3Semana
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.
••
1Semana
@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/
••
1Semana
@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
•1Semana
@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?
••
1Semana
@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?
••
1Semana
@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^^
••
1Semana
@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".
••
1Semana
@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.
••
@stefan_21 Unfortunately, this message also lacks any substantive value. Without backing it up with facts, it remains completely irrelevant what you think is "garbage". Your camp thinking only confirms how subjective your approach is. I don't belong to any "camp" - and in your own definition, I therefore can't be "wrong".
The network effect is a completely unrealistic metric. Everything in history books today had a major "network effect" at some point.
Kaspa's node requirements are extremely low. You're confusing nodes with archival nodes again; as a bitcoiner, you're obviously not familiar with the concept of pruning. Since it's been explained to you dozens of times but you still don't want to understand/accept it, I assume it can't be added to your memorized "there is no second best" phrases.
Bitcoin is technically outdated: It barely manages around 300k transactions per day, is slow and due to layer 2 solutions like Coinbase & Co. the network will lose the budget to maintain its security in two to three epochs. Whether you think this is "nonsense" or not doesn't matter - code is code, facts are facts.
By deliberately twisting and obfuscating these points, you are knowingly spreading misinformation. But you're lucky, your bubble will take a long time to come to its senses, then hopefully they won't forget what you've done.
The network effect is a completely unrealistic metric. Everything in history books today had a major "network effect" at some point.
Kaspa's node requirements are extremely low. You're confusing nodes with archival nodes again; as a bitcoiner, you're obviously not familiar with the concept of pruning. Since it's been explained to you dozens of times but you still don't want to understand/accept it, I assume it can't be added to your memorized "there is no second best" phrases.
Bitcoin is technically outdated: It barely manages around 300k transactions per day, is slow and due to layer 2 solutions like Coinbase & Co. the network will lose the budget to maintain its security in two to three epochs. Whether you think this is "nonsense" or not doesn't matter - code is code, facts are facts.
By deliberately twisting and obfuscating these points, you are knowingly spreading misinformation. But you're lucky, your bubble will take a long time to come to its senses, then hopefully they won't forget what you've done.
••
@ordinemo Unfortunately, you don't seem to be able to accept other opinions and think you've found the absolute truth^^ That's why it's impossible to have a normal discussion with you on an equal footing, because you don't respond to what I say and instead quickly become very emotional and confrontational.
But why is that so difficult for you if you are so open and don't belong to any camp? My interest in discussing things with you is therefore unfortunately very limited. Which is a shame, because I already perceived you as someone with a deep technical understanding.
You could ask the AI which networks/protocols have prevailed over the supposedly technically better competition in the past due to network effects. There are a few examples. Why did the Microsoft operating system prevail over Apple? Why TCP/IP before OSI?
To think that network effects are an unrealistic metric is to miss the point.
Well, how self-sufficient are you if your pruned node hasn't saved your old UTXOs and you have to rely on a few archival nodes? That's actually my main problem with pruned nodes. There's no more "Don't trust, verify". In addition, when I talk about node requirements, I'm clearly not just talking about storage space - the bandwidth required is also a problem. Or do you see it differently? That would seriously interest me. Precisely because you talk about "facts are facts".
As I have already explained to you several times, it is possible to scale on additional layers. What is not possible, however, is to ensure security and decentralization on additional layers. The Bitcoin main layer is a settlement layer and does not claim to carry out more transactions because there is no need to do so. Layer 2/3 solutions must always be settled on the main layer. As I have already said, the BTC blockchain can best be compared to something like FED Wire.
If the Bitcoin main layer as a technology is still not sufficiently utilized in 2 to 3 epochs, we may have a problem with the budget. I agree and I've told you that before. But Kaspa also has this problem and is at risk much faster due to the high block rate. Bitcoin is deliberately developing so slowly and sluggishly. This is a feature, not a bug.
A non-state money must first logically establish itself as a store of value before it can be used on a large scale as a transaction medium. This is pure game theory and Austrian economics - without a store of value function, there is no sustainable demand from the masses. Without mass demand, there is no reason for people to offer their services for this money. If people offer their services and it is used as a means of transaction, it can also become a unit of account. It only works this way.
Bitcoin is in the process of establishing itself as a store of value. We will see whether BTC makes the leap to a means of transaction. If it does make the leap, the budget won't matter.
But why is that so difficult for you if you are so open and don't belong to any camp? My interest in discussing things with you is therefore unfortunately very limited. Which is a shame, because I already perceived you as someone with a deep technical understanding.
You could ask the AI which networks/protocols have prevailed over the supposedly technically better competition in the past due to network effects. There are a few examples. Why did the Microsoft operating system prevail over Apple? Why TCP/IP before OSI?
To think that network effects are an unrealistic metric is to miss the point.
Well, how self-sufficient are you if your pruned node hasn't saved your old UTXOs and you have to rely on a few archival nodes? That's actually my main problem with pruned nodes. There's no more "Don't trust, verify". In addition, when I talk about node requirements, I'm clearly not just talking about storage space - the bandwidth required is also a problem. Or do you see it differently? That would seriously interest me. Precisely because you talk about "facts are facts".
As I have already explained to you several times, it is possible to scale on additional layers. What is not possible, however, is to ensure security and decentralization on additional layers. The Bitcoin main layer is a settlement layer and does not claim to carry out more transactions because there is no need to do so. Layer 2/3 solutions must always be settled on the main layer. As I have already said, the BTC blockchain can best be compared to something like FED Wire.
If the Bitcoin main layer as a technology is still not sufficiently utilized in 2 to 3 epochs, we may have a problem with the budget. I agree and I've told you that before. But Kaspa also has this problem and is at risk much faster due to the high block rate. Bitcoin is deliberately developing so slowly and sluggishly. This is a feature, not a bug.
A non-state money must first logically establish itself as a store of value before it can be used on a large scale as a transaction medium. This is pure game theory and Austrian economics - without a store of value function, there is no sustainable demand from the masses. Without mass demand, there is no reason for people to offer their services for this money. If people offer their services and it is used as a means of transaction, it can also become a unit of account. It only works this way.
Bitcoin is in the process of establishing itself as a store of value. We will see whether BTC makes the leap to a means of transaction. If it does make the leap, the budget won't matter.
••