Bitmark versus Ethereum

The Bitmark Property System enables management of digital property rights, but the Ethereum blockchain has two Ethereum Improvement Proposals that can similarly organize and administer digital assets: ERC-20 standardizes the control and transfer of tokens on the Ethereum blockchain and may be used to manage fungible assets; while ERC-721 introduces standards for collectible and other non-fungible assets.

So why use Bitmark instead of Ethereum?

The simplest answer is that Bitmark was built for digital property management, while Ethereum is instead intended to enable distributed computing. Ethereum certainly can do an impressive number of different things, but Bitmark was optimized for this specific use case, and as a result it is faster, more efficient, and cheaper to manage assets on the Bitmark blockchain than to use Ethereum.


Bitmark versus ERC-20 for Fungible Assets:

Token Creation Bitmark ERC-20
Throughput: Create Token Ownership 66,666/hour 1,200/hour
Cost: Create 1 Type of Token Ownership $0.297 $6.343
Storage: Issue Token 1,077 bytes 6,399 bytes


Token Transference Bitmark ERC-20
Throughput: Transfer Token 100,000/hour 42,480/hour
Cost: Transfer Token $0.223 $0.769


Bitmark versus ERC-721 for Non-Fungible Assets:

Token Creation Bitmark ERC-721
Throughput: Create Token Ownership 100,000/hour 8,880/hour
Cost: Create 1 Token Ownership $0.148 $1.019
Storage: Token 8,602 bytes 47,195 bytes


Token Transference Bitmark ERC-721
Throughput: Transfer Token 121,200/hour 12,720/hour
Cost: Transfer Token $0.223 $0.731


High throughput, small storage, and low cost all make it much easier for Bitmark to operate at scale when managing digital assets.

Bitmark also has advantages over Ethereum because it has been carefully honed to provide the exact services needed for managing digital assets: no less and no more. Where Ethereum creates a potentially inconsistent experience for its digital properties because some details such as meta field support and asset ownership history are managed by smart contract, Bitmark instead maintains this information as part of the core functionality of its blockchain. Ethereum also has additional security concerns created by the inclusion of a Turing-complete programming language: as has already been seen in cases like The DAO exploit and the Parity multi-signature wallet exploit on Ethereum, digital assets in smart contracts can be lost due to coding mistakes. In the Bitmark Property System, those assets are instead protected by Bitmark’s own well-tested and trusted code.

Ethereum might be the choice for people whose digital assets are part of a complex ecosystem, tightly integrated with smart contracts and the decentralized computing power that is the heart of Ethereum’s expertise, but for everyone else, Bitmark is likely to provide a smoother, more economical, and more secure experience, because digital assets are our expertise — which is why institutions like UC Berkeley, KKFARM, and Chibitronics, as well as individuals, trust Bitmark to defend their property rights.