If Precedent Holds, Bitcoin Won't Fall Much Lower Than the ...

Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot

Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot
Reposting after was mistakenly removed by mods (since resolved - Thanks)
A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important.
For better formatting see https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b
https://preview.redd.it/e8s7dj3ivpq51.png?width=428&format=png&auto=webp&s=5d0463462702637118c7527ebf96e91f4a80b290

Overview

Cosmos

Cosmos is a heterogeneous network of many independent parallel blockchains, each powered by classical BFT consensus algorithms like Tendermint. Developers can easily build custom application specific blockchains, called Zones, through the Cosmos SDK framework. These Zones connect to Hubs, which are specifically designed to connect zones together.
The vision of Cosmos is to have thousands of Zones and Hubs that are Interoperable through the Inter-Blockchain Communication Protocol (IBC). Cosmos can also connect to other systems through peg zones, which are specifically designed zones that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Cosmos does not use Sharding with each Zone and Hub being sovereign with their own validator set.
For a more in-depth look at Cosmos and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Cosmos on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Polkadot

Polkadot is a heterogeneous blockchain protocol that connects multiple specialised blockchains into one unified network. It achieves scalability through a sharding infrastructure with multiple blockchains running in parallel, called parachains, that connect to a central chain called the Relay Chain. Developers can easily build custom application specific parachains through the Substrate development framework.
The relay chain validates the state transition of connected parachains, providing shared state across the entire ecosystem. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. This is to ensure that the validity of the entire system can persist, and no individual part is corruptible. The shared state makes it so that the trust assumptions when using parachains are only those of the Relay Chain validator set, and no other. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. The hope is to have 100 parachains connect to the relay chain.
For a more in-depth look at Polkadot and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Polkadot on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Avalanche

Avalanche is a platform of platforms, ultimately consisting of thousands of subnets to form a heterogeneous interoperable network of many blockchains, that takes advantage of the revolutionary Avalanche Consensus protocols to provide a secure, globally distributed, interoperable and trustless framework offering unprecedented decentralisation whilst being able to comply with regulatory requirements.
Avalanche allows anyone to create their own tailor-made application specific blockchains, supporting multiple custom virtual machines such as EVM and WASM and written in popular languages like Go (with others coming in the future) rather than lightly used, poorly-understood languages like Solidity. This virtual machine can then be deployed on a custom blockchain network, called a subnet, which consist of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance.
Avalanche was built with serving financial markets in mind. It has native support for easily creating and trading digital smart assets with complex custom rule sets that define how the asset is handled and traded to ensure regulatory compliance can be met. Interoperability is enabled between blockchains within a subnet as well as between subnets. Like Cosmos and Polkadot, Avalanche is also able to connect to other systems through bridges, through custom virtual machines made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin.
For a more in-depth look at Avalanche and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see here and here
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Avalanche on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Comparison between Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche

A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions. I want to stress that it’s not a case of one platform being the killer of all other platforms, far from it. There won’t be one platform to rule them all, and too often the tribalism has plagued this space. Blockchains are going to completely revolutionise most industries and have a profound effect on the world we know today. It’s still very early in this space with most adoption limited to speculation and trading mainly due to the limitations of Blockchain and current iteration of Ethereum, which all three of these platforms hope to address. For those who just want a quick summary see the image at the bottom of the article. With that said let’s have a look

Scalability

Cosmos

Each Zone and Hub in Cosmos is capable of up to around 1000 transactions per second with bandwidth being the bottleneck in consensus. Cosmos aims to have thousands of Zones and Hubs all connected through IBC. There is no limit on the number of Zones / Hubs that can be created

Polkadot

Parachains in Polkadot are also capable of up to around 1500 transactions per second. A portion of the parachain slots on the Relay Chain will be designated as part of the parathread pool, the performance of a parachain is split between many parathreads offering lower performance and compete amongst themselves in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. The number of parachains is limited by the number of validators on the relay chain, they hope to be able to achieve 100 parachains.

Avalanche

Avalanche is capable of around 4500 transactions per second per subnet, this is based on modest hardware requirements to ensure maximum decentralisation of just 2 CPU cores and 4 GB of Memory and with a validator size of over 2,000 nodes. Performance is CPU-bound and if higher performance is required then more specialised subnets can be created with higher minimum requirements to be able to achieve 10,000 tps+ in a subnet. Avalanche aims to have thousands of subnets (each with multiple virtual machines / blockchains) all interoperable with each other. There is no limit on the number of Subnets that can be created.

Results

All three platforms offer vastly superior performance to the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum 1.0. Avalanche with its higher transactions per second, no limit on the number of subnets / blockchains that can be created and the consensus can scale to potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot claims to offer more tps than cosmos, but is limited to the number of parachains (around 100) whereas with Cosmos there is no limit on the number of hubs / zones that can be created. Cosmos is limited to a fairly small validator size of around 200 before performance degrades whereas Polkadot hopes to be able to reach 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit only a small number of validators are assigned to each parachain). Thus Cosmos and Polkadot scores ✅✅
https://preview.redd.it/2o0brllyvpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=8f62bb696ecaafcf6184da005d5fe0129d504518

Decentralisation

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus is limited to around 200 validators before performance starts to degrade. Whilst there is the Cosmos Hub it is one of many hubs in the network and there is no central hub or limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created.

Polkadot

Polkadot has 1000 validators in the relay chain and these are split up into a small number that validate each parachain (minimum of 14). The relay chain is a central point of failure as all parachains connect to it and the number of parachains is limited depending on the number of validators (they hope to achieve 100 parachains). Due to the limited number of parachain slots available, significant sums of DOT will need to be purchased to win an auction to lease the slot for up to 24 months at a time. Thus likely to lead to only those with enough funds to secure a parachain slot. Parathreads are however an alternative for those that require less and more varied performance for those that can’t secure a parachain slot.

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus scan scale to tens of thousands of validators, even potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus through repeated sub-sampling. The more validators, the faster the network becomes as the load is split between them. There are modest hardware requirements so anyone can run a node and there is no limit on the number of subnets / virtual machines that can be created.

Results

Avalanche offers unparalleled decentralisation using its revolutionary consensus protocols that can scale to millions of validators all participating in consensus at the same time. There is no limit to the number of subnets and virtual machines that can be created, and they can be created by anyone for a small fee, it scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is limited to 200 validators but no limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created, which anyone can create and scores ✅✅. Polkadot hopes to accommodate 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit these are split amongst each of the parachains). The number of parachains is limited and maybe cost prohibitive for many and the relay chain is a ultimately a single point of failure. Whilst definitely not saying it’s centralised and it is more decentralised than many others, just in comparison between the three, it scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/ckfamee0wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=c4355f145d821fabf7785e238dbc96a5f5ce2846

Latency

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus used in Cosmos reaches finality within 6 seconds. Cosmos consists of many Zones and Hubs that connect to each other. Communication between 2 zones could pass through many hubs along the way, thus also can contribute to latency times depending on the path taken as explained in part two of the articles on Cosmos. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Polkadot

Polkadot provides a Hybrid consensus protocol consisting of Block producing protocol, BABE, and then a finality gadget called GRANDPA that works to agree on a chain, out of many possible forks, by following some simpler fork choice rule. Rather than voting on every block, instead it reaches agreements on chains. As soon as more than 2/3 of validators attest to a chain containing a certain block, all blocks leading up to that one are finalized at once.
If an invalid block is detected after it has been finalised then the relay chain would need to be reverted along with every parachain. This is particularly important when connecting to external blockchains as those don’t share the state of the relay chain and thus can’t be rolled back. The longer the time period, the more secure the network is, as there is more time for additional checks to be performed and reported but at the expense of finality. Finality is reached within 60 seconds between parachains but for external ecosystems like Ethereum their state obviously can’t be rolled back like a parachain and so finality will need to be much longer (60 minutes was suggested in the whitepaper) and discussed in more detail in part three

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus achieves finality within 3 seconds, with most happening sub 1 second, immutable and completely irreversible. Any subnet can connect directly to another without having to go through multiple hops and any VM can talk to another VM within the same subnet as well as external subnets. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Results

With regards to performance far too much emphasis is just put on tps as a metric, the other equally important metric, if not more important with regards to finance is latency. Throughput measures the amount of data at any given time that it can handle whereas latency is the amount of time it takes to perform an action. It’s pointless saying you can process more transactions per second than VISA when it takes 60 seconds for a transaction to complete. Low latency also greatly increases general usability and customer satisfaction, nowadays everyone expects card payments, online payments to happen instantly. Avalanche achieves the best results scoring ✅✅✅, Cosmos with comes in second with 6 second finality ✅✅ and Polkadot with 60 second finality (which may be 60 minutes for external blockchains) scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/kzup5x42wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=320eb4c25dc4fc0f443a7a2f7ff09567871648cd

Shared Security

Cosmos

Every Zone and Hub in Cosmos has their own validator set and different trust assumptions. Cosmos are researching a shared security model where a Hub can validate the state of connected zones for a fee but not released yet. Once available this will make shared security optional rather than mandatory.

Polkadot

Shared Security is mandatory with Polkadot which uses a Shared State infrastructure between the Relay Chain and all of the connected parachains. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. Every parachain makes the same trust assumptions, and as such the relay chain validates state transition and enables seamless interoperability between them. In return for this benefit, they have to purchase DOT and win an auction for one of the available parachain slots.
However, parachains can’t just rely on the relay chain for their security, they will also need to implement censorship resistance measures and utilise proof of work / proof of stake for each parachain as well as discussed in part three, thus parachains can’t just rely on the security of the relay chain, they need to ensure sybil resistance mechanisms using POW and POS are implemented on the parachain as well.

Avalanche

A subnet in Avalanche consists of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. So unlike in Cosmos where each zone / hub has their own validators, A subnet can validate a single or many virtual machines / blockchains with a single validator set. Shared security is optional

Results

Shared security is mandatory in polkadot and a key design decision in its infrastructure. The relay chain validates the state transition of all connected parachains and thus scores ✅✅✅. Subnets in Avalanche can validate state of either a single or many virtual machines. Each subnet can have their own token and shares a validator set, where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. It scores ✅ ✅. Every Zone and Hub in cosmos has their own validator set / token but research is underway to have the hub validate the state transition of connected zones, but as this is still early in the research phase scores ✅ for now.
https://preview.redd.it/pbgyk3o3wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=61c18e12932a250f5633c40633810d0f64520575

Current Adoption

Cosmos

The Cosmos project started in 2016 with an ICO held in April 2017. There are currently around 50 projects building on the Cosmos SDK with a full list can be seen here and filtering for Cosmos SDK . Not all of the projects will necessarily connect using native cosmos sdk and IBC and some have forked parts of the Cosmos SDK and utilise the tendermint consensus such as Binance Chain but have said they will connect in the future.

Polkadot

The Polkadot project started in 2016 with an ICO held in October 2017. There are currently around 70 projects building on Substrate and a full list can be seen here and filtering for Substrate Based. Like with Cosmos not all projects built using substrate will necessarily connect to Polkadot and parachains or parathreads aren’t currently implemented in either the Live or Test network (Kusama) as of the time of this writing.

Avalanche

Avalanche in comparison started much later with Ava Labs being founded in 2018. Avalanche held it’s ICO in July 2020. Due to lot shorter time it has been in development, the number of projects confirmed are smaller with around 14 projects currently building on Avalanche. Due to the customisability of the platform though, many virtual machines can be used within a subnet making the process incredibly easy to port projects over. As an example, it will launch with the Ethereum Virtual Machine which enables byte for byte compatibility and all the tooling like Metamask, Truffle etc. will work, so projects can easily move over to benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. In the future Cosmos and Substrate virtual machines could be implemented on Avalanche.

Results

Whilst it’s still early for all 3 projects (and the entire blockchain space as a whole), there is currently more projects confirmed to be building on Cosmos and Polkadot, mostly due to their longer time in development. Whilst Cosmos has fewer projects, zones are implemented compared to Polkadot which doesn’t currently have parachains. IBC to connect zones and hubs together is due to launch Q2 2021, thus both score ✅✅✅. Avalanche has been in development for a lot shorter time period, but is launching with an impressive feature set right from the start with ability to create subnets, VMs, assets, NFTs, permissioned and permissionless blockchains, cross chain atomic swaps within a subnet, smart contracts, bridge to Ethereum etc. Applications can easily port over from other platforms and use all the existing tooling such as Metamask / Truffle etc but benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. Currently though just based on the number of projects in comparison it scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/4zpi6s85wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e91ade1a86a5d50f4976f3b23a46e9287b08e373

Enterprise Adoption

Cosmos

Cosmos enables permissioned and permissionless zones which can connect to each other with the ability to have full control over who validates the blockchain. For permissionless zones each zone / hub can have their own token and they are in control who validates.

Polkadot

With polkadot the state transition is performed by a small randomly selected assigned group of validators from the relay chain plus with the possibility that state is rolled back if an invalid transaction of any of the other parachains is found. This may pose a problem for enterprises that need complete control over who performs validation for regulatory reasons. In addition due to the limited number of parachain slots available Enterprises would have to acquire and lock up large amounts of a highly volatile asset (DOT) and have the possibility that they are outbid in future auctions and find they no longer can have their parachain validated and parathreads don’t provide the guaranteed performance requirements for the application to function.

Avalanche

Avalanche enables permissioned and permissionless subnets and complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. For example a subnet can be created where its mandatory that all validators are from a certain legal jurisdiction, or they hold a specific license and regulated by the SEC etc. Subnets are also able to scale to tens of thousands of validators, and even potentially millions of nodes, all participating in consensus so every enterprise can run their own node rather than only a small amount. Enterprises don’t have to hold large amounts of a highly volatile asset, but instead pay a fee in AVAX for the creation of the subnets and blockchains which is burnt.

Results

Avalanche provides the customisability to run private permissioned blockchains as well as permissionless where the enterprise is in control over who validates the blockchain, with the ability to use complex rulesets to meet regulatory compliance, thus scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is also able to run permissioned and permissionless zones / hubs so enterprises have full control over who validates a blockchain and scores ✅✅. Polkadot requires locking up large amounts of a highly volatile asset with the possibility of being outbid by competitors and being unable to run the application if the guaranteed performance is required and having to migrate away. The relay chain validates the state transition and can roll back the parachain should an invalid block be detected on another parachain, thus scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/li5jy6u6wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2a95f1f88e5efbcf9e23c789ae0f002c8eb73fc

Interoperability

Cosmos

Cosmos will connect Hubs and Zones together through its IBC protocol (due to release in Q1 2020). Connecting to blockchains outside of the Cosmos ecosystem would either require the connected blockchain to fork their code to implement IBC or more likely a custom “Peg Zone” will be created specific to work with a particular blockchain it’s trying to bridge to such as Ethereum etc. Each Zone and Hub has different trust levels and connectivity between 2 zones can have different trust depending on which path it takes (this is discussed more in this article). Finality time is low at 6 seconds, but depending on the number of hops, this can increase significantly.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s shared state means each parachain that connects shares the same trust assumptions, of the relay chain validators and that if one blockchain needs to be reverted, all of them will need to be reverted. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Finality time between parachains is around 60 seconds, but longer will be needed (initial figures of 60 minutes in the whitepaper) for connecting to external blockchains. Thus limiting the appeal of connecting two external ecosystems together through Polkadot. Polkadot is also limited in the number of Parachain slots available, thus limiting the amount of blockchains that can be bridged. Parathreads could be used for lower performance bridges, but the speed of future blockchains is only going to increase.

Avalanche

A subnet can validate multiple virtual machines / blockchains and all blockchains within a subnet share the same trust assumptions / validator set, enabling cross chain interoperability. Interoperability is also possible between any other subnet, with the hope Avalanche will consist of thousands of subnets. Each subnet may have a different trust level, but as the primary network consists of all validators then this can be used as a source of trust if required. As Avalanche supports many virtual machines, bridges to other ecosystems are created by running the connected virtual machine. There will be an Ethereum bridge using the EVM shortly after mainnet. Finality time is much faster at sub 3 seconds (with most happening under 1 second) with no chance of rolling back so more appealing when connecting to external blockchains.

Results

All 3 systems are able to perform interoperability within their ecosystem and transfer assets as well as data, as well as use bridges to connect to external blockchains. Cosmos has different trust levels between its zones and hubs and can create issues depending on which path it takes and additional latency added. Polkadot provides the same trust assumptions for all connected parachains but has long finality and limited number of parachain slots available. Avalanche provides the same trust assumptions for all blockchains within a subnet, and different trust levels between subnets. However due to the primary network consisting of all validators it can be used for trust. Avalanche also has a much faster finality time with no limitation on the number of blockchains / subnets / bridges that can be created. Overall all three blockchains excel with interoperability within their ecosystem and each score ✅✅.
https://preview.redd.it/ai0bkbq8wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=3e85ee6a3c4670f388ccea00b0c906c3fb51e415

Tokenomics

Cosmos

The ATOM token is the native token for the Cosmos Hub. It is commonly mistaken by people that think it’s the token used throughout the cosmos ecosystem, whereas it’s just used for one of many hubs in Cosmos, each with their own token. Currently ATOM has little utility as IBC isn’t released and has no connections to other zones / hubs. Once IBC is released zones may prefer to connect to a different hub instead and so ATOM is not used. ATOM isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for ATOM as of the time of this writing is $1 Billion with 203 million circulating supply. Rewards can be earnt through staking to offset the dilution caused by inflation. Delegators can also get slashed and lose a portion of their ATOM should the validator misbehave.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s native token is DOT and it’s used to secure the Relay Chain. Each parachain needs to acquire sufficient DOT to win an auction on an available parachain lease period of up to 24 months at a time. Parathreads have a fixed fee for registration that would realistically be much lower than the cost of acquiring a parachain slot and compete with other parathreads in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. DOT isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for DOT as of the time of this writing is $4.4 Billion with 852 million circulating supply. Delegators can also get slashed and lose their DOT (potentially 100% of their DOT for serious attacks) should the validator misbehave.

Avalanche

AVAX is the native token for the primary network in Avalanche. Every validator of any subnet also has to validate the primary network and stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX. There is no limit to the number of validators like other consensus methods then this can cater for tens of thousands even potentially millions of validators. As every validator validates the primary network, this can be a source of trust for interoperability between subnets as well as connecting to other ecosystems, thus increasing amount of transaction fees of AVAX. There is no slashing in Avalanche, so there is no risk to lose your AVAX when selecting a validator, instead rewards earnt for staking can be slashed should the validator misbehave. Because Avalanche doesn’t have direct slashing, it is technically possible for someone to both stake AND deliver tokens for something like a flash loan, under the invariant that all tokens that are staked are returned, thus being able to make profit with staked tokens outside of staking itself.
There will also be a separate subnet for Athereum which is a ‘spoon,’ or friendly fork, of Ethereum, which benefits from the Avalanche consensus protocol and applications in the Ethereum ecosystem. It’s native token ATH will be airdropped to ETH holders as well as potentially AVAX holders as well. This can be done for other blockchains as well.
Transaction fees on the primary network for all 3 of the blockchains as well as subscription fees for creating a subnet and blockchain are paid in AVAX and are burnt, creating deflationary pressure. AVAX is a fixed capped supply of 720 million tokens, creating scarcity rather than an unlimited supply which continuously increase of tokens at a compounded rate each year like others. Initially there will be 360 tokens minted at Mainnet with vesting periods between 1 and 10 years, with tokens gradually unlocking each quarter. The Circulating supply is 24.5 million AVAX with tokens gradually released each quater. The current market cap of AVAX is around $100 million.

Results

Avalanche’s AVAX with its fixed capped supply, deflationary pressure, very strong utility, potential to receive air drops and low market cap, means it scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot’s DOT also has very strong utility with the need for auctions to acquire parachain slots, but has no deflationary mechanisms, no fixed capped supply and already valued at $3.8 billion, therefore scores ✅✅. Cosmos’s ATOM token is only for the Cosmos Hub, of which there will be many hubs in the ecosystem and has very little utility currently. (this may improve once IBC is released and if Cosmos hub actually becomes the hub that people want to connect to and not something like Binance instead. There is no fixed capped supply and currently valued at $1.1 Billion, so scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/mels7myawpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=df9782e2c0a4c26b61e462746256bdf83b1fb906
All three are excellent projects and have similarities as well as many differences. Just to reiterate this article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions, you may have different criteria which is important to you, and score them differently. There won’t be one platform to rule them all however, with some uses cases better suited to one platform over another, and it’s not a zero-sum game. Blockchain is going to completely revolutionize industries and the Internet itself. The more projects researching and delivering breakthrough technology the better, each learning from each other and pushing each other to reach that goal earlier. The current market is a tiny speck of what’s in store in terms of value and adoption and it’s going to be exciting to watch it unfold.
https://preview.redd.it/dbb99egcwpq51.png?width=1388&format=png&auto=webp&s=aeb03127dc0dc74d0507328e899db1c7d7fc2879
For more information see the articles below (each with additional sources at the bottom of their articles)
Avalanche, a Revolutionary Consensus Engine and Platform. A Game Changer for Blockchain
Avalanche Consensus, The Biggest Breakthrough since Nakamoto
Cosmos — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One
Cosmos — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Two
Cosmos Hub ATOM Token and the commonly misunderstood staking tokens — Part Three
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One — Overview and Benefits
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Two — How Consensus Works
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Three — Limitations and Issues
submitted by xSeq22x to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

[ CryptoCurrency ] Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot

[ 🔴 DELETED 🔴 ] Topic originally posted in CryptoCurrency by xSeq22x [link]
A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important.
For better formatting see https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b
https://preview.redd.it/lg16iwk2dhq51.png?width=428&format=png&auto=webp&s=6c899ee69800dd6c5e2900d8fa83de7a43c57086

Overview

Cosmos

Cosmos is a heterogeneous network of many independent parallel blockchains, each powered by classical BFT consensus algorithms like Tendermint. Developers can easily build custom application specific blockchains, called Zones, through the Cosmos SDK framework. These Zones connect to Hubs, which are specifically designed to connect zones together.
The vision of Cosmos is to have thousands of Zones and Hubs that are Interoperable through the Inter-Blockchain Communication Protocol (IBC). Cosmos can also connect to other systems through peg zones, which are specifically designed zones that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Cosmos does not use Sharding with each Zone and Hub being sovereign with their own validator set.
For a more in-depth look at Cosmos and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
https://youtu.be/Eb8xkDi_PUg

Polkadot

Polkadot is a heterogeneous blockchain protocol that connects multiple specialised blockchains into one unified network. It achieves scalability through a sharding infrastructure with multiple blockchains running in parallel, called parachains, that connect to a central chain called the Relay Chain. Developers can easily build custom application specific parachains through the Substrate development framework.
The relay chain validates the state transition of connected parachains, providing shared state across the entire ecosystem. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. This is to ensure that the validity of the entire system can persist, and no individual part is corruptible. The shared state makes it so that the trust assumptions when using parachains are only those of the Relay Chain validator set, and no other. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. The hope is to have 100 parachains connect to the relay chain.
For a more in-depth look at Polkadot and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
https://youtu.be/_-k0xkooSlA

Avalanche

Avalanche is a platform of platforms, ultimately consisting of thousands of subnets to form a heterogeneous interoperable network of many blockchains, that takes advantage of the revolutionary Avalanche Consensus protocols to provide a secure, globally distributed, interoperable and trustless framework offering unprecedented decentralisation whilst being able to comply with regulatory requirements.
Avalanche allows anyone to create their own tailor-made application specific blockchains, supporting multiple custom virtual machines such as EVM and WASM and written in popular languages like Go (with others coming in the future) rather than lightly used, poorly-understood languages like Solidity. This virtual machine can then be deployed on a custom blockchain network, called a subnet, which consist of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance.
Avalanche was built with serving financial markets in mind. It has native support for easily creating and trading digital smart assets with complex custom rule sets that define how the asset is handled and traded to ensure regulatory compliance can be met. Interoperability is enabled between blockchains within a subnet as well as between subnets. Like Cosmos and Polkadot, Avalanche is also able to connect to other systems through bridges, through custom virtual machines made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin.
For a more in-depth look at Avalanche and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see here and here
https://youtu.be/mWBzFmzzBAg

Comparison between Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche

A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions. I want to stress that it’s not a case of one platform being the killer of all other platforms, far from it. There won’t be one platform to rule them all, and too often the tribalism has plagued this space. Blockchains are going to completely revolutionise most industries and have a profound effect on the world we know today. It’s still very early in this space with most adoption limited to speculation and trading mainly due to the limitations of Blockchain and current iteration of Ethereum, which all three of these platforms hope to address. For those who just want a quick summary see the image at the bottom of the article. With that said let’s have a look

Scalability

Cosmos

Each Zone and Hub in Cosmos is capable of up to around 1000 transactions per second with bandwidth being the bottleneck in consensus. Cosmos aims to have thousands of Zones and Hubs all connected through IBC. There is no limit on the number of Zones / Hubs that can be created

Polkadot

Parachains in Polkadot are also capable of up to around 1500 transactions per second. A portion of the parachain slots on the Relay Chain will be designated as part of the parathread pool, the performance of a parachain is split between many parathreads offering lower performance and compete amongst themselves in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. The number of parachains is limited by the number of validators on the relay chain, they hope to be able to achieve 100 parachains.

Avalanche

Avalanche is capable of around 4500 transactions per second per subnet, this is based on modest hardware requirements to ensure maximum decentralisation of just 2 CPU cores and 4 GB of Memory and with a validator size of over 2,000 nodes. Performance is CPU-bound and if higher performance is required then more specialised subnets can be created with higher minimum requirements to be able to achieve 10,000 tps+ in a subnet. Avalanche aims to have thousands of subnets (each with multiple virtual machines / blockchains) all interoperable with each other. There is no limit on the number of Subnets that can be created.

Results

All three platforms offer vastly superior performance to the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum 1.0. Avalanche with its higher transactions per second, no limit on the number of subnets / blockchains that can be created and the consensus can scale to potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot claims to offer more tps than cosmos, but is limited to the number of parachains (around 100) whereas with Cosmos there is no limit on the number of hubs / zones that can be created. Cosmos is limited to a fairly small validator size of around 200 before performance degrades whereas Polkadot hopes to be able to reach 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit only a small number of validators are assigned to each parachain). Thus Cosmos and Polkadot scores ✅✅
https://preview.redd.it/ththwq5qdhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=92f75152c90d984911db88ed174ebf3a147ca70d

Decentralisation

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus is limited to around 200 validators before performance starts to degrade. Whilst there is the Cosmos Hub it is one of many hubs in the network and there is no central hub or limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created.

Polkadot

Polkadot has 1000 validators in the relay chain and these are split up into a small number that validate each parachain (minimum of 14). The relay chain is a central point of failure as all parachains connect to it and the number of parachains is limited depending on the number of validators (they hope to achieve 100 parachains). Due to the limited number of parachain slots available, significant sums of DOT will need to be purchased to win an auction to lease the slot for up to 24 months at a time. Thus likely to lead to only those with enough funds to secure a parachain slot. Parathreads are however an alternative for those that require less and more varied performance for those that can’t secure a parachain slot.

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus scan scale to tens of thousands of validators, even potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus through repeated sub-sampling. The more validators, the faster the network becomes as the load is split between them. There are modest hardware requirements so anyone can run a node and there is no limit on the number of subnets / virtual machines that can be created.

Results

Avalanche offers unparalleled decentralisation using its revolutionary consensus protocols that can scale to millions of validators all participating in consensus at the same time. There is no limit to the number of subnets and virtual machines that can be created, and they can be created by anyone for a small fee, it scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is limited to 200 validators but no limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created, which anyone can create and scores ✅✅. Polkadot hopes to accommodate 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit these are split amongst each of the parachains). The number of parachains is limited and maybe cost prohibitive for many and the relay chain is a ultimately a single point of failure. Whilst definitely not saying it’s centralised and it is more decentralised than many others, just in comparison between the three, it scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/lv2h7g9sdhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=56eada6e8c72dbb4406d7c5377ad15608bcc730e

Latency

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus used in Cosmos reaches finality within 6 seconds. Cosmos consists of many Zones and Hubs that connect to each other. Communication between 2 zones could pass through many hubs along the way, thus also can contribute to latency times depending on the path taken as explained in part two of the articles on Cosmos. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Polkadot

Polkadot provides a Hybrid consensus protocol consisting of Block producing protocol, BABE, and then a finality gadget called GRANDPA that works to agree on a chain, out of many possible forks, by following some simpler fork choice rule. Rather than voting on every block, instead it reaches agreements on chains. As soon as more than 2/3 of validators attest to a chain containing a certain block, all blocks leading up to that one are finalized at once.
If an invalid block is detected after it has been finalised then the relay chain would need to be reverted along with every parachain. This is particularly important when connecting to external blockchains as those don’t share the state of the relay chain and thus can’t be rolled back. The longer the time period, the more secure the network is, as there is more time for additional checks to be performed and reported but at the expense of finality. Finality is reached within 60 seconds between parachains but for external ecosystems like Ethereum their state obviously can’t be rolled back like a parachain and so finality will need to be much longer (60 minutes was suggested in the whitepaper) and discussed in more detail in part three

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus achieves finality within 3 seconds, with most happening sub 1 second, immutable and completely irreversible. Any subnet can connect directly to another without having to go through multiple hops and any VM can talk to another VM within the same subnet as well as external subnets. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Results

With regards to performance far too much emphasis is just put on tps as a metric, the other equally important metric, if not more important with regards to finance is latency. Throughput measures the amount of data at any given time that it can handle whereas latency is the amount of time it takes to perform an action. It’s pointless saying you can process more transactions per second than VISA when it takes 60 seconds for a transaction to complete. Low latency also greatly increases general usability and customer satisfaction, nowadays everyone expects card payments, online payments to happen instantly. Avalanche achieves the best results scoring ✅✅✅, Cosmos with comes in second with 6 second finality ✅✅ and Polkadot with 60 second finality (which may be 60 minutes for external blockchains) scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/qe8e5ltudhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=18a2866104590f81a818690337f9121161dda890

Shared Security

Cosmos

Every Zone and Hub in Cosmos has their own validator set and different trust assumptions. Cosmos are researching a shared security model where a Hub can validate the state of connected zones for a fee but not released yet. Once available this will make shared security optional rather than mandatory.

Polkadot

Shared Security is mandatory with Polkadot which uses a Shared State infrastructure between the Relay Chain and all of the connected parachains. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. Every parachain makes the same trust assumptions, and as such the relay chain validates state transition and enables seamless interoperability between them. In return for this benefit, they have to purchase DOT and win an auction for one of the available parachain slots.
However, parachains can’t just rely on the relay chain for their security, they will also need to implement censorship resistance measures and utilise proof of work / proof of stake for each parachain as well as discussed in part three, thus parachains can’t just rely on the security of the relay chain, they need to ensure sybil resistance mechanisms using POW and POS are implemented on the parachain as well.

Avalanche

A subnet in Avalanche consists of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. So unlike in Cosmos where each zone / hub has their own validators, A subnet can validate a single or many virtual machines / blockchains with a single validator set. Shared security is optional

Results

Shared security is mandatory in polkadot and a key design decision in its infrastructure. The relay chain validates the state transition of all connected parachains and thus scores ✅✅✅. Subnets in Avalanche can validate state of either a single or many virtual machines. Each subnet can have their own token and shares a validator set, where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. It scores ✅ ✅. Every Zone and Hub in cosmos has their own validator set / token but research is underway to have the hub validate the state transition of connected zones, but as this is still early in the research phase scores ✅ for now.
https://preview.redd.it/0mnvpnzwdhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=8927ff2821415817265be75c59261f83851a2791

Current Adoption

Cosmos

The Cosmos project started in 2016 with an ICO held in April 2017. There are currently around 50 projects building on the Cosmos SDK with a full list can be seen here and filtering for Cosmos SDK . Not all of the projects will necessarily connect using native cosmos sdk and IBC and some have forked parts of the Cosmos SDK and utilise the tendermint consensus such as Binance Chain but have said they will connect in the future.

Polkadot

The Polkadot project started in 2016 with an ICO held in October 2017. There are currently around 70 projects building on Substrate and a full list can be seen here and filtering for Substrate Based. Like with Cosmos not all projects built using substrate will necessarily connect to Polkadot and parachains or parathreads aren’t currently implemented in either the Live or Test network (Kusama) as of the time of this writing.

Avalanche

Avalanche in comparison started much later with Ava Labs being founded in 2018. Avalanche held it’s ICO in July 2020. Due to lot shorter time it has been in development, the number of projects confirmed are smaller with around 14 projects currently building on Avalanche. Due to the customisability of the platform though, many virtual machines can be used within a subnet making the process incredibly easy to port projects over. As an example, it will launch with the Ethereum Virtual Machine which enables byte for byte compatibility and all the tooling like Metamask, Truffle etc. will work, so projects can easily move over to benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. In the future Cosmos and Substrate virtual machines could be implemented on Avalanche.

Results

Whilst it’s still early for all 3 projects (and the entire blockchain space as a whole), there is currently more projects confirmed to be building on Cosmos and Polkadot, mostly due to their longer time in development. Whilst Cosmos has fewer projects, zones are implemented compared to Polkadot which doesn’t currently have parachains. IBC to connect zones and hubs together is due to launch Q2 2021, thus both score ✅✅✅. Avalanche has been in development for a lot shorter time period, but is launching with an impressive feature set right from the start with ability to create subnets, VMs, assets, NFTs, permissioned and permissionless blockchains, cross chain atomic swaps within a subnet, smart contracts, bridge to Ethereum etc. Applications can easily port over from other platforms and use all the existing tooling such as Metamask / Truffle etc but benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. Currently though just based on the number of projects in comparison it scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/rsctxi6zdhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=ff762dea3cfc2aaaa3c8fc7b1070d5be6759aac2

Enterprise Adoption

Cosmos

Cosmos enables permissioned and permissionless zones which can connect to each other with the ability to have full control over who validates the blockchain. For permissionless zones each zone / hub can have their own token and they are in control who validates.

Polkadot

With polkadot the state transition is performed by a small randomly selected assigned group of validators from the relay chain plus with the possibility that state is rolled back if an invalid transaction of any of the other parachains is found. This may pose a problem for enterprises that need complete control over who performs validation for regulatory reasons. In addition due to the limited number of parachain slots available Enterprises would have to acquire and lock up large amounts of a highly volatile asset (DOT) and have the possibility that they are outbid in future auctions and find they no longer can have their parachain validated and parathreads don’t provide the guaranteed performance requirements for the application to function.

Avalanche

Avalanche enables permissioned and permissionless subnets and complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. For example a subnet can be created where its mandatory that all validators are from a certain legal jurisdiction, or they hold a specific license and regulated by the SEC etc. Subnets are also able to scale to tens of thousands of validators, and even potentially millions of nodes, all participating in consensus so every enterprise can run their own node rather than only a small amount. Enterprises don’t have to hold large amounts of a highly volatile asset, but instead pay a fee in AVAX for the creation of the subnets and blockchains which is burnt.

Results

Avalanche provides the customisability to run private permissioned blockchains as well as permissionless where the enterprise is in control over who validates the blockchain, with the ability to use complex rulesets to meet regulatory compliance, thus scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is also able to run permissioned and permissionless zones / hubs so enterprises have full control over who validates a blockchain and scores ✅✅. Polkadot requires locking up large amounts of a highly volatile asset with the possibility of being outbid by competitors and being unable to run the application if the guaranteed performance is required and having to migrate away. The relay chain validates the state transition and can roll back the parachain should an invalid block be detected on another parachain, thus scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/7phaylb1ehq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=d86d2ec49de456403edbaf27009ed0e25609fbff

Interoperability

Cosmos

Cosmos will connect Hubs and Zones together through its IBC protocol (due to release in Q1 2020). Connecting to blockchains outside of the Cosmos ecosystem would either require the connected blockchain to fork their code to implement IBC or more likely a custom “Peg Zone” will be created specific to work with a particular blockchain it’s trying to bridge to such as Ethereum etc. Each Zone and Hub has different trust levels and connectivity between 2 zones can have different trust depending on which path it takes (this is discussed more in this article). Finality time is low at 6 seconds, but depending on the number of hops, this can increase significantly.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s shared state means each parachain that connects shares the same trust assumptions, of the relay chain validators and that if one blockchain needs to be reverted, all of them will need to be reverted. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Finality time between parachains is around 60 seconds, but longer will be needed (initial figures of 60 minutes in the whitepaper) for connecting to external blockchains. Thus limiting the appeal of connecting two external ecosystems together through Polkadot. Polkadot is also limited in the number of Parachain slots available, thus limiting the amount of blockchains that can be bridged. Parathreads could be used for lower performance bridges, but the speed of future blockchains is only going to increase.

Avalanche

A subnet can validate multiple virtual machines / blockchains and all blockchains within a subnet share the same trust assumptions / validator set, enabling cross chain interoperability. Interoperability is also possible between any other subnet, with the hope Avalanche will consist of thousands of subnets. Each subnet may have a different trust level, but as the primary network consists of all validators then this can be used as a source of trust if required. As Avalanche supports many virtual machines, bridges to other ecosystems are created by running the connected virtual machine. There will be an Ethereum bridge using the EVM shortly after mainnet. Finality time is much faster at sub 3 seconds (with most happening under 1 second) with no chance of rolling back so more appealing when connecting to external blockchains.

Results

All 3 systems are able to perform interoperability within their ecosystem and transfer assets as well as data, as well as use bridges to connect to external blockchains. Cosmos has different trust levels between its zones and hubs and can create issues depending on which path it takes and additional latency added. Polkadot provides the same trust assumptions for all connected parachains but has long finality and limited number of parachain slots available. Avalanche provides the same trust assumptions for all blockchains within a subnet, and different trust levels between subnets. However due to the primary network consisting of all validators it can be used for trust. Avalanche also has a much faster finality time with no limitation on the number of blockchains / subnets / bridges that can be created. Overall all three blockchains excel with interoperability within their ecosystem and each score ✅✅.
https://preview.redd.it/l775gue3ehq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=b7c4b5802ceb1a9307bd2a8d65f393d1bcb0d7c6

Tokenomics

Cosmos

The ATOM token is the native token for the Cosmos Hub. It is commonly mistaken by people that think it’s the token used throughout the cosmos ecosystem, whereas it’s just used for one of many hubs in Cosmos, each with their own token. Currently ATOM has little utility as IBC isn’t released and has no connections to other zones / hubs. Once IBC is released zones may prefer to connect to a different hub instead and so ATOM is not used. ATOM isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for ATOM as of the time of this writing is $1 Billion with 203 million circulating supply. Rewards can be earnt through staking to offset the dilution caused by inflation. Delegators can also get slashed and lose a portion of their ATOM should the validator misbehave.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s native token is DOT and it’s used to secure the Relay Chain. Each parachain needs to acquire sufficient DOT to win an auction on an available parachain lease period of up to 24 months at a time. Parathreads have a fixed fee for registration that would realistically be much lower than the cost of acquiring a parachain slot and compete with other parathreads in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. DOT isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for DOT as of the time of this writing is $4.4 Billion with 852 million circulating supply. Delegators can also get slashed and lose their DOT (potentially 100% of their DOT for serious attacks) should the validator misbehave.

Avalanche

AVAX is the native token for the primary network in Avalanche. Every validator of any subnet also has to validate the primary network and stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX. There is no limit to the number of validators like other consensus methods then this can cater for tens of thousands even potentially millions of validators. As every validator validates the primary network, this can be a source of trust for interoperability between subnets as well as connecting to other ecosystems, thus increasing amount of transaction fees of AVAX. There is no slashing in Avalanche, so there is no risk to lose your AVAX when selecting a validator, instead rewards earnt for staking can be slashed should the validator misbehave. Because Avalanche doesn’t have direct slashing, it is technically possible for someone to both stake AND deliver tokens for something like a flash loan, under the invariant that all tokens that are staked are returned, thus being able to make profit with staked tokens outside of staking itself.
There will also be a separate subnet for Athereum which is a ‘spoon,’ or friendly fork, of Ethereum, which benefits from the Avalanche consensus protocol and applications in the Ethereum ecosystem. It’s native token ATH will be airdropped to ETH holders as well as potentially AVAX holders as well. This can be done for other blockchains as well.
Transaction fees on the primary network for all 3 of the blockchains as well as subscription fees for creating a subnet and blockchain are paid in AVAX and are burnt, creating deflationary pressure. AVAX is a fixed capped supply of 720 million tokens, creating scarcity rather than an unlimited supply which continuously increase of tokens at a compounded rate each year like others. Initially there will be 360 tokens minted at Mainnet with vesting periods between 1 and 10 years, with tokens gradually unlocking each quarter. The Circulating supply is 24.5 million AVAX with tokens gradually released each quater. The current market cap of AVAX is around $100 million.

Results

Avalanche’s AVAX with its fixed capped supply, deflationary pressure, very strong utility, potential to receive air drops and low market cap, means it scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot’s DOT also has very strong utility with the need for auctions to acquire parachain slots, but has no deflationary mechanisms, no fixed capped supply and already valued at $3.8 billion, therefore scores ✅✅. Cosmos’s ATOM token is only for the Cosmos Hub, of which there will be many hubs in the ecosystem and has very little utility currently. (this may improve once IBC is released and if Cosmos hub actually becomes the hub that people want to connect to and not something like Binance instead. There is no fixed capped supply and currently valued at $1.1 Billion, so scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/zb72eto5ehq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=0ee102a2881d763296ad9ffba20667f531d2fd7a
All three are excellent projects and have similarities as well as many differences. Just to reiterate this article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions, you may have different criteria which is important to you, and score them differently. There won’t be one platform to rule them all however, with some uses cases better suited to one platform over another, and it’s not a zero-sum game. Blockchain is going to completely revolutionize industries and the Internet itself. The more projects researching and delivering breakthrough technology the better, each learning from each other and pushing each other to reach that goal earlier. The current market is a tiny speck of what’s in store in terms of value and adoption and it’s going to be exciting to watch it unfold.
https://preview.redd.it/fwi3clz7ehq51.png?width=1388&format=png&auto=webp&s=c91c1645a4c67defd5fc3aaec84f4a765e1c50b6
xSeq22x your post has been copied because one or more comments in this topic have been removed. This copy will preserve unmoderated topic. If you would like to opt-out, please send a message using [this link].
submitted by anticensor_bot to u/anticensor_bot [link] [comments]

Repeated Experiment: I bought $1k of Top10 Cryptos on 01/01/2019. Result? UP +43%

Repeated Experiment: I bought $1k of Top10 Cryptos on 01/01/2019. Result? UP +43%

EXPERIMENT - Tracking 2019 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies – Month Seventeen - UP 43%

Full blog post with all the tables here.

tl;dr - This is the 17th monthly update on the 2019 Top Ten Experiment. Ethereum up the most in May, plus got a shout out from J.K. Rowling, so it obviously won the month. Overall, BTC in first place since January 2019, BSV in second place. Half of the 2019 Top Ten Portfolio is up at least +50%. XRP is worst performing. Total $3k (3 x $1k) investments the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Top Ten are up +3.5%, but similar approach with US stocks market would have yielded +10%.

The Experiment:

Instead of hypothetically tracking cryptos, I made an actual $1000 investment, $100 in each of the Top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap on the 1st of January 2018. The result? The 2018 Top Ten portfolio ended 2018 down 85%, my $1000 worth only $150. I then repeated the experiment on the 1st of January 2019 with the new 2019 Top Ten cryptos, then again in 2020.
Think of the Top Ten Experiments as a lazy man’s Index Fund (no weighting or rebalancing), less technical, but hopefully still a proxy for the market as a whole – or at the very least an interesting snapshot of the 2018, 2019, and 2020 crypto space. I am trying to keep this project simple and accessible for beginners and those looking to get into crypto but maybe not quite ready to jump in yet. I try not to take sides or analyze, but rather attempt to report in a detached manner letting the numbers speak for themselves.
This is not investing advice – as a matter of fact, the vast majority of the reports will show that the Top Ten approach under performs other strategies. This experiment is designed to be documentary in nature, describing a specific period in cryptocurrency history.

The Rules:

Buy $100 of each the Top 10 cryptocurrencies on January 1st, 2018, 2019, and 2020. Hold only. No selling. No trading. Report monthly.

Month Seventeen – UP 43%

Unlike April’s all green month, May was more mixed. That said, the gains outweighed the losses this month in the 2019 Top Ten Portfolio.

Question of the month:

In May, Reddit launched two Ethereum-based tokens on the Cryptocurrency and FortNiteBR subreddits. What are the Cryptocurrency token called?
A) Moons
B) Bricks
C) Satoshis
D) Cryptos
Scroll down for the answer.

Ranking and March Winners and Losers

Besides Stellar (down two spots to #13) and Tron (down one from #16 to #17) every other crypto was locked in place.
Speaking of Stellar and Tron, they are still the only two cryptos to have dropped out of the 2019 Top Ten since January 1st, 2019. They have been replaced by Binance Coin and Tezos.
May WinnersEthereum ended the month up +16% and got a shout out from J.K. Rowling, so it obviously won May. BTC came in a close second this month, up +14%.
May Losers – A tight battle for the basement this month with BSV (down -3.9%) edging out XRP (down -3.7%) for the bottom spot.
For nerds those keeping score, here is tally of which coins have the most monthly wins and loses during the first seventeen months of the 2019 Top Ten Experiment: Tether is still in the lead with five monthly victories followed by BSV in second place with three. BSV also holds the most monthly losses, finishing last in six out of seventeen months.

Overall update – BTC increases lead over second place BSV, XRP still worst performing

Ahead until just last month, BSV lost a lot of ground to BTC in May. Bitcoin is now up +168% since January 2019 compared to BSV‘s +116% gain. That initial $100 investment in BTC? Now worth $273.
As was the case last month, 50% of the 2019 Top Ten cryptos are up at least +50% since the beginning of the experiment.
At the other end, XRP continues to struggle, now down -41% since January 2019.

Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:

The overall crypto market added about $35B in May, and is now near August 2019 levels. It is up +123% since January 2019.

Bitcoin dominance:

BitDom was steady again in May. This marks the third straight month it’s been stuck at around 65% For context, the range since the beginning of the experiment in January 2019 has been between 50%-70%.

Overall return on investment since January 1st, 2019:

The 2019 Top Ten Portfolio gained about $65 in May. After the initial $1000 investment, the 2019 group of cryptos is worth $1,431, up about +43%.
Here’s a look at the ROI over the life of the first seventeen months of the experiment, month by month:
Almost completely green for the 2019 Top Ten, a welcome change from the all red table you’ll see in the 2018 experiment. As you can see, every month except the first month ends in positive territory. At the lowest point, the 2019 Top Ten portfolio was down -9%, at the highest point, up +114% (May 2019).
How does the 2019 Top Ten Experiment compare to the parallel projects?
Taking the three portfolios together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line:
After a $3000 investment in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my portfolios are worth $3,104‬.
That’s up about +3.5% for the combined portfolios. Better than a few months ago (aka the zombie apocalypse) where it was down -24%, but not yet back at January (+13%) or February (+6%) levels.
How does this compare to traditional markets?

How does the 2019 Top Ten portfolio compare US stock market?

Excellent question, I’m glad you asked. And you’re in luck, I’m also tracking the S&P 500 as part of my experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. Despite the fact that the world seemed to be on fire, May 2020 saw the continued rebound of the stock market. It’s now up +22% since the start of the 2019 Experiment.
As a reminder (or just scroll up) the 2019 Top Ten portfolio is returning +43% over the same time period, which is about double the S&P 500.
The initial $1k investment I put into crypto would be worth $1,220 had it been redirected to the S&P 500 in January 2019.
But what if I took the same world’s-slowest-dollar-cost-averaging/$1,000-per-year-in-January approach with the S&P 500? It would yield the following:
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2018: +$140
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2019: +$220
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2020: -$50
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line for a similar approach with the S&P:
After three $1,000 investments into an S&P 500 index fund in January 2018, 2019, and 2020, my portfolio would be worth $3,310.
That $3,310 is up over+10% since January 2018, compared to the $3,104 value (+3.5%) of the combined Top Ten Crypto Experiment Portfolios.
That’s about a 7% difference in favor of the stock market. Last month, there was only a 3% difference, the month before, the gap was 13% (all in favor of the stock market).

Implications/Observations:

The difference between the 2019 Top Ten crypto group and the overall crypto market is stark. Since January 2019, the overall market has gained +123% compared to the 2019 Top Ten crypto group which has gained +43%. This is an absolutely massive 80% gap. A +43% return is solid compared to the stock market, but it also implies that an investor would have done much better picking different cryptos or investing in the entire market instead of focusing only on the Top Ten. There are a few examples of this approach outperforming the overall market in this 2019 Top Ten Crypto Experiment, but the cases are few and far between.
The 2018 Top Ten portfolio, on the other hand, has never outperformed the overall market, at least not in the first twenty-nine months of that Experiment.
For the most recent 2020 Top Ten group, the opposite had been true: the 2020 Top Ten had easily outperformed the overall market 100% of the time…until this month.

Conclusion:

The BTC halving event came and went in May and crypto markets shrugged. As the world continues to change because of COVID-19, what will be crypto’s place when we finally emerge on the other side?
Final word: Please take care of yourselves, your families, and your communities. Stay safe out there.
Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for the original 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment and the recently launched 2020 Top Ten Experiment.

And the Answer is…

A) Moons
According CryptoCurrency, Moons represent ownership in the subreddit, “tokens on the Ethereum blockchain controlled entirely by you, and they can be freely transferred, tipped, and spent in CryptoCurrency*.*” Check out this post for more details.
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

I bought $1000 worth of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018 (Nov. 2019 Update)

I bought $1000 worth of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018 (Nov. 2019 Update)
EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptocurrencies for Two Years (2018 & 2019) - Month Twenty-Three - Down 85%
Full blog post with all the tables
**NOTE 1** - I'm on the fence whether or not to repeat the experiment yet again in 2020 with the new Top Ten. The problem is that there's been almost no movement: unless something drastic changes in December, it will be the exact same group of cryptos as the 2019 Top Ten minus Tron and plus Binance Coin. Tracking almost the same group, in the same way, for similar prices isn't very inspiring. I have some other ideas, but very open to suggestions: if you have any good ideas, please share them in the comments below. **END NOTE 1**
**NOTE 2** - I usually like to release the two posts a day apart, but I'll be spacing out the Top Ten 2018 and the Top Ten 2019 reports a bit more as readers have mentioned they've been removed by the mods (no offence taken, mods - the content is similar, I assume the posts are being removed because they're seen as identical. **END NOTE 2**
tl;dr - After a positive bounce in October, the cryptoverse is back to the summer's downward trajectory. Every crypto was down in November. Cardano performed the best (or least horribly), Dash lost the month for the first time since the experiment began nearly two years ago. Overall, Bitcoin is still well ahead. 60% of the 2018 Top Ten cryptos has lost at least 90% of their January 2018 value. NEM continues to be the absolute worst performer.

The Experiment:

Instead of hypothetically tracking cryptos, I made an actual $1000 investment, $100 in each of the Top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap as of the 1st of January 2018. Think of it as a lazy man's Index Fund (no weighting or rebalancing), less technical, more fun (for me at least), and hopefully still a proxy for the market as a whole - or at the very least an interesting snapshot of the 2018/2019 crypto space. I’m trying to keep it simple and accessible for beginners and those looking to get into crypto but maybe not quite ready to jump in yet. I try not to take sides or analyze, but rather report and document in a detached manner letting the numbers speak for themselves.
I have also started a parallel project: on January 1st, 2019, I repeated the experiment, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) into the new Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st 2019. Spoiler alert: the 2019 Experiment makes for much happier reading.

The Rules:

Buy $100 of each the Top 10 cryptocurrencies on January 1st, 2018. Run the experiment two years. Hold only. No selling. No trading. Report monthly. Compare loosely to the 2019 Top Ten Experiment.

Month Twenty-Three - Down 85%

After a strong October bounce, the 2018 Top Ten portfolio reverted to downward trajectory of the summer months. While all cryptos in the experiment were either in the green or flat last month, the opposite was true in November as each crypto ended the month solidly in the red.

Ranking and November Winners and Losers

There was no upward movement in November: every crypto either held onto its position or slid. After slipping three slots last month, Dash fell two more places in November and has now fallen to #22 and out of the Top Twenty for the first time since the beginning of the experiment. For the second straight month, IOTA dropped two places and now is in danger of joining Dash outside the Top Twenty. Bitcoin Cash and NEM also fell one position each, ending November at #5 and #28 respectively.
November Winners - Although it lost -11% in November, Cardano handily outperformed its peers. NEM finished in second, "only" down -15% on the month.
November Losers - Dash had a rough month, losing -28% of its value and dropping out of the Top Twenty. November also marks the first time since January 2018 that Dash ended a month at the bottom. Bitcoin Cash followed close behind Dash, finishing -27% in November.
For those keeping score, here is tally of which coins have the most monthly wins and losses during the first 23 months of this experiment. Most monthly wins (5): Bitcoin. Most monthly losses (5): Stellar. All cryptos have at least one monthly win. Up until last month, the only two coins never to lose a month were Bitcoin and Dash. Thanks to a Dash's dismal November, Bitcoin now stands alone as the only crypto that hasn't lost a month.

Overall update – Bitcoin still well ahead. 60% of the 2018 Top Ten cryptos have lost at least -90% of their January 2018 value, NEM still absolute worst performer.

Although down -45% since January 2018, Bitcoin is still miles ahead of the rest of the field. Litecoin and Ethereum are virtually tied for second place, down -79%.
NEM has performed the absolute worst (currently down -96%) but has plenty of company at the bottom: six out of the ten cryptos that started 2018 in the Top Ten are down at least 90%: NEM, Cardano, Dash, IOTA, Ripple, and Bitcoin Cash. My initial $100 investment in NEM is worth just $3.83.
Additionally, 40% of the cryptos that started 2018 in the Top Ten have dropped out, specifically NEM, Dash, IOTA, and Cardano. They have been replaced by EOS, Binance Coin, Tether, and BTCSV.

Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:

The crypto market gave up its October gains and then some as $50B was shed in November. The overall market cap now back to the $198B mark, last seen in May 2019. Since January 2018, the total market cap is down -66%.

Bitcoin dominance:

Bitcoin dominance decreased slightly in November. For context, the range since the beginning of the experiment in January 2018 has been quite wide: a high of 70% in September 2019 and a low of 33% in February 2018.

Overall return on investment from January 1st, 2018:

The 2018 Top Ten Portfolio lost -$42 in November. If I cashed out today, my $1000 initial investment would return $150, down -85%.
The 2019 Top Ten Experiment is doing better. If I cashed that experiment out today, that $1,000 initial investment would return $1,100, a +10% gain. Full November report to come. In the meantime, here's the October update.
Taken together, here's the bottom bottom line: after a $2000 investment in both the 2018 and the 2019 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my portfolios would be worth $1,250.
That's down -37.5%.

Implications/Observations:

As always, the experiment's focus of solely holding the Top Ten Cryptos continues to be a losing approach. While the overall market is down -%66 from January 2018, the cryptos that began 2018 in the Top Ten are down -85% over the same period. This of course implies that I would have done a bit better if I'd picked a different group of cryptos.
At no point in this experiment has this investment strategy been successful: the initial 2018 Top Ten have under-performed each of the twenty-three months compared to the market overall.
I'm also tracking the S&P 500 as part of my experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. The S&P 500 is now up +17.5% since the beginning of 2018. My initial $1k investment into crypto would have yielded about +$175 had it been redirected to the S&P.

Conclusion:

After a bounce in October, it seems like we're back to our previously scheduled programming of downward movement. One month to go in 2019, let's see what happens.
A note: although I'm planning on continuing to track both the 2018 and 2019 Top Ten Cryptos next year, I'm undecided on whether or not to repeat the experiment yet again in 2020. Please do leave your suggestions and ideas in the comments below.
Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for my parallel project where I repeated the experiment, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) of a new set of Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st 2019.
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

I bought $1000 worth of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2019 (July 2019 Update)

I bought $1000 worth of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2019 (July 2019 Update)

EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptocurrencies of 2019 - Month Seven - UP 74%
Full blog post
tl;dr - July was a down month, but still up +74% in 2019. Bitcoin wins the month, overall Litecoin holds the smallest of leads, all cryptos in positive territory for the year except Stellar and XRP.

The Experiment:

Instead of hypothetically tracking cryptos, I made an actual $1000 investment, $100 in each of the Top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap as of the 1st of January 2018. I then repeated the experiment on the 1st of January 2019. Think of it as a lazy man's Index Fund (no weighting or rebalancing), less technical, more fun (for me at least), and hopefully still a proxy for the market as a whole - or at the very least an interesting snapshot of the 2019 crypto space. Trying to keep it simple and accessible for beginners and those looking to get into crypto but maybe not quite ready to jump in yet.

The Rules:

Buy $100 of each the Top 10 cryptocurrencies on January 1st, 2019. Run the experiment two years. Hold only. No selling. No trading. Report monthly. Compare loosely to the 2018 Top Ten Experiment.

Month Seven - Up 74%

https://preview.redd.it/q1zu3e4m3ne31.png?width=1130&format=png&auto=webp&s=ed5b6698d45543e949ef02796c1b3a9b1e7bbb0c
July hit the 2019 Top Ten portfolio hard, with a nearly -40% drop since the end of June. All cryptos are in the red except Bitcoin and Tether. June showed sideways movement, but July decisively breaks the five month win streak (or more preciously, a four-month-win-plus-one-month-sideways streak). That said, the 2019 Top Ten portfolio is still up +74% on the year.

Ranking

https://preview.redd.it/dsoc7m9u3ne31.png?width=331&format=png&auto=webp&s=1b0572ea1daf7aa361b38a386bf0271bb8b57d37
Lots of movement this month. All of the Top Ten cryptos moved except Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Ripple. Of note, Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash which switched places with each other again, Stellar reclaimed its spot in the Top Ten, and EOS dropped two spots to #8.
Tron is now alone as the only Top Ten dropout and has been replaced by Binance Coin.
July Winners - Bitcoin, easily. All others (except Tether) were down double digits, with most falling over -20%.
July Losers - Tron, easily, losing nearly 1/3rd of its value, down -32% in July. EOS had a rough month too, dropping -26% and two places in the rankings.
For those keeping score, here is tally of which coins have the most monthly wins and loses during the first seven months of this experiment: Bitcoin distinguished itself from the pack this month by achieving its second monthly victory of the year. Bitcoin SV still has the most monthly loses: three out of the first seven months.
https://preview.redd.it/mbqz58n04ne31.png?width=321&format=png&auto=webp&s=aa29d940d2a9a61b3bcad8c954150cf29f2a522c

Overall update – Litecoin holds the smallest of leads, all cryptos in positive territory except Stellar and Ripple

Similar to last month, although Bitcoin makes the headlines, it's actually Litecoin that continues to perform best, up +214% on the year. My initial $100 investment in Litecoin is now worth $321. But for the second month in a row, Bitcoin made up a ton of ground, finishing July just a few percentage points behind Litecoin.
Stellar is at the bottom, down -28% so far in 2019, followed by Ripple, down -10%.

Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:

https://preview.redd.it/y6pm81g64ne31.png?width=434&format=png&auto=webp&s=e70fd60bd3e529338c0dc7b8ffd9c97a3151384a
For the first time since February, the total crypto market cap decreased, losing about $13B in July. Still, the overall market cap remains over $300B, an increase of +143% since the beginning of 2019.

Bitcoin dominance:

https://preview.redd.it/79c40ey84ne31.png?width=408&format=png&auto=webp&s=474612060993e8ef2ba616df00a97445dc7c7afb
Bitcoin dominance leaped again in July, and now is close to 68%. This sets another record for Bitcoin dominance so far in the 2019 and 2018 Top Ten Experiments.

Overall return on investment from January 1st, 2019:

https://preview.redd.it/aizrumub4ne31.png?width=277&format=png&auto=webp&s=b00544202d688353d7c7d52d83ef0a69864d99d1
In July I saw my overall return shrink by about $400, quite a hit. If I cashed out today, my $1,000 initial investment would return $1,744, a +74% gain. Not at all bad compared to the stock market: the return I would have received from investing that same $1000 on January 1st, 2019 in the the S&P 500 is about +17%, same as last month (see below).

Implications/Observations:

Although the overall market ended down on the month, it's still up 143% on the year. What's noteworthy this month is the absolute chasm that's opened between the performance of the market overall and the Top Ten cryptos that I started with at the beginning of 2019. My Top Ten group? Up 74%. That's only half the return of the overall market. Remember, in May, the gains from the Top Ten and the entire market were both exactly the same amount: +114%. This month, not even close. For two straight months, focusing only on the Top Ten has been a losing strategy. This is reminiscent of last year as at no point in the Top Ten 2018 Experiment did the Top Ten strategy outperform the overall market.
I'm also tracking the S&P 500 as part of my experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. The S&P 500 was flat in July, still up +17% since the beginning of 2019. Solid gains, but of course nothing like what we've seen in crypto so far this year. The initial $1k investment I put into crypto would have yielded +$170 had it been redirected to the S&P compared to the $744 I'm currently up with the 2019 Top Ten Cryptos.
https://preview.redd.it/dalip23i4ne31.png?width=381&format=png&auto=webp&s=7c874654b3c313e26e0049d7f0ecd04ddcab423d

Conclusion:

July was an obvious down month for crypto. I've been a bit delayed on the update this month so as I'm putting this together, crypto's been on a bit of an upward run, with Bitcoin looking like it's about to test $12k. The monthly nature of these updates prevents me from getting caught up in the daily fluctuations of the crypto market and allows a bit of perspective. Taking a step back, it looks, at this point at least, like July was a bit of a speedbump, but by no means signals a crypto bear market - the overall trend of the first half of 2019 is unmistakably positive.
If you're just finding this experiment now, here's the backstory: On the 1st of January, 2018, I bought $100 each of the Top Ten cryptos at the time for a total investment of $1000 to see how they would perform over the year. I tracked the experiment and reported each month. The result? I ended 2018 down -85%, my $1000 worth only $150.
After last year's experiment ended, I decided to do two things:
  1. Extend the Top Ten 2018 Crypto project one more year. The experiment is now in its 19th month. You can check out the latest update here.
  2. What you're reading now is the 7th report of a parallel project: this year I repeated the experiment, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) of the new Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st, 2019.
Thanks for reading and the support for the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports.
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Lost 94% of my capital (over $100K) mostly due to Substratum, but it was my own fault

I posted a comment in the daily discussion thread today about my $100K+ crypto losses and among the kind responses a few people asked for more information on what happened. So I thought I'd post it here to explain.
Note that I'm not blaming anyone else for this, it was my own stupidity and I should have stuck with Bitcoin instead of gambling so much on an altcoin, but sad to say I had drunk the koolaid and basically I fell for a scam project.
I think I was sucked in to Substratum because the IDEA sounded so good. A decentralized Internet, breaking through firewalls and stuff like that. Even though the price was falling all last year I thought I was buying the dip but it kept dipping more and more. In the end I spent about $115,000 on Substratum ERC20 tokens, and I was forced to sell them all last week for $7K to pay for an emergency home repair. I lost 94% of my capital.
Even a week ago I was convinced it would recover in the next bull market, but the Binance delisting was what made me realize it was always a scam. After that I looked into it more and found out about the leader gambling away the last ICO money, shorting ETH at the bottom, the fabricated GitHub commits, fake partnerships, the flaw that lets the devs print unlimited tokens (same problem as PRL). Plus lots more red flags that I just didn't see before. I also found out it can't even do decentralized Internet because it's reliant on centralized ISPs... SMH.
It fell so hard after the Binance delisting that its even out of the top 300. I think it was ranked 50 when I started buying. I feel like a complete fool to be honest. In the end I had to sell because I needed the money and if I didn't sell my $7K would probably be down to $3K or $4K in a few months.
I'll buy crypto again but in my position I won't have the funds to buy again for another six months or more. Knowing my luck crypto prices will pump back up now that I sold, although I don't think SUB will ever recover because of all the red flags and the likelihood of it being deemed a security by the SEC and anyway there's no decent exchanges to trade it on now.
So that's my story.
submitted by ZoranSlaveski to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Nano vs. Dogecoin - a tale of two cryptocurrency for microtransactions (& more)

So, I wanted to write here, because I think Nano community is open-minded, and can think it through - I really like it, and tho I don't have it (only tested it a few times from faucets).

As I see both of those CCs are focusing mainly on low-cost payments and microtransaction/micropayments, and "fun to use".
Even tho Dogecoin can be though as "meme" and "silly", it's actually used and adopted in many places - far more then Nano (ofc, it's also older and have easier codebase to implement - sharing it with bitcoin), but as I will outline, I think that there are a few things that Nano/Nano community can learn from them.

Dogecoin:

Now Nano:

Liquidity comparison:
Nano: https://coinpaprika.com/coin/nano-nano/#!liquidity
Doge: https://coinpaprika.com/coin/doge-dogecoin/#!liquidity
The trend is evident, if you switch to 1y or max on market depth history - Dogecoin have almost +100% growth in this period (from June 2019) and Nano 50% decline.
Looking at the data from vcdepth it's even more apparent:
https://vcdepth.io/coins/doge-doge
https://vcdepth.io/coins/nano-nano

As I say, I think Nano can learn from Doge's some, especially regarding exchange's liquidity - that's preventing a lot from happening right now. Binance is the only source, and market maker for Nano, but there should be more - through the ecosystem.
What Nano team should do in my opinion is: take part of their funds from dev premine, and use it for liquidity purposes. Cryptocurrencies can't be "run" like startups, and Nano holding shouldn't be treated as equity or cash equivalent, dumping it straight on the books. Binance is making a lot to provide all of their coins with liquid markets (their MMs are one of the best on the market), but I think team can increase liquidity easily by a factor of 2-3x, just by hiring specialistic company, that will manage it. I know coins, that have done it - and it's the main thing that helped them stay relevant. Developing protocol is important, but without liquid market - it doesn't achieve anything (because it won't be used by more people). Especially I would try to improve USDT markets - they are basically USD pairs.

PS. I'm not a developer, but I research CCs on daily basis, because it's actually my work. I think my comparison is right, because Doge have achieve much more then being only "meme" currency, and Banano did not (it's only meme currency without liquidity, acceptance, or being really used anywhere).
submitted by muf18 to nanocurrency [link] [comments]

TRON new comer information. How to buy, exchange, and store TRON and other FAQ's.

Here are some FAQ's for anyone that is new to TRON and would like to learn more about the project. For some more information visit our wiki page or click here.
What is TRON?
From the white paper:
TRON is a world-leading blockchain-based decentralized protocol that aims to construct a worldwide free content entertainment system with the blockchain and distributed storage technology. The protocol allows each user to freely publish, store and own data, and in the decentralized autonomous form, decides the distribution, subscription, and push of contents and enables content creators by releasing, circulating and dealing with digital assets, thus forming a decentralized content entertainment ecosystem.
What does that mean?
The root issue of the internet is that everything is hosted on central data centers of Facebook, Amazon, Netfilx, and Google plus some other "small" companies like drop box and such. This is a huge issue, because when you use these services that are "free" you are really paying by selling all the information you provide them in which tell sell to other people extending from anything you type to pictures and videos you upload. Additionally, especially with net neutrality being repealed, large companies will be able to prioritize themselves over competition, forcing you to pay a premium for your entertainment.
TRON is a solution to that because it is aiming to be the foundation of a entirely new internet protocol. Data will be stored in fragments around the network that is provided by miners, truly decentralizing the internet. Its a self sustaining economy in which everyone provides a bit of storage to the network in reward for TRX and in turn that TRX is used by you consuming entertainment. In this way entertainment providers can realistically generate reliable income based off the popularity of their content.
Why is development taking so long?
The web right now is built with whats called HTTP protocol and pre-made commands and functions already exist for developers to use. Because TRON's goal is to completely revolutionize the outdated HTTP protocol, much of the coding has to be done from scratch.
Where can I buy TRON?
Currently there are very limited places to directly buy TRON directly with FIAT money (government issued money). It can however be exchanged in a number of websites for bitcoin. Here are the steps you need to take:
1) Create an account at an exchange where you can purchase bitcoin or ethereum using fiat currencies. Buy bitcoin or ethereum. Here is a website that can help you find such exchange: https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com (a side note is that ethereum usually transfers faster and has cheaper fees. You will have to transfer your bitcoin or ethereum in step 4)
2) Create an account at an exchange that will exchange bitcoin/ethereum to TRX. Any of the exchanges listed in the right info bar or bottom of this post will work. The exchange with the highest volume of TRON is binance.com and will be used in this example.
3) In Binance, locate your online wallet by dropping down the funds tab in the top right and select deposit withdraw. If you bought bitcoin find the bitcoin section under coins and click deposit. Copy this address as it will give you the address you will send your bitcoin to. The process is the same for Ethereum.
4) Using the exchange you created in step 1 to originally buy your bitcoin/ethereum, locate your wallet there, and select the withdraw button to send your bitcoin or ethereum to binance using the address you copied.
5) After a while your bitcoin/ethereum will show up in binance in which you can exchange it for TRX.
Where do I store my TRON?
It is not recommended to store your funds long term on an exchange as exchanges can be hacked, be shut down, or do wallet maintenance. If you do, it is recommended you use 2 factor authentication. Currently there is not an official TRON wallet, save keeping it on their website, but hardware wallets are usually the best way to store your crypto long term. Our wiki page has a number of options you can use. (https://www.reddit.com/Tronix/wiki/wallets)
Social Links: Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/GW8P8EK7dhkzOwFmxnuwqA
Discord: https://discord.gg/ur9nKTe
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/tronfoundation/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Tronfoundation
Exchanges: Coinnest, Binance, Liqui, Gatecoin, Coinegg, HitBTC, Mercatox, Gate.io, CoolCoin, EtherDelta, Bit-Z, Qryptos
submitted by pochacod to Tronix [link] [comments]

Why Basic Attention Token (BAT) is a Promising Crypto Investment

BAT could change the relationship between users, advertisers & creators.
Basic Attention Token (BAT) is a cryptocurrency that could revolutionize how content creators are paid and how users see adverts.
What is Basic Attention Token (BAT)
Basic Attention Token is an Ethereum based token which was created alongside its home platform, the Brave Browser.
Why Basic Attention Token (BAT) is a good investment
Basic Attention Token is already positioned for mass adoption through its complimentary product, Brave Browser with 5.5 million active monthly users within only a month of its release in April.
Through Brave, BAT will be used to pay content creators and publishers through tips by loyal fans and users will also earn BAT for viewing ads.
Basic Attention Token is one of very few cryptocurrencies with a legit use case and working product. Combine this with the founder Brenden Eich having projects like the Javascript programming language and Firefox browser under his belt.
This give me increased confidence that Basic Attention Token can reach mass adoption, thus increasing its demand, its use and in turn its value.
What is Brave Browser?
Brave is a web browser founded by Brendan Eich, the creator of Javascript and founder of Firefox Browser. Brave comes with a built in ad-blocker and it loads sites 2–8 times faster than Chrome & Safari on mobile and twice as fast as Chrome on desktop.
By default all adverts and trackers on a website are blocked and users are instead given the option of opting in to the Brave Rewards program, by opting in to this program users will be paid in BAT for viewing non-intrusive ads.
Brave also has a private browsing window similar to Chromes Incognito mode, except Brave comes with an additional Tor browsing window for advanced security.
Why Brave Browser & BAT are revolutionary
Adverts slow down websites, decrease battery life and use up mobile data. According to the Basic Attention Token website, up to 50% of the average users mobile data is used on adverts and trackers.
Combining the BAT cryptocurrency with the Brave browser, users can be rewarded for viewing optional adverts. Compare this to intrusive adverts which interrupt you whilst you’re watching or video or trying to browse a website.
Now instead of being pestered by obnoxious adverts you can choose to view a small advert and get paid for your time, which is a good step in the right direction in my opinion.
In fact during the writing of this article I earned 0.10 BAT from two notification style adverts, that might not be much but I have never actually been paid for my attention before.
Watching adverts is not the only way you can earn Basic Attention Though, content creators can receive tips in BAT. This will be very useful for YouTube creators in particular who have had to deal with YouTube demonetizing their videos for seemingly arbitrary reasons.
Brave has a built in Basic Attention Token wallet and they have teamed up with Uphold to allow you to withdraw your tokens into any currency you want including GBP & USD.
How you can earn Basic Attention Token (BAT)
Users: Download Brave Browser, enable Brave Rewards and use it the way you would normally use your browser. To enable Brave Rewards, click on the BAT symbol on end of the URL bar, then click on Reward settings.
Once you reach the settings page, simply toggle “Brave Rewards” to on and you can start earning BAT.
Occasionally a little notification will show up in the bottom right corner of the screen, these are adverts and you will be paid in Basic Attention Token for clicking on the notification and viewing the advertisers website.
Publishers & Creators: Become a Verified Brave Publisher and receive BAT tips from users who enjoy your content. To become a publisher you need to create a Brave Rewards account.
Download Brave Browser here: https://bit.ly/35Zypq3
How you can invest directly in Basic Attention Token (BAT)
Basic Attention Token can be bought from exchanges as well as earned through tips and watching adverts.
Binance: You can buy Basic Attention Token (BAT) from this exchange using Bitcoin (BTC) or Ethereum (ETH).
BitPanda: You can buy Basic Attention Token using cash from this exchange if you live in Europe, in the future they may enable accounts outside of Europe to buy/sell cryptocurrency.
Final Thoughts
Basic Attention Token is one of the few cryptocurrencies that have a chance at reaching mass adoption, Brave already has 5.5 million active monthly users since its release last month during April.
That is tremendous user growth in only month, plus the founder behind BAT created the widely Javascript programming language & well known Firefox browser.
I expect Basic Attention Token to become a household name in the next 10 years. I always wondered how it felt to be an early adopter and for once I actually get to become one.
submitted by Laurikt to u/Laurikt [link] [comments]

Decred Journal – August 2018

Note: you can read this on GitHub (link), Medium (link) or old Reddit (link) to see all the links.

Development

dcrd: Version 1.3.0 RC1 (Release Candidate 1) is out! The main features of this release are significant performance improvements, including some that benefit SPV clients. Full release notes and downloads are on GitHub.
The default minimum transaction fee rate was reduced from 0.001 to 0.0001 DCkB. Do not try to send such small fee transactions just yet, until the majority of the network upgrades.
Release process was changed to use release branches and bump version on the master branch at the beginning of a release cycle. Discussed in this chat.
The codebase is ready for the new Go 1.11 version. Migration to vgo module system is complete and the 1.4.0 release will be built using modules. The list of versioned modules and a hierarchy diagram are available here.
The testnet was reset and bumped to version 3.
Comments are welcome for the proposal to implement smart fee estimation, which is important for Lightning Network.
@matheusd recorded a code review video for new Decred developers that explains how tickets are selected for voting.
dcrwallet: Version 1.3.0 RC1 features new SPV sync mode, new ticket buyer, new APIs for Decrediton and a host of bug fixes. On the dev side, dcrwallet also migrated to the new module system.
Decrediton: Version 1.3.0 RC1 adds the new SPV sync mode that syncs roughly 5x faster. The feature is off by default while it receives more testing from experienced users. Other notable changes include a design polish and experimental Politeia integration.
Politeia: Proposal editing is being developed and has a short demo. This will allow proposal owners to edit their proposal in response to community feedback before voting begins. The challenges associated with this feature relate to updating censorship tokens and maintaining a clear history of which version comments were made on. @fernandoabolafio produced this architecture diagram which may be of interest to developers.
@degeri joined to perform security testing of Politeia and found several issues.
dcrdata: mainnet explorer upgraded to v2.1 with several new features. For users: credit/debit tx filter on address page, showing miner fees on coinbase transaction page, estimate yearly ticket rewards on main page, cool new hamburger menu and keyboard navigation. For developers: new chain parameters page, experimental Insight API support, endpoints for coin supply and block rewards, testnet3 support. Lots of minor API changes and frontend tweaks, many bug fixes and robustness improvements.
The upcoming v3.0 entered beta and is deployed on beta.dcrdata.org. Check out the new charts page. Feedback and bug reports are appreciated. Finally, the development version v3.1.0-pre is on alpha.dcrdata.org.
Android: updated to be compatible with the latest SPV code and is syncing, several performance issues are worked on. Details were posted in chat. Alpha testing has started, to participate please join #dev and ask for the APK.
iOS: backend is mostly complete, as well as the front end. Support for devices with smaller screens was improved. What works now: creating and recovering wallets, listing of transactions, receiving DCR, displaying and scanning QR codes, browsing account information, SPV connection to peers, downloading headers. Some bugs need fixing before making testable builds.
Ticket splitting: v0.6.0 beta released with improved fee calculation and multiple bug fixes.
docs: introduced new Governance section that grouped some old articles as well as the new Politeia page.
@Richard-Red created a concept repository sandbox with policy documents, to illustrate the kind of policies that could be approved and amended by Politeia proposals.
decred.org: 8 contributors added and 4 removed, including 2 advisors (discussion here).
decredmarketcap.com is a brand new website that shows the most accurate DCR market data. Clean design, mobile friendly, no javascript required.
Dev activity stats for August: 239 active PRs, 219 commits, 25k added and 11k deleted lines spread across 8 repositories. Contributions came from 2-10 developers per repository. (chart)

Network

Hashrate: went from 54 to 76 PH/s, the low was 50 and the new all-time high is 100 PH/s. BeePool share rose to ~50% while F2Pool shrank to 30%, followed by coinmine.pl at 5% and Luxor at 3%.
Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 95.6 DCR (+3.0) as of Sep 3. During the month, ticket price fluctuated between a low of 92.2 and high of 100.5 DCR. Locked DCR represented between 3.8 and 3.9 million or 46.3-46.9% of the supply.
Nodes: there are 217 public listening and 281 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 2% at v1.4.0(pre) (dev builds), 5% on v1.3.0 (RC1), 62% on v1.2.0 (-5%), 22% on v1.1.2 (-2%), 6% on v1.1.0 (-1%). Almost 69% of nodes are v.1.2.0 and higher and support client filters. Data snapshot of Aug 31.

ASICs

Obelisk posted 3 email updates in August. DCR1 units are reportedly shipping with 1 TH/s hashrate and will be upgraded with firmware to 1.5 TH/s. Batch 1 customers will receive compensation for missed shipment dates, but only after Batch 5 ships. Batch 2-5 customers will be receiving the updated slim design.
Innosilicon announced the new D9+ DecredMaster: 2.8 TH/s at 1,230 W priced $1,499. Specified shipping date was Aug 10-15.
FFMiner DS19 claims 3.1 TH/s for Blake256R14 at 680 W and simultaneously 1.55 TH/s for Blake2B at 410 W, the price is $1,299. Shipping Aug 20-25.
Another newly noticed miner offer is this unit that does 46 TH/s at 2,150 W at the price of $4,720. It is shipping Nov 2018 and the stats look very close to Pangolin Whatsminer DCR (which has now a page on asicminervalue).

Integrations

www.d1pool.com joined the list of stakepools for a total of 16.
Australian CoinTree added DCR trading. The platform supports fiat, there are some limitations during the upgrade to a new system but also no fees in the "Early access mode". On a related note, CoinTree is working on a feature to pay household bills with cryptocurrencies it supports.
Three new OTC desks were added to exchanges page at decred.org.
Two mobile wallets integrated Decred:
Reminder: do your best to understand the security and privacy model before using any wallet software. Points to consider: who controls the seed, does the wallet talk to the nodes directly or via middlemen, is it open source or not?

Adoption

Merchants:

Marketing

Targeted advertising report for August was posted by @timhebel. Facebook appeal is pending, some Google and Twitter campaigns were paused and some updated. Read more here.
Contribution to the @decredproject Twitter account has evolved over the past few months. A #twitter_ops channel is being used on Matrix to collaboratively draft and execute project account tweets (including retweets). Anyone with an interest in contributing to the Twitter account can ask for an invitation to the channel and can start contributing content and ideas there for evaluation by the Twitter group. As a result, no minority or unilateral veto over tweets is possible. (from GitHub)

Events

Attended:
For those willing to help with the events:
BAB: Hey all, we are gearing up for conference season. I have a list of places we hope to attend but need to know who besides @joshuam and @Haon are willing to do public speaking, willing to work booths, or help out at them? You will need to be well versed on not just what is Decred, but the history of Decred etc... DM me if you are interested. (#event_planning)
The Decred project is looking for ambassadors. If you are looking for a fun cryptocurrency to get involved in send me a DM or come talk to me on Decred slack. (@marco_peereboom, longer version here)

Media

Decred Assembly episode 21 is available. @jy-p and lead dcrwallet developer @jrick discussed SPV from Satoshi's whitepaper, how it can be improved upon and what's coming in Decred.
Decred Assembly episodes 1-21 are available in audio only format here.
New instructional articles on stakey.club: Decrediton setup, Deleting the wallet, Installing Go, Installing dcrd, dcrd as a Linux service. Available in both English and Portuguese.
Decred scored #32 in the August issue of Chinese CCID ratings. The evaluation model was explained in this interview.
Satis Group rated Decred highly in their cryptoasset valuation research report (PDF). This was featured by several large media outlets, but some did not link to or omitted Decred entirely, citing low market cap.
Featured articles:
Articles:
Videos:

Community Discussions

Community stats:
Comm systems news:
After another debate about chat systems more people began testing and using Matrix, leading to some gardening on that platform:
Highlights:
Reddit: substantive discussion about Decred cons; ecosystem fund; a thread about voter engagement, Politeia UX and trolling; idea of a social media system for Decred by @michae2xl; how profitable is the Obelisk DCR1.
Chats: cross-chain trading via LN; plans for contractor management system, lower-level decision making and contractor privacy vs transparency for stakeholders; measuring dev activity; what if the network stalls, multiple implementations of Decred for more resilience, long term vision behind those extensive tests and accurate comments in the codebase; ideas for process for policy documents, hosting them in Pi and approving with ticket voting; about SPV wallet disk size, how compact filters work; odds of a wallet fetching a wrong block in SPV; new module system in Go; security of allowing Android app backups; why PoW algo change proposal must be specified in great detail; thoughts about NIPoPoWs and SPV; prerequisites for shipping SPV by default (continued); Decred vs Dash treasury and marketing expenses, spending other people's money; why Decred should not invade a country, DAO and nation states, entangling with nation state is poor resource allocation; how winning tickets are determined and attack vectors; Politeia proposal moderation, contractor clearance, the scale of proposals and decision delegation, initial Politeia vote to approve Politeia itself; chat systems, Matrix/Slack/Discord/RocketChat/Keybase (continued); overview of Korean exchanges; no breaking changes in vgo; why project fund burn rate must keep low; asymptotic behavior of Decred and other ccs, tail emission; count of full nodes and incentives to run them; Politeia proposal translations and multilingual environment.
An unusual event was the chat about double negatives and other oddities in languages in #trading.

Markets

DCR started the month at USD 56 / BTC 0.0073 and had a two week decline. On Aug 14 the whole market took a huge drop and briefly went below USD 200 billion. Bitcoin went below USD 6,000 and top 100 cryptos lost 5-30%. The lowest point coincided with Bitcoin dominance peak at 54.5%. On that day Decred dived -17% and reached the bottom of USD 32 / BTC 0.00537. Since then it went sideways in the USD 35-45 / BTC 0.0054-0.0064 range. Around Aug 24, Huobi showed DCR trading volume above USD 5M and this coincided with a minor recovery.
@ImacallyouJawdy posted some creative analysis based on ticket data.

Relevant External

StopAndDecrypt published an extensive article "ASIC Resistance is Nothing but a Blockchain Buzzword" that is much in line with Decred's stance on ASICs.
The ongoing debates about the possible Sia fork yet again demonstrate the importance of a robust dispute resolution mechanism. Also, we are lucky to have the treasury.
Mark B Lundeberg, who found a vulnerability in atomicswap earlier, published a concept of more private peer-to-peer atomic swaps. (missed in July issue)
Medium took a cautious stance on cryptocurrencies and triggered at least one project to migrate to Ghost (that same project previously migrated away from Slack).
Regulation: Vietnam bans mining equipment imports, China halts crypto events and tightens control of crypto chat groups.
Reddit was hacked by intercepting 2FA codes sent via SMS. The announcement explains the impact. Yet another data breach suggests to think twice before sharing any data with any company and shift to more secure authentication systems.
Intel and x86 dumpsterfire keeps burning brighter. Seek more secure hardware and operating systems for your coins.
Finally, unrelated to Decred but good for a laugh: yetanotherico.com.

About This Issue

This is the 5th issue of Decred Journal. It is mirrored on GitHub, Medium and Reddit. Past issues are available here.
Most information from third parties is relayed directly from source after a minimal sanity check. The authors of Decred Journal have no ability to verify all claims. Please beware of scams and do your own research.
Feedback is appreciated: please comment on Reddit, GitHub or #writers_room on Matrix or Slack.
Contributions are welcome too. Some areas are collecting content, pre-release review or translations to other languages. Check out @Richard-Red's guide how to contribute to Decred using GitHub without writing code.
Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee, Haon, jazzah, Richard-Red and thedecreddigest.
submitted by jet_user to decred [link] [comments]

[Daily BAT Discussion] Spooky Space Pirates - October 28, 2018

October 28, 2018
Hi BAT land-lubbers! Welcome to the Daily BAT Discussion!
Yesterday's Market Movements: Down
Unfortunately, we're seeing another day of red for BAT. We dropped from 3900 sats all the way down to 3700s, but had a strong bounce back up to 3800 satoshis ($0.25). Volume is around 500 BTC on Binance, but a lot of that had to do with massive selling at around 3700s plus the bounce. Hopefully we've hit a local bottom for the next few days. Bitcoin is still hovering at around $6400, but the price could go anywhere. Not really sure if we'll go up, down, or sideways.
Have a great weekend guys. Remember, invest responsibly!
BAT's Official Telegram channel
Join us on the official BAT telegram! @BATProject
Current members: 5929
Daily Discussion Rules
Remember, the permitted topics of discussion include, but are not limited to:
Oh hey, don't forget to upvote!
Disclaimer: All content on BAT Dailies are not affiliated with the official Brave or BAT team, and are solely run and provided by the BAT community unless otherwise stated. Market analysis and any (of my amateur) predictions are not financial advice!
submitted by dragespir to BATProject [link] [comments]

Lisk Highlights weekly roundup February 9th 2019.

Hello everybody. The LISK project and it's enthusiasts are always busy, and this week past has certainly been no exception.
Seeing is believing, so here is a recap of the highlights and interesting items from the past week on the LISK subreddit and beyond.....
 

Lisk's 11th LIP – Some Viewpoints on the Proposal to Change to one Vote Per Account.

I am sure you are all aware by now that HQ has just opened the discussion for their 11th LIP (Lisk Improvement Proposal) dealing with the "change to one vote per account in our DPoS". A thread was started on the Lisk subreddit announcing this LIP content and it provoked a lot of intense debate.
This LIP of course is for now just a proposal by the Lisk project team, and it should create discussion around what is best for the network. HQ advise that any interested community members should join the conversation by signing up to the LIP mailing list HERE. Lightcurve science team member Iker posted "Hey guys, we are looking forward to your contributions regarding this and other proposals. We will check all the community inputs in the mailing list.
Community Lead of the Lisk project, Mat Piaggi, produced a summary of the initial discussion on the Lisk Chat channel regarding this latest LIP. It features Iker from the Lisk science team and Chief R&D Officer and Co-founder of GNY, Richard Jarritt. You can read it HERE
 

Lisk Sidechain Project's CEO Attends Meeting With the EU Commission.

Christian Junger, CEO of the MADANA project recently met with Dr. Florent Frederix, a Cybersecurity expert from the European Commission in Brussels. I have heard that they discussed eprivacy, and cybersecurity of course. The importance of GDPR compliant technology for a more privacy-driven business world was chief among the talking points with MADANA being touted as one of the suitable project to uphold this imperative. It is no surprise so that the MADANA project is due to be one of the first major dApps to be built on a Lisk sidechain. This platform for data analysis using Blockchain technology allows participants to get in on the data market with their own data, whilst simultaneously preserving their privacy by design. The MADANA project has closed its pre-sale and is now preparing for its main sale
You can view an image of Christian's meeting in Brussels HERE.
 

LISK Sidechain Project's Founder Releases Three Exciting Pieces of Development Info.

You are all probably aware of GNY.io, the team bringing Machine Learning to Lisk via the sidechain LML (Lisk Machine Learning). Well, Chief R&D Officer and Co-founder of GNY, Richard Jarritt, in conversation with the projects followers on the GNY telegram dropped three exciting pieces of info over the the last few days.
 
1. Low fees.
The development team, which includes head of blockchain development, Leo Liang (known from the Asch decentralized application platform), have concluded their design where the Machine Learning data will be written into a contract. This is created with a low fee and then the Machine Learning reply (the prediction) is returned with another contract.
 
2. Timescale.
The team are aiming to get this Machine Learning and codebase integration completed by the month of March.
 
3. Unique.
You may may have seen blockchain before..... you may have seen Machine Learning before..... You may have even seen blockchain and Machine Learning combined before, however no competitors as yet have implemented or even attempted such a system where all the Machine Learning is done on chain, so data does not leave the security of the chain.
Plus the Machine Learning script does not grow exponentially. It is specifically coded to shed unneeded weight and prune off information, so that the data does not become too large for the chain. With each block, GNY's machine learning system is reading past data and the current data inputting into the block. It then makes a note of the pruned output, which is included in a contract for the next block.
The GNY universal Beta Api plug-in update is out now and testing is welcomed for commercial developers aiming to work with Machine learning and blockchain. You can visit Github to view the steps to run it HERE.
 

Lisk Play Prize Pool Swells and Another Lisk Game is On the Horizon.

A new community contest created by Lemii is receiving a great deal of support from the Liskers at large. Lisk Play is fun tool enabling simple contests to be played for a nominal amount of LSK. It's aim, besides bringing community together with fun, is to showcase a simple use case for transaction fields in explorer such as time, date, message, and so on with trivial value transactions. This is entirely a community initiative and has no affiliation to Lisk HQ, Lightcurve or the Lisk Foundation.
The first engagement of Lisk Play is a contest where the goal is to predict the opening price of Bitcoin as at 00:00 on the 1st of March 2019. Entering the competition costs 1 LSK and the closest prediction wins the sum of all LSK collected plus a top up fund kindly donated by stellardynamic of www.liskusa.io
The prize pool has now swelled to 120 LSK. You have to get moving though to enter as the deadline for all predictions is February 16th. You can check it out HERE.
In my opinion Lemii is to be commended for the work he has put into this project alongside his consultants Crosssy, Maul, Lisk.ftw, and Sexor (minions).
 
Now to the other Lisk game that is upcoming. My sources tell me that a Telegram contest is being worked on at present. I believe it will take the form of a treasure hunt type contest with hints given that will lead the lucky winnes to a cache of LSK. Sounds good? Of course it does. I will have more on the game in a short while.
 

LISK Videos around the World: Misss Bitcoin.

Dutch crypto Youtuber "Misss Bitcoin" released a new English language video titled "TA MONDAY | Technical Analysis on Bitcoin, Litecoin & Lisk". Misss Bitcoin AKA Maddie describes herself and her channel as follows..... "Seven years ago I became enthusiastic about Bitcoin, Cryptocurrencies and especially charting. I fell in love with the charts but besides that I’m still super excited about what the cryptocurrencies will bring us in the near future. I’m honored to be a part of the revolution and I would like to take you with me on this journey. Within this expanding crypto universe there is still so much to learn and I want to share this with everyone that is interested in (trading) cryptocurrencies".
She says she loves Lisk and it is one of her one of her favorite cryptos. Analysing the Binance chart in the video she says that although it not a very positive chart currently, she is still very positive for Lisk. She goes on to say that the next 10 to 14 days will be crucial to see if it LSK tests the bottom of its current chart.
I took the liberty of cropping her current video to allow you get straight to the Lisk TA. You can view it HERE. See what you think and don't forget to give the Youtube channel of the original poster a thumbs up if you find it of value.
 
That's it for the recap of the weeks highlights. I hope it brought you up to speed with all the weeks good news.
These highlight posts also go out daily on the….
LISK Highlights exclusive Telegram group
LISK Highlights Twitter
The highlights are also included in my weekly roundup on the LISK Highlights Medium account and the Bitcoin talk forum's LISK thread, so keep an eye out for them on these outlets also.
 
Keep the faith Liskers! 👍
submitted by John_Muck to Lisk [link] [comments]

Binance CEO about Bitcoin & Ethereum Giveaway, platform ... This Line Is Critical For Bitcoin + Binance Scandal BITCOIN'S BOTTOM: READY OR NOT! - BINANCE DELISTING POPULAR COINS! - FINALLY: NEW MONEY COMING IN! HUGE FINANCIAL OPPORTUNITY! 2ND CHANCE TO BUY THE BOTTOM! MASSIVE BITCOIN SELLING ON EXCHANGES! How to SHORT or LONG Bitcoin with Leverage  BINANCE FUTURES TUTORIAL  EXPLAINED for Beginners Bitcoin In A Tailspin! Where Is The Bottom?? Bitcoin Kurs?  Bitcoin Anzahl?  Binance IEO 5000%  PlusToken Exit Scam?  Libra vor dem Aus?

Binance Coin Price; Monero Price; MimbleWimbleCoin Price ; How to; Trade Boasting a community of over eight million people, eToro is one of the leading global trading and investment platform – and it specialises in cryptocurrencies. Although there are more than 1,200 assets to trade on eToro, which was founded in 2007, it is in the crypto space that it is particularly popular. The innovative ... This is our new strategy for accumulate BTC, Coin : PNT/BTC Exchange: Binance OCO Entry Zone: 0.000098 - 0.000103 Target 1 : 0.000113 (13%) Target 2 : 0.000130 (30%) Target 3 : 0.000153 (53%) Target 4 : Raise your personal stop lost OCO Stop Loss : 0.000082 Comments: This is our new strategy for accumulate BTC, we use Binance exchange for... Bitcoin, although a powerful and disruptive financial technology, at its core, is mere mathematics. Its code is what keeps the network operating, its Timing Tops & Bottoms In Bitcoin: Data Suggests New Peak Is Less Than A Year Away 1 hour ago. Chainlink’s Parabolic Trendline is Intact, But Analysts Fear a Breakdown 3 hours ago; Impending pennant breakout sets Bitcoin price back on the path to $14,000 4 hours ago; Yearn.finance Could Rally to $14,000 Following Sub-$10,000 Dip 5 hours ago ... • Bitcoin, although a powerful and disruptive financial technology, at its core, is mere mathematics. Its code is what keeps the network operating, its. 14.2 C. Amsterdam. 31 October 2020. Home; News. News. HOW ONESWAP (ONES) STACKS UP AGAINST THE REST… 31 October 2020. News. Ethereum Reaches Bedrock Support Against BTC as Sellers… 31 October 2020. News. The evolution of crypto exchanges ... TradingView. Sign In. Ticker Trading Ideas Educational Ideas Scripts People Trading Ideas Educational Ideas Scripts People Crypto analyst “Bitcoin Jack” suggested that accumulating Bitcoin the last five times the Grayscale premium was this low has historically “been profitable,” with each drop in premium lining up with bottoms in the BTC price. This precedent suggests that should history rhyme, Bitcoin is unlikely to fall much lower than $3,700. After five weeks of consolidation above $8,800, Bitcoin went on to surge to $12,468 at its yearly peak on Binance. Whales are eyeing the $8,800 macro support as a possible short-term target for BTC. Les mineurs capitulent laissant le Bitcoin s’enfoncer désespérément emportant avec lui les altcoins. Clôture CME avancée en raison des jours fériés de fin Novembre ? RSI arrive en survente – niveaux techniques ultra sensibles à défendre !!! Revue de marché du Jeudi 21 Novembre 2019. $265 in Free Cash/Bitcoin plus up to 22% Interest Annually on Crypto - Sign Up for BlockFi, Celsius Network, Voyager, Crypto.com, Gemini, Liquid, Coinbase, Crypterium - Crypto Exchange & Wallet Apps . Here's a great list of promo codes, referrals, and bonuses to get into cryptocurrency or accumulate more with a minimum of $150 (up to $265) in free cash/Bitcoin bonuses from Voyager ($25 Bitcoin ...

[index] [17023] [10258] [4782] [21483] [12698] [16034] [5435] [16908] [19446] [22317]

Binance CEO about Bitcoin & Ethereum Giveaway, platform ...

#BINANCE #BITCOIN #ETHEREUM A Competition for all Binancians & Fans with Bitcoin and Ethereum Airdrop! To participate, and read the competition rules please ... Bitcoin Kurs? Bitcoin Anzahl? Binance IEO 5000% PlusToken Exit Scam? Libra vor dem Aus? In dieser Woche gibt es wie immer einiges zu berichten und es geht nicht immer nur im Bitcoin. Neben ... #Bitcoin #BitcoinToday #BitcoinNews I am not a financial adviser, this is not financial advice. I strongly encourage all to do their own research before doing anything with their money. This is how bitcoin's bottom is formed! Binance delisting popular coins! Fed prints $60m USD per minute! Huge bank to store crypto! ETH ALGO BAX FTM NEWS For Business Inquiries ... ripple, bitcoin bottom, bull run, should I buy bitcoin, digibyte, binance, basic attention token, btc, fomo, b1, what is eos, eos vs cardano, eos on coinbase, xphone, cardano shelley, brave ... This Line Is Critical For Bitcoin + Binance Scandal Altcoin Daily . Loading... Unsubscribe from Altcoin Daily? Cancel Unsubscribe. Working... Subscribe Subscribed Unsubscribe 161K. Loading ... 2nd chance to buy the bitcoin bottom! Huge financial opportunity! Important SELL signal to watch for BTC! $5k Bitcoin Target! Tether manipulating this market? For Business Inquiries: cryptorevolut

http://cloudmining.forexexpo.eu