exhibits ‘sell signal' as Ripple v. SEC lawsuit heats up

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Losing your virginity

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

XRP Lawsuit: Ripple Gains Incredible Backings As SEC Case Takes Surprising Turn

r/SatoshiStreetBetsSee Post

Price analysis 12/26: SPX, DXY, BTC, ETH, BNB, XRP, DOGE, ADA, MATIC, DOT

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

XRP Lawsuit Sees New Twist As Ripple And SEC Push For Extension of Joint Motion to January 13

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Another year, another tear

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Cardano (ADA), Dogecoin (DOGE), XRP and Six Altcoins Among Most Googled Crypto Assets of 2022

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

SEC let's talk

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

XRP Lawsuit News: Court To Make Hinman Docs Public Or SEC Can Still Save it?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Here it is. The final report on the FOLIO OF HATE. This is the subs most despised coins combined into a single awful folio, and how it performed in 2022. How much did you want it to fail? Does it still make you angry?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Here it is. The final report on the FOLIO OF HATE. This is the subs most despised coins combined into a single awful folio, and how it performed in 2022. How much did you want it to fail? Does it still make you angry?

r/SatoshiStreetBetsSee Post

Price analysis 12/23: BTC, ETH, BNB, XRP, DOGE, ADA, MATIC, DOT, LTC, UNI

r/CryptoMoonShotsSee Post

$XRP Xrp Classic's purpose is to develop eco friendly solutions

r/CryptoMoonShotsSee Post

$XRP - Xrp Classic's purpose is to develop eco friendly solutions

r/CryptoMoonShotsSee Post

Xrp Classic is a project established to create its own ReFi blockchain

r/CryptoMoonShotsSee Post

How will the blockchain technology evolve into?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Can someone please explain stablecoins VS BTC VS Altcoins?

r/SatoshiStreetBetsSee Post

Price analysis 12/21: BTC, ETH, BNB, XRP, DOGE, ADA, MATIC, DOT, LTC, UNI

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

[SERIOUS] Binance - FUD or not? The truth

r/CryptoMarketsSee Post

Ethereum’s Vitalik Buterin Says XRP is “Completely Centralized” After Cardano Founder Slammed XRP Community

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Vitalik Buterin says XRP is ‘completely centralized,’ Ripple CTO reacts

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Vitalik Buterin says XRP is 'completely centralized,' Ripple CTO reacts

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Why I don't like second places and bets.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

I'm moving from DCA to long term hold.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Ripple CTO recommends Charles Hoskinson take a timeout, after Cardano co-founder called XRP Army toxic

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Charles Hoskinson Asserts That XRP Has Little Technical Value And Is Prepared To Move On

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Crypto Price Today Live: Bitcoin below $17,000; XRP, Shiba Inu and Dogecoin drop up to 3%

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

You can only buy one altcoin outside the top 10. Which one are you picking and why?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Cardano Founder Hoskinson Describes XRP Community as ‘Toxic and Petty’

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

What is the Best Cold Wallet? (DECEMBER 2022) For Android & Supports Major Alt Coins

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Cardano founder to stop discussing XRP citing 'vicious' community attacks

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Once XRP/ETH is declared a security, the entire crypto bubble is going to burst

Mentions

SEC can't even figure out what a centralized network like XRP is

Mentions:#XRP

#Ethereum Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Ethereum Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Ethereum has drastically changed in the past year now that it has rebranded itself as **Consensus/Settlement layer** for other Layer 2 Execution/Rollup networks. It is no longer trying to be a monolithic blockchain by itself. Because of this shift in design, many of its former CONs are no longer major issues. And many of the CONs that still exist often have a beneficial sides. > > I discuss the CONs of Ethereum and their impact on its users here: > > ## CONs > > **Gas Fees** (major): > > The biggest complaint for Ethereum is 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 much of DeFi is extremely expensive. 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. Basically: use a coin on a different network to avoid fees. > > Typical transaction fees for Ethereum were [between $2-10 over the past year](https://etherscan.io/chart/avg-txfee-usd), but they have shot up to $50+ several times in 2021. > > 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 mid-year in 2021 saw $100-$200 gas fees. Transferring ERC-20 tokens (often $20-50) is also more gas expensive because it can't be done through native transfers like on the Cardano network. It's impractical to use swaps like Uniswap for small transactions due to these fees. > > In particular, One/Many-to-many batch transactions are extremely gas-expensive using Ethereum's account-based model compared to Bitcoin's and Cardano's UXTO-based model. [This batch transaction on Ethereum](https://etherscan.io/tx/0x0fe2542079644e107cbf13690eb9c2c65963ccb79089ff96bfaf8dced2331c92) cost over $5000 while [a similar eUXTO transaction on Cardano](https://adapools.org/transactions/e586c6340ee9e60a6c64f447feffe5f89bdabc7741666ecaa681081957938f56) only cost $0.50 in fees. > > On the other hand, these fees provide Ethereum long-term economic sustainability and resilience against DDoS and spam attacks. > > **Competition from other Smart Contract networks** (moderate): > > Ethereum has enjoyed its lead as the smart contract blockchain due to first-mover advantage. But there are now many efficient smart contract competitors like Algorand, Solana, and Cardano. Ethereum is now facing much competition. Who wants to pay $20 gas fees on Ethereum when you can get similar transactions for under $0.01 with Algo and Solana or $0.30 transactions with Cardano? > > Fortunately, the amount of competition is limited because Ethereum is positioning itself as a Settlement layer whereas these other networks are monolithic networks. All monolithic networks will eventually run into scaling issues due to long-term storage and bandwidth limits. It will really depend on how successful Ethereum's Layer 2 rollup solutions will be. > > **Future uncertainty about Layer 2 solutions** (major): > > Ethereum's long-term success is dependent on the success of its Layer 2 solutions. > > These Layer 2 solutions are still extremely early. Even after a year, L2 has a very fragmented adoption. The majority of centralized exchanges currently do not support Layer 2 rollup networks. A few have started to support Polygon, which is more of a Layer 2 side-chain that saves state every 256 blocks than a Layer 2 rollup. Very few CEXs allow for direct fiat on/off-ramping on L2 networks, which puts those networks out of reach of most users. > > Many of these Layer 2 networks (Arbitrum, Optimism, Loopring, ZKSync, etc), are not interoperable with each other. You can store your tokens on any specific L2 network, but they're stuck there. If you want to move your tokens back to Layer 1 or to another L2 network, you have to pay very expensive smart contract gas fees ($50-300). Eventually, there will be bridges between these networks, but we could be years away from widespread adoption. > > Fragmented liquidity is another huge issue. Each of these L2 networks has its own liquidity pool for each token it supports. You can store your token on the the L2 network, but you won't be able to trade or swap much if there are no liquidity pools for that token. Eventually, there will be Dynamic Automated Market Makers (dAMMs) that can share liquidity between networks, but they are complex and introduce their own weaknesses. > > 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. They are very centralized in how they operate, so there's always the risk that their network operators could cheat their customers. By now, the community seems to agree that ZK rollups are the future rollup solution to decentralized L2 networks. There is only 1 notable instance of Plasma (Ethereum to Polygon network conversion), and no one uses it anymore since the Ethereum-Polygon bridge is easier to use. The biggest competitor to ZK rollups are Optimistic rollups, and those take too long to settle back to Layer 1 (1 week) and are still too expensive to use (20-50% of the cost of L1 Ethereum gas fees for transfers). > > **ZK Rollups** 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. To reduce the cost, they are done completely-centralized by specialized servers. Thus the cost of a ZK Rollup is cheap at about [$0.10 to $.30](https://l2fees.info/). But even at $0.10 per transfer and $0.50 per swap, these are still at least 10x more expensive than costs on Algorand and Solana. Users will have to decide whether the extra cost and hassle of using an L2 platform is worth the extra security of settling on the more-decentralized and secure Ethereum L1 network. > > **Ethereum Proof-of-Stake merge is arriving later than competitors** (moderate): > > The ETH PoS Beacon chain has been released, it's a completely separate blockchain from ETH and won't merge with the main blockchain [until later this year](https://decrypt.co/78690/ethereum-2-staking-tops-21-billion-merge-horizon), giving its competitors plenty of time to provide FUD. We still don't know how successful the merge will be. Currently, stakes are locked, preventing investors from selling. We don't know what will happen to the price once staking unlocks. > > **MEV and Dark Forest attacks** (minor): > > [MEV](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/rs4wp2/the_dark_forest_of_cryptocurrency/) is actually a pretty big issue for networks with high gas arbitrage and mempools like Ethereum, but most casual users will never notice hostile arbitrage. When you broadcast your transaction to the network, there are armies of bots and automated miners that analyze your transaction to see if they can perform arbitrage strategies on your transaction such as front-running, sandwiching, excluding transactions, stealing/replaying transactions, and other pure-profit plays. "Dark Forest" attacks have reveled that bots are constantly monitoring the network, and they can front-run you unless you have your own private army of miners. > > **Final Word** > > Overall, I still think the PROs outweigh the CONs for Ethereum in the long-run due to its first-mover advantage and the long-term sustainability of the Ethereum network. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/ru2luf/top_10_ethereum_conarguments_january_2022/) 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/10szhfn/daily_general_discussion_february_4_2023_gmt0/).

Well fuck, let’s go. I’ve been DCAing a small bit into XRP just in case

Mentions:#XRP

#Ethereum Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Ethereum Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Ethereum has drastically changed in the past year now that it has rebranded itself as **Consensus/Settlement layer** for other Layer 2 Execution/Rollup networks. It is no longer trying to be a monolithic blockchain by itself. Because of this shift in design, many of its former CONs are no longer major issues. And many of the CONs that still exist often have a beneficial sides. > > I discuss the CONs of Ethereum and their impact on its users here: > > ## CONs > > **Gas Fees** (major): > > The biggest complaint for Ethereum is 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 much of DeFi is extremely expensive. 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. Basically: use a coin on a different network to avoid fees. > > Typical transaction fees for Ethereum were [between $2-10 over the past year](https://etherscan.io/chart/avg-txfee-usd), but they have shot up to $50+ several times in 2021. > > 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 mid-year in 2021 saw $100-$200 gas fees. Transferring ERC-20 tokens (often $20-50) is also more gas expensive because it can't be done through native transfers like on the Cardano network. It's impractical to use swaps like Uniswap for small transactions due to these fees. > > In particular, One/Many-to-many batch transactions are extremely gas-expensive using Ethereum's account-based model compared to Bitcoin's and Cardano's UXTO-based model. [This batch transaction on Ethereum](https://etherscan.io/tx/0x0fe2542079644e107cbf13690eb9c2c65963ccb79089ff96bfaf8dced2331c92) cost over $5000 while [a similar eUXTO transaction on Cardano](https://adapools.org/transactions/e586c6340ee9e60a6c64f447feffe5f89bdabc7741666ecaa681081957938f56) only cost $0.50 in fees. > > On the other hand, these fees provide Ethereum long-term economic sustainability and resilience against DDoS and spam attacks. > > **Competition from other Smart Contract networks** (moderate): > > Ethereum has enjoyed its lead as the smart contract blockchain due to first-mover advantage. But there are now many efficient smart contract competitors like Algorand, Solana, and Cardano. Ethereum is now facing much competition. Who wants to pay $20 gas fees on Ethereum when you can get similar transactions for under $0.01 with Algo and Solana or $0.30 transactions with Cardano? > > Fortunately, the amount of competition is limited because Ethereum is positioning itself as a Settlement layer whereas these other networks are monolithic networks. All monolithic networks will eventually run into scaling issues due to long-term storage and bandwidth limits. It will really depend on how successful Ethereum's Layer 2 rollup solutions will be. > > **Future uncertainty about Layer 2 solutions** (major): > > Ethereum's long-term success is dependent on the success of its Layer 2 solutions. > > These Layer 2 solutions are still extremely early. Even after a year, L2 has a very fragmented adoption. The majority of centralized exchanges currently do not support Layer 2 rollup networks. A few have started to support Polygon, which is more of a Layer 2 side-chain that saves state every 256 blocks than a Layer 2 rollup. Very few CEXs allow for direct fiat on/off-ramping on L2 networks, which puts those networks out of reach of most users. > > Many of these Layer 2 networks (Arbitrum, Optimism, Loopring, ZKSync, etc), are not interoperable with each other. You can store your tokens on any specific L2 network, but they're stuck there. If you want to move your tokens back to Layer 1 or to another L2 network, you have to pay very expensive smart contract gas fees ($50-300). Eventually, there will be bridges between these networks, but we could be years away from widespread adoption. > > Fragmented liquidity is another huge issue. Each of these L2 networks has its own liquidity pool for each token it supports. You can store your token on the the L2 network, but you won't be able to trade or swap much if there are no liquidity pools for that token. Eventually, there will be Dynamic Automated Market Makers (dAMMs) that can share liquidity between networks, but they are complex and introduce their own weaknesses. > > 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. They are very centralized in how they operate, so there's always the risk that their network operators could cheat their customers. By now, the community seems to agree that ZK rollups are the future rollup solution to decentralized L2 networks. There is only 1 notable instance of Plasma (Ethereum to Polygon network conversion), and no one uses it anymore since the Ethereum-Polygon bridge is easier to use. The biggest competitor to ZK rollups are Optimistic rollups, and those take too long to settle back to Layer 1 (1 week) and are still too expensive to use (20-50% of the cost of L1 Ethereum gas fees for transfers). > > **ZK Rollups** 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. To reduce the cost, they are done completely-centralized by specialized servers. Thus the cost of a ZK Rollup is cheap at about [$0.10 to $.30](https://l2fees.info/). But even at $0.10 per transfer and $0.50 per swap, these are still at least 10x more expensive than costs on Algorand and Solana. Users will have to decide whether the extra cost and hassle of using an L2 platform is worth the extra security of settling on the more-decentralized and secure Ethereum L1 network. > > **Ethereum Proof-of-Stake merge is arriving later than competitors** (moderate): > > The ETH PoS Beacon chain has been released, it's a completely separate blockchain from ETH and won't merge with the main blockchain [until later this year](https://decrypt.co/78690/ethereum-2-staking-tops-21-billion-merge-horizon), giving its competitors plenty of time to provide FUD. We still don't know how successful the merge will be. Currently, stakes are locked, preventing investors from selling. We don't know what will happen to the price once staking unlocks. > > **MEV and Dark Forest attacks** (minor): > > [MEV](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/rs4wp2/the_dark_forest_of_cryptocurrency/) is actually a pretty big issue for networks with high gas arbitrage and mempools like Ethereum, but most casual users will never notice hostile arbitrage. When you broadcast your transaction to the network, there are armies of bots and automated miners that analyze your transaction to see if they can perform arbitrage strategies on your transaction such as front-running, sandwiching, excluding transactions, stealing/replaying transactions, and other pure-profit plays. "Dark Forest" attacks have reveled that bots are constantly monitoring the network, and they can front-run you unless you have your own private army of miners. > > **Final Word** > > Overall, I still think the PROs outweigh the CONs for Ethereum in the long-run due to its first-mover advantage and the long-term sustainability of the Ethereum network. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/ru2luf/top_10_ethereum_conarguments_january_2022/) 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/10szhfn/daily_general_discussion_february_4_2023_gmt0/).

Fuck Banks. 1)Deposit to your Exchange of choice 2)Buy crypto with a low fee for transfer like XRP or ALGO 3)Send that Crypto to Binance 4)Trade that Crypto to whatever you like on Binance 5)Transfer that Crypto to your wallet....

Mentions:#XRP#ALGO

#Ethereum Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Ethereum Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Ethereum has drastically changed in the past year now that it has rebranded itself as **Consensus/Settlement layer** for other Layer 2 Execution/Rollup networks. It is no longer trying to be a monolithic blockchain by itself. Because of this shift in design, many of its former CONs are no longer major issues. And many of the CONs that still exist often have a beneficial sides. > > I discuss the CONs of Ethereum and their impact on its users here: > > ## CONs > > **Gas Fees** (major): > > The biggest complaint for Ethereum is 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 much of DeFi is extremely expensive. 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. Basically: use a coin on a different network to avoid fees. > > Typical transaction fees for Ethereum were [between $2-10 over the past year](https://etherscan.io/chart/avg-txfee-usd), but they have shot up to $50+ several times in 2021. > > 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 mid-year in 2021 saw $100-$200 gas fees. Transferring ERC-20 tokens (often $20-50) is also more gas expensive because it can't be done through native transfers like on the Cardano network. It's impractical to use swaps like Uniswap for small transactions due to these fees. > > In particular, One/Many-to-many batch transactions are extremely gas-expensive using Ethereum's account-based model compared to Bitcoin's and Cardano's UXTO-based model. [This batch transaction on Ethereum](https://etherscan.io/tx/0x0fe2542079644e107cbf13690eb9c2c65963ccb79089ff96bfaf8dced2331c92) cost over $5000 while [a similar eUXTO transaction on Cardano](https://adapools.org/transactions/e586c6340ee9e60a6c64f447feffe5f89bdabc7741666ecaa681081957938f56) only cost $0.50 in fees. > > On the other hand, these fees provide Ethereum long-term economic sustainability and resilience against DDoS and spam attacks. > > **Competition from other Smart Contract networks** (moderate): > > Ethereum has enjoyed its lead as the smart contract blockchain due to first-mover advantage. But there are now many efficient smart contract competitors like Algorand, Solana, and Cardano. Ethereum is now facing much competition. Who wants to pay $20 gas fees on Ethereum when you can get similar transactions for under $0.01 with Algo and Solana or $0.30 transactions with Cardano? > > Fortunately, the amount of competition is limited because Ethereum is positioning itself as a Settlement layer whereas these other networks are monolithic networks. All monolithic networks will eventually run into scaling issues due to long-term storage and bandwidth limits. It will really depend on how successful Ethereum's Layer 2 rollup solutions will be. > > **Future uncertainty about Layer 2 solutions** (major): > > Ethereum's long-term success is dependent on the success of its Layer 2 solutions. > > These Layer 2 solutions are still extremely early. Even after a year, L2 has a very fragmented adoption. The majority of centralized exchanges currently do not support Layer 2 rollup networks. A few have started to support Polygon, which is more of a Layer 2 side-chain that saves state every 256 blocks than a Layer 2 rollup. Very few CEXs allow for direct fiat on/off-ramping on L2 networks, which puts those networks out of reach of most users. > > Many of these Layer 2 networks (Arbitrum, Optimism, Loopring, ZKSync, etc), are not interoperable with each other. You can store your tokens on any specific L2 network, but they're stuck there. If you want to move your tokens back to Layer 1 or to another L2 network, you have to pay very expensive smart contract gas fees ($50-300). Eventually, there will be bridges between these networks, but we could be years away from widespread adoption. > > Fragmented liquidity is another huge issue. Each of these L2 networks has its own liquidity pool for each token it supports. You can store your token on the the L2 network, but you won't be able to trade or swap much if there are no liquidity pools for that token. Eventually, there will be Dynamic Automated Market Makers (dAMMs) that can share liquidity between networks, but they are complex and introduce their own weaknesses. > > 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. They are very centralized in how they operate, so there's always the risk that their network operators could cheat their customers. By now, the community seems to agree that ZK rollups are the future rollup solution to decentralized L2 networks. There is only 1 notable instance of Plasma (Ethereum to Polygon network conversion), and no one uses it anymore since the Ethereum-Polygon bridge is easier to use. The biggest competitor to ZK rollups are Optimistic rollups, and those take too long to settle back to Layer 1 (1 week) and are still too expensive to use (20-50% of the cost of L1 Ethereum gas fees for transfers). > > **ZK Rollups** 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. To reduce the cost, they are done completely-centralized by specialized servers. Thus the cost of a ZK Rollup is cheap at about [$0.10 to $.30](https://l2fees.info/). But even at $0.10 per transfer and $0.50 per swap, these are still at least 10x more expensive than costs on Algorand and Solana. Users will have to decide whether the extra cost and hassle of using an L2 platform is worth the extra security of settling on the more-decentralized and secure Ethereum L1 network. > > **Ethereum Proof-of-Stake merge is arriving later than competitors** (moderate): > > The ETH PoS Beacon chain has been released, it's a completely separate blockchain from ETH and won't merge with the main blockchain [until later this year](https://decrypt.co/78690/ethereum-2-staking-tops-21-billion-merge-horizon), giving its competitors plenty of time to provide FUD. We still don't know how successful the merge will be. Currently, stakes are locked, preventing investors from selling. We don't know what will happen to the price once staking unlocks. > > **MEV and Dark Forest attacks** (minor): > > [MEV](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/rs4wp2/the_dark_forest_of_cryptocurrency/) is actually a pretty big issue for networks with high gas arbitrage and mempools like Ethereum, but most casual users will never notice hostile arbitrage. When you broadcast your transaction to the network, there are armies of bots and automated miners that analyze your transaction to see if they can perform arbitrage strategies on your transaction such as front-running, sandwiching, excluding transactions, stealing/replaying transactions, and other pure-profit plays. "Dark Forest" attacks have reveled that bots are constantly monitoring the network, and they can front-run you unless you have your own private army of miners. > > **Final Word** > > Overall, I still think the PROs outweigh the CONs for Ethereum in the long-run due to its first-mover advantage and the long-term sustainability of the Ethereum network. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/ru2luf/top_10_ethereum_conarguments_january_2022/) 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/10s57jv/daily_general_discussion_february_3_2023_gmt0/).

* Relevant Cointest topics: [USD Coin](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_usd_coin), [XRP](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_ripple), [Stellar](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_stellar), [CBDC](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_cbdc). * Relevant subreddits: r/Coinbase, r/Binance, r/Tether. * Sort comments as controversial first by [clicking here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/10sywxg/top_us_cryptoexchange_coinbase_adds_ethereum/j74ccpm/?sort=controversial). Doesn't work on mobile.

Mentions:#XRP

#Ethereum Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Ethereum Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Ethereum has drastically changed in the past year now that it has rebranded itself as **Consensus/Settlement layer** for other Layer 2 Execution/Rollup networks. It is no longer trying to be a monolithic blockchain by itself. Because of this shift in design, many of its former CONs are no longer major issues. And many of the CONs that still exist often have a beneficial sides. > > I discuss the CONs of Ethereum and their impact on its users here: > > ## CONs > > **Gas Fees** (major): > > The biggest complaint for Ethereum is 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 much of DeFi is extremely expensive. 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. Basically: use a coin on a different network to avoid fees. > > Typical transaction fees for Ethereum were [between $2-10 over the past year](https://etherscan.io/chart/avg-txfee-usd), but they have shot up to $50+ several times in 2021. > > 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 mid-year in 2021 saw $100-$200 gas fees. Transferring ERC-20 tokens (often $20-50) is also more gas expensive because it can't be done through native transfers like on the Cardano network. It's impractical to use swaps like Uniswap for small transactions due to these fees. > > In particular, One/Many-to-many batch transactions are extremely gas-expensive using Ethereum's account-based model compared to Bitcoin's and Cardano's UXTO-based model. [This batch transaction on Ethereum](https://etherscan.io/tx/0x0fe2542079644e107cbf13690eb9c2c65963ccb79089ff96bfaf8dced2331c92) cost over $5000 while [a similar eUXTO transaction on Cardano](https://adapools.org/transactions/e586c6340ee9e60a6c64f447feffe5f89bdabc7741666ecaa681081957938f56) only cost $0.50 in fees. > > On the other hand, these fees provide Ethereum long-term economic sustainability and resilience against DDoS and spam attacks. > > **Competition from other Smart Contract networks** (moderate): > > Ethereum has enjoyed its lead as the smart contract blockchain due to first-mover advantage. But there are now many efficient smart contract competitors like Algorand, Solana, and Cardano. Ethereum is now facing much competition. Who wants to pay $20 gas fees on Ethereum when you can get similar transactions for under $0.01 with Algo and Solana or $0.30 transactions with Cardano? > > Fortunately, the amount of competition is limited because Ethereum is positioning itself as a Settlement layer whereas these other networks are monolithic networks. All monolithic networks will eventually run into scaling issues due to long-term storage and bandwidth limits. It will really depend on how successful Ethereum's Layer 2 rollup solutions will be. > > **Future uncertainty about Layer 2 solutions** (major): > > Ethereum's long-term success is dependent on the success of its Layer 2 solutions. > > These Layer 2 solutions are still extremely early. Even after a year, L2 has a very fragmented adoption. The majority of centralized exchanges currently do not support Layer 2 rollup networks. A few have started to support Polygon, which is more of a Layer 2 side-chain that saves state every 256 blocks than a Layer 2 rollup. Very few CEXs allow for direct fiat on/off-ramping on L2 networks, which puts those networks out of reach of most users. > > Many of these Layer 2 networks (Arbitrum, Optimism, Loopring, ZKSync, etc), are not interoperable with each other. You can store your tokens on any specific L2 network, but they're stuck there. If you want to move your tokens back to Layer 1 or to another L2 network, you have to pay very expensive smart contract gas fees ($50-300). Eventually, there will be bridges between these networks, but we could be years away from widespread adoption. > > Fragmented liquidity is another huge issue. Each of these L2 networks has its own liquidity pool for each token it supports. You can store your token on the the L2 network, but you won't be able to trade or swap much if there are no liquidity pools for that token. Eventually, there will be Dynamic Automated Market Makers (dAMMs) that can share liquidity between networks, but they are complex and introduce their own weaknesses. > > 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. They are very centralized in how they operate, so there's always the risk that their network operators could cheat their customers. By now, the community seems to agree that ZK rollups are the future rollup solution to decentralized L2 networks. There is only 1 notable instance of Plasma (Ethereum to Polygon network conversion), and no one uses it anymore since the Ethereum-Polygon bridge is easier to use. The biggest competitor to ZK rollups are Optimistic rollups, and those take too long to settle back to Layer 1 (1 week) and are still too expensive to use (20-50% of the cost of L1 Ethereum gas fees for transfers). > > **ZK Rollups** 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. To reduce the cost, they are done completely-centralized by specialized servers. Thus the cost of a ZK Rollup is cheap at about [$0.10 to $.30](https://l2fees.info/). But even at $0.10 per transfer and $0.50 per swap, these are still at least 10x more expensive than costs on Algorand and Solana. Users will have to decide whether the extra cost and hassle of using an L2 platform is worth the extra security of settling on the more-decentralized and secure Ethereum L1 network. > > **Ethereum Proof-of-Stake merge is arriving later than competitors** (moderate): > > The ETH PoS Beacon chain has been released, it's a completely separate blockchain from ETH and won't merge with the main blockchain [until later this year](https://decrypt.co/78690/ethereum-2-staking-tops-21-billion-merge-horizon), giving its competitors plenty of time to provide FUD. We still don't know how successful the merge will be. Currently, stakes are locked, preventing investors from selling. We don't know what will happen to the price once staking unlocks. > > **MEV and Dark Forest attacks** (minor): > > [MEV](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/rs4wp2/the_dark_forest_of_cryptocurrency/) is actually a pretty big issue for networks with high gas arbitrage and mempools like Ethereum, but most casual users will never notice hostile arbitrage. When you broadcast your transaction to the network, there are armies of bots and automated miners that analyze your transaction to see if they can perform arbitrage strategies on your transaction such as front-running, sandwiching, excluding transactions, stealing/replaying transactions, and other pure-profit plays. "Dark Forest" attacks have reveled that bots are constantly monitoring the network, and they can front-run you unless you have your own private army of miners. > > **Final Word** > > Overall, I still think the PROs outweigh the CONs for Ethereum in the long-run due to its first-mover advantage and the long-term sustainability of the Ethereum network. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/ru2luf/top_10_ethereum_conarguments_january_2022/) 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/10s57jv/daily_general_discussion_february_3_2023_gmt0/).

* Relevant Cointest topics: [USD Coin](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_usd_coin), [XRP](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_ripple), [Stellar](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_stellar), [CBDC](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_cbdc). * Relevant subreddits: r/Coinbase, r/Binance, r/Tether. * Sort comments as controversial first by [clicking here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/10sya05/coinbase_stock_popped_26_after_class_action/?sort=controversial). Doesn't work on mobile.

Mentions:#XRP

Not how it works, Ripple doesn't buy or sell based on the price. It has nothing to do with buying low and selling high or dumping on retail. Or supporting the price. It's literally bought and sold transparently to make XRP less volatile. If anyone actually gave a single shit about facts you can see exactly when and how much ripple sells XRP.

Mentions:#XRP

Ripple buys or sells XRP to stabilize the market. It has nothing to do with buying low and selling high or dumping on retail or artificially supporting the price. Absolute load of mentally handicapped people in this thread.

Mentions:#XRP

Everyone expecting XRP to moon if they win case, only for Ripple to take a big fat dump on all of us

Mentions:#XRP

ADA, LRC and to an extent XRP

Mentions:#ADA#LRC#XRP

This means XRP is more centralized than. We thought and they could dump on us. They literally just bought all Jeb McCalebs back.

Mentions:#XRP

No one knows which coin will be successful in the future. Investing more than I did in something wasnt so sure about was too much risk for me back in the days. I still don't go all-in into XRP although I might regret it later.

Mentions:#XRP

* Relevant Cointest topics: [Stellar](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_stellar), [CBDC](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_cbdc), [Tether](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_tether). * Relevant subreddits: r/XRP, r/Stellar, r/FederalReserve. * Sort comments as controversial first by [clicking here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/10sv2h7/ripple_bought_84b_xrp_since_sec_lawsuit_to/j73q6v0/?sort=controversial). Doesn't work on mobile.

Mentions:#XRP

XRP pros & cons and related info are in the collapsed comments below. Pros and cons will change for every new post.

Mentions:#XRP

This is the way it works and I say this as a XRP holder. They are just rebuying lower after selling higher sometime before.

Mentions:#XRP

XRP all day every day

Mentions:#XRP

Remove the 3 USD stable coins and ADA is already in the top 5 and has been for a long time now along with XRP. So realistically MATIC and DOGE are most likely to breakthrough into the top 5 non-stables.

#Ethereum Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Ethereum Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Ethereum has drastically changed in the past year now that it has rebranded itself as **Consensus/Settlement layer** for other Layer 2 Execution/Rollup networks. It is no longer trying to be a monolithic blockchain by itself. Because of this shift in design, many of its former CONs are no longer major issues. And many of the CONs that still exist often have a beneficial sides. > > I discuss the CONs of Ethereum and their impact on its users here: > > ## CONs > > **Gas Fees** (major): > > The biggest complaint for Ethereum is 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 much of DeFi is extremely expensive. 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. Basically: use a coin on a different network to avoid fees. > > Typical transaction fees for Ethereum were [between $2-10 over the past year](https://etherscan.io/chart/avg-txfee-usd), but they have shot up to $50+ several times in 2021. > > 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 mid-year in 2021 saw $100-$200 gas fees. Transferring ERC-20 tokens (often $20-50) is also more gas expensive because it can't be done through native transfers like on the Cardano network. It's impractical to use swaps like Uniswap for small transactions due to these fees. > > In particular, One/Many-to-many batch transactions are extremely gas-expensive using Ethereum's account-based model compared to Bitcoin's and Cardano's UXTO-based model. [This batch transaction on Ethereum](https://etherscan.io/tx/0x0fe2542079644e107cbf13690eb9c2c65963ccb79089ff96bfaf8dced2331c92) cost over $5000 while [a similar eUXTO transaction on Cardano](https://adapools.org/transactions/e586c6340ee9e60a6c64f447feffe5f89bdabc7741666ecaa681081957938f56) only cost $0.50 in fees. > > On the other hand, these fees provide Ethereum long-term economic sustainability and resilience against DDoS and spam attacks. > > **Competition from other Smart Contract networks** (moderate): > > Ethereum has enjoyed its lead as the smart contract blockchain due to first-mover advantage. But there are now many efficient smart contract competitors like Algorand, Solana, and Cardano. Ethereum is now facing much competition. Who wants to pay $20 gas fees on Ethereum when you can get similar transactions for under $0.01 with Algo and Solana or $0.30 transactions with Cardano? > > Fortunately, the amount of competition is limited because Ethereum is positioning itself as a Settlement layer whereas these other networks are monolithic networks. All monolithic networks will eventually run into scaling issues due to long-term storage and bandwidth limits. It will really depend on how successful Ethereum's Layer 2 rollup solutions will be. > > **Future uncertainty about Layer 2 solutions** (major): > > Ethereum's long-term success is dependent on the success of its Layer 2 solutions. > > These Layer 2 solutions are still extremely early. Even after a year, L2 has a very fragmented adoption. The majority of centralized exchanges currently do not support Layer 2 rollup networks. A few have started to support Polygon, which is more of a Layer 2 side-chain that saves state every 256 blocks than a Layer 2 rollup. Very few CEXs allow for direct fiat on/off-ramping on L2 networks, which puts those networks out of reach of most users. > > Many of these Layer 2 networks (Arbitrum, Optimism, Loopring, ZKSync, etc), are not interoperable with each other. You can store your tokens on any specific L2 network, but they're stuck there. If you want to move your tokens back to Layer 1 or to another L2 network, you have to pay very expensive smart contract gas fees ($50-300). Eventually, there will be bridges between these networks, but we could be years away from widespread adoption. > > Fragmented liquidity is another huge issue. Each of these L2 networks has its own liquidity pool for each token it supports. You can store your token on the the L2 network, but you won't be able to trade or swap much if there are no liquidity pools for that token. Eventually, there will be Dynamic Automated Market Makers (dAMMs) that can share liquidity between networks, but they are complex and introduce their own weaknesses. > > 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. They are very centralized in how they operate, so there's always the risk that their network operators could cheat their customers. By now, the community seems to agree that ZK rollups are the future rollup solution to decentralized L2 networks. There is only 1 notable instance of Plasma (Ethereum to Polygon network conversion), and no one uses it anymore since the Ethereum-Polygon bridge is easier to use. The biggest competitor to ZK rollups are Optimistic rollups, and those take too long to settle back to Layer 1 (1 week) and are still too expensive to use (20-50% of the cost of L1 Ethereum gas fees for transfers). > > **ZK Rollups** 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. To reduce the cost, they are done completely-centralized by specialized servers. Thus the cost of a ZK Rollup is cheap at about [$0.10 to $.30](https://l2fees.info/). But even at $0.10 per transfer and $0.50 per swap, these are still at least 10x more expensive than costs on Algorand and Solana. Users will have to decide whether the extra cost and hassle of using an L2 platform is worth the extra security of settling on the more-decentralized and secure Ethereum L1 network. > > **Ethereum Proof-of-Stake merge is arriving later than competitors** (moderate): > > The ETH PoS Beacon chain has been released, it's a completely separate blockchain from ETH and won't merge with the main blockchain [until later this year](https://decrypt.co/78690/ethereum-2-staking-tops-21-billion-merge-horizon), giving its competitors plenty of time to provide FUD. We still don't know how successful the merge will be. Currently, stakes are locked, preventing investors from selling. We don't know what will happen to the price once staking unlocks. > > **MEV and Dark Forest attacks** (minor): > > [MEV](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/rs4wp2/the_dark_forest_of_cryptocurrency/) is actually a pretty big issue for networks with high gas arbitrage and mempools like Ethereum, but most casual users will never notice hostile arbitrage. When you broadcast your transaction to the network, there are armies of bots and automated miners that analyze your transaction to see if they can perform arbitrage strategies on your transaction such as front-running, sandwiching, excluding transactions, stealing/replaying transactions, and other pure-profit plays. "Dark Forest" attacks have reveled that bots are constantly monitoring the network, and they can front-run you unless you have your own private army of miners. > > **Final Word** > > Overall, I still think the PROs outweigh the CONs for Ethereum in the long-run due to its first-mover advantage and the long-term sustainability of the Ethereum network. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/ru2luf/top_10_ethereum_conarguments_january_2022/) 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/10s57jv/daily_general_discussion_february_3_2023_gmt0/).

Matic is kind of already top 5 if you take out stable coins, BNB (which isn't really a project) and shit coin (Doge). XRP, I agree - could be even in top 3 (as in the old days) if lawsuit sees an end.

Mentions:#BNB#XRP

Yep, if there is any coin to do it, I think $FTM has the potential with it bringing out FVM. Andre shows commitment. It has true transactions, I've been watching it since 2018. Matic is definitely another one git so many dapps from Starbucks, Disney, The Sandbox etc. XRP is the one I have major doubts about and sold out of 2 years ago. Alot of people stuck around the 1.60 up to 3.40 for years. Hasn't hit an ath in so many years and had a wallet sell 8 billion tokens over that time.

Mentions:#FTM#XRP

* Relevant Cointest topics: [USD Coin](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_usd_coin), [XRP](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_ripple), [Stellar](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_stellar), [CBDC](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_cbdc). * Relevant subreddits: r/Coinbase, r/Binance, r/Tether. * Sort comments as controversial first by [clicking here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/10ssmvb/coinbase_web3_wallet_app_and_robinhood_wallet/?sort=controversial). Doesn't work on mobile.

Mentions:#XRP

I hope Matic and not XRP. For no other reason than having some Matic but no XRP at all.

Mentions:#XRP

XRP or ADA seems more probable than MATIC in the short term, because MATIC has to multiply a few times to enter top 5. But I believe MATIC would eventually get into top 5, just that XRP/ADA would reach it faster, and then get replaced by MATIC

While I think it’s without a doubt Matic, I think it would take a lot. At present MC, it would need to 5x BNB. For Matic to 5x, we would need a bull run. For a bull run to happen; we need a strong crypto community and that can’t happen is Binance flounders. Let’s say Matic outperforms BNB, I would still think next run, BNB has 3x in it. That would meet Matic would need to 15x to reach the same market cap as BNB. While definitely possible, I think top 5 may be somewhat cemented. I think Matic will 💯pass XRP and Atom will crack top 10.

Mentions:#BNB#XRP

XRP is waiting to enter that particular group .

Mentions:#XRP

As someone who never touches anything Binance related, I really don't see BNB leaving that spot any time soon. It's far too entrenched at this point. If anything, I could see it taking Tether's spot, and perhaps USDC eventually taking #4 while Tether goes to #5. At the risk of being downvoted, I think XRP is an implosion waiting to happen. There are a lot of coins that need to eventually be unloaded onto retail. tl;dr I don't see any new entrants into the top 5 in the foreseeable future.

Mentions:#BNB#USDC#XRP

#Bitcoin Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > ##CONs > > ####**Intro** > > Overall, Bitcoin's conservative blockchain has failed to keep up with other blockchains technology-wise, which have evolved features and efficiencies way beyond Bitcoin. If all the cryptocurrencies were re-released today simultaneously, it is very unlikely Bitcoin would make it into the top 100 by market cap. It's currently #1 because it had a first-mover advantage and has enjoyed the network effect. > > ####**Much too slow** > > Bitcoin is now a **[3 TPS](https://blockchair.com/bitcoin)** blockchain with a **30-60 minute probabilistic finality**. It used to have a maximum of 7 TPS, but that has gradually fallen over the years after the Segwit update. It's much too slow to be used for point-of-sales merchant transactions. No one is ever going to want to **wait 30-60+ minutes** at cash register for a transaction to go through that's not even guaranteed to succeed. Block times average 10 minutes, but they are very variable. 14% of blocks take longer than 20 minutes, and 5% are longer than 30 minutes [[Source](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/25293/probablity-distribution-of-mining/43592#43592)], causing stress for those waiting for confirmation, let alone finality. Some transactions get stuck in the mempool for weeks when there's congestion. > > **Competition**: It's orders of magnitude slower than newer networks like Avalanche's X-Chain and Algorand, which can process 4000+ TPS with sub-5s of deterministic finality, with transaction fees under a penny. > > Competition from Traditional Finance has also skyrocketed as payment systems like M-Pesa in Africa, UK's Faster Payments, Australia's NPP, Clearinghouse's RTP now provide near-instant payments and peer-to-peer transactions **without fees**. > > ####**Batch UTXO transactions have scalability limits** > > Some Bitcoin proponents have argued that TPS is a misleading metric due to UTXO batching. However, you can't just increase useful transfers 100x by batching 100x transactions. This is because UTXO addresses take up space, so there is a limit to batched storage savings: ~40% (160 vbytes vs 258 vbytes when batching 2 basic transactions of 3 UTXO each) [[Source](https://blog.coinbase.com/reflections-on-bitcoin-transaction-batching-b13dad12a12)]. **Even if each block were a single batched transaction, Bitcoin would only increase from 3 to 5 effective transfers per second.** Also, this isn't unique to Bitcoin. Account transactions can batch using smart contracts to save fees and space. > > ####**Difficult to achieve widespread global adoption** > > At 3 TPS, Bitcoin can only make ~260K transaction/day. **If Bitcoin grows to the size of 1% of the 8B global population, each person can make an average of 1 on-chain transaction every 300 days.** Imagine 10% of world using Bitcoin, and each person being able to make a single transaction once every 8 years. > > **Not even the Lightning Network could save Bitcoin** because opening and closing a channel requires 2 on-chain transactions. Each Lightning channel has directional capacity, and whenever that gets exceeded, it will need to be closed and reopened with new capacity. You can't expect people to store months of funds on a single channel. Half of the US is living paycheck to paycheck and would unlikely be able to keep channels opened for long periods. If even 1% of the world used the Lightning Network and opens/closes their channels twice a year, the Bitcoin Network would become completely congested. > > ####**Extremely inefficient and wasteful** > > To protect against Sybil and 51% attacks, Bitcoin's PoW consensus achieves greater security through greater **redundancy**. Out of a million miners, only one of them is producing the actual block while the rest of them are just wasting energy and electric waste. Full nodes also hold redundant copies of the blockchain ledger, leading to wasted storage. > > In 2021, each block cost roughly $150-300K in energy to mine, which is equivalent to $100-150 of fees per transaction. **A single Bitcoin transaction uses about the same energy as a typical [US household over 2 months](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption)**. The total Bitcoin network energy consumption of ~150 TWh/yr is equivalent to [**18-24 US nuclear power plants**](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-nuclear-energy). Another way of looking at this is that Bitcoin consumes about as much energy as all datacenters globally [[Source](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-may-consume-as-much-energy-as-all-data-centers-globally)]. > > In comparison, other distributed consensus methods such as BFT are [10^7 x more efficient for energy use](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x). There is a silver lining: the energy waste (and security) will slowly decrease with each block subsidy halving, at the cost of decreased security. > > ####**Mining Pool Centralization** > > **The top 3 mining pools own 60% of the network hash rate** [[Source](https://btc.com/stats/pool)]. Individual miners have no financial incentive to run full nodes, so it's rare for them to be auditing their pool operators and won't notice attacks until it's too late. (To prevent miners from stealing block rewards, mining pool servers do not provide enough info to miners for them to be able to see attacks ahead of time.) > > ####**Moderately-high transaction fees** > > Transaction fees have risen over time. Layer 1 transfer fees are currently $1-2 USD and even briefly rose [past $50 in May 2021](https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee) during congestion. 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. > > Currently, revenue from the transaction fees are only [1-2% of the block rewards](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-fee_to_reward.html). Thus, when the block subsidy eventually disappears, transaction fees would need to be much higher to make up for the subsidy. > > ####**Chance of reorgs and invalidated blocks** > > Bitcoin's PoW has probabilistic finality, and there's always a chance a previous block could be orphaned and invalidated. This is known as a reorg, which is when the previously-longest chain is overtaken by a new longest chain. **There have been at least 2 reorgs longer than 20 blocks**: 51 blocks in Aug 2010 and 24 blocks on Mar 12, 2013 [[Source 1](https://coingeek.com/what-the-fork-happened-to-bitcoin/), [Source 2](https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoins-consensus-forks/)]. The 2010 reorg actually caused Bitcoin to mint 184.4 billion Bitcoins, way past its 21 million cap. There have also been at least [three 4-block reorgs prior to 2017](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3343/what-is-the-longest-blockchain-fork-that-has-been-orphaned-to-date). So the typical 3-6 block confirmations are not guaranteed to be safe. > > ####**Possibility of 51% attacks in the future** > > Bitcoin has a long-term economic incentive issue known as the [Tragedy of the Commons](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commons), and here is one realistic example of how it could happen. Unlike some smaller PoW networks, Bitcoin lacks finality checkpoints. **It only takes $5-10B of mining equipment to compromise the Bitcoin network**, and this is a drop in a bucket for many billionaires and nation states. > > What's preventing others from attacking Bitcoin isn't the monetary cost but the difficulty of acquiring sufficient mining equipment. But as halvings continue, if the price of Bitcoin doesn't double every 4 years, miners will eventually sell their equipment. Some nation state or billionaire could acquire them at a discount, short Bitcoin, and then 51% attack the network. **All they would have to do is produce empty blocks, and the network would halt.** The brilliant part of this is that producing empty blocks does not break any Bitcoin protocols, so they would still earn the block rewards. (In fact, during several months of 2015-2016, about 10% of blocks were empty due to selfish mining. After all, why bother waiting to package transactions when only 1% of the reward is from transaction fees?) > > ####**Negative-sum investment** > > Stock investments of profitable companies are a positive-sum investments. Investors buy and sell from other investors. In addition, money flows from customers to the company, and then to the investors in the form of capital, stock buybacks, and dividends. > > In contrast, Bitcoin investors pay massive block rewards (subsidy + fees) to miners, so it's negative-sum investment for everyone but miners. > > ####**Transaction Backlog** > > Because of Bitcoin's low throughput, there is often a backlog during busy periods. The backlog, as shown via the [Mempool](https://www.blockchain.com/charts/mempool-count), has gotten as high as 100K+ transactions several times in 2021, which is equivalent to waiting 7-9 hours for settlement on average. Transaction fees for confirmed transactions also rise greatly during these periods. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/vpuiar/top_coins_bitcoin_conarguments_july_2022/) 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/10s57jv/daily_general_discussion_february_3_2023_gmt0/).

Just claiming non profit status does not absolve a business that created a securities offering. It's how something is sold that makes it a security. Xrp by the SECs own GAAP accounting principles is not a security. If Ripples sales of XRP could be classified as securities the SEC would have a mountain of evidence for it. They do not have the evidence for it. Anyone with an actual brain in their head can see Ethereum promoters created Ethereum 's ICO an actual securities offering with the blessing of the corrupt officials at the SEC. There's a document and video library with a timeline.

Mentions:#XRP

Definitely not the XRP vs SEC case though lol...

Mentions:#XRP

* Relevant Cointest topics: [USD Coin](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_usd_coin), [XRP](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_ripple), [Stellar](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_stellar), [CBDC](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_cbdc). * Relevant subreddits: r/Tether, r/Coinbase, r/XRP, r/Stellar. * Sort comments as controversial first by [clicking here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/10sptps/watch_out_tether/?sort=controversial). Doesn't work on mobile.

Mentions:#XRP

* Relevant Cointest topics: [USD Coin](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_usd_coin), [XRP](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_ripple), [Stellar](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_stellar), [CBDC](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_cbdc). * Relevant subreddits: r/Coinbase, r/Binance, r/Tether. * Sort comments as controversial first by [clicking here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/10sphpr/coinbase_and_microstrategy_up_more_than_100_in_a/?sort=controversial). Doesn't work on mobile.

Mentions:#XRP

I hear ya. What made it worse was all the people here and especially the Bitcoin maxis gleefully mocking XRP holders. I'll never forget that.

Mentions:#XRP

#Bitcoin Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > ##CONs > > ####**Intro** > > Overall, Bitcoin's conservative blockchain has failed to keep up with other blockchains technology-wise, which have evolved features and efficiencies way beyond Bitcoin. If all the cryptocurrencies were re-released today simultaneously, it is very unlikely Bitcoin would make it into the top 100 by market cap. It's currently #1 because it had a first-mover advantage and has enjoyed the network effect. > > ####**Much too slow** > > Bitcoin is now a **[3 TPS](https://blockchair.com/bitcoin)** blockchain with a **30-60 minute probabilistic finality**. It used to have a maximum of 7 TPS, but that has gradually fallen over the years after the Segwit update. It's much too slow to be used for point-of-sales merchant transactions. No one is ever going to want to **wait 30-60+ minutes** at cash register for a transaction to go through that's not even guaranteed to succeed. Block times average 10 minutes, but they are very variable. 14% of blocks take longer than 20 minutes, and 5% are longer than 30 minutes [[Source](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/25293/probablity-distribution-of-mining/43592#43592)], causing stress for those waiting for confirmation, let alone finality. Some transactions get stuck in the mempool for weeks when there's congestion. > > **Competition**: It's orders of magnitude slower than newer networks like Avalanche's X-Chain and Algorand, which can process 4000+ TPS with sub-5s of deterministic finality, with transaction fees under a penny. > > Competition from Traditional Finance has also skyrocketed as payment systems like M-Pesa in Africa, UK's Faster Payments, Australia's NPP, Clearinghouse's RTP now provide near-instant payments and peer-to-peer transactions **without fees**. > > ####**Batch UTXO transactions have scalability limits** > > Some Bitcoin proponents have argued that TPS is a misleading metric due to UTXO batching. However, you can't just increase useful transfers 100x by batching 100x transactions. This is because UTXO addresses take up space, so there is a limit to batched storage savings: ~40% (160 vbytes vs 258 vbytes when batching 2 basic transactions of 3 UTXO each) [[Source](https://blog.coinbase.com/reflections-on-bitcoin-transaction-batching-b13dad12a12)]. **Even if each block were a single batched transaction, Bitcoin would only increase from 3 to 5 effective transfers per second.** Also, this isn't unique to Bitcoin. Account transactions can batch using smart contracts to save fees and space. > > ####**Difficult to achieve widespread global adoption** > > At 3 TPS, Bitcoin can only make ~260K transaction/day. **If Bitcoin grows to the size of 1% of the 8B global population, each person can make an average of 1 on-chain transaction every 300 days.** Imagine 10% of world using Bitcoin, and each person being able to make a single transaction once every 8 years. > > **Not even the Lightning Network could save Bitcoin** because opening and closing a channel requires 2 on-chain transactions. Each Lightning channel has directional capacity, and whenever that gets exceeded, it will need to be closed and reopened with new capacity. You can't expect people to store months of funds on a single channel. Half of the US is living paycheck to paycheck and would unlikely be able to keep channels opened for long periods. If even 1% of the world used the Lightning Network and opens/closes their channels twice a year, the Bitcoin Network would become completely congested. > > ####**Extremely inefficient and wasteful** > > To protect against Sybil and 51% attacks, Bitcoin's PoW consensus achieves greater security through greater **redundancy**. Out of a million miners, only one of them is producing the actual block while the rest of them are just wasting energy and electric waste. Full nodes also hold redundant copies of the blockchain ledger, leading to wasted storage. > > In 2021, each block cost roughly $150-300K in energy to mine, which is equivalent to $100-150 of fees per transaction. **A single Bitcoin transaction uses about the same energy as a typical [US household over 2 months](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption)**. The total Bitcoin network energy consumption of ~150 TWh/yr is equivalent to [**18-24 US nuclear power plants**](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-nuclear-energy). Another way of looking at this is that Bitcoin consumes about as much energy as all datacenters globally [[Source](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-may-consume-as-much-energy-as-all-data-centers-globally)]. > > In comparison, other distributed consensus methods such as BFT are [10^7 x more efficient for energy use](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x). There is a silver lining: the energy waste (and security) will slowly decrease with each block subsidy halving, at the cost of decreased security. > > ####**Mining Pool Centralization** > > **The top 3 mining pools own 60% of the network hash rate** [[Source](https://btc.com/stats/pool)]. Individual miners have no financial incentive to run full nodes, so it's rare for them to be auditing their pool operators and won't notice attacks until it's too late. (To prevent miners from stealing block rewards, mining pool servers do not provide enough info to miners for them to be able to see attacks ahead of time.) > > ####**Moderately-high transaction fees** > > Transaction fees have risen over time. Layer 1 transfer fees are currently $1-2 USD and even briefly rose [past $50 in May 2021](https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee) during congestion. 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. > > Currently, revenue from the transaction fees are only [1-2% of the block rewards](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-fee_to_reward.html). Thus, when the block subsidy eventually disappears, transaction fees would need to be much higher to make up for the subsidy. > > ####**Chance of reorgs and invalidated blocks** > > Bitcoin's PoW has probabilistic finality, and there's always a chance a previous block could be orphaned and invalidated. This is known as a reorg, which is when the previously-longest chain is overtaken by a new longest chain. **There have been at least 2 reorgs longer than 20 blocks**: 51 blocks in Aug 2010 and 24 blocks on Mar 12, 2013 [[Source 1](https://coingeek.com/what-the-fork-happened-to-bitcoin/), [Source 2](https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoins-consensus-forks/)]. The 2010 reorg actually caused Bitcoin to mint 184.4 billion Bitcoins, way past its 21 million cap. There have also been at least [three 4-block reorgs prior to 2017](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3343/what-is-the-longest-blockchain-fork-that-has-been-orphaned-to-date). So the typical 3-6 block confirmations are not guaranteed to be safe. > > ####**Possibility of 51% attacks in the future** > > Bitcoin has a long-term economic incentive issue known as the [Tragedy of the Commons](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commons), and here is one realistic example of how it could happen. Unlike some smaller PoW networks, Bitcoin lacks finality checkpoints. **It only takes $5-10B of mining equipment to compromise the Bitcoin network**, and this is a drop in a bucket for many billionaires and nation states. > > What's preventing others from attacking Bitcoin isn't the monetary cost but the difficulty of acquiring sufficient mining equipment. But as halvings continue, if the price of Bitcoin doesn't double every 4 years, miners will eventually sell their equipment. Some nation state or billionaire could acquire them at a discount, short Bitcoin, and then 51% attack the network. **All they would have to do is produce empty blocks, and the network would halt.** The brilliant part of this is that producing empty blocks does not break any Bitcoin protocols, so they would still earn the block rewards. (In fact, during several months of 2015-2016, about 10% of blocks were empty due to selfish mining. After all, why bother waiting to package transactions when only 1% of the reward is from transaction fees?) > > ####**Negative-sum investment** > > Stock investments of profitable companies are a positive-sum investments. Investors buy and sell from other investors. In addition, money flows from customers to the company, and then to the investors in the form of capital, stock buybacks, and dividends. > > In contrast, Bitcoin investors pay massive block rewards (subsidy + fees) to miners, so it's negative-sum investment for everyone but miners. > > ####**Transaction Backlog** > > Because of Bitcoin's low throughput, there is often a backlog during busy periods. The backlog, as shown via the [Mempool](https://www.blockchain.com/charts/mempool-count), has gotten as high as 100K+ transactions several times in 2021, which is equivalent to waiting 7-9 hours for settlement on average. Transaction fees for confirmed transactions also rise greatly during these periods. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/vpuiar/top_coins_bitcoin_conarguments_july_2022/) 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/10s57jv/daily_general_discussion_february_3_2023_gmt0/).

Haha! $3.00 would be amazing. XRP will love. It’s just a matter of when. Stay patient, set your orders and forget it!

Mentions:#XRP

XRP because it drew in so many people and did nothing. But wouldn’t die.

Mentions:#XRP

Thanks! I’m hoping all that pain will be made up for when/ if Ripple win. Funny coincidence that you have 589 moons, as that’s the number meme boys claim XRP will reach. I’d be happy with $3 again.

Mentions:#XRP

XRP still fighting the good fight! Keep holding!

Mentions:#XRP

I never heard anyone hyping over XRP, neither does it have any good reputation, still maintained its position in top 10 till date. It even survived such a long drawn battle with the SEC, whether we like it or not they will continue to exist

Mentions:#XRP

#Ethereum Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Ethereum Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Ethereum has drastically changed in the past year now that it has rebranded itself as **Consensus/Settlement layer** for other Layer 2 Execution/Rollup networks. It is no longer trying to be a monolithic blockchain by itself. Because of this shift in design, many of its former CONs are no longer major issues. And many of the CONs that still exist often have a beneficial sides. > > I discuss the CONs of Ethereum and their impact on its users here: > > ## CONs > > **Gas Fees** (major): > > The biggest complaint for Ethereum is 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 much of DeFi is extremely expensive. 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. Basically: use a coin on a different network to avoid fees. > > Typical transaction fees for Ethereum were [between $2-10 over the past year](https://etherscan.io/chart/avg-txfee-usd), but they have shot up to $50+ several times in 2021. > > 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 mid-year in 2021 saw $100-$200 gas fees. Transferring ERC-20 tokens (often $20-50) is also more gas expensive because it can't be done through native transfers like on the Cardano network. It's impractical to use swaps like Uniswap for small transactions due to these fees. > > In particular, One/Many-to-many batch transactions are extremely gas-expensive using Ethereum's account-based model compared to Bitcoin's and Cardano's UXTO-based model. [This batch transaction on Ethereum](https://etherscan.io/tx/0x0fe2542079644e107cbf13690eb9c2c65963ccb79089ff96bfaf8dced2331c92) cost over $5000 while [a similar eUXTO transaction on Cardano](https://adapools.org/transactions/e586c6340ee9e60a6c64f447feffe5f89bdabc7741666ecaa681081957938f56) only cost $0.50 in fees. > > On the other hand, these fees provide Ethereum long-term economic sustainability and resilience against DDoS and spam attacks. > > **Competition from other Smart Contract networks** (moderate): > > Ethereum has enjoyed its lead as the smart contract blockchain due to first-mover advantage. But there are now many efficient smart contract competitors like Algorand, Solana, and Cardano. Ethereum is now facing much competition. Who wants to pay $20 gas fees on Ethereum when you can get similar transactions for under $0.01 with Algo and Solana or $0.30 transactions with Cardano? > > Fortunately, the amount of competition is limited because Ethereum is positioning itself as a Settlement layer whereas these other networks are monolithic networks. All monolithic networks will eventually run into scaling issues due to long-term storage and bandwidth limits. It will really depend on how successful Ethereum's Layer 2 rollup solutions will be. > > **Future uncertainty about Layer 2 solutions** (major): > > Ethereum's long-term success is dependent on the success of its Layer 2 solutions. > > These Layer 2 solutions are still extremely early. Even after a year, L2 has a very fragmented adoption. The majority of centralized exchanges currently do not support Layer 2 rollup networks. A few have started to support Polygon, which is more of a Layer 2 side-chain that saves state every 256 blocks than a Layer 2 rollup. Very few CEXs allow for direct fiat on/off-ramping on L2 networks, which puts those networks out of reach of most users. > > Many of these Layer 2 networks (Arbitrum, Optimism, Loopring, ZKSync, etc), are not interoperable with each other. You can store your tokens on any specific L2 network, but they're stuck there. If you want to move your tokens back to Layer 1 or to another L2 network, you have to pay very expensive smart contract gas fees ($50-300). Eventually, there will be bridges between these networks, but we could be years away from widespread adoption. > > Fragmented liquidity is another huge issue. Each of these L2 networks has its own liquidity pool for each token it supports. You can store your token on the the L2 network, but you won't be able to trade or swap much if there are no liquidity pools for that token. Eventually, there will be Dynamic Automated Market Makers (dAMMs) that can share liquidity between networks, but they are complex and introduce their own weaknesses. > > 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. They are very centralized in how they operate, so there's always the risk that their network operators could cheat their customers. By now, the community seems to agree that ZK rollups are the future rollup solution to decentralized L2 networks. There is only 1 notable instance of Plasma (Ethereum to Polygon network conversion), and no one uses it anymore since the Ethereum-Polygon bridge is easier to use. The biggest competitor to ZK rollups are Optimistic rollups, and those take too long to settle back to Layer 1 (1 week) and are still too expensive to use (20-50% of the cost of L1 Ethereum gas fees for transfers). > > **ZK Rollups** 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. To reduce the cost, they are done completely-centralized by specialized servers. Thus the cost of a ZK Rollup is cheap at about [$0.10 to $.30](https://l2fees.info/). But even at $0.10 per transfer and $0.50 per swap, these are still at least 10x more expensive than costs on Algorand and Solana. Users will have to decide whether the extra cost and hassle of using an L2 platform is worth the extra security of settling on the more-decentralized and secure Ethereum L1 network. > > **Ethereum Proof-of-Stake merge is arriving later than competitors** (moderate): > > The ETH PoS Beacon chain has been released, it's a completely separate blockchain from ETH and won't merge with the main blockchain [until later this year](https://decrypt.co/78690/ethereum-2-staking-tops-21-billion-merge-horizon), giving its competitors plenty of time to provide FUD. We still don't know how successful the merge will be. Currently, stakes are locked, preventing investors from selling. We don't know what will happen to the price once staking unlocks. > > **MEV and Dark Forest attacks** (minor): > > [MEV](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/rs4wp2/the_dark_forest_of_cryptocurrency/) is actually a pretty big issue for networks with high gas arbitrage and mempools like Ethereum, but most casual users will never notice hostile arbitrage. When you broadcast your transaction to the network, there are armies of bots and automated miners that analyze your transaction to see if they can perform arbitrage strategies on your transaction such as front-running, sandwiching, excluding transactions, stealing/replaying transactions, and other pure-profit plays. "Dark Forest" attacks have reveled that bots are constantly monitoring the network, and they can front-run you unless you have your own private army of miners. > > **Final Word** > > Overall, I still think the PROs outweigh the CONs for Ethereum in the long-run due to its first-mover advantage and the long-term sustainability of the Ethereum network. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/ru2luf/top_10_ethereum_conarguments_january_2022/) 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/10s57jv/daily_general_discussion_february_3_2023_gmt0/).

* Relevant Cointest topics: [USD Coin](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_usd_coin), [XRP](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_ripple), [Stellar](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_stellar), [CBDC](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_cbdc). * Relevant subreddits: r/Tether, r/Coinbase, r/XRP, r/Stellar. * Sort comments as controversial first by [clicking here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/10sm2ol/how_tf_is_tether_still_alive/?sort=controversial). Doesn't work on mobile.

Mentions:#XRP

#Bitcoin Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > ##CONs > > ####**Intro** > > Overall, Bitcoin's conservative blockchain has failed to keep up with other blockchains technology-wise, which have evolved features and efficiencies way beyond Bitcoin. If all the cryptocurrencies were re-released today simultaneously, it is very unlikely Bitcoin would make it into the top 100 by market cap. It's currently #1 because it had a first-mover advantage and has enjoyed the network effect. > > ####**Much too slow** > > Bitcoin is now a **[3 TPS](https://blockchair.com/bitcoin)** blockchain with a **30-60 minute probabilistic finality**. It used to have a maximum of 7 TPS, but that has gradually fallen over the years after the Segwit update. It's much too slow to be used for point-of-sales merchant transactions. No one is ever going to want to **wait 30-60+ minutes** at cash register for a transaction to go through that's not even guaranteed to succeed. Block times average 10 minutes, but they are very variable. 14% of blocks take longer than 20 minutes, and 5% are longer than 30 minutes [[Source](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/25293/probablity-distribution-of-mining/43592#43592)], causing stress for those waiting for confirmation, let alone finality. Some transactions get stuck in the mempool for weeks when there's congestion. > > **Competition**: It's orders of magnitude slower than newer networks like Avalanche's X-Chain and Algorand, which can process 4000+ TPS with sub-5s of deterministic finality, with transaction fees under a penny. > > Competition from Traditional Finance has also skyrocketed as payment systems like M-Pesa in Africa, UK's Faster Payments, Australia's NPP, Clearinghouse's RTP now provide near-instant payments and peer-to-peer transactions **without fees**. > > ####**Batch UTXO transactions have scalability limits** > > Some Bitcoin proponents have argued that TPS is a misleading metric due to UTXO batching. However, you can't just increase useful transfers 100x by batching 100x transactions. This is because UTXO addresses take up space, so there is a limit to batched storage savings: ~40% (160 vbytes vs 258 vbytes when batching 2 basic transactions of 3 UTXO each) [[Source](https://blog.coinbase.com/reflections-on-bitcoin-transaction-batching-b13dad12a12)]. **Even if each block were a single batched transaction, Bitcoin would only increase from 3 to 5 effective transfers per second.** Also, this isn't unique to Bitcoin. Account transactions can batch using smart contracts to save fees and space. > > ####**Difficult to achieve widespread global adoption** > > At 3 TPS, Bitcoin can only make ~260K transaction/day. **If Bitcoin grows to the size of 1% of the 8B global population, each person can make an average of 1 on-chain transaction every 300 days.** Imagine 10% of world using Bitcoin, and each person being able to make a single transaction once every 8 years. > > **Not even the Lightning Network could save Bitcoin** because opening and closing a channel requires 2 on-chain transactions. Each Lightning channel has directional capacity, and whenever that gets exceeded, it will need to be closed and reopened with new capacity. You can't expect people to store months of funds on a single channel. Half of the US is living paycheck to paycheck and would unlikely be able to keep channels opened for long periods. If even 1% of the world used the Lightning Network and opens/closes their channels twice a year, the Bitcoin Network would become completely congested. > > ####**Extremely inefficient and wasteful** > > To protect against Sybil and 51% attacks, Bitcoin's PoW consensus achieves greater security through greater **redundancy**. Out of a million miners, only one of them is producing the actual block while the rest of them are just wasting energy and electric waste. Full nodes also hold redundant copies of the blockchain ledger, leading to wasted storage. > > In 2021, each block cost roughly $150-300K in energy to mine, which is equivalent to $100-150 of fees per transaction. **A single Bitcoin transaction uses about the same energy as a typical [US household over 2 months](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption)**. The total Bitcoin network energy consumption of ~150 TWh/yr is equivalent to [**18-24 US nuclear power plants**](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-nuclear-energy). Another way of looking at this is that Bitcoin consumes about as much energy as all datacenters globally [[Source](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-may-consume-as-much-energy-as-all-data-centers-globally)]. > > In comparison, other distributed consensus methods such as BFT are [10^7 x more efficient for energy use](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x). There is a silver lining: the energy waste (and security) will slowly decrease with each block subsidy halving, at the cost of decreased security. > > ####**Mining Pool Centralization** > > **The top 3 mining pools own 60% of the network hash rate** [[Source](https://btc.com/stats/pool)]. Individual miners have no financial incentive to run full nodes, so it's rare for them to be auditing their pool operators and won't notice attacks until it's too late. (To prevent miners from stealing block rewards, mining pool servers do not provide enough info to miners for them to be able to see attacks ahead of time.) > > ####**Moderately-high transaction fees** > > Transaction fees have risen over time. Layer 1 transfer fees are currently $1-2 USD and even briefly rose [past $50 in May 2021](https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee) during congestion. 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. > > Currently, revenue from the transaction fees are only [1-2% of the block rewards](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-fee_to_reward.html). Thus, when the block subsidy eventually disappears, transaction fees would need to be much higher to make up for the subsidy. > > ####**Chance of reorgs and invalidated blocks** > > Bitcoin's PoW has probabilistic finality, and there's always a chance a previous block could be orphaned and invalidated. This is known as a reorg, which is when the previously-longest chain is overtaken by a new longest chain. **There have been at least 2 reorgs longer than 20 blocks**: 51 blocks in Aug 2010 and 24 blocks on Mar 12, 2013 [[Source 1](https://coingeek.com/what-the-fork-happened-to-bitcoin/), [Source 2](https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoins-consensus-forks/)]. The 2010 reorg actually caused Bitcoin to mint 184.4 billion Bitcoins, way past its 21 million cap. There have also been at least [three 4-block reorgs prior to 2017](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3343/what-is-the-longest-blockchain-fork-that-has-been-orphaned-to-date). So the typical 3-6 block confirmations are not guaranteed to be safe. > > ####**Possibility of 51% attacks in the future** > > Bitcoin has a long-term economic incentive issue known as the [Tragedy of the Commons](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commons), and here is one realistic example of how it could happen. Unlike some smaller PoW networks, Bitcoin lacks finality checkpoints. **It only takes $5-10B of mining equipment to compromise the Bitcoin network**, and this is a drop in a bucket for many billionaires and nation states. > > What's preventing others from attacking Bitcoin isn't the monetary cost but the difficulty of acquiring sufficient mining equipment. But as halvings continue, if the price of Bitcoin doesn't double every 4 years, miners will eventually sell their equipment. Some nation state or billionaire could acquire them at a discount, short Bitcoin, and then 51% attack the network. **All they would have to do is produce empty blocks, and the network would halt.** The brilliant part of this is that producing empty blocks does not break any Bitcoin protocols, so they would still earn the block rewards. (In fact, during several months of 2015-2016, about 10% of blocks were empty due to selfish mining. After all, why bother waiting to package transactions when only 1% of the reward is from transaction fees?) > > ####**Negative-sum investment** > > Stock investments of profitable companies are a positive-sum investments. Investors buy and sell from other investors. In addition, money flows from customers to the company, and then to the investors in the form of capital, stock buybacks, and dividends. > > In contrast, Bitcoin investors pay massive block rewards (subsidy + fees) to miners, so it's negative-sum investment for everyone but miners. > > ####**Transaction Backlog** > > Because of Bitcoin's low throughput, there is often a backlog during busy periods. The backlog, as shown via the [Mempool](https://www.blockchain.com/charts/mempool-count), has gotten as high as 100K+ transactions several times in 2021, which is equivalent to waiting 7-9 hours for settlement on average. Transaction fees for confirmed transactions also rise greatly during these periods. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/vpuiar/top_coins_bitcoin_conarguments_july_2022/) 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/10s57jv/daily_general_discussion_february_3_2023_gmt0/).

It’s called crypto regulation. XRP should and will be there as well.

Mentions:#XRP

#Bitcoin Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > ##CONs > > ####**Intro** > > Overall, Bitcoin's conservative blockchain has failed to keep up with other blockchains technology-wise, which have evolved features and efficiencies way beyond Bitcoin. If all the cryptocurrencies were re-released today simultaneously, it is very unlikely Bitcoin would make it into the top 100 by market cap. It's currently #1 because it had a first-mover advantage and has enjoyed the network effect. > > ####**Much too slow** > > Bitcoin is now a **[3 TPS](https://blockchair.com/bitcoin)** blockchain with a **30-60 minute probabilistic finality**. It used to have a maximum of 7 TPS, but that has gradually fallen over the years after the Segwit update. It's much too slow to be used for point-of-sales merchant transactions. No one is ever going to want to **wait 30-60+ minutes** at cash register for a transaction to go through that's not even guaranteed to succeed. Block times average 10 minutes, but they are very variable. 14% of blocks take longer than 20 minutes, and 5% are longer than 30 minutes [[Source](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/25293/probablity-distribution-of-mining/43592#43592)], causing stress for those waiting for confirmation, let alone finality. Some transactions get stuck in the mempool for weeks when there's congestion. > > **Competition**: It's orders of magnitude slower than newer networks like Avalanche's X-Chain and Algorand, which can process 4000+ TPS with sub-5s of deterministic finality, with transaction fees under a penny. > > Competition from Traditional Finance has also skyrocketed as payment systems like M-Pesa in Africa, UK's Faster Payments, Australia's NPP, Clearinghouse's RTP now provide near-instant payments and peer-to-peer transactions **without fees**. > > ####**Batch UTXO transactions have scalability limits** > > Some Bitcoin proponents have argued that TPS is a misleading metric due to UTXO batching. However, you can't just increase useful transfers 100x by batching 100x transactions. This is because UTXO addresses take up space, so there is a limit to batched storage savings: ~40% (160 vbytes vs 258 vbytes when batching 2 basic transactions of 3 UTXO each) [[Source](https://blog.coinbase.com/reflections-on-bitcoin-transaction-batching-b13dad12a12)]. **Even if each block were a single batched transaction, Bitcoin would only increase from 3 to 5 effective transfers per second.** Also, this isn't unique to Bitcoin. Account transactions can batch using smart contracts to save fees and space. > > ####**Difficult to achieve widespread global adoption** > > At 3 TPS, Bitcoin can only make ~260K transaction/day. **If Bitcoin grows to the size of 1% of the 8B global population, each person can make an average of 1 on-chain transaction every 300 days.** Imagine 10% of world using Bitcoin, and each person being able to make a single transaction once every 8 years. > > **Not even the Lightning Network could save Bitcoin** because opening and closing a channel requires 2 on-chain transactions. Each Lightning channel has directional capacity, and whenever that gets exceeded, it will need to be closed and reopened with new capacity. You can't expect people to store months of funds on a single channel. Half of the US is living paycheck to paycheck and would unlikely be able to keep channels opened for long periods. If even 1% of the world used the Lightning Network and opens/closes their channels twice a year, the Bitcoin Network would become completely congested. > > ####**Extremely inefficient and wasteful** > > To protect against Sybil and 51% attacks, Bitcoin's PoW consensus achieves greater security through greater **redundancy**. Out of a million miners, only one of them is producing the actual block while the rest of them are just wasting energy and electric waste. Full nodes also hold redundant copies of the blockchain ledger, leading to wasted storage. > > In 2021, each block cost roughly $150-300K in energy to mine, which is equivalent to $100-150 of fees per transaction. **A single Bitcoin transaction uses about the same energy as a typical [US household over 2 months](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption)**. The total Bitcoin network energy consumption of ~150 TWh/yr is equivalent to [**18-24 US nuclear power plants**](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-nuclear-energy). Another way of looking at this is that Bitcoin consumes about as much energy as all datacenters globally [[Source](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-may-consume-as-much-energy-as-all-data-centers-globally)]. > > In comparison, other distributed consensus methods such as BFT are [10^7 x more efficient for energy use](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x). There is a silver lining: the energy waste (and security) will slowly decrease with each block subsidy halving, at the cost of decreased security. > > ####**Mining Pool Centralization** > > **The top 3 mining pools own 60% of the network hash rate** [[Source](https://btc.com/stats/pool)]. Individual miners have no financial incentive to run full nodes, so it's rare for them to be auditing their pool operators and won't notice attacks until it's too late. (To prevent miners from stealing block rewards, mining pool servers do not provide enough info to miners for them to be able to see attacks ahead of time.) > > ####**Moderately-high transaction fees** > > Transaction fees have risen over time. Layer 1 transfer fees are currently $1-2 USD and even briefly rose [past $50 in May 2021](https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee) during congestion. 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. > > Currently, revenue from the transaction fees are only [1-2% of the block rewards](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-fee_to_reward.html). Thus, when the block subsidy eventually disappears, transaction fees would need to be much higher to make up for the subsidy. > > ####**Chance of reorgs and invalidated blocks** > > Bitcoin's PoW has probabilistic finality, and there's always a chance a previous block could be orphaned and invalidated. This is known as a reorg, which is when the previously-longest chain is overtaken by a new longest chain. **There have been at least 2 reorgs longer than 20 blocks**: 51 blocks in Aug 2010 and 24 blocks on Mar 12, 2013 [[Source 1](https://coingeek.com/what-the-fork-happened-to-bitcoin/), [Source 2](https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoins-consensus-forks/)]. The 2010 reorg actually caused Bitcoin to mint 184.4 billion Bitcoins, way past its 21 million cap. There have also been at least [three 4-block reorgs prior to 2017](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3343/what-is-the-longest-blockchain-fork-that-has-been-orphaned-to-date). So the typical 3-6 block confirmations are not guaranteed to be safe. > > ####**Possibility of 51% attacks in the future** > > Bitcoin has a long-term economic incentive issue known as the [Tragedy of the Commons](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commons), and here is one realistic example of how it could happen. Unlike some smaller PoW networks, Bitcoin lacks finality checkpoints. **It only takes $5-10B of mining equipment to compromise the Bitcoin network**, and this is a drop in a bucket for many billionaires and nation states. > > What's preventing others from attacking Bitcoin isn't the monetary cost but the difficulty of acquiring sufficient mining equipment. But as halvings continue, if the price of Bitcoin doesn't double every 4 years, miners will eventually sell their equipment. Some nation state or billionaire could acquire them at a discount, short Bitcoin, and then 51% attack the network. **All they would have to do is produce empty blocks, and the network would halt.** The brilliant part of this is that producing empty blocks does not break any Bitcoin protocols, so they would still earn the block rewards. (In fact, during several months of 2015-2016, about 10% of blocks were empty due to selfish mining. After all, why bother waiting to package transactions when only 1% of the reward is from transaction fees?) > > ####**Negative-sum investment** > > Stock investments of profitable companies are a positive-sum investments. Investors buy and sell from other investors. In addition, money flows from customers to the company, and then to the investors in the form of capital, stock buybacks, and dividends. > > In contrast, Bitcoin investors pay massive block rewards (subsidy + fees) to miners, so it's negative-sum investment for everyone but miners. > > ####**Transaction Backlog** > > Because of Bitcoin's low throughput, there is often a backlog during busy periods. The backlog, as shown via the [Mempool](https://www.blockchain.com/charts/mempool-count), has gotten as high as 100K+ transactions several times in 2021, which is equivalent to waiting 7-9 hours for settlement on average. Transaction fees for confirmed transactions also rise greatly during these periods. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/vpuiar/top_coins_bitcoin_conarguments_july_2022/) 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/10s57jv/daily_general_discussion_february_3_2023_gmt0/).

#Bitcoin Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > ##CONs > > ####**Intro** > > Overall, Bitcoin's conservative blockchain has failed to keep up with other blockchains technology-wise, which have evolved features and efficiencies way beyond Bitcoin. If all the cryptocurrencies were re-released today simultaneously, it is very unlikely Bitcoin would make it into the top 100 by market cap. It's currently #1 because it had a first-mover advantage and has enjoyed the network effect. > > ####**Much too slow** > > Bitcoin is now a **[3 TPS](https://blockchair.com/bitcoin)** blockchain with a **30-60 minute probabilistic finality**. It used to have a maximum of 7 TPS, but that has gradually fallen over the years after the Segwit update. It's much too slow to be used for point-of-sales merchant transactions. No one is ever going to want to **wait 30-60+ minutes** at cash register for a transaction to go through that's not even guaranteed to succeed. Block times average 10 minutes, but they are very variable. 14% of blocks take longer than 20 minutes, and 5% are longer than 30 minutes [[Source](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/25293/probablity-distribution-of-mining/43592#43592)], causing stress for those waiting for confirmation, let alone finality. Some transactions get stuck in the mempool for weeks when there's congestion. > > **Competition**: It's orders of magnitude slower than newer networks like Avalanche's X-Chain and Algorand, which can process 4000+ TPS with sub-5s of deterministic finality, with transaction fees under a penny. > > Competition from Traditional Finance has also skyrocketed as payment systems like M-Pesa in Africa, UK's Faster Payments, Australia's NPP, Clearinghouse's RTP now provide near-instant payments and peer-to-peer transactions **without fees**. > > ####**Batch UTXO transactions have scalability limits** > > Some Bitcoin proponents have argued that TPS is a misleading metric due to UTXO batching. However, you can't just increase useful transfers 100x by batching 100x transactions. This is because UTXO addresses take up space, so there is a limit to batched storage savings: ~40% (160 vbytes vs 258 vbytes when batching 2 basic transactions of 3 UTXO each) [[Source](https://blog.coinbase.com/reflections-on-bitcoin-transaction-batching-b13dad12a12)]. **Even if each block were a single batched transaction, Bitcoin would only increase from 3 to 5 effective transfers per second.** Also, this isn't unique to Bitcoin. Account transactions can batch using smart contracts to save fees and space. > > ####**Difficult to achieve widespread global adoption** > > At 3 TPS, Bitcoin can only make ~260K transaction/day. **If Bitcoin grows to the size of 1% of the 8B global population, each person can make an average of 1 on-chain transaction every 300 days.** Imagine 10% of world using Bitcoin, and each person being able to make a single transaction once every 8 years. > > **Not even the Lightning Network could save Bitcoin** because opening and closing a channel requires 2 on-chain transactions. Each Lightning channel has directional capacity, and whenever that gets exceeded, it will need to be closed and reopened with new capacity. You can't expect people to store months of funds on a single channel. Half of the US is living paycheck to paycheck and would unlikely be able to keep channels opened for long periods. If even 1% of the world used the Lightning Network and opens/closes their channels twice a year, the Bitcoin Network would become completely congested. > > ####**Extremely inefficient and wasteful** > > To protect against Sybil and 51% attacks, Bitcoin's PoW consensus achieves greater security through greater **redundancy**. Out of a million miners, only one of them is producing the actual block while the rest of them are just wasting energy and electric waste. Full nodes also hold redundant copies of the blockchain ledger, leading to wasted storage. > > In 2021, each block cost roughly $150-300K in energy to mine, which is equivalent to $100-150 of fees per transaction. **A single Bitcoin transaction uses about the same energy as a typical [US household over 2 months](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption)**. The total Bitcoin network energy consumption of ~150 TWh/yr is equivalent to [**18-24 US nuclear power plants**](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-nuclear-energy). Another way of looking at this is that Bitcoin consumes about as much energy as all datacenters globally [[Source](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-may-consume-as-much-energy-as-all-data-centers-globally)]. > > In comparison, other distributed consensus methods such as BFT are [10^7 x more efficient for energy use](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x). There is a silver lining: the energy waste (and security) will slowly decrease with each block subsidy halving, at the cost of decreased security. > > ####**Mining Pool Centralization** > > **The top 3 mining pools own 60% of the network hash rate** [[Source](https://btc.com/stats/pool)]. Individual miners have no financial incentive to run full nodes, so it's rare for them to be auditing their pool operators and won't notice attacks until it's too late. (To prevent miners from stealing block rewards, mining pool servers do not provide enough info to miners for them to be able to see attacks ahead of time.) > > ####**Moderately-high transaction fees** > > Transaction fees have risen over time. Layer 1 transfer fees are currently $1-2 USD and even briefly rose [past $50 in May 2021](https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee) during congestion. 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. > > Currently, revenue from the transaction fees are only [1-2% of the block rewards](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-fee_to_reward.html). Thus, when the block subsidy eventually disappears, transaction fees would need to be much higher to make up for the subsidy. > > ####**Chance of reorgs and invalidated blocks** > > Bitcoin's PoW has probabilistic finality, and there's always a chance a previous block could be orphaned and invalidated. This is known as a reorg, which is when the previously-longest chain is overtaken by a new longest chain. **There have been at least 2 reorgs longer than 20 blocks**: 51 blocks in Aug 2010 and 24 blocks on Mar 12, 2013 [[Source 1](https://coingeek.com/what-the-fork-happened-to-bitcoin/), [Source 2](https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoins-consensus-forks/)]. The 2010 reorg actually caused Bitcoin to mint 184.4 billion Bitcoins, way past its 21 million cap. There have also been at least [three 4-block reorgs prior to 2017](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3343/what-is-the-longest-blockchain-fork-that-has-been-orphaned-to-date). So the typical 3-6 block confirmations are not guaranteed to be safe. > > ####**Possibility of 51% attacks in the future** > > Bitcoin has a long-term economic incentive issue known as the [Tragedy of the Commons](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commons), and here is one realistic example of how it could happen. Unlike some smaller PoW networks, Bitcoin lacks finality checkpoints. **It only takes $5-10B of mining equipment to compromise the Bitcoin network**, and this is a drop in a bucket for many billionaires and nation states. > > What's preventing others from attacking Bitcoin isn't the monetary cost but the difficulty of acquiring sufficient mining equipment. But as halvings continue, if the price of Bitcoin doesn't double every 4 years, miners will eventually sell their equipment. Some nation state or billionaire could acquire them at a discount, short Bitcoin, and then 51% attack the network. **All they would have to do is produce empty blocks, and the network would halt.** The brilliant part of this is that producing empty blocks does not break any Bitcoin protocols, so they would still earn the block rewards. (In fact, during several months of 2015-2016, about 10% of blocks were empty due to selfish mining. After all, why bother waiting to package transactions when only 1% of the reward is from transaction fees?) > > ####**Negative-sum investment** > > Stock investments of profitable companies are a positive-sum investments. Investors buy and sell from other investors. In addition, money flows from customers to the company, and then to the investors in the form of capital, stock buybacks, and dividends. > > In contrast, Bitcoin investors pay massive block rewards (subsidy + fees) to miners, so it's negative-sum investment for everyone but miners. > > ####**Transaction Backlog** > > Because of Bitcoin's low throughput, there is often a backlog during busy periods. The backlog, as shown via the [Mempool](https://www.blockchain.com/charts/mempool-count), has gotten as high as 100K+ transactions several times in 2021, which is equivalent to waiting 7-9 hours for settlement on average. Transaction fees for confirmed transactions also rise greatly during these periods. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/vpuiar/top_coins_bitcoin_conarguments_july_2022/) 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/10s57jv/daily_general_discussion_february_3_2023_gmt0/).

#Ethereum Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Ethereum Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Ethereum has drastically changed in the past year now that it has rebranded itself as **Consensus/Settlement layer** for other Layer 2 Execution/Rollup networks. It is no longer trying to be a monolithic blockchain by itself. Because of this shift in design, many of its former CONs are no longer major issues. And many of the CONs that still exist often have a beneficial sides. > > I discuss the CONs of Ethereum and their impact on its users here: > > ## CONs > > **Gas Fees** (major): > > The biggest complaint for Ethereum is 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 much of DeFi is extremely expensive. 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. Basically: use a coin on a different network to avoid fees. > > Typical transaction fees for Ethereum were [between $2-10 over the past year](https://etherscan.io/chart/avg-txfee-usd), but they have shot up to $50+ several times in 2021. > > 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 mid-year in 2021 saw $100-$200 gas fees. Transferring ERC-20 tokens (often $20-50) is also more gas expensive because it can't be done through native transfers like on the Cardano network. It's impractical to use swaps like Uniswap for small transactions due to these fees. > > In particular, One/Many-to-many batch transactions are extremely gas-expensive using Ethereum's account-based model compared to Bitcoin's and Cardano's UXTO-based model. [This batch transaction on Ethereum](https://etherscan.io/tx/0x0fe2542079644e107cbf13690eb9c2c65963ccb79089ff96bfaf8dced2331c92) cost over $5000 while [a similar eUXTO transaction on Cardano](https://adapools.org/transactions/e586c6340ee9e60a6c64f447feffe5f89bdabc7741666ecaa681081957938f56) only cost $0.50 in fees. > > On the other hand, these fees provide Ethereum long-term economic sustainability and resilience against DDoS and spam attacks. > > **Competition from other Smart Contract networks** (moderate): > > Ethereum has enjoyed its lead as the smart contract blockchain due to first-mover advantage. But there are now many efficient smart contract competitors like Algorand, Solana, and Cardano. Ethereum is now facing much competition. Who wants to pay $20 gas fees on Ethereum when you can get similar transactions for under $0.01 with Algo and Solana or $0.30 transactions with Cardano? > > Fortunately, the amount of competition is limited because Ethereum is positioning itself as a Settlement layer whereas these other networks are monolithic networks. All monolithic networks will eventually run into scaling issues due to long-term storage and bandwidth limits. It will really depend on how successful Ethereum's Layer 2 rollup solutions will be. > > **Future uncertainty about Layer 2 solutions** (major): > > Ethereum's long-term success is dependent on the success of its Layer 2 solutions. > > These Layer 2 solutions are still extremely early. Even after a year, L2 has a very fragmented adoption. The majority of centralized exchanges currently do not support Layer 2 rollup networks. A few have started to support Polygon, which is more of a Layer 2 side-chain that saves state every 256 blocks than a Layer 2 rollup. Very few CEXs allow for direct fiat on/off-ramping on L2 networks, which puts those networks out of reach of most users. > > Many of these Layer 2 networks (Arbitrum, Optimism, Loopring, ZKSync, etc), are not interoperable with each other. You can store your tokens on any specific L2 network, but they're stuck there. If you want to move your tokens back to Layer 1 or to another L2 network, you have to pay very expensive smart contract gas fees ($50-300). Eventually, there will be bridges between these networks, but we could be years away from widespread adoption. > > Fragmented liquidity is another huge issue. Each of these L2 networks has its own liquidity pool for each token it supports. You can store your token on the the L2 network, but you won't be able to trade or swap much if there are no liquidity pools for that token. Eventually, there will be Dynamic Automated Market Makers (dAMMs) that can share liquidity between networks, but they are complex and introduce their own weaknesses. > > 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. They are very centralized in how they operate, so there's always the risk that their network operators could cheat their customers. By now, the community seems to agree that ZK rollups are the future rollup solution to decentralized L2 networks. There is only 1 notable instance of Plasma (Ethereum to Polygon network conversion), and no one uses it anymore since the Ethereum-Polygon bridge is easier to use. The biggest competitor to ZK rollups are Optimistic rollups, and those take too long to settle back to Layer 1 (1 week) and are still too expensive to use (20-50% of the cost of L1 Ethereum gas fees for transfers). > > **ZK Rollups** 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. To reduce the cost, they are done completely-centralized by specialized servers. Thus the cost of a ZK Rollup is cheap at about [$0.10 to $.30](https://l2fees.info/). But even at $0.10 per transfer and $0.50 per swap, these are still at least 10x more expensive than costs on Algorand and Solana. Users will have to decide whether the extra cost and hassle of using an L2 platform is worth the extra security of settling on the more-decentralized and secure Ethereum L1 network. > > **Ethereum Proof-of-Stake merge is arriving later than competitors** (moderate): > > The ETH PoS Beacon chain has been released, it's a completely separate blockchain from ETH and won't merge with the main blockchain [until later this year](https://decrypt.co/78690/ethereum-2-staking-tops-21-billion-merge-horizon), giving its competitors plenty of time to provide FUD. We still don't know how successful the merge will be. Currently, stakes are locked, preventing investors from selling. We don't know what will happen to the price once staking unlocks. > > **MEV and Dark Forest attacks** (minor): > > [MEV](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/rs4wp2/the_dark_forest_of_cryptocurrency/) is actually a pretty big issue for networks with high gas arbitrage and mempools like Ethereum, but most casual users will never notice hostile arbitrage. When you broadcast your transaction to the network, there are armies of bots and automated miners that analyze your transaction to see if they can perform arbitrage strategies on your transaction such as front-running, sandwiching, excluding transactions, stealing/replaying transactions, and other pure-profit plays. "Dark Forest" attacks have reveled that bots are constantly monitoring the network, and they can front-run you unless you have your own private army of miners. > > **Final Word** > > Overall, I still think the PROs outweigh the CONs for Ethereum in the long-run due to its first-mover advantage and the long-term sustainability of the Ethereum network. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/ru2luf/top_10_ethereum_conarguments_january_2022/) 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/10s57jv/daily_general_discussion_february_3_2023_gmt0/).

#Bitcoin Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > ##CONs > > ####**Intro** > > Overall, Bitcoin's conservative blockchain has failed to keep up with other blockchains technology-wise, which have evolved features and efficiencies way beyond Bitcoin. If all the cryptocurrencies were re-released today simultaneously, it is very unlikely Bitcoin would make it into the top 100 by market cap. It's currently #1 because it had a first-mover advantage and has enjoyed the network effect. > > ####**Much too slow** > > Bitcoin is now a **[3 TPS](https://blockchair.com/bitcoin)** blockchain with a **30-60 minute probabilistic finality**. It used to have a maximum of 7 TPS, but that has gradually fallen over the years after the Segwit update. It's much too slow to be used for point-of-sales merchant transactions. No one is ever going to want to **wait 30-60+ minutes** at cash register for a transaction to go through that's not even guaranteed to succeed. Block times average 10 minutes, but they are very variable. 14% of blocks take longer than 20 minutes, and 5% are longer than 30 minutes [[Source](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/25293/probablity-distribution-of-mining/43592#43592)], causing stress for those waiting for confirmation, let alone finality. Some transactions get stuck in the mempool for weeks when there's congestion. > > **Competition**: It's orders of magnitude slower than newer networks like Avalanche's X-Chain and Algorand, which can process 4000+ TPS with sub-5s of deterministic finality, with transaction fees under a penny. > > Competition from Traditional Finance has also skyrocketed as payment systems like M-Pesa in Africa, UK's Faster Payments, Australia's NPP, Clearinghouse's RTP now provide near-instant payments and peer-to-peer transactions **without fees**. > > ####**Batch UTXO transactions have scalability limits** > > Some Bitcoin proponents have argued that TPS is a misleading metric due to UTXO batching. However, you can't just increase useful transfers 100x by batching 100x transactions. This is because UTXO addresses take up space, so there is a limit to batched storage savings: ~40% (160 vbytes vs 258 vbytes when batching 2 basic transactions of 3 UTXO each) [[Source](https://blog.coinbase.com/reflections-on-bitcoin-transaction-batching-b13dad12a12)]. **Even if each block were a single batched transaction, Bitcoin would only increase from 3 to 5 effective transfers per second.** Also, this isn't unique to Bitcoin. Account transactions can batch using smart contracts to save fees and space. > > ####**Difficult to achieve widespread global adoption** > > At 3 TPS, Bitcoin can only make ~260K transaction/day. **If Bitcoin grows to the size of 1% of the 8B global population, each person can make an average of 1 on-chain transaction every 300 days.** Imagine 10% of world using Bitcoin, and each person being able to make a single transaction once every 8 years. > > **Not even the Lightning Network could save Bitcoin** because opening and closing a channel requires 2 on-chain transactions. Each Lightning channel has directional capacity, and whenever that gets exceeded, it will need to be closed and reopened with new capacity. You can't expect people to store months of funds on a single channel. Half of the US is living paycheck to paycheck and would unlikely be able to keep channels opened for long periods. If even 1% of the world used the Lightning Network and opens/closes their channels twice a year, the Bitcoin Network would become completely congested. > > ####**Extremely inefficient and wasteful** > > To protect against Sybil and 51% attacks, Bitcoin's PoW consensus achieves greater security through greater **redundancy**. Out of a million miners, only one of them is producing the actual block while the rest of them are just wasting energy and electric waste. Full nodes also hold redundant copies of the blockchain ledger, leading to wasted storage. > > In 2021, each block cost roughly $150-300K in energy to mine, which is equivalent to $100-150 of fees per transaction. **A single Bitcoin transaction uses about the same energy as a typical [US household over 2 months](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption)**. The total Bitcoin network energy consumption of ~150 TWh/yr is equivalent to [**18-24 US nuclear power plants**](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-nuclear-energy). Another way of looking at this is that Bitcoin consumes about as much energy as all datacenters globally [[Source](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-may-consume-as-much-energy-as-all-data-centers-globally)]. > > In comparison, other distributed consensus methods such as BFT are [10^7 x more efficient for energy use](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x). There is a silver lining: the energy waste (and security) will slowly decrease with each block subsidy halving, at the cost of decreased security. > > ####**Mining Pool Centralization** > > **The top 3 mining pools own 60% of the network hash rate** [[Source](https://btc.com/stats/pool)]. Individual miners have no financial incentive to run full nodes, so it's rare for them to be auditing their pool operators and won't notice attacks until it's too late. (To prevent miners from stealing block rewards, mining pool servers do not provide enough info to miners for them to be able to see attacks ahead of time.) > > ####**Moderately-high transaction fees** > > Transaction fees have risen over time. Layer 1 transfer fees are currently $1-2 USD and even briefly rose [past $50 in May 2021](https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee) during congestion. 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. > > Currently, revenue from the transaction fees are only [1-2% of the block rewards](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-fee_to_reward.html). Thus, when the block subsidy eventually disappears, transaction fees would need to be much higher to make up for the subsidy. > > ####**Chance of reorgs and invalidated blocks** > > Bitcoin's PoW has probabilistic finality, and there's always a chance a previous block could be orphaned and invalidated. This is known as a reorg, which is when the previously-longest chain is overtaken by a new longest chain. **There have been at least 2 reorgs longer than 20 blocks**: 51 blocks in Aug 2010 and 24 blocks on Mar 12, 2013 [[Source 1](https://coingeek.com/what-the-fork-happened-to-bitcoin/), [Source 2](https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoins-consensus-forks/)]. The 2010 reorg actually caused Bitcoin to mint 184.4 billion Bitcoins, way past its 21 million cap. There have also been at least [three 4-block reorgs prior to 2017](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3343/what-is-the-longest-blockchain-fork-that-has-been-orphaned-to-date). So the typical 3-6 block confirmations are not guaranteed to be safe. > > ####**Possibility of 51% attacks in the future** > > Bitcoin has a long-term economic incentive issue known as the [Tragedy of the Commons](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commons), and here is one realistic example of how it could happen. Unlike some smaller PoW networks, Bitcoin lacks finality checkpoints. **It only takes $5-10B of mining equipment to compromise the Bitcoin network**, and this is a drop in a bucket for many billionaires and nation states. > > What's preventing others from attacking Bitcoin isn't the monetary cost but the difficulty of acquiring sufficient mining equipment. But as halvings continue, if the price of Bitcoin doesn't double every 4 years, miners will eventually sell their equipment. Some nation state or billionaire could acquire them at a discount, short Bitcoin, and then 51% attack the network. **All they would have to do is produce empty blocks, and the network would halt.** The brilliant part of this is that producing empty blocks does not break any Bitcoin protocols, so they would still earn the block rewards. (In fact, during several months of 2015-2016, about 10% of blocks were empty due to selfish mining. After all, why bother waiting to package transactions when only 1% of the reward is from transaction fees?) > > ####**Negative-sum investment** > > Stock investments of profitable companies are a positive-sum investments. Investors buy and sell from other investors. In addition, money flows from customers to the company, and then to the investors in the form of capital, stock buybacks, and dividends. > > In contrast, Bitcoin investors pay massive block rewards (subsidy + fees) to miners, so it's negative-sum investment for everyone but miners. > > ####**Transaction Backlog** > > Because of Bitcoin's low throughput, there is often a backlog during busy periods. The backlog, as shown via the [Mempool](https://www.blockchain.com/charts/mempool-count), has gotten as high as 100K+ transactions several times in 2021, which is equivalent to waiting 7-9 hours for settlement on average. Transaction fees for confirmed transactions also rise greatly during these periods. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/vpuiar/top_coins_bitcoin_conarguments_july_2022/) 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/10s57jv/daily_general_discussion_february_3_2023_gmt0/).

These crypto articles that try to imply something by proposing a question are annoying. I doubt Coinbase had said a damn thing about re-listing XRP since this “clarity” has been found.

Mentions:#XRP

#Bitcoin Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > ##CONs > > ####**Intro** > > Overall, Bitcoin's conservative blockchain has failed to keep up with other blockchains technology-wise, which have evolved features and efficiencies way beyond Bitcoin. If all the cryptocurrencies were re-released today simultaneously, it is very unlikely Bitcoin would make it into the top 100 by market cap. It's currently #1 because it had a first-mover advantage and has enjoyed the network effect. > > ####**Much too slow** > > Bitcoin is now a **[3 TPS](https://blockchair.com/bitcoin)** blockchain with a **30-60 minute probabilistic finality**. It used to have a maximum of 7 TPS, but that has gradually fallen over the years after the Segwit update. It's much too slow to be used for point-of-sales merchant transactions. No one is ever going to want to **wait 30-60+ minutes** at cash register for a transaction to go through that's not even guaranteed to succeed. Block times average 10 minutes, but they are very variable. 14% of blocks take longer than 20 minutes, and 5% are longer than 30 minutes [[Source](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/25293/probablity-distribution-of-mining/43592#43592)], causing stress for those waiting for confirmation, let alone finality. Some transactions get stuck in the mempool for weeks when there's congestion. > > **Competition**: It's orders of magnitude slower than newer networks like Avalanche's X-Chain and Algorand, which can process 4000+ TPS with sub-5s of deterministic finality, with transaction fees under a penny. > > Competition from Traditional Finance has also skyrocketed as payment systems like M-Pesa in Africa, UK's Faster Payments, Australia's NPP, Clearinghouse's RTP now provide near-instant payments and peer-to-peer transactions **without fees**. > > ####**Batch UTXO transactions have scalability limits** > > Some Bitcoin proponents have argued that TPS is a misleading metric due to UTXO batching. However, you can't just increase useful transfers 100x by batching 100x transactions. This is because UTXO addresses take up space, so there is a limit to batched storage savings: ~40% (160 vbytes vs 258 vbytes when batching 2 basic transactions of 3 UTXO each) [[Source](https://blog.coinbase.com/reflections-on-bitcoin-transaction-batching-b13dad12a12)]. **Even if each block were a single batched transaction, Bitcoin would only increase from 3 to 5 effective transfers per second.** Also, this isn't unique to Bitcoin. Account transactions can batch using smart contracts to save fees and space. > > ####**Difficult to achieve widespread global adoption** > > At 3 TPS, Bitcoin can only make ~260K transaction/day. **If Bitcoin grows to the size of 1% of the 8B global population, each person can make an average of 1 on-chain transaction every 300 days.** Imagine 10% of world using Bitcoin, and each person being able to make a single transaction once every 8 years. > > **Not even the Lightning Network could save Bitcoin** because opening and closing a channel requires 2 on-chain transactions. Each Lightning channel has directional capacity, and whenever that gets exceeded, it will need to be closed and reopened with new capacity. You can't expect people to store months of funds on a single channel. Half of the US is living paycheck to paycheck and would unlikely be able to keep channels opened for long periods. If even 1% of the world used the Lightning Network and opens/closes their channels twice a year, the Bitcoin Network would become completely congested. > > ####**Extremely inefficient and wasteful** > > To protect against Sybil and 51% attacks, Bitcoin's PoW consensus achieves greater security through greater **redundancy**. Out of a million miners, only one of them is producing the actual block while the rest of them are just wasting energy and electric waste. Full nodes also hold redundant copies of the blockchain ledger, leading to wasted storage. > > In 2021, each block cost roughly $150-300K in energy to mine, which is equivalent to $100-150 of fees per transaction. **A single Bitcoin transaction uses about the same energy as a typical [US household over 2 months](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption)**. The total Bitcoin network energy consumption of ~150 TWh/yr is equivalent to [**18-24 US nuclear power plants**](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-nuclear-energy). Another way of looking at this is that Bitcoin consumes about as much energy as all datacenters globally [[Source](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-may-consume-as-much-energy-as-all-data-centers-globally)]. > > In comparison, other distributed consensus methods such as BFT are [10^7 x more efficient for energy use](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x). There is a silver lining: the energy waste (and security) will slowly decrease with each block subsidy halving, at the cost of decreased security. > > ####**Mining Pool Centralization** > > **The top 3 mining pools own 60% of the network hash rate** [[Source](https://btc.com/stats/pool)]. Individual miners have no financial incentive to run full nodes, so it's rare for them to be auditing their pool operators and won't notice attacks until it's too late. (To prevent miners from stealing block rewards, mining pool servers do not provide enough info to miners for them to be able to see attacks ahead of time.) > > ####**Moderately-high transaction fees** > > Transaction fees have risen over time. Layer 1 transfer fees are currently $1-2 USD and even briefly rose [past $50 in May 2021](https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee) during congestion. 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. > > Currently, revenue from the transaction fees are only [1-2% of the block rewards](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-fee_to_reward.html). Thus, when the block subsidy eventually disappears, transaction fees would need to be much higher to make up for the subsidy. > > ####**Chance of reorgs and invalidated blocks** > > Bitcoin's PoW has probabilistic finality, and there's always a chance a previous block could be orphaned and invalidated. This is known as a reorg, which is when the previously-longest chain is overtaken by a new longest chain. **There have been at least 2 reorgs longer than 20 blocks**: 51 blocks in Aug 2010 and 24 blocks on Mar 12, 2013 [[Source 1](https://coingeek.com/what-the-fork-happened-to-bitcoin/), [Source 2](https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoins-consensus-forks/)]. The 2010 reorg actually caused Bitcoin to mint 184.4 billion Bitcoins, way past its 21 million cap. There have also been at least [three 4-block reorgs prior to 2017](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3343/what-is-the-longest-blockchain-fork-that-has-been-orphaned-to-date). So the typical 3-6 block confirmations are not guaranteed to be safe. > > ####**Possibility of 51% attacks in the future** > > Bitcoin has a long-term economic incentive issue known as the [Tragedy of the Commons](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commons), and here is one realistic example of how it could happen. Unlike some smaller PoW networks, Bitcoin lacks finality checkpoints. **It only takes $5-10B of mining equipment to compromise the Bitcoin network**, and this is a drop in a bucket for many billionaires and nation states. > > What's preventing others from attacking Bitcoin isn't the monetary cost but the difficulty of acquiring sufficient mining equipment. But as halvings continue, if the price of Bitcoin doesn't double every 4 years, miners will eventually sell their equipment. Some nation state or billionaire could acquire them at a discount, short Bitcoin, and then 51% attack the network. **All they would have to do is produce empty blocks, and the network would halt.** The brilliant part of this is that producing empty blocks does not break any Bitcoin protocols, so they would still earn the block rewards. (In fact, during several months of 2015-2016, about 10% of blocks were empty due to selfish mining. After all, why bother waiting to package transactions when only 1% of the reward is from transaction fees?) > > ####**Negative-sum investment** > > Stock investments of profitable companies are a positive-sum investments. Investors buy and sell from other investors. In addition, money flows from customers to the company, and then to the investors in the form of capital, stock buybacks, and dividends. > > In contrast, Bitcoin investors pay massive block rewards (subsidy + fees) to miners, so it's negative-sum investment for everyone but miners. > > ####**Transaction Backlog** > > Because of Bitcoin's low throughput, there is often a backlog during busy periods. The backlog, as shown via the [Mempool](https://www.blockchain.com/charts/mempool-count), has gotten as high as 100K+ transactions several times in 2021, which is equivalent to waiting 7-9 hours for settlement on average. Transaction fees for confirmed transactions also rise greatly during these periods. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/vpuiar/top_coins_bitcoin_conarguments_july_2022/) 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/10s57jv/daily_general_discussion_february_3_2023_gmt0/).

#Bitcoin Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > ##CONs > > ####**Intro** > > Overall, Bitcoin's conservative blockchain has failed to keep up with other blockchains technology-wise, which have evolved features and efficiencies way beyond Bitcoin. If all the cryptocurrencies were re-released today simultaneously, it is very unlikely Bitcoin would make it into the top 100 by market cap. It's currently #1 because it had a first-mover advantage and has enjoyed the network effect. > > ####**Much too slow** > > Bitcoin is now a **[3 TPS](https://blockchair.com/bitcoin)** blockchain with a **30-60 minute probabilistic finality**. It used to have a maximum of 7 TPS, but that has gradually fallen over the years after the Segwit update. It's much too slow to be used for point-of-sales merchant transactions. No one is ever going to want to **wait 30-60+ minutes** at cash register for a transaction to go through that's not even guaranteed to succeed. Block times average 10 minutes, but they are very variable. 14% of blocks take longer than 20 minutes, and 5% are longer than 30 minutes [[Source](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/25293/probablity-distribution-of-mining/43592#43592)], causing stress for those waiting for confirmation, let alone finality. Some transactions get stuck in the mempool for weeks when there's congestion. > > **Competition**: It's orders of magnitude slower than newer networks like Avalanche's X-Chain and Algorand, which can process 4000+ TPS with sub-5s of deterministic finality, with transaction fees under a penny. > > Competition from Traditional Finance has also skyrocketed as payment systems like M-Pesa in Africa, UK's Faster Payments, Australia's NPP, Clearinghouse's RTP now provide near-instant payments and peer-to-peer transactions **without fees**. > > ####**Batch UTXO transactions have scalability limits** > > Some Bitcoin proponents have argued that TPS is a misleading metric due to UTXO batching. However, you can't just increase useful transfers 100x by batching 100x transactions. This is because UTXO addresses take up space, so there is a limit to batched storage savings: ~40% (160 vbytes vs 258 vbytes when batching 2 basic transactions of 3 UTXO each) [[Source](https://blog.coinbase.com/reflections-on-bitcoin-transaction-batching-b13dad12a12)]. **Even if each block were a single batched transaction, Bitcoin would only increase from 3 to 5 effective transfers per second.** Also, this isn't unique to Bitcoin. Account transactions can batch using smart contracts to save fees and space. > > ####**Difficult to achieve widespread global adoption** > > At 3 TPS, Bitcoin can only make ~260K transaction/day. **If Bitcoin grows to the size of 1% of the 8B global population, each person can make an average of 1 on-chain transaction every 300 days.** Imagine 10% of world using Bitcoin, and each person being able to make a single transaction once every 8 years. > > **Not even the Lightning Network could save Bitcoin** because opening and closing a channel requires 2 on-chain transactions. Each Lightning channel has directional capacity, and whenever that gets exceeded, it will need to be closed and reopened with new capacity. You can't expect people to store months of funds on a single channel. Half of the US is living paycheck to paycheck and would unlikely be able to keep channels opened for long periods. If even 1% of the world used the Lightning Network and opens/closes their channels twice a year, the Bitcoin Network would become completely congested. > > ####**Extremely inefficient and wasteful** > > To protect against Sybil and 51% attacks, Bitcoin's PoW consensus achieves greater security through greater **redundancy**. Out of a million miners, only one of them is producing the actual block while the rest of them are just wasting energy and electric waste. Full nodes also hold redundant copies of the blockchain ledger, leading to wasted storage. > > In 2021, each block cost roughly $150-300K in energy to mine, which is equivalent to $100-150 of fees per transaction. **A single Bitcoin transaction uses about the same energy as a typical [US household over 2 months](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption)**. The total Bitcoin network energy consumption of ~150 TWh/yr is equivalent to [**18-24 US nuclear power plants**](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-nuclear-energy). Another way of looking at this is that Bitcoin consumes about as much energy as all datacenters globally [[Source](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-may-consume-as-much-energy-as-all-data-centers-globally)]. > > In comparison, other distributed consensus methods such as BFT are [10^7 x more efficient for energy use](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x). There is a silver lining: the energy waste (and security) will slowly decrease with each block subsidy halving, at the cost of decreased security. > > ####**Mining Pool Centralization** > > **The top 3 mining pools own 60% of the network hash rate** [[Source](https://btc.com/stats/pool)]. Individual miners have no financial incentive to run full nodes, so it's rare for them to be auditing their pool operators and won't notice attacks until it's too late. (To prevent miners from stealing block rewards, mining pool servers do not provide enough info to miners for them to be able to see attacks ahead of time.) > > ####**Moderately-high transaction fees** > > Transaction fees have risen over time. Layer 1 transfer fees are currently $1-2 USD and even briefly rose [past $50 in May 2021](https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee) during congestion. 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. > > Currently, revenue from the transaction fees are only [1-2% of the block rewards](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-fee_to_reward.html). Thus, when the block subsidy eventually disappears, transaction fees would need to be much higher to make up for the subsidy. > > ####**Chance of reorgs and invalidated blocks** > > Bitcoin's PoW has probabilistic finality, and there's always a chance a previous block could be orphaned and invalidated. This is known as a reorg, which is when the previously-longest chain is overtaken by a new longest chain. **There have been at least 2 reorgs longer than 20 blocks**: 51 blocks in Aug 2010 and 24 blocks on Mar 12, 2013 [[Source 1](https://coingeek.com/what-the-fork-happened-to-bitcoin/), [Source 2](https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoins-consensus-forks/)]. The 2010 reorg actually caused Bitcoin to mint 184.4 billion Bitcoins, way past its 21 million cap. There have also been at least [three 4-block reorgs prior to 2017](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3343/what-is-the-longest-blockchain-fork-that-has-been-orphaned-to-date). So the typical 3-6 block confirmations are not guaranteed to be safe. > > ####**Possibility of 51% attacks in the future** > > Bitcoin has a long-term economic incentive issue known as the [Tragedy of the Commons](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commons), and here is one realistic example of how it could happen. Unlike some smaller PoW networks, Bitcoin lacks finality checkpoints. **It only takes $5-10B of mining equipment to compromise the Bitcoin network**, and this is a drop in a bucket for many billionaires and nation states. > > What's preventing others from attacking Bitcoin isn't the monetary cost but the difficulty of acquiring sufficient mining equipment. But as halvings continue, if the price of Bitcoin doesn't double every 4 years, miners will eventually sell their equipment. Some nation state or billionaire could acquire them at a discount, short Bitcoin, and then 51% attack the network. **All they would have to do is produce empty blocks, and the network would halt.** The brilliant part of this is that producing empty blocks does not break any Bitcoin protocols, so they would still earn the block rewards. (In fact, during several months of 2015-2016, about 10% of blocks were empty due to selfish mining. After all, why bother waiting to package transactions when only 1% of the reward is from transaction fees?) > > ####**Negative-sum investment** > > Stock investments of profitable companies are a positive-sum investments. Investors buy and sell from other investors. In addition, money flows from customers to the company, and then to the investors in the form of capital, stock buybacks, and dividends. > > In contrast, Bitcoin investors pay massive block rewards (subsidy + fees) to miners, so it's negative-sum investment for everyone but miners. > > ####**Transaction Backlog** > > Because of Bitcoin's low throughput, there is often a backlog during busy periods. The backlog, as shown via the [Mempool](https://www.blockchain.com/charts/mempool-count), has gotten as high as 100K+ transactions several times in 2021, which is equivalent to waiting 7-9 hours for settlement on average. Transaction fees for confirmed transactions also rise greatly during these periods. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/vpuiar/top_coins_bitcoin_conarguments_july_2022/) 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/10s57jv/daily_general_discussion_february_3_2023_gmt0/).

Yeah. But it's not much anymore. I used to think better of XRP

Mentions:#XRP

No! I bought some XRP to *sell* if they win!

Mentions:#XRP

Will you buy XRP if Ripple win their SEC case?

Mentions:#XRP

* Relevant Cointest topics: [USD Coin](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_usd_coin), [XRP](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_ripple), [Stellar](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_stellar), [CBDC](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_cbdc). * Relevant subreddits: r/Tether, r/Coinbase, r/XRP, r/Stellar. * Sort comments as controversial first by [clicking here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/10ses2v/four_men_controlled_86_of_tether_shares_in_2018/?sort=controversial). Doesn't work on mobile.

Mentions:#XRP

* Relevant Cointest topics: [USD Coin](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_usd_coin), [XRP](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_ripple), [Stellar](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_stellar), [CBDC](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_cbdc). * Relevant subreddits: r/Tether, r/Coinbase, r/XRP, r/Stellar. * Sort comments as controversial first by [clicking here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/10setaj/86_of_stablecoin_issuer_tether_was_controlled_by/?sort=controversial). Doesn't work on mobile.

Mentions:#XRP