Bitcoin Forum

(moderator note: this is a discussion of Bitcoin itself not the Foundation specifically)

The announcement of the Bitcoin Foundation has shaken this community; its thread received 50 plus pages and over 13K views in about 72 hours.

The Bitcoin community recognizes there is no official leadership. That's a major strength because a leader could abuse power, or be incompetent, but also become a target for enemies, or a magnet for corruption.

While TBF can't lead by force (e.g. proprietary rights to software) it could gain leadership attributes by popular agreement and influence, which means it could inherit other leadership attributes, both good and bad.

Since Bitcoin may come to play a powerful role in society this presents cause for concern, which given the track record for mixing humans, money, power and corruption, wouldn't seem to bode well.

People on both sides of the issue highlighted valid pros and cons, but one thing that is true is you can't stop such foundations from forming. The fact Bitcoin doesn't grant anyone power means opportunity exists for anyone to pursue power for good or ill. It was partly in recognition of this that I came upon the solution to this dilemma. Bitcoin relies on the free market for self-regulation and that's where the answer lies.

You won't believe how well this works out, and also the implications. I'll give a TL;DR version, then extended view.

TL;DR

The biggest complaint/possible danger opposition to TBF express is it could become corrupted and control a very powerful market, if and when Bitcoin becomes powerful, which we all expect could happen. But that's just it. Their power would pertain to Bitcoin. Even their name pertains to it, which is one of the complaints. How much power would they have, however, if there were other cryptocurrencies just as prominent in the market? The power would be diminished, of course. There would be just as many people with different coins than whatever people believed about Bitcoin specifically. Same cryptocurrency, but entirely different coins, and system.

In response to critics supporters of TBF have said start your own foundation to compete; to which we, the opposition, reply we can't compete with the top talent already concentrated at TBF. But that answer is partly right. It's not to start another foundation; it's to compete. But we don't do it, we let another cryptocurrency do it. The free market will do the rest. If people think Bitcoin is becoming tainted with power/corruption they can vote with their feet and opt to use alternative currencies. The exchange rate of such alternative currencies should rise/fall as an indicator of approval/disapproval of what was happening with Bitcoin. Make sense? :)

So the solution is simply to promote at least one other cryptocurrency in the market (ideally there might be 2 for better distribution), and do it before Bitcoin gets a stronger foothold. The timing of TBF announcement is fantastic, because it leaves room in Bitcoin's life for competition to check it. And the foundation should absolutely use the name the Bitcoin Foundation, because if they don't someone else could. They can even become as corrupt as they wish, as the market will reflect that with exchange rates, heightening awareness of the corruption. The free market system checks itself remarkably well!

--------

Extended View

Almost as if the free market anticipated this issue alt-coins have already started.

After Bitcoin the one with the most traction is Litecoin (http://litecoin.org). Checking this forum's alt-coin section, or rates at exchanges like btc-e.com or vircurex.com confirms that. For that reason I'm now advocating establishing Litecoin in the market alongside Bitcoin, which was created to be the "silver to Bitcoin's gold". It should be trivial for merchants, exchanges, and eWallets to add it because everything is just bits and bytes!

And the benefits to doing this are just getting started:

One of the fears voiced about TBF is it could make targeting Bitcoin users easier by the government. Gavin Andresen, being both a board member and lead Bitcoin developer, and having made Bitcoin presentation at the CIA, is fodder for conspiracy theorists whether or not any concern is warranted.

Having Litecoin in the market counters that. Litecoin, being silver, can just sit back and watch daring big brother Bitcoin go out into the world, then learn and benefit from the mistakes. Since everything is open-source any advancements for Bitcoin automatically apply to Litecoin. The same is true of legal victories for Bitcoin since they are both cryptocurrencies.

So what has happened is this "foundation" development hasn't hurt Bitcoin at all, rather it has strengthened cryptocurrencies overall.

The base has also been expanded in two key ways:

-Growth of market
-Growth of opportunity

There is already a fledgling Litecoin community forming, including its own forum and LTC businesses like Litecoin Dice (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=108826.0) which mirror Bitcoin successes. That's growth of market.

With higher LTC market prominence comes increased opportunities including speculation/arbitrage of exchange rates between currencies, which brings up an interesting idea...

An Unexpected Development

As I pondered the implications of all this I realized this also solves the 51% attack.

Most everyone is aware of the dreaded 51% attack vulnerability cryptocurrencies share. Until network hash rates are believed beyond challenge such attack possibility lingers. Unfortunately, sufficiently high hash rates only begin once the currency is successful enough to be a threat.

However, I believe this no longer an issue. The problem posed by a 51% attack is not one of network damage, it's one of confidence damage. If people remain fearful of an attack they understandably become hesitant to use the currency. But the issue of confidence comes into play another way. Nothing backs cryptocurrencies, famously. They gain or lose value and acceptance based on how they are perceived. As I've illustrated it's easy for alternative cryptocurrencies to challenge each other, and no one knows what the market will come up with next. Since it's just as easy for merchants and everyone else to accept one form or another of these all electronic currencies and switch between them, any one could rise or fall at any time.

What I think this means is cryptocurrencies should be used transactionally, rather than as primary stores of value. I see a cryptocurrency version of xe.com (http://www.xe.com/) showing all alt-coins values relative to gold (or USD to start). Exchange rates would be updated and available to merchants in real time. They could quote product prices in one, two, three or more currencies. They might prompt users with CC (as in currency choice, meaning they accept gold, fiat, crypto etc.) or CCC (crypto-currency choice) pricing signs.

Average consumers would store the majority of their wealth in which ever form of money they deemed most stable (likely gold) and keep about 2% or so of their wealth in other (crypto) currencies. Traditionally, actual physical exchange and storage of money has made it impractical and costly to trade in and out of currencies frequently, but the Internet and cryptocurrencies reduce or remove such barriers.

If over 95% of your wealth is usually in gold, for example, are you ever really concerned about a 51% attack, or the possibility of new and better cryptocurrencies? Not really. You only hold a given cryptocurrency for short periods of time, probably based on exchanged rates, and perhaps even managed by a professional.

Again, we find cryptocurrencies are strengthened overall.

Conclusion

So while the community had fractured over TBF I believe we're all on the same side again :)

I think everyone (TBF opponents in particular) should begin adopting, promoting and using Litecoin to diversify cryptocurrencies in the market. People should have cryptocurrency portfolios, I think with BTC and LTC starting things off. Exchanges, eWallets, and merchants should add support for multiple cryptocurrencies so people can switch between them easily. Vircurex.com and Btc-e.com currently reflect this well.

The exchange rate for Litecoins I estimate should be around $3, which is about 4 times less than Bitcoin's current rate, because there will be about 4 times as many Litecoins than Bitcoins in total. I personally will be working hard to help the community move in this direction. It also means broader wealth distribution as there are already about the same number of LTC as BTC in existence.

Agree, there can be competition on many levels and should be. And if this brings peace to Bitcoin, it's win win.


LOL. Loaded litecoins much?

Hard fork and your coins aren't recognized by most as Bitcoins. No, that solves nothing. It appeases the developers but not people who want to use their money on their terms.

A fork works well for Linux when you get the same experience afterwards. That's not the case for money.

Nobody wants to deal in a unrecognized currency. That is not a choice. That's a cop-out.

I am underwhelmed and unconvinced.

What are you going to do, call everyone on the phone form the "early adopters" section of your phone book?

Okay, we see you know how to use the font tag... Care to elaborate?

That's fine. You're part of the market, and free to have an opinion. But the market is larger than you (and me), and if it thinks I'm right then that's how things will play out.

Well, you're essentially saying the same thing I am. the only difference is your fork happens after something bad happens, but my version happens before.

LOL

It seems to me the only ones who were shaken were a relatively few who posted the same paranoia over and over again. 

If you count the number of unique users making comments as opposed to total posts it seems to me like the first pages
of that thread, you mention, had more positive comments than negative...  and then there are all the users who might
not have posted due to... meh... 

I am neutral myself, perhaps tending towards somewhat positive.   I don't see the foundation as being any danger to Bitcoin,
nor of it being a great force bringing awareness and light to the masses.   

There are many ways it can help, sure, along with many other factors.

LAME

I will never accept Litecoins because I'll always have to worry that the sort of people who will jump to a similar chain will just do it again (Lightercoin?) and there won't be goods backing it when I go to get payback for my work.

I would be more worried about corruption if bitcoin value exploded...which I don't think it will do without TBF. I see it as a catch 22...

Trololol, you forgot to sell your SolidCoins? xD

Acoindr,

While others may call you a hater, troller, ect. I commend you.

Right now, you are the only one who said "Hey, there is something about this I dont like, so Im gonna make it better"

Instead of just complaining, you are showing effort, and an idea thats worth discussing.

I'd happily debate you any day, and if you come to New York City, first beers are on me!  :D

-Charlie

Sorry for the delay in response. Was watching the presidential "debate". It's like watching a slow motion train wreck; you just can't look away. Typing replies now.

I don't think you have an accurate view of likely outcome...

What you have to realize is things change. In the future Bitcoin may be far more widely adopted than now. There may be no bitcointalk.org and cozy little community which is all we've ever known at this stage in Bitcoin's progress. This may be a future where TBF is a large and powerful global corporation and with recognized brand name and many legions of followers. Now supposing the "something bad" starts to happen. Your answer is, no problem hard fork, right?

Okay, how do you go about that? Are you going to do it? Alone? Is someone else going to do it? Are multiple people going to do it, at different times? And if any one of these happen how will others know about it? Say there are 14 different hard forks. How is anyone going to know which one to follow?

The minute you jump on one of the Bitcoin 2 forks your coins have zero value, because they are not accepted anywhere.

What gives money value is that it is widely accepted. Once something you have to trade as money is not accepted, it ceases to have any value (if it ever had any).

A Bitcoin 2 would not magically materialize, uncoordinated, and have people miraculously know to follow that particular fork. That's why waiting for forks after something bad happened wouldn't work.

On the other hand by supporting a different Bitcoin version now at this stage, when the original Bitcoin is not widely accepted, the second version can grow along with the original one grows. Make sense?

The exact same paranoia was posted in 50 plus pages? I think many distinct points were made actually. And besides, we're talking about future events. Who can exactly predict and articulate the future?

What could opponents to the adoption of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 have said at that time? Could not all of their objections been hand waved away as "paranoia"?



Of course early pages would be expected to start off positive. It was meant to be a positive announcement was it not? Heck even I can see the advantages of having such an organization. I've never disputed that. But as dialogue continued and objections were raised opinions could have shifted. This reminds me of the forum poll on the topic. That poll started fairly early in the debate. To my knowledge you can't go back and change answers, yet that poll still shows clear reservation to TBF was held.


Yes, I agree exactly with your last sentence. It's the "along with" other factors that raises concern.

You know what the fail and lame comments remind me of? The typical reaction to people first hearing about "Bitcoin". We're seeing how that's turning out.

Moderators: Please move this thread to the Alternative Currencies section as more than half of the OP is an alternative currency.

Now here you touch on a very important point, which I discussed in the OP.

It's the basis for the thread, in fact.

Up to this point most of the community imagined Bitcoin would slowly gain acceptance creeping into the mainstream, at which point its value would explode. What's interesting is nothing like Bitcoin has ever existed in the history of the world, so nobody knows exactly how things will play out.

As people learned more about how Bitcoin worked the topic of other versions of coins starting came up. Since the code is all open source and nobody controls anything, then why couldn't other coins start up trying to win support and enriching early adopters?

It wasn't long before such alt-coins did begin. The first was actually Namecoin if I remember correctly, and its purpose was not wealth creation or storage, but rather decentralizing distribution of naming rights to address government control/censorship of Internet TLDs.

Many people asked your exact question. What would prevent people jumping to other coin versions? The answer is nothing, really, except alternates would have to win support against coins having the advantage of already being established. And since there is no limit to the number of alternates that could be created they would all challenge each other as well. The result would be that adoption of any new coin wouldn't happen simply because it was new and offered the chance at early adoption. A coin would only gain favor for some specific reason, something existing which established coins didn't offer.

Soon other wealth purposed coins did pop up, like IOCoin and IXCoin, but these offered no real reason for adoption other than the early adopter play, which as explained isn't enough. So such versions went nowhere. But then other coins started that actually did seek to offer some specific benefit of use besides early adoption. Of these Litecoin has gained the most traction, as it has some neat aspects like CPU focused mining, and faster confirmation times. It was designed to be the silver to Bitcoin's gold. Vircurex.com I think gives good indication of coin traction because you can compare exchange and hash rates to see market preference.

But none of the "specialized" coins has really done much to date either. The community has only had eyes for Bitcoin. In fact, I myself only looked into what Litecoin actually did a couple days ago when I made the connection for usage as regards TBF. Any coin needs a catalyst for adoption, and I think this is it for Litecoin. Now there is a compelling reason for Bitcoin community members to adopt it: it can check the power any Bitcoin Foundation might garner over Bitcoin.

Most people probably assumed alt-coins would enter the market a some time far into the future, once Bitcoin was established and more thought went into specialized coins. So nobody paid much attention to them. However, I think the time is now for at least one of them - Litecoin.

As for the dangers of people switching from coin to coin you mention, that's what I address in my OP in the "An Unexpected Development" section. Please re-read that to understand what I mean :)

I plan to soon offer a Cryptocurrency Index with live exchange rates, a first step which should help the community understand what I envision.

I actually think Bitcoin value would explode either way eventually but TBF could accelerate it.

Thanks for the recognition, Charlie :)

Actually I don't see what I'm doing as being of my own creation. I think it's a natural progression of the market, and I'm simply fulfilling a role.

Have you not been paying attention? This is a discussion about Bitcoin, actually the concept of cryptocurrencies itself, and its ramifications and possible course as determined by the free market.

What's the matter, afraid of a little competition for Bitcoin? If people have no interest in the thread it will die away.

No it won't, seeing how you post 4 times in a row to bump it up.

Not all exactly the same. There was different types of paranoia mixed in with downright hating.


You are concerned about other things helping bitcoin along with the foundation helping it? 
That's what I was saying. 

Well obviously I can't keep posting if people stop replying...

I asked this when I was in Newbie jail and didn't get an answer:

Is Litecoin dying?  I looked at coblee's github (he is still the main ltc dev I think) and no commits in a few months.

Maybe ltc needs a foundation!

lol

acoindr is spot on.

His mission is not to convince anybody to follow his way, but simply to show people the way things will play out.
Bitcoin is much bigger than a single crypto-currency. It is a hyper-dimensional concept which intersects with our 3D reality in a variety of ways. Intersections may appear as separate objects in space and time, but they really are just parts of a bigger more complex idea.

Imagine how fingers on your 3D hand would intersect with 2D plane - a bunch of independent circles here and there.
Similar thing happens when our plane of existence gets Bitcoin treatment. Instead of arguing about which finger is "the finger" I would say that we would need all those fingers when doing such a delicate and complex job as liberating humanity from oppressive grip of fiat.

Now from the market dynamics point of view the timing of events is so interesting that it hints at an intelligent design rather than being a mere coincidence. While Bitcoin Foundation is filling the vacuum in its own niche, a new vacuum forms in the mining business. As Bitcoin shifts to a specialized ASIC hardware, the general purpose hardware (CPUs and GPUs) become available for the next contender. This vacuum will be filled with a second most valued crypto-currency with independent hash algo, which is Litecoin.

This cycle would likely to continue as Litecoin shifts to ASIC mining at some point in the future until the market somewhat saturates with different coins filling all the necessary vacuums. The point of this thread is not to influence this process, but to point out the direction where to watch to see it unfold.

Well, no cryptocurrency really dies as long as at least two or more people use it. What can happen is it can become less likely people ever adopt it, though. For example, if a cryptocurrency had only 2 people with 70% of the coins it would be unlikely anyone else would adopt it.

I only recently looked into Litecoin, but quickly realized it had the most traction of all the other alt-coins presently. It has the highest market exchange rate after Bitcoin. It was in the $.04-.05 range when I looked into it 2 days ago, but it's now in the $.05-.06 range, about a 20% increase. Apparently it was once $.03. The alt-coin section of this forum is dominated mostly by Litecoin discussion/projects, as is the trading chat on btc-e.com. So I would say no it's not dying, but growing and of course that can speed up or even explode anytime.

Regarding a LTC foundation how DARE you even suggest it  >:(

J/K  :P Of course that thought had crossed my mind. Yes, any alt-coin might gain a foundation just as Bitcoin has, but it wouldn't matter because concentration of power would be divided; and the more alt-coins with market prominence the more chance to escape from and/or divide centralized power.

some of the OP comments i agree with but this one i do not


kinda sounded like if u dont like TBF u cant use bitcoin..

i use litecoin and BTC.. i certainly wont drop BTC if i in future disagree with TBF. its not like they are the police saying.. if u dont like our laws F**k off to a different country.

if i do not like them i just dont become a member and continue using bitcoin. i have seen no advantages a member personally gets/receives apart from deciding what the programmers next projects are.

so i do not see any major things against TBF, but i dont see big advantages to being a member either.

What if the changes are not to the protocol?

Let me give what I think may be a good example. We're talking literally about money are we not? How many people on earth use money? Almost all of them. That's near 7 billion people.

Now, say TBF becomes powerful, widely popular, and corrupted. Millions, even billions of people download the software client from TBF because that's what's popular (see Windows). What if the Bitcoin client followed the protocol with no changes, but also gave a convenient screen listing businesses that accepted the currency... You click 'restaurants' and a list appears, 'dentists', a list appears, 'wedding photographers', anything, but what order is the list in? And how are listings shown? This is just a separate tab on the client so it has nothing to do with BTC operation, but it does have to do with power/influence over what million or billions of people think are the recommended businesses to go to all around the world. You don't think that's too much power for one organization to have?

As has been repeatedly stated, Bitcoin Foundation will not be directing the dev team to work on specific projects.

More likely the reverse is true:  the community and dev team will suggest things that need funding (like Gavin's salary).  If the Foundation's members agree, it happens.  Otherwise, it doesn't.

Lol...I sold 1k solid coins right before the tiny market folded...I think I got a whopping 6 or 8 bitcoins for it.

Although I consider myself a Bitcoin fan, I do see some points being made by the OP. There are too many arguments in my head but to sum things up I'd say: Alternate cryptocurrencies can't hurt Bitcoin if the Foundation is run smoothly; if it's not and major problems arise then those cryptocurrencies will save the day. I think it's good to have them around as this would also be a major reason for the Foundation not to fail.

/offtopic
I was very tempted to hit the magic button beside posts with big letters and single word replies, providing nothing at all in the discussion.

Interestingly enough I hadn't given alt-coins to Bitcoin much thought before now. I had a neutral to slightly unfavorable view of alt-coins which I described in an eBook I wrote called How to Grow Bitcoin. I said such spinoffs were inevitable and okay, but warned against anyone duping non-technical users into thinking a valueless spinoff was a coin with value, like Bitcoin.

When IOCoin launched, which I think was the first one, I barely read the forum post. I knew no alt-coin would really go anywhere because it would have to pull users/resources from Bitcoin, which being first to market had natural momentum.

Other alt-coins launched and I gave them the same disregard. I think that was true of most of the community, as evidenced by the near zero exchange rates.

What I hadn't really paid attention to was that later alt-coins actually tried to improve upon Bitcoin in some way. I knew there were differences, but in my opinion the properties Bitcoin already has are good enough to gain widespread mainstream adoption. For something to pose a serious challenge it would have to have a significant improvement over Bitcoin, something Bitcoin didn't or couldn't offer. Surely something with that kind of technology, I thought, wouldn't come for a long time.

I heard about the launch of SolidCoin, but didn't bother to look into them. As I understand them now they attempt to obtain value based on power consumption without a hard limit on total coins. I don't see how that would be a significant advantage.

Litecoins, however, seem to be more interesting. Litecoins do everything the same as Bitcoin with a few changes.  First, they are optimized for CPU mining, meaning more people might participate since everyone has a CPU but not everyone has or will invest in GPUs. Next, the blocks are mined faster resulting in faster confirmation times than Bitcoin. Last, there are about 4 times as many coins in total than Bitcoin, probably meaning better overall distribution.

There are already about as many Litecoins as Bitcoins due to their faster block creation rate. Their exchange rate from my understanding was in the $.03 range, more recently in the $.04-.05 range, and within the last couple days in the $.05-.06 range, leading to talk of bubbles on btc-e.com chat.

I think the market was already giving some traction to Litecoin as it attempted to fulfill its stated mission to become the silver to Bitcoin's gold. However, I think such progression was going to be slow, because there still wasn't a good enough reason for mainstream Bitcoin users to adopt litecoins over bitcoins. And obviously nobody else in the world knows of any of these cryptocurrencies.

But I think this "Bitcoin Foundation" event can be a catalyst for litecoin adoption. Litecoins can now offer a clear and significant reason for mainstream Bitcoin users to adopt it which Bitcoin can't offer, which is the ability to diminish market power overall of a power-consolidating Bitcoin foundation. It offers a choice. It's an entirely different system incompatible with Bitcoins, but with all the same desirable properties. There is no reason LTC couldn't be used everywhere BTC could. There is no disadvantage to using them, yet they offer tremendous wealth opportunity - as Bitcoin does - due to the fact most of the market that would eventually adopt them hasn't yet.

Bitcoin is "Bitcoin's silver" learn about how/why multiple metals evolved as currency and you will see Litecoin isn't silver to anything.  

Now hypothetically niche alt-coins "could" develop in the future however they would need to solve some deficiency in Bitcoin (no the method of mining isn't a deficiency).  It is also possible some future alt-coin will replace Bitcoin (becoming a superior "gold") by providing a superior protocol.  However litecoin isn't going to accomplish either of those goals.

One example:  Bitcoin likely will be increasingly difficult to use in micro transactions.  The cost of securing the chain, combined with the perpetual cost of storing tx forever makes it ill suited for small tx (say $0.01 to $1.00).  A chain developed which can be merge mined and use a ledger type system which allows the transaction "tail" to be dropped after tx are deep enough in the chain would be useful.  By focusing on the aspects that would be optimal for micro tx the alt-chain could present REAL UTILITY =VALUE over the competing Bitcoin protocol.

Litecoin doesn't present any increased UTILITY.  It is a technological dead end.

Geez, I've got a lot of work to do.

DeathAndTaxes, I consider you one of the smartest people on this forum (and that's saying something) yet you completely miss the point. Let me try to explain.


I know exactly why metals evolved as currency. (And note some are quite valuable, like platinum, but not used as currency) The comparison of litecoins to bitcoins has nothing to do with the comparison of gold to silver except that a person would expect these cryptocurrencies to be "joined at the hip" price wise where one always leads the way, just as happens with gold and silver.

General consensus is gold rates higher than silver for aesthetics, while both are used for jewelry and similar application. There is also about 10 times as much silver mined annually as gold. These factors, among others, result in gold maintaining a significant price lead over silver. Central banks hold gold as a reserve, because people have valued it as money for thousands of years. For this reason it's often helpful to compare the value of a thing, anything, to gold to determine its true value. Silver exchange rates rise and fall in relative lockstep with gold with little variance.

So how does this relate to Litcoin/Bitecoin? Simple, the comparison is both cryptocurrencies are essentially the same thing with slight differences. Litecoin is comparable to Bitcoin in every way in terms of usage, but there will be about 4 times as many of them total. That means whatever price the market assigns to bitcoins could also be assigned to litecoin, but divided by 4.


Wrong, sorry. It's not hypothetical; it has already happened, many times in fact. Alt-coins have already developed and it's arguable that any of them solve a deficiency in Bitcoin.

What I believe you meant to express is that alt-coins in the future might launch and garner real market value. However, this is also off the mark. Alt-coins exist right now with real market value. It's measured in the low cent range, but it's value nonetheless. (remember early Bitcoin)



True.


I didn't suggest that it would, and it doesn't have to. I guess I haven't considered that most people are only familiar with one currency dominating a market since this is what most of the world is familiar with.

However, a better market actually involves one with competing currencies where market participants can hold one or more and use one(s) that suit them best in ways that suit them best, whether as a store of value, for transactions, special use cases, or even political reasons (what I suggest for litecoin, and how some view gold vs fiat). This doesn't mean any currency must uproot any other, but rather that they exist simultaneously and have fluctuating values relative to one another.


Real utility does equal value, but what you fail to consider is there are various forms of utility, not all of which are technical. Value can come about various ways. The value I suggest Litecoin could have has nothing to do with technical superiority to Bitcoin. In fact, it would serve the purpose I suggest if it was identical in every way to Bitcoin except its name and the fact that it's a different coin/network.

I think the whole foundation discussion is starting us (the community) on a slippery slope. The idea that it eventually turns into a corrupt regulatory entity isn't an enjoyable conversation.

That being said, I think the 'refuse to update' crowd has it right - if Gavin & other developers go off the deep end and make changes that are bad for the network - I simply won't use it. That may mean getting off the train entirely if the version I'm using loses popularity and becomes worthless. I know Gavin does what he does for love of the ideals bitcoin embodies. That's the same reason I (and some other portion of the community) are involved in it. I see bitcoin as having the potential to incite political change in the world at large.

I for one refuse to make decisions based on fear. Yes, I can see how the foundation could lead to badness... but it hasn't happened yet - and I'm not abandoning bitcoin just because it could eventually lead to that. To even suggest a pre-emptive more to an altcoin... shows everyone that you aren't a supporter of bitcoin... but merely a speculator trying to make a quick/easy gain. Nothing wrong with that, use the network however you like - but please don't run around pretending the sky is falling when it isn't.

I think this has been blown out of proportion. The nay-sayers and armchair developers have a million opinions and want to just sit around and complain.

If someone thinks there is a better way, you're free to do it. This isn't a slippery slope- BST, GLBSE, Bitcoinica,PIRATE, and the list goes on- these are slippery slopes. Poorly secured or run services, or outright frauds that destroy our credibility. This is the slippery slope to a cesspool of inaction and ponzi schemes.

If anyone has a better foundation, stop complaining and build it.

 

What is your point saying that the foundation discussion starts us on a slippery slope and isn't enjoyable? Maybe, but does that mean we shouldn't talk about it? Discussing every possible outcome makes the community stronger and aware. Of course we should discuss it.

Back on topic, I think most replies miss the point the OP is trying to make.

It has nothing to do with fear nor with being a Bitcoin or Litecoin supporter nor with being a nay-sayer or foundation hater.

It does not matter how likely or unlikely you think it is that Bitcoin can be comprimised. I think we can agree that it is possible and that scenarios exist where "refuse to update your client" is not an option. You would either have to join your enemy or you loose.

If I understand it correctly the main point he makes (OP correct me if I'm wrong) is that competition between working and tested crypto-currencies is a good thing and to an extend may prevent development going bad, because users now have an option to abandon coins that are comprimised. Nothing more, nothing less.

Think of it as the decentralisation of decentralised crypto-currencies.

We can argue if Litecoin is an alternativ at this moment or if it ever could be, but I don't think we can argue that it is impossible for Bitcoin to be compromised. Unlikely yes, impossible no.

As I replied earlier, what if the changes made are not to the protocol? I'll repost what I said...

Let me give what I think may be a good example. We're talking literally about money are we not? How many people on earth use money? Almost all of them. That's near 7 billion people.

Now, say TBF becomes powerful, widely popular, and corrupted. Millions, even billions of people download the software client from TBF because that's what's popular (see Windows). What if the Bitcoin client followed the protocol with no changes, but also gave a convenient screen listing businesses that accepted the currency... You click 'restaurants' and a list appears, 'dentists', a list appears, 'wedding photographers', anything. This is just a separate tab on the client so it has nothing to do with BTC operation, but it does have to do with power/influence over what million or billions of people think are the recommended businesses to go to all around the world. You don't think that's too much power for one organization to have?



I guess in 1913 you would have said, sure the Federal Reserve Act could lead to badness... but it hasn't happened yet and I'm not abandoning it just because it could eventually lead to that.


Acutally, you're the one that isn't a true Bitcoin supporter, because you're showing you don't understand it. If you believe in Bitcoin then you believe it is a voluntary currency supported by the free market. This means you believe it should gain value on its own merit, not because of what someone else says, dictates, or enforces. It also means you welcome competition for it, because if the free market picks the competition then that is the way things should be. Otherwise trying to protect a certain position is not what Bitcoin is about, that's what fiat is about.


If you hold bitcoins and don't spend them you are a speculator too. You are speculating your bitcoins will have the same or higher value in the future.


The following poll shows I'm not alone in my concern:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115388.0

Not that it's relevant to the points I'm making, but I'm not an "armchair developer". I know how to code.


I suggest you re-read my OP. It's not just sitting around and complaining. In fact, the thread title has the word "solution" in it.



Yes, that's right. That's exactly what I'm doing.


I don't know what these businesses have to do with the Bitcoin Foundation. Nobody, that I know of, is suggesting it is a Ponzi scheme, fraudulent, or poorly run service, at least not at the moment.

Yes, deeplink, you have it exactly. Thank you for speaking up :)

Let me clarify a few points.

I do not hate the foundation, and certainly don't hate Bitcoin. In fact, I think the foundation can do a lot of good. Further, I even admitted (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.msg1229540#msg1229540) that the people forming the foundation did nothing wrong technically.

What I am suggesting is there is inherent danger in concentration of power. That's just a fact of life. Like it or not. Sometimes it's abused and sometimes not, but to not have any concern I think is naive.

The best way to fight against concentration of power, short of directly attacking it, is to offer alternatives. That's all I'm trying to do.

In other news I see the LTC/USD exchange rate is skyrocketing on btc-e.com lately :D

Apparently it hit .10 briefly, which I think is an all time high. Does anyone know a source of historical LTC prices?

Bitcoin is by definition the protocol. If some change isn't a change in the protocol then it doesn't really matter. There is no example anyone could of a non-protocol change that would affect the network to to any degree over any real amount of time. Specifically, your original example doesn't matter. If that sort of thing matters, if it's something that works... we'll see other clients adopt it. If not, then we won't. How would having a vendor list pushed by the client... how does that detract from use of btc?

As for the fed being formed: The foundation isn't being granted any power. They're simply filling a need that the see in the community also there is no power enforcing anything they do.

As for who's a supporter of bitcoin: Right, I'm not a supporter of bitcoin... because I want to keep using it. Sure that makes sense, you're supporting it by switching to another currency that adds almost nothing to the base concept. As an aside, LTC offers a single advantage to BTC in its faster block creation times... which means it could be potentially less annoying to use for a consumer/vendor transaction... while at the same time bringing a flawed concept of inflating the overhead associated with block creation (scrypt) to stave off technological advances (because they're somehow 'unfair'). Which is counter intuitive to growing and securing the LTC network.

As for speculation: I hold about BTC20 - just to be sentimental. They are the last 20 from my original buy. Maybe that makes me a speculator, but I don't really think so.

As for the poll: What exactly does it prove? Only that aren't alone in not understanding the ideals behind bitcoin and how it's all supposed to work. So are we talking about truth or public opinion? If we're trying to find the truth you'll need better evidence than 'others agree with me'.

I for one am interested in the truth. And your "Solution to The Bitcoin Foundation (the announcement)" isn't actually a solution. You're simply advising us to stop using btc and use another coin instead. That's avoidance of an (potential) issue rather than a solution.

I disagree. Power comes in different forms. Consider the President of the United States. The president has no legal authority to control the stock market, yet just the words he says or even how he says them can affect markets. That power didn't come explicitly with the presidential office, but as a side effect.


Aha, now I see why you are so resistant. Like DeathAndTaxes, you think I'm trying to replace bitcoins. I'm not. I want bitcoins to succeed just as much as I always did, and I hope the Bitcoin Foundation can help achieve that. I intend to help the foundation however I can in that regard.

At the same time I do, however, believe bitcoins should have competition in the marketplace. I'm going to write up a post on competing currencies when I get a chance because I think the community really needs to understand that concept, and why it's better overall. It doesn't weaken bitcoins/cryptocurrencies, it strengthens them.

To summarize, imagine you went to the store and saw prices not just in dollars, but also something called dwellers. The people controlling dwellers were completely different than the Fed. If the Fed did something you didn't like like lowering interest rates causing inflation you could exchange more of your dollars for dwellers, and use those to buy things instead of dollars. If the people running dwellers mismanaged them you could choose to hold and use more dollars. Both currencies would exist and have value in the marketplace, but because no single currency had a monopoly it would ultimately benefit the market participants by giving them choice. Choice is usually always better. Consider politics. Is it better to have only one or two candidates or would you think the more the better?



As for securing the LTC network please see my comment here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115388.msg1250825#msg1250825

Firefop, your arguments are very fuzzy and have nothing to do with what OP is saying.

I have tried explaining as clear as possible what I felt OP meant and he acknowledged it. But you keep going on about irrelevant stuff.

I realize many people are like you. You assume there is no danger, because you cannot see it (yet). You have difficulty understanding and making clear and logical arguments, you fail to see the big picture and/or have a dangerously naive world-view.

You sir, are why I feel there is need for strong altcoins.

::)

Yes, well. Because you said it. Either this post is BS or the OP is.

Either way I'm out, since attempting to reason with you seems about as useful as chasing a hyper-active gerbil.

I never said I was trying to replace bitcoins, in any post. And you can't cite where I did. I guess that's why you're "out". Either you have a problem with reading comprehension, or with admitting you're wrong. Perhaps that's why you think reasoning is of no use.