Bitcoin Forum

I've heard this question a lot: "Couldn't another cryptocoin come along and displace Bitcoin?"

I'd say the vulnerability of all other mined coins to a 51% attack (or some other type of attack) by Bitcoin miners makes this impossible.

When I was a newbie I didn't really understand how important miners are, and how powerful the community really is. The network is incredible! http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/155636-the-bitcoin-network-outperforms-the-top-500-supercomputers-combined (http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/155636-the-bitcoin-network-outperforms-the-top-500-supercomputers-combined)

Even a tiny fraction of the Bitcoin network is capable of stopping any other mined coin in its tracks (wasn't the TRC network stalled for 48 hours by a single ASIC? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=169068.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=169068.0)).

It strikes me that despite good intentions, every other alt-coin billed as "a different Bitcoin" is likely to be devoid of potential.

[Other cryptography-based payment technology may emerge and change the landscape (like the Ripple protocol), and there are different application of Bitcoin technology altogether (Namecoin), but personally, I see this stuff as more helpful to Bitcoin than anything else.]

Probably not, seeing as most alts are scamcoins now anyway.

What if the Bitcoin block size stays at 1 MB?  Miners can be profitable in a network with few transactions and high fees or many transactions and low fees.  What choice do you think is better for the growth of the Bitcoin network?  Why stick around on the old, expensive blockchain when merchants, miners and users of Bitcoin get more value out of the lower transaction fee one?

I can't tell you the future but if Bitcoin doesn't adapt to changing economic circumstances it'll be gutted by other currencies when it becomes uneconomical.  Unfortunately creating this kind of oversight to the economics of the Bitcoin network requires central planning and most users are opposed to that.

So there may be a need for Litecoin one day. Good point.
I'm not saying that Bitcoin will survive no matter what. Who knows. But what sort of new currency could crush Bitcoin? A new uber-fiat  ???

...or maybe this http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/14/investing/bremmer-bitcoin/ (http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/14/investing/bremmer-bitcoin/)

Corporations like Amazon and Facebook dominating the currency market? While central banks and governments hoard all the gold and manipulate the stock market?  >:(  Please don't ever die Bitcoin!

false... I'd say an alt coin is one of the few reasons why bitcoins may not hit $100k each in the future.

Keep your eye on them, cuz you never know when the market will like another one better.

Alt-coins don't necessarily compete with Bitcoin, but rather strengthen cryptocurrency in general. I doubt Bitcoin will ever completely be replaced (where it disappears), not without some fundamental flaw discovered an alternative can solve or some superior feature Bitcoin can't emulate.

The internet is NEVER about being the best... it's about:

(1)  Being easy to use.

(2)  Though imperfect...
Connecting with humans on some "lowest common denominator" level.

(3)  Rapidly building a critical mass.

That's why BitTorrent crushed Napster...
YouTube crushed MySpace...
And strange, simple Twitter just freaking exploded.

Ripple is incomprehensible...
So it's not a threat to Bitcoin...
And the alt-coins don't have the "critical mass" BTC does.

In the above context, Bitcoin looks good.

http://falkvinge.net/2011/05/11/with-the-napster-of-banking-round-the-corner-bring-out-your-popcorn/

With the abundance of alt-coins this is highly unlikely, but it is certainly a possibility.

One of the driving force for 'paracoin' idea (sig block) was to basically let another system do the heavy-lifting.  For as long as it is able, at least.

Such a solution is actually kind of a win for everyone.  As importantly, it relaxes some of the production constraints that interfere with progress on the system development front.

Are you saying that launching a 51% attack on a currency is a perfectly legitimate tactic for advocates of a competing currency to employ?

I would say that it does not matter whether it is 'legitimate'.  The salient point is that it happens.

Ripple will have a shot when more people become aware of it and more gateways emerge. There will be ways for it do really amazing things like be your own bank, create a LETS, or even invent a new commodity. Bitcoin and Ripple are both small fish in the big pond finance. I think they could help each other change the world. But I don't see Bitcoin clonecoins contributing much other than confusion at this point.

It's not likely to happen on an organized, large scale through pools and the like if the community considers it an illegitimate tactic. Hence my question. Some might argue that it's theft, fraud, criminal abuse, or the like.

They can argue until they are blue in the face.  I doubt that a majority people would pitch a bitch about a pool taking some time off to destroy some promising competition if there was a pretty clear cut picture that the competition was likely to diminish from the value they held in, say, Bitcoin.

I'm not even sure I would, and I do believe it is slimy, unethical, and damages the distributed crypto-currency environment that society might otherwise enjoy.

Absolutely not!
It just seems like cryptographic solutions should take into account the extent of whatever deplorable things human beings are capable of. Bitcoin is successful because it can't be hacked, because it can't be attacked, etc... It seems necessary that a system can defend itself against everything that's out there in the world that could try to take advantage of its vulnerabilities.

 Do I think Bitcoin miners are honourable? Doesn't matter. The point is that some of them have a lot power and may use it in nefarious ways. Personally, I strive to keep my decisions focused on liberating humanity and accelerating ideas. But I suppose it's all about perspective. If I perceived something was a threat to me or what I believed in, I suppose I would want to attack it... but now I feel like we're having a whole different conversation.

It should be illegal because it is theft, fraud, criminal abuse, but how can we enforce this today?

we will transfer the value of mined BTC to another non-mined currency. mining is inefficient, wasteful, and produces vulnerabilities. great marketing scheme and traction-generator - but we need to move on.

we're moving on - we planned this from 0.1

non-mined as in centrally issued?

Dream On.

I am not a dreamer. I am a doer.

If you wish to survive - follow me. Else, perish.

Whatever you say, kid.

LOL
Who's we? You and Satoshi back at the lab? :D

I would say it's in no way illegal, at least in its primitive form. You can't accuse me of mining with more than 50% of the network's hashpower, and you can't accuse me of refusing to process other's transactions because I don't want to use my own hardware to do that.