Mediaboss Marketing

Similarities Between Bitcoin and Ethereum: A Comprehensive Comparison

Cryptocurrencies have revolutionized the financial landscape, and two of the most prominent players in this space are Bitcoin and Ethereum.

While they have their unique characteristics, they also share several similarities.

In this article, we will explore the similarities between Bitcoin and Ethereum, shedding light on their decentralized nature, blockchain technology, digital currencies, limited supply, and cryptographic protocols.

By understanding these similarities, newcomers and enthusiasts alike can gain a deeper understanding of how these giants differ from one another.

Also read: Is Ether the Same as Ethereum?

Bitcoin and Ethereum operate on a peer-to-peer network without the need for a central authority or intermediary.

They are decentralized, meaning that they are not controlled by any government, bank, or financial institution.

This decentralized nature is one of the core principles of cryptocurrencies, as it ensures that no single entity has control over the network.

Both Bitcoin and Ethereum rely on a network of nodes spread across the globe to validate and record transactions.

Both Bitcoin and Ethereum utilize blockchain technology to maintain a transparent and immutable ledger of transactions.

The blockchain serves as a public record that verifies and stores every transaction made on the network.

This technology ensures the integrity and security of the network by eliminating the need for a central authority to validate transactions.

Instead, a consensus mechanism involves a network of nodes validating transactions.

Bitcoin and Ethereum employ cryptographic protocols to secure their networks and ensure the validity and authenticity of transactions.

These protocols use advanced mathematical algorithms to encrypt and verify transactions, making them secure and resistant to tampering.

Cryptographic protocols play a crucial role in maintaining the trust and security of both Bitcoin and Ethereum networks.

Also read: Will Dogecoin realistically sponsor this Formula 1 team?

Bitcoin and Ethereum are digital currencies that exist solely in a digital form.

They can be used to buy goods and services, making them a viable alternative to traditional currencies. Bitcoin was the first cryptocurrency to gain widespread recognition, and it paved the way for the emergence of other digital currencies, including Ethereum.

Both Bitcoin and Ethereum offer fast and secure transactions, making them attractive options for individuals and businesses alike.

Bitcoin and Ethereum have a limited supply, which adds to their value and scarcity.

Bitcoin has a maximum supply hard cap of 21 million coins, while Ethereum does not have a hard limit but has a maximum limit of 18 million new Ethereum tokens per year.

This limited supply guarantees the preservation of these cryptocurrencies value over time, much like the valuation of precious metals such as gold and silver.

When it comes to name recognition and reach, no other cryptocurrencies come close to Bitcoin and Ethereum.

As the two most valuable cryptocurrencies, they receive vastly more exposure than others, and their respective communities are also growing rapidly.

Bitcoin, created by the mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto, has become synonymous with the cryptocurrency industry.

Ethereum, created by Vitalik Buterin, has gained significant traction as a platform for decentralized applications and smart contracts.

The communities surrounding Bitcoin and Ethereum have distinct focuses and goals.

The Bitcoin community is primarily focused on financial privacy, autonomy, and cutting out the middleman. Bitcoins decentralized nature and limited supply align with the communitys desire for independence from traditional financial systems.

Conversely, the Ethereum community concentrates on crafting a decentralized, open-source platform that developers can use to construct applications.

Ethereums smart contract functionality and programmability make it an attractive option for developers seeking to create innovative solutions.

Transaction speed is an important factor to consider when comparing cryptocurrencies. Ethereum is generally faster than Bitcoin in terms of transaction speed.

The Ethereum network can handle up to 15 transactions per second, while Bitcoin can only handle up to 5.

However, its important to note that Ethereums faster speed comes at the cost of higher fees, as the increased transaction throughput puts additional strain on the network.

Ethereum and Bitcoin differ in terms of their programming languages.

Ethereum uses a Turing-complete programming language, allowing developers to write any program on the Ethereum network. This flexibility enables the creation of complex decentralized applications and smart contracts.

In contrast, Bitcoin uses a limited scripting language primarily used for simple transactions. While Bitcoins scripting language is less versatile, it is sufficient for its intended use as a digital currency.

Bitcoin and Ethereum have distinct creators with different levels of visibility.

Satoshi Nakamoto, an individual or group using a pseudonym, brought Bitcoin into existence, and their actual identity remains undisclosed.

Nakamotos invention of Bitcoin revolutionized the financial industry and laid the foundation for the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem.

Ethereum, on the other hand, was created by Vitalik Buterin, a well-known figure in the cryptocurrency community. Buterins vision for Ethereum as a decentralized platform for applications has garnered significant attention and support.

In conclusion, Bitcoin and Ethereum are both valuable cryptocurrencies with unique features and use cases. While they share similarities such as decentralization, blockchain technology, and limited supply, their differences in technology, use cases, and communities set them apart.

People primarily use Bitcoin to store value and exchange goods, while Ethereum functions as a platform for creating decentralized applications and executing smart contracts.

As the cryptocurrency space continues to evolve, Bitcoin and Ethereum will continue to play essential roles in driving innovation and adoption.

If youre interested in investing in Bitcoin or Ethereum, its important to research and understand the risks involved.

Cryptocurrencies are highly volatile and can experience significant price fluctuations. Its advisable to consult with a financial advisor or do thorough research before making any investment decisions.

Read the original here:

Similarities Between Bitcoin and Ethereum - Watcher Guru

Description

The emergence of Bitcoin stands as a pivotal moment that introduced the world to a novel and decentralized approach to monetary transactions. Bitcoin, conceptualized and created by an enigmatic entity known as Satoshi Nakamoto, offered an alternative to traditional fiat currencies and banking systems, leveraging cryptography to ensure security and integrity. Central to the Bitcoin Read more

The emergence of Bitcoin stands as a pivotal moment that introduced the world to a novel and decentralized approach to monetary transactions. Bitcoin, conceptualized and created by an enigmatic entity known as Satoshi Nakamoto, offered an alternative to traditional fiat currencies and banking systems, leveraging cryptography to ensure security and integrity. Central to the Bitcoin networks function and longevity is the role of the miner.

Miners are the gatekeepers and auditors of this decentralized system, responsible for validating and confirming transactions on the network. They undertake the computationally intensive process of solving cryptographic puzzles, ensuring that the ledger, referred to as the blockchain, remains tamper-proof.

The act of mining serves a dual purpose. It not only affirms the validity of a transaction but also introduces new Bitcoins into circulation. This dual function acts as both a reward mechanism for miners and a means to control the rate of Bitcoin supply in the market. Its imperative to understand this dynamic when diving into the finer aspects of Bitcoins economy, especially when discussing the Fee-To-Reward Ratio.

The Bitcoin ecosystem, while inherently decentralized, is underpinned by a structured incentive mechanism designed to reward those who contribute computational resources to maintain its integrity. Central to this system are the mining rewards, which have undergone significant changes since the inception of Bitcoin.

At its core, the block reward serves as a compensatory mechanism for miners. Each time a miner successfully confirms a new block of transactions, they are endowed with a predetermined amount of newly minted Bitcoin. This reward system not only compensates miners for their expended computational power but also methodically introduces new Bitcoins into circulation, adhering to a pre-set issuance rate.

Historically, the block reward has not remained constant. Embedded within Bitcoins code is a predetermined process known as halving, which ensures that the reward for mining a new block is reduced by 50% approximately every four years. This event is both anticipated and significant, directly influencing the overall supply of Bitcoin.

As a result of this halving process, the initial reward of 50 Bitcoins per block has experienced subsequent reductions, currently a fraction of its original allocation. This mechanism guarantees that there will never be more than 21 million Bitcoins, thereby preserving its scarcity and potential value.

With each halving, the dynamics of the Bitcoin mining landscape have shifted. The diminishing block rewards mean that miners must constantly adapt, seeking efficiencies in their operations to remain profitable.

Parallel to the essential mining rewards, transaction fees have emerged as a critical component within the Bitcoin ecosystem. These fees, though often overshadowed by the allure of block rewards, play a pivotal role in ensuring the fluidity and sustainability of the network, especially as the emphasis on block rewards diminishes over time.

Every transaction on the Bitcoin network requires confirmation. Given the limited capacity of each block, not all transactions can be processed immediately. Herein lies the significance of transaction fees. Miners, operating under economic incentives, tend to prioritize transactions offering higher fees. Thus, by attaching a higher fee, users can expedite their transactions, ensuring quicker confirmation times. This dynamic introduces a competitive marketplace for transaction speeds, where fees act as the determining factor.

A variety of elements influence the fee attached to a Bitcoin transaction:

As block rewards undergo periodic halving, the cumulative reward for miners decreases. While technological advancements and operational efficiencies can offset some challenges, the gradual reduction in block rewards accentuates the importance of transaction fees. Over time, as the final Bitcoins are mined and block rewards tend toward zero, these fees will constitute the primary incentive for miners to continue validating and confirming transactions, ensuring the networks longevity and security.

The Fee-To-Reward Ratio can be succinctly defined as the proportion between the transaction fees collected by miners and the block rewards they receive. This ratio offers an analytical lens through which stakeholders can assess the economic viability of mining operations, especially in an era where block rewards are progressively diminishing.

Mathematically, the Fee-To-Reward Ratio is expressed as:

Fee-To-Reward Ratio = Total Transaction Fees in a Block / (Block Reward + Total Transaction Fees in a Block)

A rising Fee-To-Reward Ratio signifies an increasing dependence on transaction fees relative to block rewards. By monitoring this ratio, one can discern the shifting economic underpinnings of the Bitcoin network. A high ratio may indicate:

Conversely, a low ratio may suggest an abundance of block rewards or reduced competition for block space, which often occurs during periods of low network activity.

To fathom the implications and trends of the Fee-To-Reward Ratio, a retrospective analysis proves instrumental. The Bitcoin network, with its rich transactional history, offers a chronological canvas to map the evolution of this crucial metric, illuminating patterns and correlations that might otherwise remain obscured.

A plotted graph of the Fee-To-Reward Ratio over the years would typically exhibit fluctuations corresponding to major events in the Bitcoin ecosystem. Key spikes might align with:

In a visual representation, one would observe an overarching trend of the ratios increase, especially during recent years, highlighting the growing importance of transaction fees in the miners revenue stream.

Several significant events in the Bitcoin timeline have left discernible imprints on the Fee-To-Reward Ratio:

A close correlation exists between surges in the Fee-To-Reward Ratio and episodes of network congestion. When block space is at a premium, users compete for timely transaction confirmations by offering elevated fees. Such scenarios invariably skew the ratio, reinforcing the importance of transaction fees in the overall miner revenue matrix. Understanding this correlation equips stakeholders with predictive insights, allowing them to anticipate fee surges based on observable network activity.

As the Fee-To-Reward Ratio undergoes shifts due to both inherent design choices in Bitcoins architecture and external market forces, its ramifications permeate multiple facets of the Bitcoin ecosystem. The implications touch on both immediate operational considerations and the broader trajectory of the Bitcoin network.

With diminishing block rewards, the sustainability of mining operations comes into sharper focus. In the eventuality of block rewards nearing zero, the importance of transaction fees as the primary, and potentially sole, incentive for miners becomes paramount. This shift will naturally compel miners to optimize operations around maximizing fee-based revenues. In addition, the changing economics may further push smaller, less efficient miners out of the market, leading to increased centralization of mining power among larger operations.

For users transacting on the Bitcoin network, the evolving Fee-To-Reward Ratio could influence transaction costs. A higher ratio signifies a growing reliance on transaction fees for miner revenue. This scenario, particularly during periods of high network congestion, might lead to increased competition among users to have their transactions prioritized, driving up fees. Conversely, network upgrades or scaling solutions that mitigate congestion could alleviate such pressures, thereby offering some respite in transaction costs.

As the ratio continues to evolve:

Behavioral Shifts: Miners may employ more sophisticated fee algorithms to maximize earnings. This might include dynamic fee adjustments based on network congestion or even offering tiered transaction confirmation times based on fees.

Consolidation: The mining industry might witness greater consolidation. As transaction fees become pivotal for profitability, economies of scale and operational efficiency will become even more critical. Smaller miners could either exit the industry or merge operations with larger entities to remain competitive.

Geographical Redistribution: Given the significance of electricity costs in mining profitability, regions offering cheaper electricity might see a surge in mining operations, especially if fee-based revenues become the dominant income source for miners.

Bitcoin, while pioneering and undeniably the most recognized cryptocurrency, is but one entity in a vast and diverse digital currency landscape. The Fee-To-Reward Ratio, vital for understanding Bitcoins mining economics, has parallels in other cryptocurrencies. Evaluating this ratio across a broader spectrum offers enlightening comparisons and reveals inherent distinctions stemming from different consensus mechanisms and design principles.

Ethereum, often dubbed Bitcoins closest rival, operates on a different premise:

Litecoin, often considered the silver to Bitcoins gold, presents another intriguing case study:

Diverse cryptocurrencies, from Ripples XRP to Cardano, each come with their own consensus mechanisms, reward structures, and transaction fee dynamics. Whether its the delegated Proof of Stake in Cardano or the consensus protocol in XRP, each has implications for the interplay between fees and rewards, further enriching the analysis canvas.

A critical determinant of the Fee-To-Reward Ratio is the underlying consensus mechanism:

The complexities of Bitcoins Fee-To-Reward Ratio transcend mere numerical intricacies, offering a mirror to the multifaceted dynamics of cryptocurrency ecosystems. As Bitcoin carves its trajectory, this ratio becomes more than just a metric; it embodies the confluence of technology, economy, and environment. Stakeholders, from miners to investors, must exhibit perspicacity, understanding that the blockchain realm is not just about codes and coins but also about conscious choices and collective consequences. In an era where digital assets redefine value, ensuring that value is balanced with vision becomes paramount.

Alternative consensus methods, such as Proof of Stake (PoS), eliminate mining energy costs and can significantly alter fee structures, potentially leading to a different fee-to-reward dynamic.

Quantum computing, with its advanced computational capabilities, might revolutionize mining speeds. However, its direct impact on the ratio is speculative and would also depend on network adaptations.

Forks, especially hard forks, introduce changes to protocol rules. Depending on the nature of these changes, they might temporarily or permanently alter fee structures and block rewards, influencing the ratio.

Yes, several blockchain analytics platforms provide real-time data on various metrics, including the Fee-To-Reward Ratio, aiding stakeholders in decision-making.

Geopolitical events can influence Bitcoin's demand, adoption rate, and mining operations. While not directly altering the ratio, such events can impact the parameters that contribute to it.

Here is the original post:

What Is Bitcoin's Fee-To-Reward Ratio? Cryptopolitan - Cryptopolitan

What is a 51% Attack?

A 51% attack arises within the field of blockchain technology and, at its core, involves an entity or individual gaining control of over half of a networks hashrate the total mining power utilized to confirm transactions on the network.

When this control is achieved, the integrity of the blockchain can be undermined and manipulated, leading to invalidated transactions and potential double-spending of coins.

Every blockchain maintains a sequence of blocks that record transactions (the distributed ledger).

These blocks are cryptographically linked, and the process of adding them involves solving complex puzzles, especially in Proof-of-Work (PoW) systems.

However, should an entity secure more than 50% of a networks hashrate, they gain the power to modify the transaction history, potentially double-spending coins.

In Proof-of-Stake (PoS) systems, a similar risk arises when an attacker controls over 50% of staked tokens.

Within the annals of blockchain history, several coins have fallen prey to this devastating strategy, underscoring the need for robust security mechanisms and constant vigilance in the ever-evolving world of cryptocurrency.

Some of the most notable 51% attacks over the years includes:

Other victims include Feathercoin (FTC), Vertcoin (VTC), and Verge (XVG).

The common factor? Lower hashrates relative to their algorithm family, making them vulnerable targets.

The very essence of blockchain technology rests on its promise of security and immutability, however, as with every technological innovation, vulnerabilities exist.

One of the most discussed threats to a blockchains integrity is the 51% attack.

Fortunately, with evolving technology and proactive strategies, there are measures that can be taken to fortify a network against such attacks.

In essence, the prevention of a 51% attack is crucial to maintaining the trust and validity of a blockchain network.

With the right blend of technology, community vigilance, and proactive measures, blockchain ecosystems can ensure their resilience against such threats, thereby safeguarding the interests of their users and the sanctity of their data.

While Satoshi Nakamoto might not have envisioned the feasibility of a 51% attack in Bitcoins early days, the vast economy of altcoins today has shifted the paradigm.

The intricacies of blockchain, and the economic incentives intertwined with it, mean that networks must remain vigilant against exploits and attacks from bad actors.

The decentralized ethos of cryptocurrencies necessitates robust checks, balances, and ongoing evolution to ensure they remain resilient against such vulnerabilities.

One thing is certain; as the cryptocurrency market matures and evolves, so too must its defences against potential threats.

More here:

What Is a 51% Attack in Crypto? Definition and History - Techopedia

Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

You're reading Entrepreneur Middle East, an international franchise of Entrepreneur Media.

Our society is constructed on the foundations of various centralized entities, including governments, corporations, and a wide variety of religious and community groups. Top-down command and control, as an organizing principle, have enabled us to make tremendous gains as a society globally. It has helped us to build a great civilization.

Unfortunately, our great civilization does not serve 99% of us as well as it can. But fortunately, our societal development has brought us to the point technologically where we're enabled to build a society -a more decentralized society- that serves nearly everyone well.

In 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto built something profound that has the power to transform life on our planet. A mechanism that enables us to build far better alternatives to the legacy systems. Alternative structures for economic, social, and political systems that could exist on a foundation that could not be improperly manipulated. It is a new kind of global ledger, the blockchain, and through this invention a revolutionary new higher-powered form of trust has emerged: decentralized trust.

Over the years, the internet has undergone a remarkable evolution, shaping the lives of individuals and society as a whole. It all began with the pre-web protocols, the internet protocols developed in the '80s. Building upon those foundations, Web 1.0 emerged, offering static text and images interconnected through hyperlinks.

Then came Web 2.0, where we find ourselves today, introducing interactivity, e-commerce, mobile connectivity, and social media. While Web 1.0 represented an extraordinary breakthrough, the advent of Web 2.0 was the one that truly transformed society on a global scale. Yet, in many ways, the business model of Web 2.0 so far has been a hangover from the dominant business model of the 20th century: manufacture products for sale, and advertise to create (often artificial) demand.

Related: Boomtown On The Blockchain: Where Old-School Finances Meet The Wild West Of Web3

Web3, or the decentralized web, is what we are merging into. It serves as a key component of a new paradigm shift that humanity is currently undergoing, moving from the age of silos to the age of collaboration, where opportunities are more widely distributed and accessible. Web3-based systems are forging new ways of interacting, innovative business models, and entirely new industries.

The Web3 paradigm shift starkly contrasts the business models of the last millennia, where corporations operated in adversarial relationships with their customers, extracting as much as possible in exchange for as little as possible. In the face of these exploitative practices, we have observed over the years how the power that currently resides within centralized corporations is becoming distributed through the diverse creativity of the growing Web3 ecosystem via progressive decentralization.

Web3 empowers communities with economic, social, and political agency while enabling individuals to exercise self-sovereignty. In Web3, we are not just passive consumers (or worse, products monetized by social media companies); we are active builders. Regardless of the specific activities individuals are engaged in, whether it's creating non-fungible tokens (NFTs), building collections of them, developing decentralized applications (dApps), participating in decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), shaping policies, or designing protocols, we all contribute as builders to the next generation of the web.

Builders are not only developers, researchers, and entrepreneurs, but also artists, writers, musicians, educators, and more. Each brings a unique perspective to form the collective essence and, ultimately, wisdom, at the core of this paradigm shift to the more decentralized future. By harnessing the transformative power of Web3, we can collectively build the world we want to live in, firmly rooted in this new trust foundation. The builder spark is alive in each and every one of us. It is existential: I build, therefore I am.

To dive deeper into the future of Web3 and the decentralized web, read our full report on Opportunities in Web3 by clicking here.

This article was originally published on Lucidity Insights, a partner of Entrepreneur Middle East in developing special reports on the Middle East and Africa's tech and entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Related: From Ethereum to Consensys: Joseph Lubin's Visionary Journey

The rest is here:

With Web3, We Can Build The World We Want To Live In - Entrepreneur

Kurt Wuckert Jr. appeared on the Morgan Report to discuss Ordinals and Bitcoins role in revitalizing the non-fungible token (NFT) market. Of course, he covered more ground than that in this latest interview.

NFTs on BTCthanks, Casey Rodarmor!

Morgan begins by noting that Wuckert was the most requested guest to return to the podcast by viewers. He says he intentionally held off on having him back as he wanted to make the podcast as valuable as possible and was waiting for the right moment.

Wuckert dives right in, saying that the NFT craze is the big thing that made Ethereum blow upsome of them were selling for millions of dollars. He points out that, on Ethereum, users cant store theirNFTswhich have to sit on separate servers due to the technical limitations of that blockchain.

After the frenzy, people presumed the NFT market had gone away, and in many ways, it did, Wuckert says. However, theres a lot of potential utility to NFTs that this immature market hasnt yet explored.

More recently, BTC developerCasey Rodarmor came up with Ordinals inspections on the BTC blockchain. He realized he could inscribe artwork directly on satoshis, storing it on the blockchain and making it immutable.

Now your artwork is as immutable as the blockchain itself, he says, noting that this has caused a huge stir, and many are asking fundamental questions about tokens, NFTs, and whats possible on Bitcoin again.This is causing tensionbetween those whosee BTC as digital goldand those who are interested in what else it can do.

A brief look at the wider digital currency industry

Morgan then asks Wuckert for his thoughts on the recent BTC price move upwards and the value of XRP. He is interested in both and wants to hear Wuckerts opinion.

Handling the BTC price move first, Wuckert believes its a suckers rally. He cant see where the money is coming from to kick off a bull market when interest rates are so high, BRICS nations are attacking the dollar, and were on the precipice of a major global conflict. In short, the macro conditions arent favorable to a new bull market right now, and the maximalists calling for it have a track record of being wrong.

What about XRP? Wuckert notes that Ripple (the company) preceded Bitcoin and was even mentioned by Satoshi Nakamoto in the early days. However, while he thinks Ripple has some interesting technology, he doesnt see the need for XRP, which has done little other than enrich Ripple executives,hence the lawsuit with the SEC. He says that Bitcoin should try to compete with Ripple in the areas they are interested in, such as remittances, settlements, and small payments.

Having said this, Wuckert notes that BTC is incapable of competing with Ripple in the aforementioned areas. Hes a miner onBitcoin SV, which has much faster payments with lower fees. If any blockchain can compete, its BSV, and Wuckert is betting with his reputation and his money that it will.

Are the regulators taking crypto-friendly banks down?

Morgan notes the recent failure of banks like Signature, Silvergate and Silicon Valley Bank and wonders if theres a conspiracy to get crypto out of the way.

Wuckert asks a return question, who are the banks? He notes that there are factions, and banks like JP Morgan (NASDAQ: JPM) can hardly be classified as the same as the others. He notes that the same factions exist within the regulator camps, with different agencies stating different opinions. For example, theCommodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has said Ethereum is a commodity, whereas the SEC is leaning towards classifying it as a security.

Wuckert also points out that, as the traveling circus of crypto goes from town to town, robbing people blind, it makes it more difficult for libertarians such as himself to make a case for a light-touch or relatively hands-off approach to the industry. Likewise, as the years roll by, the chance forBitcoin to disrupt paymentsand create change is slipping away; whereas it was compelling in 2008, its now facing competition from a multitude of apps like Venmo.

Speaking briefly oncentral bank digital currencies(CBDCs), Wuckert says they have only entered the conversation because Bitcoin has failed to disrupt payments meaningfully. For him, CBDCs are the worst of both worlds.

On the pointlessness and absurdity of maximalism

Morgan states his opinion that maximalism of any kind is pointless. He wants to know Wuckerts thoughts on it.

Wuckert says hes a Bitcoin maximalist, but not in the typical way. In fact, many typical BTC maximalists would consider him a Judas and a traitor. He views Bitcoin as a valuable attestation tool and source of truth.

However, he agrees that BTC maximalism is absurd. The vision some of them promote is dystopian and cant exist unless the world collapses, and thats not to anyones benefit.

In summary, Wuckert says weve wasted a lot of time, but theres still time to pull off theBitcoin revolution. Hes deeply invested and hopes it works out, but he says its important to hedge and remember you might be wrong. In closing, he encourages everyone to invest in themselves and their skills because that way, youre never really out of the game.

Watch: On the very start of Bitcoin

New to Bitcoin? Check out CoinGeeksBitcoin for Beginnerssection, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about Bitcoinas originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamotoand blockchain.

Link:

Bitcoin and NFTs collide: Kurt Wuckert Jr. talks to the Morgan Report - CoinGeek