If you want to trade Bytecoin on Poloniex, you’re going to have to wait a significant amount of time, CCN has learned.

This reporter decided to enter the BCH pre-fork trading at the exchange and wanted to use his Bytecoin holdings as part of that process. He withdrew them from where they were held and properly made the deposit, using the payment ID required by Poloniex and paying the requisite transaction fees. Hours after other deposits had cleared and coins had been converted to pre-fork BCHABC and BCHSV tokens, the Bytecoin had still not arrived.

In Bytecoin standard transactions, 10 confirmations is considered confirmed. This is 4 more than most cryptocurrencies, and occasionally blocks hang for sometime as a result of a sometimes unreliable mining network which switches between Monero, Bytecoin, and other CryptoNight coins. So after somewhere between 6 and 10 hours, this reporter became concerned.

Had he clipped the payment ID or the address, or something? Entirely possible. So he checks – no, that’s correct. Not seeing the deposit, he contacted Poloniex support, and got the following response:

Hi Paul,

Thanks for reaching out!

The minimum confirmations for BCN have been increased temporarily (to 2000) due to network instability. As a result, BCN deposits may take longer than usual to be available.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us again.


Poloniex Support Team

3.5 Day Deposit

2000 confirmations. At time of writing, Bytecoin had about 24 blocks in the past hour. Sometimes they happen within a minute of each other, and sometimes they happen hours apart. But if 24/hour is a normal rate, that would mean a deposit time of nearly 84 hours – 3 ½ days.

The author’s deposit was not even halfway there at time of writing.

Poloniex is one of the major exchanges that lists Bytecoin, but not the only. Had the author known of the “temporary” change in confirmation requirement, which support did not explain in any more detail, he could have used another such exchange to convert to BCH in advance of the fork. As things stand, he might be cutting it mightily close.

For those wondering what Bytecoin is, it is the first implementation of the CryptoNight/CryptoNoteprotocol. Initially, Monero was a fork of Bytecoin, although at this point it would be fair to say that Monero has taken the lead in terms of development in both technical and market manners. Both coins are considered “privacy coins.”

Credit: CCN

Ripple’s XRP token has a posted a 6 percent profit to establish a fresh weekly high towards $0.534. The bullish behavior also got the coin close to replacing Etherum as the second-largest cryptocurrency by market cap.


The XPR/USD value appreciated from 0.506-fiat to 0.535-fiat on Monday. The price action underwent a weak downside correction later. It found support at 0.516-fiat and is since hinting a further upside bias. The pair is now trading at 0.532-fiat, looking to reclaim the weekly high, followed by a breakout towards 0.556-fiat, the November 6 high. The level also poses as a potential upside target for the intraday long position albeit the long-term bearish bias.

To the downside, a push below 0.516-fiat could enable the market to locate the next likely support at 0.506-fiat. The level also marks a downside target for day traders, looking to enter short positions towards the levels and generate maximum intraday profits.

Ripple-based Interbanking Corridor

Japan’s MUFG Bank on November 9 announced the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Banco Bradesco S.A., a Brazil-based banking service. The MoU discussed a partnership between the two organization to create a cross-border payment corridor that would be powered by the Ripple technology.

However, the press release about the MUFG-Bradesco partnership never elaborated which of the Ripple solution they would utilize. The San Francisco company currently offers xCurrent and xRapid solutions in its line of products. Many a time, the adoption of the xCurrent solution has been wrongly attributed to the rise in XRP value. Though, the product does not make it mandatory for participants to purchase XRP to complete a cross-border transaction. The xRapid solution, on the other hand, exclusively uses XRP tokens.

The XRP price action remained relatively calmer on the day of the announcement. Around that time, the US Dollar was posting fresher highs, as discussed in this analysis, weakening all the quoted assets, including Bitcoin and Ripple.  The XRP upsides developed only after the comments of Ripple’s CEO Brad Garlinghouse about the coin’s long-term bullish sentiments surfaced.

Ripple Better than Bitcoin and SWIFT

Amidst the rumors that Ripple was looking to partner with SWIFT, Garlinghouse cleared that the interbank messaging network was, in fact, a rival. He went on by saying that Ripple would likely replace SWIFT as the world’s leading interbank financial network.

“The technologies that banks use today that Swift developed decades ago hasn’t evolved or kept up with the market,” he said. “Swift said not that long ago they didn’t see blockchain as a solution to correspondent banking. We’ve got well over 100 of their customers saying they disagree.”

The CEO also projected XRP as a better currency than Bitcoin. He said that their money is 1,000 times cheaper and faster than the world’s leading crypto-asset. The comments came after the rumors about White House looking to pit XRP against Bitcoin surfaced last month.

Credit: CCN

Bitcoin kicked off the week by erasing gains made during the weekend, falling 1 percent against the US Dollar.

Bitcoin Relinquishes Hard-Fought Gains

The BTC/USD pair stayed depressed despite an upside attempt, printing intraday lows near 6319-fiat against the high at 6384-fiat. The breakdown action in the European forex market helped the dollar establish its 16-month high. Due to the US bank holiday today, Wall Steet is bound to post lower volume, but its relevance to the overall intraday health of the greenback could surface tomorrow when the market opens.

Meanwhile, bitcoin remains dead-locked under the giant bearish trendline discussed on plenty of occasions on CCN. Bulls’ inability to establish a concrete breakout action could lead BTC/USD to resume its downward movement. The extended declines nevertheless wake bulls around crucial support zones, the primary being around 6000-fiat. As a result, the market since September 7 is consolidating sideways within a strict trading range — defined by 100-period SMA as resistance and 6067-fiat as support.


As of now, the RSI and Stochastic on daily charts are looking to post more losses. There is a bullish trendline forming in near-term as depicted in orange in the chart above. Bears could look to attempt a small breakdown action after breaking it to the downside, only to retest 6204-fiat as support. At the said level, the market could see more long actions, pushing the BTC/USD pair back towards the 100-period SMA — which is coinciding with the giant descending trendline these days.

However, an intraday outlook is important for traders willing to open and close their positions on the same day of trading. Have a look.

BTC/USD Intraday Analysis

We are in the last leg of the Fibonacci retracement swing from 6540-high to 6271-low, and the BTC/USD pair is looking to extend its downside action towards 6271-fiat after rejecting bulls near 6374-fiat multiple times. That makes the latter our interim resistance and former our interim support for the rest of the US trading session.

That said, a pullback from 6374-fiat has enabled us to enter a short position towards 6271-fiat. Similarly, a bounce-back action from 6271-fiat will allow us to go long towards 6374-fiat. In both cases, maintaining a stop loss order just 3-4 pips against the direction of the price action would protect the trades from unexpected losses.

A breakout action, such that BTC/USD breaks above 6360-6384 resistance area, would have us open a long position 6437-fiat — also because we expect the market to complete the inverse H&S pattern. A stop-loss order just 3-pips below the entry point will define our risk management talent.

A breakdown action below 6271-fiat, in the meantime, would have us withdraw from the market for a while.

Credit : CCN

MKR.tools creator Mike McDonald raised a celebratory alarm on Twitter yesterday morning. According to the Ethereum blockchain, about 1 million ether  – or almost 1 percent of the total Ethereum supply – is presently locked in MakerDAO smart contracts.

View image on Twitter

View image on Twitter

Mike McDonald@mikeraymcdonald

There is now 1,000,000 ETH locked in @MakerDAO smart contracts as of this morning 🎉. A slight rounding error away from 1% of the total ETH supply.


103 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

MakerDAO is the project behind Dai, a second-generation stablecoin offering which very carefully enables the issuance of the US dollar on the Ethereum blockchain. The mechanics can appear complex, but Maker offers a helpful “for dummies” explanation that does not require one to be an expert economist or Ethereum developer to grasp. Author Gregory DiPrisco explains the difference between Dai and, for instance, Tether:

“You’re most likely familiar with stablecoins that hold USD in bank accounts and issue tokens on a blockchain that are ‘backed’ by these dollars. I call this legally-backed crypto, or an IOU coin, because if those bank accounts should ever be frozen or if the accountants defrauded token holders, the stablecoin now becomes an IOU on whatever’s left when they eventually get the bank accounts back (if they ever regain the bank accounts). Relying on the legal system to maintain crypto-tokens inserts an unreliable middle-man into the blockchain.”

Not All of This Ether is Contributing to Dai’s Market Cap

Although the blockchain shows around 1 million Eth locked up in Maker smart contracts, the Dai token’s market capitalization is actually somewhere around 1/3rd of that figure, at time of writing sitting around ~357,000 ETH / $72+ million.

The way the Maker system works is that users pool ether together (referred to as PETH) and are issued Dai tokens which are collateralized by the deposited ether and, through various mechanisms, are stabilized at $1. A term frequently used in these discussions is “WETH,” which is short for “wrapped Ether.” WETH is more of a concept than a product of the MakerDAO – PETH and Dai are respectively tokens issued by Maker.

A total of 967,507.91 ETH were locked in the primary Maker contract, PETH, at time of writing.

MakerDAO Dai ethereum smart contract
Source: Etherscan

A total of just over 103 million ETH have been generated since the smart contract platform’s funding and subsequent inception on July 30, 2015. This figure includes the initial 72 million coins that were issued as part of the Ethereum crowdsale or ICO-style funding mechanism that took place the year before.

ethereum supply
Source: Etherscan

Which is to say that MakerDAO, which launched the PETH token and related products near the end of last year, presently accounts for nearly one full percent of all ether in existence. While some feel that Dai’s practical applications are limited, it is taking a radical approach to a complex problem, with results that have not been overly disappointing. It has built-in mechanisms to liquidate positions which might destabilize the system at large:

“[…] there remains the possibility of the incentive structures not working as expected — especially when the price of ETH keeps dipping and its value is worth less than the amount of Dai that it is supposed to be backing. […] In this situation [undercollateralization], the Maker system triggers a liquidation of the CDP’s collateral, automatically selling it off to the highest bidders for Dai as fast as possible to recapitalize and ensure that the Dai that it issued to the original user is fully collateralized.”

It also has a massive amount of Silicon Valley venture dollars in it, after Andreessen Horowitz’s (a16z) new crypto holding fund, initially capitalized at $300 million, went into Maker to the tune of $15 million last month.

Credit: CCN

New data released by global trading and technology firm Susquehanna has revealed that the profit per month earned for mining Ethereum using a GPU mining rig has fallen as far as zero in November, down from about $150 in summer 2017.

The data indicates that in addition to the dominance of more efficient ASIC miners which dominate the Proof-of-Work mining market, GPU mining of ethereum and other cryptocurrencies is suffering from the prolonged crypto market downturn.

Impact of Downturn

In August, CCN reported that Nvidia wound up its cryptocurrency arm amidst concerns about severely diminished profitability of manufacturing GPU mining equipment in a market almost completely dominated by ASIC miners such as the Antminer series made by Bitmain. The situation continues to persist as  Susquehanna semiconductor analyst Christopher Rolland quoted in a CNBC report recently stated that the company’s crypto-related revenue will remain “close to zero” in Q3 2018.

Previously, ethereum mining as an auxiliary source of income using GPU mining kits could net investors up to $150 per month per mining kit. Having relatively low barriers to entry, this earned it favour with small scale entrepreneurs and crypto enthusiasts who set up small scale mining operations in everyday spaces to capitalise on the crypto boom.

According to Susquehanna however, this situation has changed completely, with GPU mining profitability falling to zero in November 2018.

Source: Susquehanna

In a note to clients on Tuesday, Susquehanna noted that the situation was caused by a unique combination of risk factors including the general crypto market downturn which has seen ethereum’s price fall 70 percent from its December all time high, and the declining competitiveness of GPU miners in the face of enhanced efficiency of ASIC miners.

Nvidia Takes a Pounding

Perhaps no market player has felt the pain of GPU mining’s declining profitability more than Nvidia, which saw its GPU manufacturing business receive an unprecedented boost with ethereum’s bull run last year. At the time, the company’s share price surged strongly on heightened demand for cryptocurrency mining equipment as investors scrambled to get a piece of the bitcoin mining pie.

Ever since the start of the bear market, however, several mining pools have left the market due to its diminished profitability and the miners left are increasingly looking to squeeze out as much efficiency as possible out of their mining rigs as small margins can often be the difference between staying profitable or going into the red from month to month. Against this backdrop, ASIC giant Bitmain has gobbled up even more of the mining market with its Antminer series, leaving GPU miners – significantly less efficient than ASIC miners – as an increasingly neglected outlier.

Despite announcing its exit from the cryptocurrency market, Nvidia continues to suffer because of its exposure to the GPU mining market, with its stock down 23 percent over the past month. Speaking in the note sent to Susquehanna clients on Tuesday Rolland said:

“We estimate very little revenue from crypto-related GPU sales in the quarter, consistent with management’s prior commentary that they were including no contribution from crypto in their C3Q18 outlook. 3Q18 mining profitability continued to decline, as Ethereum prices have fallen more than -70% since the beginning of 2018.”

Credit: CCN

Greg Maxwell made headlines recently when an e-mail he’d sent to “Fake Satoshi” Craig S. Wright was revealed to the public.

Parts of the e-mail were published on CoinGeek. Maxwell is quoted as saying:

I believe it would be adverse for interests that concern me if your influence or prominence in BCH were in any way diminished. I am not aware of how I could be of aid in repairing this situation, but it seemed to me that it would be prudent to at least offer my discreet assistance.

Here he demonstrates the principal – the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Cornell professor and frequent Bitcoin commentator Emin Gün Sirer, who has been in favor of Bitcoin Cash from early on, did not initially believe that the e-mail exchange had ever taken place.

Emin Gün Sirer


I read the supposed letter from Greg to a certain fraud. It doesn’t read like Greg’s writing, so I believe it to be a forgery.


Twitter Ads info and privacy

See Emin Gün Sirer’s other Tweets

Twitter Ads info and privacy

However, Maxwell confirmed the e-mail in a Bitcointalk post saying:

lol what. Craig Wright and Roger Ver are both conmen. Coingeek is a conman shilling platform, and their claim that [I have] “come to the realization that Bitcoin SV is the real Bitcoin,” is malicious whole cloth fabrication. Now, Is “Bitcoin SV” the real fake bitcoin (bch)? Maybe but who cares.

I think it’s unfortunate that Wright’s over the top mania is causing dissension in his bamboozled army, as having a scam run by an obvious scammer is a win-win… but it seems that there is nothing to be done for it now, the psychosis is just too strong now.

“The Psychosis Is Just Too Strong Now”

The Bitcoin Cash fork in and of itself was initially dismissed by “Bitcoin maximalists” as being unviable and doomed to long-term failure. After the initial launch of the chain and trading activity which indicated it was worth as much as 10% of Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash went through a mild depression before picking up again.

The recent debates and news of yet another hard fork have driven trading and consequent price rises have ensued. If prices hold, someone with Bitcoin Cash holdings could at least double their overall holdings in terms of USD or BTC value at the time of the fork. However, the market will then have its way with all three tokens, and there’s only at any one time so much capital in the market for experimental forks.

Maxwell would like to see the status quo of Bitcoin Cash continue, with Craig Wright at the helm. As he admits in his Bitcoin Talk post, this is because “having a scam run by an obvious scammer is a win-win.”

The use of the term “scammer” in regards to Craig Wright is a source of consternation. It could be a reference to the ongoing lawsuit by the estate of Dave Kleiman, but it’s more likely a general aspersion to the people behind the Bitcoin Cash fork as a whole. For his part, Maxwell is not a fan of any of them. For that matter, they are not generally fans of his, either, and the CoinGeek narrative of the story – in which they twist Maxwell’s words such that he has “seen the light” is representative of the views held by that group.

Credit : CCN

A recent article by Colin Kruger in the Sydney Morning Herald profiles the story of Michael Clarke, a renowned cricket captain, and a failed ICO called Global Tech Exchange (https://gttrade.io).

Global Tech was to be a cryptocurrency trading platform which had some elements of artificial intelligence and machine learning embedded in it. They were trying to raise $50 million Australian dollars to fund a customer support team along with comprehensive education and other resources.

View image on Twitter

View image on Twitter

Michael Clarke


Exciting times ahead 👌🏻👍🏻 http://gttrade.io 


102 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

They made a similar mistake to some American ICOs when they enlisted the star power of Michael Clarke, whose tweet raised the ire of some traditional financial analysts and eventually led to the local regulatory authority ASIC (Australian Securities and Investments Commission) taking a deep look at the ICO and its lack of regulatory compliance as regards things like investor protections.

Within a few months of ASIC taking notice, Global Tech called it quits and returned all funds so far collected.

Contrast With Centra Tech

This is a commendable action compared to the actions of Centra Tech, who ended up being charged with fraud and faced suit along with their celebrity endorsers Floyd Mayweather and DJ Khaled. Australian investors in Global Tech should be glad they don’t have to go through a long court process to reach a settlement with Global Tech. At the same time, there’s no evidence that the intention of Global Tech were anything less than aboveboard.

The lawsuit against Mayweather and Khaled holds them partly to blame for consumer-level investors getting involved with Centra Tech. It seems to insinuate that celebrities have a duty to only recommend good products to their followers or face consequences. After all, celebrity endorsements are an age-old marketing method, but when it comes to securities, regulated or otherwise, there is always a price to pay when things go badly.

Other Australian ICOs Thriving In Spite of Regulation

Kruger’s article doesn’t stop at profiling Clarke and Global Tech. It also reaches out to Power Ledger, a groundbreaking ICO-funded company which aims to create a truly free peer-to-peer electricity market. The POWR token currently sits at around 16 cents, down from a post-ICO high of almost $2.

Power Ledger co-founder Jemma Green told Kruger, “The work we’re doing is really mission focussed. I think that is why people have responded to us.” To date, Power Ledger has launched in several locations, and is probably one of the few out of the thousands of ICOs which will succeed long-term and stick to its stated purpose.

Credit: CCN

The price of NEM tokens (XEM) has risen some since Japanese exchange Coincheck announced that it would once again allow trading of the token, which was suspended after a hack at the exchange led to a more than half-billion dollars in tokens being stolen and systematically laundered through other exchanges.

The XEM price started picking up momentum just before the announcement. It presently sits at almost 12 cents per token with a market capitalization of nearly $1 billion, a far cry from its January high (which had built up from momentous trading throughout last December) of nearly $1.50.

nem price
Source: CoinMarketCap

NEM is 17th on the current list of tokens by market capitalization. It hit a high of $0.114 overnight, but currently sits about .007 less than that, at time of writing being worth $0.107375, marking a 16 percent gain. It beats out notable contenders like zcash by hundreds of millions of dollars.

It is always pertinent to mention in these things that liquidity may or may not exist for the total market capitalization of a given token. Only those actively and widely traded against fiat currencies can accurately be reported as having this or that market capitalization. In terms of tokens which are largely traded against larger cryptos, the reality of their market capitalization is in fact hard to gauge — prices tend to drop astronomically when sales begin to cascade. Nevertheless, that it retains a moving token a price over 10 cents despite its past problems and in the face of a massive supply (1 shy of 9 billion units) is important.

New Economy Movement

The New Economy Movement is an entirely original blockchain codebase which introduced the concept of Proof of Importance, or a system that “not only rewards those with a large account balance, but also takes into account how much they transact to others and who they transact with.”

Regardless of the token price, the business end of NEM has kept up operations and entered into several strategic partnerships, including with OATH Protocol and Portal network. They have also created a product called PUBLISH, which is supposed to be some kind of decentralized news gathering/publishing service.

Credit : CCN

Venezuela, where bitcoin trading is at an all-time high and the socialist government has issued its own cryptocurrency amid record-breaking inflation and other economic woes, has been denied access to its own gold reserves by the Bank of England. The justification used for denying the country’s request to repatriate 14 tons of gold, worth about $550 million, is that there are fears that Nicolas Maduro, president of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela and the country at large will liquidate the gold for private gain.

Bank of England Refuses to Allow Venezuela to Repatriate Gold

The gold is state property and in a sane economic model would back its failed currency. For its part, the Venezuelan government is also motivated by fear — fear that US sanctions on the country would result in freezing or even outright seizure of the gold. The news comes on the heels of Donald Trump’s additional sanctions on the Venezuelan gold industry. While the new executive order would not apply to the Bank of England, obviously the special relationship between the UK and the US gives US government policy a lot of power in such situations.

There’s a lot to digest here.

First, the government’s gold reserves are only around half a billion. One would think the numbers, despite all the problems the country is facing, would be much higher than that. True, they perhaps store their gold elsewhere as well, or have reserves by other means, but their unsophisticated approach to economic problems (printing more money with no regard to the effect it has on the country’s economic situation — a projected 1,000,000 percent inflation rate being the result) tells us that the odds of them having a vast network of funds they can tap are probably pretty bad.

Nicolas Maduro Petro
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro

Second, a sovereign state can be denied access to its own money. This very situation is at the heart of the bitcoin philosophy and technology. Bitcoin cannot be censored, and it cannot be stopped so long as there is legitimate dedication by its users to keep it going. The tired out phrase “be your own bank” shouldn’t even need to be advertised to a government of any legitimacy, but in the case of Venezuela, it would have served them well to have done so. Is the author suggesting they should have sold their physical gold for digital gold well in advance of any sanctions or fear surrounding their gold reserves? Why yes, yes he is. Gold bugs may still decline to admit that bitcoin is superior in every measurable way to both fiat cash and gold, but it’s no secret the author understands as much.

Bitcoin & the Benefit of Being One’s Own Bank

True to form and more to the point, simply transferring the gold back to Venezuela doesn’t actually do much to help the country out. Cryptocurrencies, on the other hand, are somewhat traceable and, perhaps most important, can be used in smart contracts. The UK regulatory fears that Maduro might be out to steal the gold could be true, after all, but if they were digital gold reserves tied to smart contracts, he simply wouldn’t be able to do so. It’d be an unauthorized transaction, outside the bounds of the smart contract, which regulators could have a lot of input on.

So cryptocurrency serves multiple purposes in this rather disgusting example. While it seems obvious that the highest financial authorities in Venezuela should long ago have considered cryptocurrencies an option — in ways aside from hurriedly launching the petro — there are millions of struggling people affected by the flick of the presidential or regulatory pen, be it in DC or London. Sanctions are an evil which only breed even more apparent evil in the form of street-level chaos and organized terrorism. Yet another entire generation of people will grow up with an undying hatred of the US and our foreign policy. That the Bank of England will not cite US sanctions and generally NATO feelings toward Venezuela is notwithstanding — a bank’s function is to make deposits and withdrawals, and cryptocurrency itself never asks the nature of a withdrawal or deposit (for that matter), fungibility being paramount to the success or failure of any medium of exchange.

One can only hope that other countries with similar situations to Venezuela’s and an equal distrust or animosity toward certain governments might learn from their mistakes and investigate new ways to store value such as investing in bitcoin or other fixed-supply cryptocurrencies in an effort to hedge against potential problems of this nature. The use of smart contracts to hedge against fraudulent activities would actually put them in better straits than the very countries playing schoolyard bully, whose own financial authorities operate with medieval levels of opacity.

Credit: CCN

On the Bitcoin network, whether it is a transaction worth $100 or $1 million, it costs the same miner’s fee to process the payment.

On October 16, a $194 million payment was moved on the Bitcoin network with a mere $0.1 fee nearly instantaneously. Through legacy banking systems, weeks of paperwork, days of settlement system, and a significant load of compliance work is required to clear a payment of that size.

The research of Nic Carter, a Partner at Castle Island Ventures and the co-founder of Coinmetrics.io, found that comparing Bitcoin to other cryptocurrencies and centralized systems like PayPal based on transactions per second (TPS) is inaccurate.

Why Bitcoin Comparison isn’t All That Simple

As shown by the chart below created by Carter, centralized systems like credit card network operators and Bitcoin target a different market. While credit and debit card network operators mostly focus on processing small payments at a large capacity, the users of Bitcoin tend to rely on the network for larger payments.

“Bitcoin transactions tend to be quite large. It’s hard to know the precise number, but your average transaction will be in the thousands of dollars, possibly tens of thousands. Your median transaction is well over $100,” Carter explained.

Multi-million dollar payments are quite frequently moved on the Bitcoin blockchain network, and on some occasions, as seen in the $194 million BTC payment processed last month, large net-worth investors settle substantially large payments that are rarely settled using credit cards.

In November 2015, Chinese billionaire Liu Yiqian purchased a painting worth $170 million with his American Express credit card. That is, a payment $24 million smaller than the BTC transaction settled last month. Yet, due to the rarity of the transaction, the $170 million credit card purchase was reported by mainstream media outlets and national television networks, because it is not normal for an average credit card user to purchase anything larger than $10,000 to $100,000.

“What critics miss when they fixate on TPS is the simple fact that the users of these systems tend to have a good idea of what they want from them. Low-stakes, small value transfers with some reversibility guarantees work just fine on Venmo, Paypal, or Visa. Yes — these don’t work for the unbanked, but then again virtually no financial infrastructure does. This stuff takes a long time to build, as does the trust in the system.”

Based on one metric that is TPS, Bitcoin could seem like an inferior network to centralized protocols. But, Bitcoin can process significantly large payments on the network with relative ease, which centralized systems simply cannot do due to compliance and regulatory requirements.

TPS is Not the Only Measurement

While TPS can be used as a measurement, it is one of many measurements that can be utilized to evaluate and compare payment networks.

Carter noted:

“So, in short, value transfer systems vary along at least three major axes, not just one. The response to ‘Our system does 500,000 TPS” is “at what cost?’ Are you deferring settlement? Do you have a single validator? Do you require that transactors be part of the US-controlled financial system?”

Credit : CCN