Bitcoin was the product of the cypherpunks. These are, essentially, the “only the paranoid survive” crowd, the “the government is watching” crowd. It would be only natural they would come up with a solution to the double-spending problem that involves an open peer-to-peer network of anonymous nodes. They tuned it for maximum resilience against a concerted attack from the global money cartel and the governments they exert massive control over.
( Remember when the creator(s) of Bitcoin hid under the Satoshi Nakamoto pseudonym, and when Wikileaks wanted to use Bitcoin for donations, Nakamoto freaked out, stating that it was “too early” and that the network could have been killed by a massive surge in usage (and also in attention from the powers-that-be) so early in its development? That mentality would have never though something like EOS would be sufficient to run an anarchic money system — not even after the success of Bitcoin. )
Besides its prohibitive costs of operation, borne out of the need to spread a global ledger across ten thousand consumer-grade anonymous nodes, the Bitcoin protocol worked. With its global bandwidth of 3 transactions per second, not only it worked as a demo, as a proof that anarchic money exists and is possible to build, but it gathered a global cult following that, at its peak, valued the Bitcoin network at about $340,000,000,000.
People have then slowly walked back from the paranoia of the cypherpunk mentality. Bitcoin’s security requirements are maximal, e.g. requiring every transaction to be broadcast to and processed by every single node, so several projects have started by questioning that excessive level of security, hoping to find attack vectors they can afford to discard in order to reap some performance gains.
EOS, like Bitcoin, works. But EOS is massively cheaper. However, EOS would probably not have “worked,” as a social phenomenon, if it was Satoshi Nakamoto’s project. The cypherpunk paranoia story was effective in uprooting the psychological domination of the current State-based, cartel money system, because first it validated its massive power (which is reified — considered real, concrete, unassailable — in most people’s minds all around the globe), and then it offered a bunch of technically unnecessary but psychologically compelling reasons for why it was going to defeat that powerful global monopoly on money creation and operation.
EOS-like systems: maximum performance, minimum cost;
Ethereum-like systems: work as social insurance for the EOS-like systems, supplies extra security for those niche applications that need it more than low latency and high bandwidth;
Bitcoin-like systems: museum artifacts.
The Ethereum-like and EOS-like systems are not really in competition, in the sense that we don’t want one to destroy the other. We need both systems. However, “EOS” (really, EOS-like systems) will “destroy” everything else because they will capture most of the market, the same way all the smaller e-mail services vanished, and everyone uses either Gmail now or some e-mail dinosaur product that their employers have pushed on them. Why use something slow, expensive and complicated to operate, when the user can have something fast, cheap and simple — something that’s actually more secure, because the actual weak link in security is not “the evil government and the hackers” but the user or, to be precise, the user not having a clue about what they are doing?
EOS.IO and Bitfinex have partnered up to build the first decentralized exchange to be built on the EOS.IO technology. EOSfinex aims to combine the scalability and speed of EOS.IO with Bitfinex’s industry-leading expertise. The new project is said to deliver an “on-chain” exchange designed to offer a fast, transparent and trustless platform for the trading of digital assets
EOS is also the best-funded software project in history. They literally have billions to develop their product.
pc source = fabiana cecin
https://medium.com/@fcecin/why-eos-will-destroy-everything-else-2ed967184830
