In my view, Kaspa is neither the new Bitcoin, nor will it become digital cash or similar. :)
The node requirements are far too high and the network effects of Bitcoin are too great.
To become a means of transaction, it would first have to become a store of value. No value, no demand, no means of transaction.
A blockchain is not designed to store every transaction, no matter how small, every coffee, etc., forever and immutably.
Scaling can be done on additional layers - security and decentralization cannot be guaranteed on additional layers.
The node requirements are far too high and the network effects of Bitcoin are too great.
To become a means of transaction, it would first have to become a store of value. No value, no demand, no means of transaction.
A blockchain is not designed to store every transaction, no matter how small, every coffee, etc., forever and immutably.
Scaling can be done on additional layers - security and decentralization cannot be guaranteed on additional layers.
•
44
•@stefan_21 the statement is largely false or misleading.
1. "In my view, Kaspa is neither the new Bitcoin, nor will it become digital cash or similar."
- Correct: Kaspa is not a Bitcoin killer and does not want to be.
- But: Kaspa is a layer 1 blockchain protocol with extremely high throughput (currently ~10 blocks/second, target: 100+) that enables fast, cheap transactions - exactly what Bitcoin cannot do.
- Kaspa complements Bitcoin rather than replacing it. Many see it as digital silver to Bitcoin's gold.
2. "The node requirements are far too high and the network effects of Bitcoin are too great."
- Partly true: Bitcoin has massive network effects (hashrate, adoption, market capitalization).
- Wrong: Kaspa's node requirements are not "far too high".
- A pruned node runs on a Raspberry Pi with 8 GB RAM.
- Full node: ~2 TB SSD (as of 2025), decreases due to pruning technologies.
- Comparison: Bitcoin Full Node needs ~600 GB (2025), but slower, more expensive, less scalable.
3. "To become a means of transaction, it would first have to become a store of value. No value, no demand, no means of transaction."
- Wrong - logically backwards:
- Bitcoin first became a means of transaction (Satoshi bought pizza), then a store of value.
- Usage → demand → value, not the other way around.
- Kaspa has high transaction demand (e.g. through bots, micropayments, DeFi experiments), despite low price - this disproves the thesis.
4. "A blockchain is not designed to store every transaction [...] forever, no matter how small."
- Correct: Unlimited on-chain storage is inefficient.
- But: Kaspa solves this differently than Bitcoin:
- BlockDAG instead of blockchain → parallel blocks → higher throughput without layer-2.
- Pruning is integrated → old data can be securely deleted without losing security
- → Kaspa does not store everything forever, but decentralized and secure.
5. "Scaling can be done on additional layers - security & decentralization cannot be guaranteed on additional layers."
- Partly true: Layer 2 (like Lightning) reduces decentralization and security (fewer nodes, custody risks).
- But: Kaspa scales to layer 1 - without these compromises.
- No trust in bridges, channels or custodians.
- Real finality in seconds, not minutes/hours.
1. "In my view, Kaspa is neither the new Bitcoin, nor will it become digital cash or similar."
- Correct: Kaspa is not a Bitcoin killer and does not want to be.
- But: Kaspa is a layer 1 blockchain protocol with extremely high throughput (currently ~10 blocks/second, target: 100+) that enables fast, cheap transactions - exactly what Bitcoin cannot do.
- Kaspa complements Bitcoin rather than replacing it. Many see it as digital silver to Bitcoin's gold.
2. "The node requirements are far too high and the network effects of Bitcoin are too great."
- Partly true: Bitcoin has massive network effects (hashrate, adoption, market capitalization).
- Wrong: Kaspa's node requirements are not "far too high".
- A pruned node runs on a Raspberry Pi with 8 GB RAM.
- Full node: ~2 TB SSD (as of 2025), decreases due to pruning technologies.
- Comparison: Bitcoin Full Node needs ~600 GB (2025), but slower, more expensive, less scalable.
3. "To become a means of transaction, it would first have to become a store of value. No value, no demand, no means of transaction."
- Wrong - logically backwards:
- Bitcoin first became a means of transaction (Satoshi bought pizza), then a store of value.
- Usage → demand → value, not the other way around.
- Kaspa has high transaction demand (e.g. through bots, micropayments, DeFi experiments), despite low price - this disproves the thesis.
4. "A blockchain is not designed to store every transaction [...] forever, no matter how small."
- Correct: Unlimited on-chain storage is inefficient.
- But: Kaspa solves this differently than Bitcoin:
- BlockDAG instead of blockchain → parallel blocks → higher throughput without layer-2.
- Pruning is integrated → old data can be securely deleted without losing security
- → Kaspa does not store everything forever, but decentralized and secure.
5. "Scaling can be done on additional layers - security & decentralization cannot be guaranteed on additional layers."
- Partly true: Layer 2 (like Lightning) reduces decentralization and security (fewer nodes, custody risks).
- But: Kaspa scales to layer 1 - without these compromises.
- No trust in bridges, channels or custodians.
- Real finality in seconds, not minutes/hours.
••
@money_maven_1992 you are welcome to read through my Kaspa article, where I go into the points in more detail :)
-> https://getqu.in/dj9RZI/
-> https://getqu.in/dj9RZI/
••
@stefan_21There you go again.
This eternal whining à la "Kaspa is not the new Bitcoin" is really tiring. Nobody is interested in copying an outdated and sluggish technology.
You don't decide what a blockchain is for. You've just redefined it so that nobody realizes that Bitcoin can basically do nothing - except be bought, in the hope of later finding someone even more naive who will buy it at a higher price.
This eternal whining à la "Kaspa is not the new Bitcoin" is really tiring. Nobody is interested in copying an outdated and sluggish technology.
You don't decide what a blockchain is for. You've just redefined it so that nobody realizes that Bitcoin can basically do nothing - except be bought, in the hope of later finding someone even more naive who will buy it at a higher price.
•
11
•@ordinemo and in your view the principle of the more naive does not apply to Kaspa? :D
That's right - what a blockchain is intended for is not determined by me, but by the market.
What kind of whining? Are you not allowed to express your own opinion?
That's right - what a blockchain is intended for is not determined by me, but by the market.
What kind of whining? Are you not allowed to express your own opinion?
••
@stefan_21 the network will be used because it has the necessary properties. Everything else is irrelevant. However, Bitcoin lives from "liquidity marketers" like you.
Yes, the market decides. Then let it decide, no need for your one-sided misrepresentation, right?
Yes, the market decides. Then let it decide, no need for your one-sided misrepresentation, right?
••
@ordinemo In my view, it doesn't have that for the reasons mentioned.
Of course I let the market decide, but I'm allowed to express my opinion, aren't I? You have to be able to put up with that. Just like I can put up with people shilling XRP and raving about the digital euro😅
From my point of view, it's perfectly fine for you to have a different opinion to me. Both on Bitcoin and on Kaspa. It would be boring if we all had the same views^^
Of course I let the market decide, but I'm allowed to express my opinion, aren't I? You have to be able to put up with that. Just like I can put up with people shilling XRP and raving about the digital euro😅
From my point of view, it's perfectly fine for you to have a different opinion to me. Both on Bitcoin and on Kaspa. It would be boring if we all had the same views^^
••
@stefan_21 Again, you are trying to put Kaspa in line with XRP or the digital euro. What you are doing here is not expressing your opinion, but deliberately spreading misinformation. Your technical arguments in your "Kaspa" article are mostly wrong, we've already discussed that. Your argument is then "I haven't studied Kaspa in detail".
••
@ordinemo I didn't put Kaspa on the same level as XRP^^ that was a comparison to show that you have to be able to put up with such comments from me - just like I have to put up with the other nonsense.
I am sharing my knowledge and opinion here to the best of my knowledge and belief. In my opinion, Kaspa's node requirements are too high and due to Bitcoin's network effects, it has no chance anyway - which again is nonsense from your point of view.
In your opinion, Bitcoin is technically outdated and will not be able to keep its value proposition because of the security budget problem - which again is nonsense from my point of view.
I'm not trying to spread misinformation, I'm trying to educate. The post did not deal with Bitcoin or Kaspa in any depth. You can't just stand up and say "hey Kaspa is faster, that's why it's better". You have to look at the big picture and see what the consequences of Kaspa's speed are and why Bitcoin is deliberately so "sluggish" by contrast.
You and I will probably not come to a common denominator - which is perfectly okay. My assets are in Bitcoin and I'm comfortable with that. If you feel comfortable with Kaspa, it's fine. Then we'll see in the future who was right or wrong.
I am sharing my knowledge and opinion here to the best of my knowledge and belief. In my opinion, Kaspa's node requirements are too high and due to Bitcoin's network effects, it has no chance anyway - which again is nonsense from your point of view.
In your opinion, Bitcoin is technically outdated and will not be able to keep its value proposition because of the security budget problem - which again is nonsense from my point of view.
I'm not trying to spread misinformation, I'm trying to educate. The post did not deal with Bitcoin or Kaspa in any depth. You can't just stand up and say "hey Kaspa is faster, that's why it's better". You have to look at the big picture and see what the consequences of Kaspa's speed are and why Bitcoin is deliberately so "sluggish" by contrast.
You and I will probably not come to a common denominator - which is perfectly okay. My assets are in Bitcoin and I'm comfortable with that. If you feel comfortable with Kaspa, it's fine. Then we'll see in the future who was right or wrong.
••