- XRP transaction speed and costs better than Bitcoin
- Bitcoin hits ATH of $35,000 – making Satoshi Nakamoto 33rd richest person/party in the world
- XRP beginning to decouple from BTC price trend
- Proof-of-Work limiting and taxing on the environment
- Lack of scalability in Bitcoin countered by XRP versatility
XRP vs Bitcoin: in recent news
Falling from $35,000 to lows of almost $27,000 today, one aspect was steadily made clear; XRP has been slowly decoupling from the Bitcoin price trend. As such, this opinion piece will seek to address the differences between XRP and Bitcoin, and ultimately, which is better.
Transaction speeds are at the heart of all financial transfers. Customers/users want an asset/currency that can move their money swiftly and safely from point A to point B in record timing. When we compare XRP vs Bitcoin, the odds are heavily in XRP‘s favor.
- XRP transaction speed: three to five seconds.
- Bitcoin transaction speed: varies between 10 minutes and one hour +
When conducting transactions, XRP can carry out 1500 transaction per second. In contrast, Bitcoin is only able to carry out seven per second.
XRP vs Bitcoin: transaction costs
The second most important aspect of a transaction; cost.
- XRP transaction cost on average: $0.0004 per transaction.
- 10,000 XRP transactions = $4
- Bitcoin transaction cost on average: $8 per transaction.
- 10,000 BTC transactions = $80,000
Once again here, despite the Bitcoin holding over 70 percent dominance and increased volume, XRP takes the lead on transactional supremacy in terms of efficiency.
XRP vs Bitcoin: node locations and decentralization
One of the main purposes of cryptocurrencies is to address the financial inefficiencies of fiat and cash. The other and often discussed is decentralization.
One clear concern when it comes to Bitcoin’s decentralization is the fact that over two-thirds of its nodes (servers) are situated in China. The core ambition of decentralization is to dismantle the traditional centralized systems such as world banks to give individuals worldwide more control of their own finances. This eliminates middlemen and the need for intermediaries.
XRP has around 150 nodes so far – far fewer but more efficient nodes than Bitcoin – of which around 70 are Ripple-owned/established. These nodes are more spaced out globally than Bitcoin.
If over 60 percent of Bitcoin nodes are located in one country, that grants a majority to a single body – therefore preventing true decentralization.
XRP vs Bitcoin: electricity costs and sustainability
The aspect of comparison is fairly straightforward and easy to compare.
In contrast, XRP function via a restricted number of nodes globally and uses a pre-mined XRP utility token to conduct and facilitate financial activity. This does come with an electricity element, but is green by nature and not taxing on electrical supply.
Again, XRP trumps Bitcoin here.
XRP vs Bitcoin: mining Bitcoin vs pre-mined XRP
The Proof-of-Work (PoW) protocol utilized by Bitcoin requires the interaction of ‘miners’ to mine Bitcoin before it becomes accessible to use/trade/buy/sell. On the other hand, XRP is pre-mined, meaning the total volume of XRP is already accessible.
This PoW Bitcoin protocol includes mining fees, slower transactions progressively over the years as blocks become more difficult to mine, and reduced supply with each halving event.
The issue with XRP being pre-mined is that it may indicate the creation of a financial venture. This could pose more risk to the integrity of the project in comparison to the PoW protocol involved in Bitcoin accumulation. Despite this, there is one rarely considered disadvantage and potential financial venture instigated within the origins of Bitcoin…
Satoshi Nakamoto, the anonymous founder of Bitcoin, essentially pre-mined the first 1,000,000 Bitcoins. This has recently made the individual/group (not known) the 33rd richest person/party in the world as Bitcoin reached its ATH of $35,000.
Nakamoto accumulated and removed one million Bitcoin from circulation, and to date, that accumulation has not moved except through rumors and hearsay. Bitcoin’s founder, in essence, despite believing in the project, has instigated a financial venture that now nets him/her/them a total of $35 billion.
Despite being less than five percent of the total supply of 21 million Bitcoin, can Bitcoin be considered decentralized when one person/party held an advantage from the start?