LoginSignup
immagine del profilo
Stefan21
@stefan_21
7Mes·

Why $BTC (-0%) cannot be copied and why Bitcoin is fundamentally different from altcoins (870619)


Since the invention of Bitcoin in 2009, there have been countless imitators - from Bitcoin Cash to Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin SV and many more. But despite all these copies, Bitcoin itself remains the undisputed original and dominates the market capitalization of the entire crypto market.


The questions many may be asking themselves are:

  • Why has no other project yet managed to replace or even seriously threaten Bitcoin?
  • How can it be claimed that Bitcoin is absolutely limited when it could be copied an infinite number of times?


I will try to give you the answer to this question in today's article.


Bitcoin has often been copied, but never replaced

Bitcoin is an open source project - anyone can copy the source code, adapt it and create their own cryptocurrency. And that is exactly what has happened - countless times. The number of Bitcoin forks (spin-offs) is enormous. Especially in 2017, during the crypto boom, numerous "Bitcoin versions" emerged, including


  • Bitcoin Cash
  • Bitcoin Gold
  • Bitcoin Diamond
  • Bitcoin Pizza (yes, this really exists😂)
  • etc.


Nevertheless, these projects never took off. The reason? It is not enough to copy the code of Bitcoin - the essence of Bitcoin lies much deeper - not just in the code.


What makes Bitcoin unique

(1) Decentralization

Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency that is actually completely decentralized. There is no entity, no company and no leading personality that controls Bitcoin. Other projects, even the imitators, often fail because of their dependence on central developers or organizations.


(2) Network effects

Bitcoin was the first cryptocurrency and has built up by far the largest ecosystem of users, nodes and miners over the years. New projects have no chance of catching up.


Example: If you want to communicate with a friend, you use a widespread network such as WhatsApp or Telegram. There's no point in developing your own app if nobody uses it. It's the same with Bitcoin - the network effect cannot be copied.


(3) The hashrate as an energy shield

The security of Bitcoin is based on the computing power (hashrate) that protects the network. Bitcoin is the most secure computer network in the world - stronger than any other blockchain project. No altcoin can mobilize nearly as much energy to secure the network against attacks. The more energy flows into the network, the more difficult it becomes to attack Bitcoin.

An attacker alone would have to mobilize more energy than the rest of the world to compromise the network - which is practically impossible.


Physics instead of just computer science: why Bitcoin cannot be copied

A common misconception is that Bitcoin is just a technical project. In reality, its strength lies not only in computer sciencebut also in physics - more precisely in the energy generated by mining.


As a result, Bitcoin has an anchor in the real world, which also ensures that the network continues to decentralize. Energy is only ever available to a limited extent in one place, which is why mining is automatically distributed around the world. Wherever energy is generated that cannot be used in any other way, it can be mined and monetized - a possibility that did not exist before Bitcoin.


As the Proof of Work consensus mechanism is a "winner takes it all" mechanism and other projects cannot compete with Bitcoin in this respect, more and more projects are switching to other consensus mechanisms such as Proof of Stake, which are not physically secured and are therefore only on information technology based only on information technology.

However, these consensus mechanisms are not comparable to Bitcoin in terms of security.


Proof of Stake, for example, rewards those who already own large quantities of coins, which leads to a concentration of assets and a centralized decision-making structure in the long term. An example of this is the concentration of control over validators in Ethereum after the switch to Proof of Stake.


Bitcoin is therefore practically invulnerable and uncopyable thanks to its "energy shield" - in stark contrast to altcoins, which are based purely on IT.


Other cryptocurrencies such as $ETH (+0,09%) for example, are coming under increasing competitive pressure from other, sometimes faster or cheaper coins such as $SOL (-0,23%)

In this case, one non-decentralized project faces competition from another, even less decentralized project.


The altcoins are therefore competing with each other. However, nothing comes close to Bitcoin because none of these other projects can even come close to the security and decentralization of Bitcoin. And security is the most important feature of a monetary network, which is what gives the whole thing trust - and therefore value.


What I simply want to say is:

-> Computer science can be copied, physics cannot.


The "mindblow": Bitcoin can copy, but cannot be copied

Bitcoin has an amazing ability: it can adopt good features of other cryptocurrencies, but cannot be copied itself.


While it is not possible for other projects to copy Bitcoin, as the physical layer cannot be copied, Bitcoin itself can very well adopt properties of other coins that are based purely on information technology based purely on computer science.


Taproot and SegWit show how Bitcoin integrates new technologies. While other coins advertise new functions such as smart contracts or fast payments as a unique selling point, Bitcoin integrates these features via soft forks or 2nd layer technologies such as the Lightning Network while remaining built on its solid foundation.


Bitcoin can therefore adopt future altcoin use cases - if they are found - which makes altcoins virtually obsolete.


Conclusion

Bitcoin is more than just code. It is a unique interplay of technology, energy and global acceptance that no other project can replicate.


There may be many copies, but only one true Bitcoin. And that's not just because of the computer science, but because of the fundamental principles and ecosystem that make Bitcoin a distinctive, uncopyable network.


Have a nice day!✌️🧡

attachment

#bitcoin

105
55 Commenti
immagine del profilo
Kate🦋@Iwamoto
7Mes
•
10
•
immagine del profilo
Dividenden-Penner@Dividenden-Penner
7Mes
Nice article, but your conclusion has a flaw: global acceptance only exists among Bitcoin fans, but not in real economic life.
As long as states do not introduce Bitcoin as a binding currency, for example, the utility value is only theoretical. But no state will do this, as it is then effectively relinquishing control over its economic sovereignty.
In this respect, Bitcoin remains in my opinion a (admittedly) highly sophisticated IT project - nothing more.
•
5
•
immagine del profilo
Stefan21@stefan_21
7Mes
@Dividenden-Penner If global acceptance for you means that states have to introduce Bitcoin as a national currency, you're right :)
But the utility value is not just theoretical - every individual, every institution and every state can already use and benefit from Bitcoin today.

However, the section in the conclusion was primarily intended to put Bitcoin in relation to altcoins. And of course Bitcoin is more accepted globally than any altcoin :D
••
immagine del profilo
V7Hodl@V7Hodl
7Mes
Awesome contribution! Thank you🧡
•
4
•
immagine del profilo
Pope Donkey XXI@DonkeyInvestor
7Mes
Thank you. Here again 21 gq coins that you can redistribute. @Kundenservice that would be a contribution to the best of, wouldn't it?
•
3
•
immagine del profilo
Christian@christian
7Mes
🤝
•
2
•
immagine del profilo
Raman Yankovich@RamanYankovich
7Mes
Nice article
•
2
•
immagine del profilo
Spar Otter@SparOtter
7Mes
Good contribution 👍🏼 But where I would at least like to initiate a discussion is your reasoning as to why Proof Of Work is better than Proof Of Stake. You write that Proof of Stake is worse because it has the risk of a centralized decision structure. My problem with these thoughts is that I think there are the same risks with proof of work. The limited energy required to mine bitcoins or validate transactions comes at a high cost, and thus offers the same risk of centralization in my eyes. In particular, if the barrier to entry continues to rise due to the high energy requirements, there will probably be fewer miners in the long term. And those that do exist will have more power in the network. So we have the same correlation between wealth and decision-making power here too. Or am I missing something with this thought?
•
2
•
immagine del profilo
Stefan21@stefan_21
7Mes
@SparOtter Thank you for your comment 🫶

With Proof of Stake, the person who already owns the most coins is rewarded.
This can be compared to voting rights in companies: The more shares you hold, the more influence you have. In Proof of Stake networks, the person with the most coins is favored because they are most often selected to add the next block and collect the reward. This leads to the rich getting richer and richer and thus gaining more power in the network in the long term.

An example with regard to Ethereum: validators can only be operated here if you own at least 32 ETH. As this is not feasible for many small investors, they give their coins to service providers. These service providers, who already manage large amounts of ETH, benefit all the more because they are selected more often due to their size, which further increases their "yield". The result? Over time, power becomes more and more concentrated in a few large players, leading to increasing centralization.

Importantly, once someone controls 51% of all ETH, they could manipulate the network at will, as no one can take that control away from them.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, is slightly different. Here, the miners have to expend energy -> the energy causes real costs. And all miners are in competition with each other. Only the miners who get the cheapest electricity are profitable. Energy is also distributed worldwide, which ensures that the network is not dependent on a single geographical or economic location. And most importantly, even if a miner were to control 51% of the hashrate today, they would not be able to maintain this control in the long term without continually expending immense energy and resources. If a miner does manage to muster 51% of the computing power (which is technically and economically virtually impossible), it would only have this control as long as another miner somewhere on the other side of the world does not plug in a new device :D
•
6
•
immagine del profilo
Spar Otter@SparOtter
7Mes
@stefan_21 Thank you for the detailed answer and explanation 🦦
•
1
•
immagine del profilo
Alex@AlixQuad3R
7Mes
🍀🫶🏻🙏🏻
•
2
•
immagine del profilo
Yuri@yuri
7Mes
Point 1. is not correct. Take a look at $KAS, a very exciting project. Fairly launched, decentralized, deflationary and technically very well versed.
•
2
•
immagine del profilo
Stefan21@stefan_21
7Mes
@yuri Kaspa also runs on PoW, but there are fundamental differences that make it impossible to compete with Bitcoin in terms of decentralization and security.

PoW networks are based on computing power, which secures them. Miners who invest their resources act economically rationally and want to use their computing power where the highest security and long-term benefits are given. This is the case with Bitcoin, by far the most established network with the highest security standard and the largest user base. No miner will risk investing their expensive hardware in a network like Kaspa, which has yet to prove itself in the long term.

Competition between two PoW networks inevitably leads to computing power being concentrated on the more profitable network. Kaspa would have no chance of competing with Bitcoin in the long term. This will either lead to Kaspa being displaced by Bitcoin, or it will centralize, leaving only a few players who can secure the network at all. (One of the reasons why ETH switched to Proof of Stake, by the way)

With Bitcoin, there are tens of thousands of nodes that can be run worldwide on affordable devices like Raspberry Pis. Anyone can set up a complete node for around 200 euros and thus contribute to the decentralization of the network. This is decentralization in its purest form.

Kaspa, on the other hand, has considerable technical requirements due to its high block rate and unlimited block size, making the operation of a node almost impossible for normal users. According to the Kaspa Wiki, a node that stores the entire blockchain already requires more than 1 TB of memory and 32 GB of RAM. As the block rate increases and the network grows, the requirements will increase exponentially, meaning that only professional hosting service providers such as AWS or Google Cloud will be able to operate such nodes. This is not true decentralization.

Kaspa - like many other projects - sacrifices decentralization for scalability. But decentralization is the foundation of a network's security and resilience. Bitcoin is deliberately designed to enable maximum decentralization, both in the use and in the security of the network. Kaspa cannot keep up here, neither technically nor structurally.

I'm not saying that you can't make money with Kaspa. I'm just saying that Kaspa is not as decentralized as is assumed and will very likely become increasingly centralized in the future and therefore simply cannot exist alongside Bitcoin in the long term.

Dear Grüße✌️
•
1
•
market_maestro_1944@market_maestro_1944
1Mes
Thanks!
•
2
•
immagine del profilo
Stefan21@stefan_21
1Mes
@market_maestro_1944 Thank you 🙏
••
immagine del profilo
Paul@Pzjs
7Mes
Bitcoin is simply not a currency and never will be, while other projects such as $ETH or $SOL can at least theoretically be considered as a currency - a means of payment. A very important point here is the lack of inflation with BTC, or worse deflation due to the possibility of losing coins forever. It is therefore theoretically conceivable that at some point BTC will no longer be accessible. A scenario that is unacceptable for currencies.
BTC may be secure, unique etc. but without any real use (means of payment can be ruled out) the date of death is already fixed.
•
1
•
immagine del profilo
Stefan21@stefan_21
7Mes
@Pzjs The fact that Bitcoin is a legal tender in El Salvador disproves your statement that it can never be a currency :D

But basically Bitcoin is not a currency, that is correct. However, Bitcoin can very well become money. However, it is important to note that money is not the same as currency. You can also take a look at my article on what money is and how Bitcoin can become money :)

Who says that there can be no economy under limited money? You can look at the entire history of mankind and see that societies have perished over and over again from inflation - but never from deflation. I realize that deflation would be poison in today's economy because everything is built on perpetual growth and cheap credit.
Nevertheless, hard money like Bitcoin would solve an incredible number of problems - including climate change. But that would go beyond the scope of this comment :)
•
1
•
immagine del profilo
Paul@Pzjs
7Mes
@stefan_21 "Societies have perished again and again due to inflation" :D Where did you get that from?
Inflation/deflation is a reaction to economic events that are also due to social or political factors but never the cause of anything. What you may mean is a collapse of a market due to hyper in/deflation. but that doesn't destroy a society.

This is not even about interest rates (which only work without inflation if the means of payment can propagate naturally) but about the fact that the means of payment must be able to react to fluctuations in supply and demand. If all conceivable goods were constant, then they could provide a constant means of payment.

Instead of Bitcoin, you could also trade in Picassos or Montes - impractical, of course - but the haptic equivalent of a Bitcoin - a unique collector's item that has value within a market.

Means of payment basically have no value themselves but a nominal if you go shopping with a 1oz Philharmonic you get goods worth 100 EUR and not goods worth 1oz of gold
••
immagine del profilo
Paul@Pzjs
7Mes
@stefan_21 ad El Salvador - You can also buy Ferraris in Bitcoin and I am convinced that you would also get one for the Mona Lisa.
But ultimately valued in fiat.
••
immagine del profilo
Stefan21@stefan_21
7Mes
@Pzjs Historically speaking, it is not quite true that inflation cannot destroy societies, but not entirely. Hyperinflation has repeatedly led to massive social and economic crises. One example of this would be the Roman Empire, which was driven into hyperinflation by, among other things, the constant devaluation of its currency. Or the hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic, which resulted in massive political and social instability. And even today, in countries such as Venezuela, we see how inflation leads to a loss of confidence in the currency and ultimately to chaos.

Deflation, on the other hand, is often misunderstood. It does not mean that everyone stops consuming. Markets such as the technology sector show that falling prices can actually encourage innovation and demand - for example, laptops or smartphones are relatively more powerful and cheaper today than they were a few years ago. In a system like Bitcoin, moderate deflation could have similar positive effects on the economy. But of course we don't know, because we have never used a deflationary monetary system anywhere.


The statement that means of payment have "no value" only applies to fiat money. Fiat money actually only has a nominal value, which is maintained by the compulsion to use it (e.g. for taxes). Gold, on the other hand, has a value due to its properties. This is why paper currencies were backed by gold for a long time, as gold, unlike paper, has monetary properties.

Bitcoin fulfills the criteria of good money: it is scarce, divisible, durable, easily transferable and safe from manipulation. Unlike fiat money, Bitcoin is not backed by state authority, but by free market acceptance.

Bitcoin already reacts to changes in supply and demand, but not through a manipulated money supply, but through price changes. An elastic money supply, as created by central banks, leads to uncertainty and loss of value in the long term. Bitcoin, on the other hand, remains a stable store of value due to its limitation, which creates trust - a fundamental characteristic of money.

Technological progress also ensures that goods can be produced more and more cheaply. This means that a fixed amount of money is not only sufficient, but could even lead to goods becoming cheaper over time in a Bitcoin standard - a natural and logical process.

The point that interest rates would not work without a flexible money supply is a common misconception. Interest is the price of borrowed money and can exist even in a system with a limited money supply - it would simply regulate itself through supply and demand.

Currently, interest rates are set by central banks, which is a form of planned economy. Historically, planned economies have rarely worked, as a central authority can never have all the relevant information to make an optimal decision. Bitcoin solves this problem by not requiring central control due to its decentralized nature.
•
1
•
immagine del profilo
Stefan21@stefan_21
7Mes
@Pzjs Of course, everything is currently still valued in fiat. Should Bitcoin ever become money, goods and services would be priced in Bitcoin :)
••
immagine del profilo
Paul@Pzjs
7Mes
@stefan_21 ad interest if there are 10 money and I lend them 10 money for 10% then they have to find 1 money somewhere to pay the costs.
But if only 10 money exist they can never pay back 1 money unless our money is e.g. 9 cows and a bull and then they give me back 9 cows, 1 bull and a calf.
Alternatively - I expand the money supply and bring 1 more money into circulation - cet par, inflation 10% and they have a fair chance to make an effort to find this 1 money.
••
immagine del profilo
Stefan21@stefan_21
7Mes
@Pzjs If I lend them 10 money and they have to pay 1 money in interest, they can earn the extra money by creating added value in the economy. For example, by producing goods or providing services. The key point is that it is not necessary to create additional "money", it is sufficient that value is generated by the market.

In this case, the lender naturally has a higher default risk, which is why a higher market interest rate is created. To think that more money has to be created in order to make a credit transaction possible is not correct.
•
2
•
immagine del profilo
Paul@Pzjs
7Mes
@stefan_21 Inflation historically or currently occurs when you either increase the money supply or reduce the goods - then you have an imbalance between the medium of exchange and the available goods. The medium of exchange is automatically revalued and you receive fewer goods for more of the medium of exchange. Again, they have a problem if they cannot expand the medium of exchange further.
The crises you are referring to are not caused by inflation or deflation but by more fundamental problems in the market, political or social upheavals, e.g. wars, environmental disasters, epidemics, etc....
Central banks try to ensure price stability by adjusting the money supply in order to cushion the above effects. Otherwise, they might have to create additional problems on top of the existing ones.
Please read for yourself what is generally understood by "planned economy", but I assume that this was meant in an exaggerated way.
••
immagine del profilo
Stefan21@stefan_21
7Mes
@Pzjs First of all, I agree with you that inflation occurs when the money supply grows faster than the quantity of available goods. This imbalance causes money to lose value. However, I disagree with the statement that the medium of exchange "must be expanded further". In a system with a hard-limited money supply like Bitcoin, this is not necessary. Instead, the market adjusts via falling prices - i.e. deflation. This may sound unusual because we live in an inflationary economy, but deflation is not necessarily negative. It can encourage saving and promote a more efficient use of resources. This would also benefit our environment.

As far as the causes of crises are concerned, I agree with you that social and political upheavals such as wars or environmental disasters have a massive impact on markets. But the crucial question is how such shocks can be cushioned by a monetary system. In a fiat system, attempts are often made to compensate for the effects by expanding the money supply. However, this often leads to further problems, such as growing wealth inequality due to the Cantillon effect. A hard money system like Bitcoin would minimize such artificial interventions and leave more room for market mechanisms to self-regulate. In a deflationary system, people would be more frugal from the ground up due to lower money preference. Crises would then hit people with savings, which would cushion the effects of crises. Furthermore, expensive wars would presumably no longer be possible in a Bitcoin state, as they could not be financed.

You also talk about the task of central banks to ensure price stability. This is plausible in theory, but problematic in practice. Central banks distort the market through their interventions, as it is impossible for them to know or precisely control all the relevant variables. And for me, this is definitely a planned economy - even if it is, of course, an exaggeration.

A small group makes decisions that influence the entire market without having the necessary information. In a free market, the price of money - i.e. the interest rate - would be regulated by supply and demand, not by a central authority that often only acts reactively. History shows that central banks often cause more damage than they prevent.
•
2
•
immagine del profilo
Paul@Pzjs
7Mes
@stefan_21 The unequal distribution is not a problem of the medium of exchange - they can distribute everything unequally, whether BTC, USD, works of art or commodities is irrelevant.
They currently have 280k BTC in MSTR alone while the majority don't even own a SAT. Together with Tesla and a few others, they would have enough leverage to exert massive influence on the market.
The problem with limited goods (such as BTC) is that they are hoarded so that availability can be artificially restricted or the market can be flooded. This means you are directly intervening in a market. If they withdraw a significant amount of money from a market or flood the market, the regulative is to switch to a more liquid (reaction to deflation) or more stable (reaction to inflation) currency.

Central banks reduce or accelerate the expansion of the money supply through interest rates without (usually) directly increasing or decreasing liquidity. The fixed interest rate motivates or discourages the desire to create money. If you go to your bank and want a loan, the bank creates money by expanding the balance sheet and credits it to you. As soon as you have repaid the loan, the money disappears again, the bank's balance sheet total decreases again and what remains is the interest that you were hopefully able to "find" somewhere. However, the money was not created by "the small group at the central bank" who merely set the interest rate and influenced their personal decision whether to take out the loan or not.
••
Visualizza un'altra risposta
immagine del profilo
Gernhard@Gernhard_Reinholzen
7Mes
Re 1: Many aspects are fairly centralized. Each individual aspect also entails risks.

A) The hashpower: The two largest mining pools control 53% of the hashpower. The top five mining pools control 82% of the hashpower. Source: mempool.space

B) Bitcoin trading: A few exchanges control the majority of global trading volume. Source: coinmarketcap.com

C) Ownership: Satoshi has about 5% of the BTC supply. Institutional Bitcoin holding is growing. The top 100 addresses control approx. 9% of the available BTC. Source: coinlore.com richlist

D) Mining hardware: There are only 3-4 relevant Bitcoin mining hardware manufacturers, of which Bitmain is by far the leader. Most large pools are probably used by Antminer. I could not find any reliable figures on this.
•
1
•
immagine del profilo
Stefan21@stefan_21
7Mes
@Gernhard_Reinholzen
About the mining pools:
The mining pools are service providers that merely bundle the hashrate of the miners and distribute the block rewards. The actual power lies with the miners themselves, as they can change the pool at any time if it acts against the interests of the network (e.g. in the event of a 51% attack or the censorship of transactions). Historically, there was a case in 2014 where GHash.io reached over 50% of the hashrate, but the community reacted quickly and miners switched to other pools. After all, no miner is interested in destroying their own business model :)

Trading volume on exchanges:
Exchanges have no influence on the decentralization of the network, as Bitcoin can be traded peer-to-peer - without central platforms. Exchanges can fail or be abused, but this has no impact on the integrity of the network itself. Bitcoin remains independent no matter what happens to the exchanges. FTX sends its regards haha😂

On ownership:
Unlike Proof of Stake, there are no additional rights for large holders in Bitcoin. Regardless of whether someone owns 0.001 BTC or 1,000 BTC - the protocol treats everyone equally. Wealth does not confer any power over the network, which makes Bitcoin fundamentally different from other projects such as ETH.

Mining hardware:
It is true that a few companies like Bitmain dominate the manufacturing of mining equipment. However, this does not affect decentralization, as miners have the freedom to choose their hardware and new market participants are constantly entering the market. Competition is also forcing manufacturers to be transparent. Bitmain, for example, has disclosed parts of its code in order to create trust. Even in the unlikely event that a manufacturer installs a backdoor, the network would only be affected in the short term, as other miners could quickly close this gap.
•
1
•
SetSails@SetSails
7Mes
Hi @stefan_21, the discussion from @SparOtter above prompted me to have a few thoughts on which I would like to hear your / your view.

Topic SHA256 / difficulty of the task:
- Assuming it is possible to build a quantum computer that works the way it is commonly dreamed of. It can perform immense arithmetic operations in no time and without the immense energy expenditure of today's supercomputers

Aren't 2 attack vectors conceivable?

1) Loss of value through accelerated mining
- thanks to the increased computing power at lower costs

2) Vulnerability of the blockchain itself
- if I understand it correctly, the blockchain is ALSO so secure because it is virtually impossible for this to happen due to the computing power that would be required to change the blockchain.
- Of course, the blockchain is constantly copied in a decentralized manner and manipulations would therefore be detectable... But which version is the right one for security?
=> Can this not also lead to a crash of Bitcoin

Looking forward to your thoughts on this!

Thanks & regards
f
•
1
•
immagine del profilo
Stefan21@stefan_21
7Mes
@SetSails Thank you for your comment and your questions!

First of all, a brief digression on quantum computers and SHA-256:
An attack on SHA-256 would theoretically be possible via the Grover algorithm, which reduces the complexity of a brute force attack from 2^256 to 2^128. However, this would require at least 128 error-corrected logical qubits - which would require millions of physical qubits. Current quantum computers only have 50-400 physical qubits, without error correction. So we are decades away from SHA-256 being compromised - if it ever becomes possible. This threat is often overestimated and is not a realistic scenario in the near future. :)

To your first question:
Bitcoin is designed to automatically adjust its mining difficulty every 2016 blocks (approximately every two weeks). Should a quantum computer be able to mine more efficiently than current ASIC devices, the difficulty would be increased accordingly. Only one block would still be found every ten minutes. This would not "speed up" mining, but simply make it more expensive because more computing power would be required.

The second point:
Bitcoin is based on the principle that any manipulation of a block invalidates the hash and is therefore rejected by the nodes. Even if an attacker were to manipulate and re-mine not just one block, but all subsequent blocks as well, they would still need more than 50% of the total computing power to control the longest chain (51% attack). However, this is extremely unlikely, as honest miners would also have access to quantum computers and the attacker would have to permanently have more power than all the others combined.

Bitcoin is therefore also designed to be robust against quantum computers. Should quantum computers actually become realistically powerful at some point, the network could also switch to quantum-safe algorithms through updates such as soft forks.

Hope that answers your questions! If you have any more, please let me know! :)

Greetings ✌️
••
immagine del profilo
JoniBaboni ✅@BisInDieLetzteFussnote
7Mes
Okay, I get it, it's very difficult to just copy. But what is the point of Bitcoin? It's all well and good that something pointless can't be copied. Don't get me wrong, I've made a very nice profit with Bitcoin in the last few months, but betting on this pyramid scheme in the long term is fatal... so don't lie to yourselves. Enjoy the profits, but stay careful!!!
•
1
•
immagine del profilo
Stefan21@stefan_21
7Mes
@BisInDieLetzteFussnote Greetings dich🙋‍♂️
Bitcoin is neither a pyramid scheme nor pointless. It's a shame that you have such a biased opinion. I would love to convince you otherwise, but my experience shows that these discussions usually lead nowhere.
However, if you are interested in a constructive exchange, please feel free to contact me.
•
1
•
immagine del profilo
JoniBaboni ✅@BisInDieLetzteFussnote
7Mes
@stefan_21 I'm really seriously trying to get my head around it and keep trying again and again... Do you have a video where it's well explained?
••
immagine del profilo
JoniBaboni ✅@BisInDieLetzteFussnote
7Mes
@stefan_21 Or what is the point from your point of view?
••
immagine del profilo
Stefan21@stefan_21
7Mes
@BisInDieLetzteFussnote I don't think it's possible to name a single video that fully explains Bitcoin. The topic is far too extensive for that. However, I can highly recommend this to get you started:

https://youtu.be/kDM-tu4SYO8?si=C-VgFeaQKpny4exP

It only takes a little over 30 minutes and at least it conveys the characteristics of Bitcoin very well :)
•
1
•
immagine del profilo
Stefan21@stefan_21
7Mes
@BisInDieLetzteFussnote Extremely abbreviated:
To understand the "meaning" of Bitcoin, you have to understand what problem(s) it solves in the first place.

One of these is the so-called "double spend problem".
If I have a coin or a banknote and give it to you, then you have it and I no longer have it -> logical at first.
But what about information? For example, if I have an idea and share it with you, we both have this idea. That is the reason why the internet can transfer information and not values.
Bitcoin has solved this problem and is therefore, if you like, "The Internet of Money".
It enables permissionless P2P transactions without a middleman.

Another problem that Bitcoin has solved is the so-called "oracle problem".
Whenever we rely on external data, such as account balances, deposit values or payment service providers, we are dependent on the integrity of this data.
How can I be sure that my PayPal account balance really exists? - I have to trust Paypal. How can I be sure that the gold I purchased via ETN through my broker is really there? I have to trust the bank. How can I be sure that the bank has my money that is shown on my account balance? Not at all, I have to trust the bank to have it when I need it.
Bitcoin has solved this problem because there is a publicly accessible cash book in which everything can be traced and because all information in the Bitcoin network is only generated within the network. So nobody can enter data from outside that people would have to rely on and could be wrong - sounds weird now, but it's true.

Furthermore, Bitcoin has the properties of a perfect store of value (as you will see in the video) - that's why I won't write anything more about it now.

Then Bitcoin creates financial inclusion.
For the first time, Bitcoin gives everyone with internet access the opportunity to participate in a global monetary network - regardless of nationality, income, sexuality or political affiliation. There are no banks that can deny you an account and no one who can block transactions.
This means that even people in regions without access to traditional financial systems - in developing countries, for example - can suddenly become part of the global economy and also protect themselves from highly inflationary national currencies.

These were just a few examples of the purpose of Bitcoin. I think I could probably write a book about it😂
•
1
•
immagine del profilo
V7Hodl@V7Hodl
7Mes
@stefan_21 I watched the video - I thought it was really great. I've rarely seen someone explain such complex topics in such an easy-to-understand way.
I'll also watch/listen to his other videos later on
•
1
•
immagine del profilo
Stefan21@stefan_21
7Mes
@V7Hodl Do that, the videos are all great. I can also highly recommend his book :)
•
1
•
Stylianos K.@KapelakisGroup
7Mes
Thanks! 👍
•
1
•
immagine del profilo
Carsten@Carsten1970
7Mes
Bookmarked. Super written.
•
1
•
immagine del profilo
Leo@Lionpt180
6Mes
Thanks!
•
1
•
immagine del profilo
Marcie@Marcie
5Mes
Bitcoin Cash is not an imitator but was created during a fork. I then automatically had both. Unfortunately, I sold everything for a few thousand euros in 2017 and have been trying to accumulate some Bitcoin again since 2021. When it "recently" stood at 15T, I was unfortunately too cowardly.🤷🏼‍♂️
•
1
•
immagine del profilo
Stefan21@stefan_21
5Mes
@Marcie The imitators listed were all forks :) "Copycats" because all these forks were created by groups that thought they could change Bitcoin in their favor. But you can't copy Bitcoin.
Of course, 15k would have been the perfect floor - but as we all know, you never hit it. I now always recommend savings plans to accumulate Bitcoin. That way, you take the emotion out of it a little and enjoy both rising and falling prices.
••
Joseph@Ball
6Mes
Lol
••
immagine del profilo
Stefan21@stefan_21
6Mes
••
Utente eliminato
7Mes
Il commento è stato cancellato
Visualizza tutti 6 ulteriori risposte
Utente eliminato
6Mes
Il commento è stato cancellato
Mostra la risposta
Partecipa alla conversazione
IscrivitiAccesso