What Are the Differences? Bitcoin, Monero, Ethereum, And Other Cryptocurrencies Compared

[g-unit1111]

Can you be more specific? I did watch the John Oliver piece on crypto, but I can't remember enough to know what you're referring to. Miners aren't necessarily the ones participating in the crypto economy to a large extent. Many of them just sell the coins they mine. Can't see how miners would be hurting anyone (other than causing the price of graphics cards to go up).

I was talking about the part where he was talking about the "Blockchain Bros" and how they were about the same as rappers who were into bling and status and driving expensive luxury cars and things of that nature. I wouldn't trust these guys with a billion dollars.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Another (but not only) use is jewelry. And in that...it is worth exactly what people will pay for it.

Crypto is far worse, because there is no inherent use or value.
It is simply "what other people will pay". 100% market speculation.

There are plenty of crypto assets that have "inherent use or value". For pure currency coins the use/value can be derived from speed of transaction, ease of cross border transaction, not having to go through a financial institution, not having the transaction traceable (in the case of privacy coins). I realize some of these attributes will be worth more to some than others. There are also many utility coins, like sia which lets you pay for cloud storage and thereby has inherent use/value.

Do these uses justify the cost of these coins? Probably not. Much like how the practical applications of gold don't justify the price.

Edit: Also, gold's use in jewelry does not drive its price. It's gold's price that drives its use in jewelry.

 

[nobspls]

There is no difference. They are all worthless unless you got silly speculators and manipulators playing idiots for fools. Good luck trusting your hard earned dollars to the racketeering scheeme. All it takes for all those houses of cards to come crashing down is some hack or more advanced computing methods (like quantum computing) to crack the crypto and it would be all over. As it is well known any static defense will be defeated in time, you can bet the crypto algorithm that has to be widely distributed is not going to be able to change fast enough, so that is the static defense that will be defeated. Time is crypto's biggest enemy, whereas in fiat money, or precious/rare materials, time is actually in your favor.

 

[TJ Hooker]

All it takes for all those houses of cards to come crashing down is some hack or more advanced computing methods (like quantum computing) to crack the crypto and it would be all over. As it is well known any static defense will be defeated in time, you can bet the crypto algorithm that has to be widely distributed is not going to be able to change fast enough, so that is the static defense that will be defeated.

If something comes along with little warning that can break public key cryptography and render current cryptographic hash functions obsolete, we're all going to have a pretty bad time regardless of our involvement in cryptocurrencies. Public key cryptography in general is way more widely distributed than crypto currencies.

 

[nobspls]

It is one thing to have public key encryption broken, and quite another to have all your "value" or "storage of value" broken. Banks have operated for hundreds of years without public key encryption, the transactions will slow to crawl if you had to go back to paper copies, but no one said you had to do it that way. There will be many other crypto tech that will come along to replace that, and banks, financial institutions, etc. will have no problem moving to those alternatives, and all without impacting your "storage of value". Whereas that public ledger blockchain... you are screwed. It has no alternatives. The moment an alternative comes to existence and must be used, that means existing value has been vaporized. If you can't make the distinction, you can be go ahead be a victim.

 

[Olle P]

About value and such...
You can get a brand new canvas to paint on at about $10.
Yet there are some persons willing to spend millions of dollars to buy canvas second hand... strange.

 

[stdragon]

About value and such...
You can get a brand new canvas to paint on at about $10.
Yet there are some persons willing to spend millions of dollars to buy canvas second hand... strange.

^Rationalizing the human race is a futile effort. I gave up attempting that long ago. :lol:

 

[TJ Hooker]

It is one thing to have public key encryption broken, and quite another to have all your "value" or "storage of value" broken. Banks have operated for hundreds of years without public key encryption, the transactions will slow to crawl if you had to go back to paper copies, but no one said you had to do it that way. There will be many other crypto tech that will come along to replace that, and banks, financial institutions, etc. will have no problem moving to those alternatives, and all without impacting your "storage of value". Whereas that public ledger blockchain... you are screwed. It has no alternatives. The moment an alternative comes to existence and must be used, that means existing value has been vaporized. If you can't make the distinction, you can be go ahead be a victim.

If you're assuming that financial institutions will be able to update fast enough to avoid major issues when existing public key cryptography is broken, why can't blockchain do the same? The blockchain protocol(s) could be updated to use new quantum resistant encryption and hash functions. Both public ledger blockchains and financial institutions could even do it proactively (rather than reactively) once quantum computing starts getting sufficiently advanced.

 

[g-unit1111]

If something comes along with little warning that can break public key cryptography and render current cryptographic hash functions obsolete, we're all going to have a pretty bad time regardless of our involvement in cryptocurrencies. Public key cryptography in general is way more widely distributed than crypto currencies.

Security is just as important though. I've seen hundreds of articles about how cryptocurrency is one of the most stolen currencies out there, and unlike having actual paper money, there's no system of accountability in place to protect your cryptocurrency investment if it's indeed stolen. It's one thing to have a virtual nest egg, it's also another to make sure said nest egg isn't pecked clean by cyber thieves.

 

[TJ Hooker]

@g-unit1111 it's important to keep in mind that when cryptocurrencies get stolen, it's not the blockchain/protocol itself that gets compromised, but the user (or exchange). But you're right that personal security is very important for crypto, because a lot of security is left to the user. If you hold your crypto in your own wallet, you're basically acting as your own bank. People can steal your private keys if you store them insecurely, they can attempt to change the destination of a transaction you send if the device you're sending it from has been compromised. Crypto users are also vulnerable to phishing (although this obviously isn't unique to crypto).

If you keep your crypto on an exchange and it gets hacked, you're often screwed (unlike if someone were to rob the bank where you keep your fiat). Although some big exchanges are now insured against hacks, and in the case of a somewhat recent massive hack of the Coincheck exchange, the exchange eventually reimbursed all those affected I believe.

Edit: Another risk associated with non-privacy cryptocurrencies is that anyone can see the balance of a wallet. If you have a wallet with a large balance, that's basically puts a big target sign on you for would-be attackers. Especially if someone is able to link that wallet to your real world identity.

 

[g-unit1111]

@g-unit1111 it's important to keep in mind that when cryptocurrencies get stolen, it's not the blockchain/protocol itself that gets compromised, but the user (or exchange). But you're right that personal security is very important for crypto, because a lot of security is left to the user. If you hold your crypto in your own wallet, you're basically acting as your own bank. People can steal your private keys if you store them insecurely, they can attempt to change the destination of a transaction you send if the device you're sending it from has been compromised. Crypto users are also vulnerable to phishing (although this obviously isn't unique to crypto).

If you keep your crypto on an exchange and it gets hacked, you're often screwed (unlike if someone were to rob the bank where you keep your fiat). Although some big exchanges are now insured against hacks, and in the case of a somewhat recent massive hack of the Coincheck exchange, the exchange eventually reimbursed all those affected I believe.

Edit: Another risk associated with non-privacy cryptocurrencies is that anyone can see the balance of a wallet. If you have a wallet with a large balance, that's basically puts a big target sign on you for would-be attackers. Especially if someone is able to link that wallet to your real world identity.

That is one thing I'd be really interested in is how the insurance industry handles big blockchain and hacking scams aimed specifically at crypto traders. The thing is the thieves aren't going after a user's home mining operation. Sure they could, but they're targeting the big money, gigantic bitcoin trading factories like you see on TV, since they can have hundreds if not thousands of transactions going on simultaneously. I would think that would make it a far more likely target for thieves than some guy who owns a few shares and an RX-580.

 

[stdragon]

It's like any other computer based theft where PEBKAC due to social engineering. It's pretty hard to engineer security where a user goes out of his/her way to disable it in order to achieve an objective he/she believes is in their own interest.

Until people can learn "defensive computing" to validate rather than implicitly trust, they'd be better off computing on an Etch A Sketch.

 

[USAFRet]

It's pretty hard to engineer security where a user goes out of his/her way to disable it in order to achieve an objective he/she believes is in their own interest.

Until people can learn "defensive computing" to validate rather than implicitly trust, they'd be better off computing on an Etch A Sketch.

ex: Win 10 updates.

 

[nobspls]

If you're assuming that financial institutions will be able to update fast enough to avoid major issues when existing public key cryptography is broken, why can't blockchain do the same? The blockchain protocol(s) could be updated to use new quantum resistant encryption and hash functions.

LOL.... Changing the blockchain after it is out there in wild between millions of compute nodes is simply nuts. How are all the existing ASICs out there doing the crypto mining going to adjust whole new algorithms. Did you fail to learn anything from Bitcoin and Bitcoin cash hard fork? Good luck trying to convert one to the other easily. Why would anyone trust either one after that is beyond me. BTW they better start hawking that quantum resistant blockchain crypto algorithm now for that new quantum resistance currency now. Get the gullible people to jump on, they might have a chance for a bit longer.

More over who is to say financial institutions, government backed entities would even use public key encryption in long run? Your visa/master card transactions do not need public key encryption to operate at point of sale registers, and they didn't bother with it for decade until sales went online. And they only use it because all existing web framework in place makes it convenient and cost effective to do so for now. The institutions with centralized control can easily impose 2 factor authentication and they themselves will be the central authenticating and authorizing authority.

Whereas blockchain and public ledgers have no such options, because they trust no one. And it naturally follows no one should trust blockains to be keeper of value for any significant amount of time.

 

[TJ Hooker]

LOL.... Changing the blockchain after it is out there in wild between millions of compute nodes is simply nuts. How are all the existing ASICs out there doing the crypto mining going to adjust whole new algorithms. Did you fail to learn anything from Bitcoin and Bitcoin cash hard fork? Good luck trying to convert one to the other easily. Why would anyone trust either one after that is beyond me. BTW they better start hawking that quantum resistant blockchain crypto algorithm now for that new quantum resistance currency now. Get the gullible people to jump on, they might have a chance for a bit longer.

Based on your own example of bitcoin cash, it is clearly possible to implement changes in the blockchain protocol after the network is out in the wild with many users. You realize hardforks aren't necessarily a bad thing right? In fact, they're often a planned part of blockchain development with hardforks corresponding to major update rollouts (see ethereum hardfork history and roadmap). If the changes are contentious, yes there would be a chain split (e.g. bitcoin cash, or ethereum classic). Although I don't know who would be opposed to a hypothetical protocol change that would protect the network from being overrun by quantum computers (or whatnot). There are other examples of hardforks that didn't result in controversy and chain splits, e.g. the recent monero hardfork to kill monero ASICs. I'm not sure what I am supposed to have learned from the bitcoin cash split regarding this issue; why is the inability to convert BCH to BTC (or vice versa) relevant?

You're right that existing ASIC miners would cease to function after such a change, but that's only an issue for coins that are majority ASIC mined. There are plenty of GPU-mined (or even CPU-mined) coins out there. And non-PoW coins obviously wouldn't be affected in this regard.

The institutions with centralized control can easily impose 2 factor authentication and they themselves will be the central authenticating and authorizing authority.

NIST has already deemed SMS 2FA insecure, and other popular forms of 2FA like google authenticator (or similar), or hardware tokens, etc. still use cryptographic hash functions to derive time-based one time passwords. Which means that they'd still potentially be susceptible to someone with a quantum computer capable of reversing existing cryptographic hash functions.

 

[nobspls]

...NIST has already deemed SMS 2FA insecure, ....

As expected, yep, more FUD from the crypto hype specialist. Try reading carefully for a change see:
https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/25/nist-declares-the-age-of-sms-based-2-factor-authentication-over/

It is 2 factor over SMS, because SMS has not been secure for decades even before 2016. And to smear that as if all 2 factor is insecure is just bogus.

Who is to say future 2 factor won't require quantum entanglement to defeat quantum computers? But I can bet that your blockchain, bitcoin, bit coin cash, etherium, and other number numerous crypto coupons (calling them currency is an insult to real currency) scams sure won't be getting that upgrade for security any time soon.

Heck the fact that there is a wide variety of crypto currency renders the large majority of them to be about as valuable as coupons and cereal box tokens. Heck even the Chuck E. Cheese token can be expected to hold more value, and can actually be turned in for real money.

 

[TJ Hooker]

...NIST has already deemed SMS 2FA insecure, ....

Try reading carefully for a change see:
https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/25/nist-declares-the-age-of-sms-based-2-factor-authentication-over/

It is 2 factor over SMS, because SMS has not been secure for decades even before 2016. And to smear that as if all 2 factor is insecure is just bogus.

Err, what? I said that using SMS for 2FA is insecure according to NIST, how is that any different than what you or that article are saying? And I did not act as though the fact that SMS 2FA is insecure makes all other 2FA insecure. I comment on other 2FA on their own merits starting literally the next word after the end of the quote you snipped out of the first sentence of the last paragraph of my post. That might be the most transparent straw-man argument I've ever seen.

Here's what that article says regarding other forms of 2FA:
"The alternative is to use a dedicated 2FA app like Google Authenticator or RSA SecurID, or a dedicated secure device like a dongle. There are plenty of options — SMS was just the easy one."

As I already pointed out, those other methods rely on taking a private key and a timestamp and hashing them to produce a temporary code. If someone has a quantum computer capable of reversing existing hash functions, then if they were to intercept the code you send during login they could potentially obtain your private key and therefore start generating codes going forward the same as the legitimate 2FA user. Meaning that if such technology (capable of reversing hash functions) were to exist then I believe that other forms of 2FA would be vulnerable to possible interception, which is the similar to the reason that NIST recommends against SMS 2FA in the first place (risk of interception/redirection). That's my understanding of it anyway, it's entirely possible I'm missing something here.

Who is to say future 2 factor won't require quantum entanglement to defeat quantum computers? But I can bet that your blockchain, bitcoin, bit coin cash, etherium, and other number numerous crypto coupons (calling them currency is an insult to real currency) scams sure won't be getting that upgrade for security any time soon.

Ok, so you don't think that blockchains will be updated to deal with quantum computers. Given that the debate we're having (or at least part of it) is 'will blockchains be updated to deal with quantum computers', simply stating that they won't be based on nothing but your own beliefs is just begging the question.

As expected, yep, more FUD from the crypto hype specialist.

I wasn't aware I'm the "crypto hype specialist". It's telling that your posts continue to get more condescending and resort to name calling as your arguments get refuted.

 

[ex_bubblehead]

And with that it's time to inject the standard warning to all. Keep your comments directly related to the thread topic and do not engage in personal attacks and insults as has been in evidence the past few posts. Further violations will result in sanctions being issued to all offenders.

The only acceptable response to this warning is "I have read and understand the warning". Anything else will result in immediate sanctions.

 

[TJ Hooker]

I have read and understand the warning!

Honestly, I should probably just walk away from this thread, given how the argument I'm having seems to keep morphing further from the topic of the article as well as the original topic of debate and at this point I'm probably just arguing for the sake of arguing

Cheers

 

[krile.fordola]

How anyone can trust the crypto of any flavor is beyond me. And now we see:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/06/14/bitcoins-astronomical-rise-last-year-was-buoyed-by-market-manipulation-researchers-say/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.761f8bfb6845

Who is going to trust crypto after this? They must really got blinders on.