Connect with us

Bitcoin

Are we decentralized yet? – says Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase

Avatar

Published

on

Are we decentralized yet - says Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase
Source: Pixabay

Brian Armstrong, the CEO and Co-founder of Coinbase, one of the leading cryptocurrency exchange platforms headquartered in San Francisco recently posted a link on Twitter which says ‘Are we decentralized yet?’

The link redirects to a page which has enlisted all the top coins and shows the status of which ones are decentralized and which ones are centralized.

According to the link, 6 coins out of the 15 coins are centralized. The centralized coins are:

  1. Ripple  – 97% of the circulating supply of XRP is held by the top 100 accounts
  2. Cardano – 33% centralized of the circulating supply of ADA is held by top 100 accounts
  3. Stellar – 95% centralized of the circulating supply of XLM is held by top 100 accounts
  4. IOTA – 62% centralized of the circulating supply of MIOTA is held by top 100 accounts
  5. NEO – 70% centralized of the circulating supply of NEO is held by top 100 accounts
  6. Nano – 63% centralized of the circulating supply of NANO is held by top 100 accounts

On the website, under the miners/ voters incentivized, Y represents decentralized and N represents centralized.

Are we centralised yet showing the coins which are decentralised and coins which aren't.

Are we decentralized yet? The chart shows the coins which are decentralized and coins which aren’t

The claims made by the website has stirred a lot of controversy in the market. With Ripple enthusiasts saying that the data is wrong and is an attack on the coin and other crypto-enthusiasts saying that according to the data represented Bitcoin [BTC] is more centralized than all the coins.

BFL Vigilante, a Twitterati says:

“For the deluded Ripple [XRP] zealots and other brainwashed, this ranking should help put to rest their confusion and “decentralized” nonsense.”

To which Andrew French adds:

“Rubbish article XRP is decentralised and anyone who says it isn’t either can’t read, doesn’t want to learn the truth, or is just out to talk rubbish about something they know nothing about Ripple”

F.U Money, another Twitterati says:



“97% of XRP is not owed by the top 100 accounts and under the %voting/mining power you linked to the Bitmex blog on Ripple which Joel Katz debunked and made BitMexResearch look like fools. This is a completely biased table of information meant to spread your agenda.”

Ryan Hurley, a Bitcoin enthusiast says:

“Does the 19% shown for the Top 100 in BTC account for Satoshi’s holdings? If I’m not mistaken Satoshi is thought to have over 1mm in holdings. So at 17mm BTC, you have 3.23mm (19%) in top 100 but only 2.23mm w/o Satoshi or 13%.”

To which Jackson Palmer says:

“It includes *all* possible addresses.”





Subscribe to AMBCrypto’s Newsletter




Follow us on Telegram | Twitter | Facebook



Andrea Pierre Jackson is a contributing News writer at AMBCrypto from December 2017. She has previous writing experience with major publishing houses in the UK and the US. Andrea currently does not hold any position in any cryptocurrency or its projects

Continue Reading
Advertisement
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. Avatar

    Ann Palmer

    April 28, 2018 at 6:22 AM

    This coming from an insider trader! Horrible Ceo

  2. Avatar

    buzzard

    April 29, 2018 at 6:39 PM

    Centralization squeals at the slightest touch.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Bitcoin

Bitcoin [BTC] will be vulnerable to quantum computing if we’re not prepared, says Andrew Poelstra

Biraajmaan Tamuly

Published

on

Bitcoin will be vulnerable to Quantum Computing without preparation, indicates Blockstream Researcher
Source: Pixabay

Security is an important aspect of every crypto-asset and Bitcoin [BTC] is often dragged into debates on whether the blockchain is protected from hacks or vulnerable to certain technological developments.

In a recent episode of whatbitcoindid, Andrew Poelstra, the Lead Researcher at Blockstream, was asked about whether Quantum Computing was a genuine threat to the existence of some Bitcoin on the current blockchain.

Poelstra indicated that the threat was evident, but it was still a long way off from being practical in the current technological field. He mentioned that he expected quantum computing to come into play against the security of Bitcoin in “maybe less than 15 years” and said that he would be really surprised if “it was less than 25 years”.

Poelstra said that it was necessary to take actions in the current scenario for post-quantum systems because he believed that without any preparation for the impending technological aspect, it did not matter how the future rested. Without preparation, the community was going to be blindsided, he said.

He stated,



“It’s important now that we started working on standardization and exploring ideas and exploring what Bitcoin is going to look like in a post quantum world but in the current scenarios there were no candidates for post quantum schemes that would be reasonable to deploy them in a Bitcoin.”

The introduction of quantum computing in the cryptocurrency scenario was a topic which was widely debated among other personalities in the community as well. Mati Greenspan, a prominent eToro Analyst, had started earlier this year that the threat only existed to Bitcoin if quantum computing was available to only one person.

If people or users collectively upgraded to quantum computers, then the Bitcoin miners would upgrade among themselves to protect it from an alleged 99% attack, which is possible with a quantum computer.





Subscribe to AMBCrypto’s Newsletter


Continue Reading

Trending