from the world's big
So what’s the actual difference between Bitcoin and Altcoins?
- Bitcoin has long been the king of the cryptocurrency market.
- New coins and tokens have shaken up the status quo with unique use cases and innovations.
- Bitcoin has responded with its own improvements, leading to a healthier market.
When it comes to cryptocurrency, Bitcoin has long been the king of the hill thanks to its status as the founder of the young industry and its first-mover appeal. A decade later, the original cryptocurrency is still the most valuable one on the market, at one point even reaching as high as $20,000 for a single Bitcoin. Today it is far from alone in the field. As blockchain (the technology that cryptocurrency is based on) evolved, so did the number of coins available, and the things these new coins' blockchains could accomplish.
These new cryptocurrencies dubbed "altcoins" use the same decentralized concept as Bitcoin but take things a step further with unique features. Ethereum, the second most popular cryptocurrency, introduced the idea of "smart contracts", code that can automatically execute agreements between two parties using blockchain technology. This opened the floodgates for the development of new use cases and applications for crypto.
More importantly, Altcoins have improved on overall functionality, processing transactions faster than bitcoin, and generally scaling to meet expanding demand for their services. As the market for Altcoins continues to expand, it's easy to wonder if Bitcoin's lead will end soon, or if it will be able to keep up with the new generation of cryptocurrencies.
A new take on old problems
Bitcoin was originally developed as an idea for alternative, decentralized digital currency that could eventually replace fiat money like the dollar and the euro. As such, it was built for simple transactions and uses a peer-to-peer consensus mechanism to power a network to collectively verify transactions, adding them to the "chain", which is comprised of a string of transactions in batches called blocks. As a payment mechanism, bitcoin still falls far short of methods like credit cards and even other digital payment tools. Moreover, verifying ("mining") transactions is resource intensive and expensive.
Newer coins use different mechanisms to reduce both the cost and complexity of mining and can process many more transactions per second than bitcoin's paltry seven. Additionally, some of these new cryptocurrencies use technology such as smart contracts, which let them build innovative apps directly on the blockchain.
Coins like Ripple and Dash, for example offer a fresh take on the transactability and speed of payments. Ripple is designed to facilitate centralized cross-border transactions between large corporations and institutions. Dash claims to have transaction speeds as fast as 1 second per transaction, focuses on superior security, and an easy ecosystem for individuals to manage their money.
In its original state, Bitcoin simply can't compete with these newer, more focused coins. Bitcoin was built as a catch-all currency, and its creator likely didn't envision the multiple use cases of blockchain technology. This imbalance has led pundits and industry veterans to repeatedly claim that Bitcoin is on its way out.
Old coins can learn new tricks
It seems that rumors of Bitcoin's end were greatly exaggerated and instead of fading into obsolescence, it's evolved to catch up to the Altcoin market, expanding its usability. In fact, Bitcoin still has the larger user base, which comes with mainstream appeal and substantial interest from developers. Now, it's fighting off newcomers by adding new tools and functionality over time.
Instead of building the next Bitcoin, many projects have chosen instead to build on the existing Bitcoin architecture, adding new features that make the currency more usable in various situations. RSK, for instance, gives users smart contract capabilities for Bitcoin, opening the doors for app development. Whereas this was once Ethereum's major draw, Bitcoin is now encroaching on that territory with expanded functionality from RSK's platform.
Similarly, tools like the Lightning network let users take their Bitcoin transactions off chain, taking the burden off the main Bitcoin blockchain and speeding up the pace at which peripheral transactions can be verified. These solutions don't change Bitcoin's original design but make it more competitive against younger and newer coins looking to claim the spotlight. In fact, improving these issues will only expand Bitcoin's usability and mainstream popularity.
A flourishing ecosystem
Although in theory Bitcoin could eventually be capable of doing everything Altcoins can, the reality is that it still benefits from the competition. As yet, blockchain is a young technology which requires a thriving ecosystem to truly develop and become valuable to society. Moreover, Bitcoin could do well to avoid feature creep and lose its value. The beauty of blockchain is that it allows for cryptocurrencies to be used for much more than just paying for things.
Tools like Golem, a blockchain-powered crowdsourced super-computer, or Fishcoin, which tracks fish and seafood from the sea to millions of kitchens for ethical fishing and sustainable operations, take the concept of blockchain in experimental new directions. Bitcoin is designed to be a digital currency, and it's only getting better at it. However, in a world where data is transactional by design, nearly any idea will inevitably be revolutionized by transplanting it into a decentralized ecosystem—and Bitcoin is the root of it all.
- Bitcoin's price: Who decides the value of cryptocurrencies? - Big Think ›
- The ultimate guide to Bitcoin: buying, selling, and mining - Big Think ›
Andy Samberg and Cristin Milioti get stuck in an infinite wedding time loop.
- Two wedding guests discover they're trapped in an infinite time loop, waking up in Palm Springs over and over and over.
- As the reality of their situation sets in, Nyles and Sarah decide to enjoy the repetitive awakenings.
- The film is perfectly timed for a world sheltering at home during a pandemic.
Richard Feynman once asked a silly question. Two MIT students just answered it.
Here's a fun experiment to try. Go to your pantry and see if you have a box of spaghetti. If you do, take out a noodle. Grab both ends of it and bend it until it breaks in half. How many pieces did it break into? If you got two large pieces and at least one small piece you're not alone.
But science loves a good challenge<p>The mystery remained unsolved until 2005, when French scientists <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~audoly/" target="_blank">Basile Audoly</a> and <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~neukirch/" target="_blank">Sebastien Neukirch </a>won an <a href="https://www.improbable.com/ig/" target="_blank">Ig Nobel Prize</a>, an award given to scientists for real work which is of a less serious nature than the discoveries that win Nobel prizes, for finally determining why this happens. <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/spaghetti/audoly_neukirch_fragmentation.pdf" target="_blank">Their paper describing the effect is wonderfully funny to read</a>, as it takes such a banal issue so seriously. </p><p>They demonstrated that when a rod is bent past a certain point, such as when spaghetti is snapped in half by bending it at the ends, a "snapback effect" is created. This causes energy to reverberate from the initial break to other parts of the rod, often leading to a second break elsewhere.</p><p>While this settled the issue of <em>why </em>spaghetti noodles break into three or more pieces, it didn't establish if they always had to break this way. The question of if the snapback could be regulated remained unsettled.</p>
Physicists, being themselves, immediately wanted to try and break pasta into two pieces using this info<p><a href="https://roheiss.wordpress.com/fun/" target="_blank">Ronald Heisser</a> and <a href="https://math.mit.edu/directory/profile.php?pid=1787" target="_blank">Vishal Patil</a>, two graduate students currently at Cornell and MIT respectively, read about Feynman's night of noodle snapping in class and were inspired to try and find what could be done to make sure the pasta always broke in two.</p><p><a href="http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-mathematicians-solve-age-old-spaghetti-mystery-0813" target="_blank">By placing the noodles in a special machine</a> built for the task and recording the bending with a high-powered camera, the young scientists were able to observe in extreme detail exactly what each change in their snapping method did to the pasta. After breaking more than 500 noodles, they found the solution.</p>
The apparatus the MIT researchers built specifically for the task of snapping hundreds of spaghetti sticks.
(Courtesy of the researchers)
What possible application could this have?<p>The snapback effect is not limited to uncooked pasta noodles and can be applied to rods of all sorts. The discovery of how to cleanly break them in two could be applied to future engineering projects.</p><p>Likewise, knowing how things fragment and fail is always handy to know when you're trying to build things. Carbon Nanotubes, <a href="https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/carbon-nanotube-space-elevator" target="_self">super strong cylinders often hailed as the building material of the future</a>, are also rods which can be better understood thanks to this odd experiment.</p><p>Sometimes big discoveries can be inspired by silly questions. If it hadn't been for Richard Feynman bending noodles seventy years ago, we wouldn't know what we know now about how energy is dispersed through rods and how to control their fracturing. While not all silly questions will lead to such a significant discovery, they can all help us learn.</p>
What happens if we consider welfare programs as investments?
- A recently published study suggests that some welfare programs more than pay for themselves.
- It is one of the first major reviews of welfare programs to measure so many by a single metric.
- The findings will likely inform future welfare reform and encourage debate on how to grade success.
Welfare as an investment<p>The <a href="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hendren/files/welfare_vnber.pdf" target="_blank">study</a>, carried out by Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser of Harvard University, reviews 133 welfare programs through a single lens. The authors measured these programs' "Marginal Value of Public Funds" (MVPF), which is defined as the ratio of the recipients' willingness to pay for a program over its cost.</p><p>A program with an MVPF of one provides precisely as much in net benefits as it costs to deliver those benefits. For an illustration, imagine a program that hands someone a dollar. If getting that dollar doesn't alter their behavior, then the MVPF of that program is one. If it discourages them from working, then the program's cost goes up, as the program causes government tax revenues to fall in addition to costing money upfront. The MVPF goes below one in this case. <br> <br> Lastly, it is possible that getting the dollar causes the recipient to further their education and get a job that pays more taxes in the future, lowering the cost of the program in the long run and raising the MVPF. The value ratio can even hit infinity when a program fully "pays for itself."</p><p> While these are only a few examples, many others exist, and they do work to show you that a high MVPF means that a program "pays for itself," a value of one indicates a program "breaks even," and a value below one shows a program costs more money than the direct cost of the benefits would suggest.</p> After determining the programs' costs using existing literature and the willingness to pay through statistical analysis, 133 programs focusing on social insurance, education and job training, tax and cash transfers, and in-kind transfers were analyzed. The results show that some programs turn a "profit" for the government, mainly when they are focused on children:
This figure shows the MVPF for a variety of polices alongside the typical age of the beneficiaries. Clearly, programs targeted at children have a higher payoff.
Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser<p>Programs like child health services and K-12 education spending have infinite MVPF values. The authors argue this is because the programs allow children to live healthier, more productive lives and earn more money, which enables them to pay more taxes later. Programs like the preschool initiatives examined don't manage to do this as well and have a lower "profit" rate despite having decent MVPF ratios.</p><p>On the other hand, things like tuition deductions for older adults don't make back the money they cost. This is likely for several reasons, not the least of which is that there is less time for the benefactor to pay the government back in taxes. Disability insurance was likewise "unprofitable," as those collecting it have a reduced need to work and pay less back in taxes. </p>
What are the implications of all this?<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="ceXv4XLv" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="3b407f5aa043eeb84f2b7ff82f97dc35"> <div id="botr_ceXv4XLv_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/ceXv4XLv-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/ceXv4XLv-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/ceXv4XLv-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> <p>Firstly, it shows that direct investments in children in a variety of areas generate very high MVPFs. Likewise, the above chart shows that a large number of the programs considered pay for themselves, particularly ones that "invest in human capital" by promoting education, health, or similar things. While programs that focus on adults tend to have lower MVPF values, this isn't a hard and fast rule.</p><p>It also shows us that very many programs don't "pay for themselves" or even go below an MVPF of one. However, this study and its authors do not suggest that we abolish programs like disability payments just because they don't turn a profit.</p><p>Different motivations exist behind various programs, and just because something doesn't pay for itself isn't a definitive reason to abolish it. The returns on investment for a welfare program are diverse and often challenging to reckon in terms of money gained or lost. The point of this study was merely to provide a comprehensive review of a wide range of programs from a single perspective, one of dollars and cents. </p><p>The authors suggest that this study can be used as a starting point for further analysis of other programs not necessarily related to welfare. </p><p>It can be difficult to measure the success or failure of a government program with how many metrics you have to choose from and how many different stakeholders there are fighting for their metric to be used. This study provides us a comprehensive look through one possible lens at how some of our largest welfare programs are doing. </p><p>As America debates whether we should expand or contract our welfare state, the findings of this study offer an essential insight into how much we spend and how much we gain from these programs. </p>
Finding a balance between job satisfaction, money, and lifestyle is not easy.
- When most of your life is spent doing one thing, it matters if that thing is unfulfilling or if it makes you unhappy. According to research, most people are not thrilled with their jobs. However, there are ways to find purpose in your work and to reduce the negative impact that the daily grind has on your mental health.
- "The evidence is that about 70 percent of people are not engaged in what they do all day long, and about 18 percent of people are repulsed," London Business School professor Dan Cable says, calling the current state of work unhappiness an epidemic. In this video, he and other big thinkers consider what it means to find meaning in your work, discuss the parts of the brain that fuel creativity, and share strategies for reassessing your relationship to your job.
- Author James Citrin offers a career triangle model that sees work as a balance of three forces: job satisfaction, money, and lifestyle. While it is possible to have all three, Citrin says that they are not always possible at the same time, especially not early on in your career.