Kaspa vs Bitcoin: Which PoW protocol comes out on top?

Both Kaspa and Bitcoin rely on proof-of-work consensus, but the similarities end there. Under the hood, these two projects take fundamentally different approaches to solving blockchain scalability and efficiency.

Bitcoin prioritizes security and decentralization above all else, with a fixed supply of 21 million coins and a well-established network that has stood the test of time. Its 10-minute block time is deliberate—trading speed for finality and network stability.

Kaspa, meanwhile, tackles the blockchain trilemma differently. It implements a DAG (directed acyclic graph) structure alongside PoW, allowing parallel block processing. This architecture enables faster block times—measured in seconds—and significantly higher throughput without sacrificing decentralization.

The real difference comes down to design philosophy. Bitcoin's strength is its battle-tested immutability and universal adoption as digital gold. Kaspa's pitch? A PoW chain that actually scales.

Both have merit depending on what you value: store-of-value security or transaction efficiency. The crypto market has room for different approaches to the same problem. Rather than one "winning," we're seeing how different consensus designs serve different use cases.