Bitcoin Forum

Hello,
First up - I know this sounds a bit like FUD.. I suppose it is - but it's my own fud and my ponderings about what may happen in the future.

I don't know much about the blockchain technology behind bitcoin to be honest.
However I have heard it is not without it's flaws - I've heard scaling and transaction speed to be two things. (The lightning network is going to speed things up i gather?)

Seeing as Bitcoin was the first it'll always have that, and it is being updated with things like the lightning network and will likely receive many more updates over time, keeping it's edge.
But what is to stop another 'gold/value storage' coin with better technology than bitcoin taking over.?
Most answers I assume will entail: 1) it was the first 2) lots of people believe in it 3) limited supply cap.

Now 1 and 2 I have faith in. They stand to reason.
But number 3 - is not such a good argument in my opinion.
As - I could create a value storage coin with only 10 million maximum circulation, thus trumping bitcoin as a coin of value with inherent rarity.
To top that It could have modern improvements that some of the other altcoins have these days - instant transactions and better scaling (no idea what that is btw) e.t.c.
--

This has been bothering me for some time. I'm not sure if it should. Looking forward to hearing a few opinions on this.
TG

Right now there are thousands of coins with supply levels that are - lower, higher, sexier, more trans, more hetero, more bi curious.

No one cares about them. No one will care about your 10 milcoin either.

The only thing that gives BTC value is agreement that it's worth something. It's had ten years to build that trust. That can't be replicated, faked or bought.

More people agree about it than any other coin. More people agree to agree every single day. The larger the number of agreements the ever less likely people will agree about any other coin. Every agreement is a brick in a foundation. BTC winds up with foundations a mile wide and mile deep. A supposed usurper will have foundations consisting of one straw sticking out the dirt.

10milcoin is just another bunch of worthless code. 10 million of worthlessness is of no use to me. If people stopped agreeing about Bitcoin that would be nothing other than worthless code too.

Code is infinite. Trust and consensus is very definitely not.

People sometimes underestimate the power of network effects.  Not only is Bitcoin the cryptocurrency most people have heard of and the one that is most likely to be accepted by any retailers who accept cryptocurrency in return for their services, but it's also the one that has the most utility, simply because of the fact that it has loads of users.  The more users it has, the more people you can transact with, the more useful it is overall.  Simply cloning Bitcoin and changing random bits here and there is no match for the network effects Bitcoin has amassed through years of actual usage.

People worry that scaling is an issue that might cause people to leave Bitcoin in favour of other coins due to Bitcoin having higher fees or slower transactions.  But the reason Bitcoin might be more expensive or slower than other coins is precisely because people are trying to use it, because of the advantages Bitcoin offers them.  If other coins had as many users as Bitcoin, their fees would likely be higher too.  If those other chains want to have greater throughput to allow a greater number of transactions on-chain to support more users, there are trade-offs and compromises you generally have to make to achieve that.  Increasing throughput in POW coins tends to come at the expense of security or decentralisation (or both, even).  These are generally considered important qualities to preserve.

Other coins are readily making compromises in security and decentralisation because they think it will attract more users, but I'm personally not worried.  I know it's something each person is going to decide for themselves and market competition will do what it does naturally.  At the end of the day, it's very much a case of "you get what you pay for" when it comes to this stuff.  If altcoins have cheaper fees, it's generally because there are fewer users, weaker security or the network is more centralised than Bitcoin is (or any combination of those downsides).  

Well I guess, bitcoin is bitcoin, whatever people has to say neither to create new coin that they think that will surpass it. Look at those altcoins claiming that they're much faster and cheaper trnx fee, where are they? Do they surpass? Even it will take them 10 years they won't reach even 20% of what bitcoin had immense.

It's funny people had their mind set that if they replicate bitcoin or even exceed it, they thought what happened to bitcoin can actually happen to them, but it's not and definitely never be.

As far as I know, there are 'Bitcoin 2' already existed and trying to get 1% share of Bitcoin market cap. Your hunch is right, the low supply is definitely not the best argument and to be honest I also don't think people see it more important as number 1 or 2. I believe strong community, its familiarity to the average joe, lots of support from traditional institutions such as ETF etc are several factors why Bitcoin will stay. See what happen with BCH or BTG, or other forked Bitcoin result in general? They don't get the same exposure as Bitcoin.

Lightning is one of many 2nd layer solutions being used for payments with bitcoin. There will be other options and even 3rd layer solutions for payments over the next few years.


Satoshi isnt involved in Bitcoin anymore now is he?

We know a Government wont create "better" bitcoin... why would a development team or a company create a "digital money" and somehow also make it fair for everyone ? That team of developers first need to convince all bitcoin holders it is better and more secure THEN convince people they dont have a motive to create a digital money for their own gains.

The size of a development team and amount of scaling solutions to compete with what bitcoin already has would be too difficult to "compete" with. Just join the "Sound Money" team that is on bitcoin and help that network grow...why would a competitor in money be a valuable spend of time, unless you are trying to create money you can rig....which wont work.



Altcoins exist for OTHER reasons than to be money.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuchlpxUcAAFWK_.jpg

Altcoins that "run projects" like BAT token, could have used Bitcoin as money but they wanted to create a token, control the distribution and sale of that token. That lowers its value to a lot of people who are only interested in "sound money" like bitcoin offers. Nobody is claiming BAT token is like bitcoin but SOME people in altcoin trading threads seem to really believe BAT is like money....its nothing like money though.

There are already coins with better technology than Bitcoin but still people prefer Bitcoin, why? Probably, because when any company looking to integrate crypto, they will add BTC first.

Thanks, that's cleared a lot up for me.
Word does seem to be spreading about bitcoin it's true. Pretty much every stranger I mention bitcoin to seems to know something about it.
All good signs.

First off, you're not "fudding". You're just curious; which is actually a good thing. Rather than being the "bitcoin is going to moon even though I don't know crap about it!" kind of person.

Nothing. Nothing is stopping a better coin to take over. Though while it's possible, it's definitely unlikely in my opinion; especially in the short-mid term. Bitcoin is simply so far ahead.

Not because the coin you made is more "limited", it doesn't really make it better. One of the biggest things that makes bitcoin heavily better than most if not all coins, is it's network effect. Bitcoin is one of the most developed cryptocurrencies, and the most adopted. You could also technically create your own version of the dollar, the "goat" dollar; probably with lower inflation rates. But, who's going to use or accept it? No one. Same thing with bitcoin.

To be fair, those coins with "free" and "instant" transactions has a lot of downsides to them. Remember, speed and fees isn't the thing we should prioritize when looking at a new version of money. Decentralization and security should definitely be the first priority, not speed and fees.

the reasons (1,2,3) you mentioned are correct but they are only 3 of many reasons and more importantly they are at the bottom of the list of reasons why bitcoin is staying up as number one with  a big space between it and the rest of them.

to focus on the question you asked while addressing your other concerns i have to say there is nothing stopping it, in fact i personally encourage that and i think others would too. we all know this technology is great and it is only starting and it would be inevitable that some day a new innovation to come along and be so much better than bitcoin.
you have to remember that bitcoin is not great because it was first or believe people blindly believe in it. it is great because it is doing what it is supposed to do (being a decentralized currency) well. so far we have not seen anything even close to it, some tried but they sacrificed one thing for another. like sacrificing decentralization for a faster block generation. or security for having a different mining algorithm!

Bitcoin is the first digital currency on the blockchain. It is a form of money that is backed by trust as opposed to a central government. Bitcoin does not need to be mined from mountains or caverns, however, its strength and security is fortified by miners all over the world. The closest thing we have to a Bitcoin 2.0 is one of the cryptocurrencies that already exist such as Litecoin (https://www.smartbitcoininvestments.com/is-litecoin-a-good-investment/), Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold or any of the other cryptocurrencies with the name Bitcoin. There will only be one Bitcoin.

As a result, the usual market economy will work. It will take several decades and only those coins will remain on the cryptocurrency market, which will surpass everyone in terms of technology, functionality, security, usability. Over time, people will stop paying attention to whether it was the first cryptocurrency or the tenth. If Bitcoin wants to stay in the lead, it needs to improve and maintain its competitiveness. This is the main law of the market. Now people just know more about bitcoin, that's why they are interested in them. Information and demand, this is all changeable.

How is LN using altcoins to dethrone BTC? Sure. Altcoins can definitely use LN's tech. But does it matter? Does it make it an inferior solution just because it's not bitcoin-only? That doesn't make any sense at all.

People today tends to mixed up altcoins and Bitcoin which is not a good practice and that is the reason new comers who are in the crypto world thinks LN and Bitcoin which are very different things when considering various facts and no cryptocurrency has the potential to surpass Bitcoin so far due to the demand, value it has gained over years is immense   

Bitcoin version 2 was arguably created already. There is bitcoin cash and many other shitcoin variants. It hasn't taken over yet and it is not going to, even if it is faster and cheaper

Bitcoin is trustworthy and that's why it will remain the king of crypto.
You could create some altcoin with 1 million or even 100,000 limited supply cap,but it will naver have the amount of trust bitcoin has.Most likely the blockchain of such coin will suck,there will be double spending issues and bugs.The total supply cap doesn't matter that much,a fast and secure blaockchain is what makes the difference between btc and all altcoins.

It seems to me that there are currencies based on much better and newer technologies. Although many people continue to use Bitcoin. This is due to the fact that Bitcoin is an idea. It is like a symbol of the cryptosphere.

Bitcoin already have a huge head start over it's competitors and this network affect <as explained by DooMad> are not easily matched. Bitcoin also have a good reputation for solid security in the protocols being used in the code. <Not a lot of people lost coins, when they did not use Bitcoin via 3rd party wallet providers or exchanges>  ;)

Can this happen to Bitcoin in the future? Yes, I have no doubt that some coin or technology might have some better features, but Bitcoin is based on code and code can be improved to conquer their competition. <Just look at how the Lightning Network rendered the Block size upgrades on BCash useless.>  ;D

More cryptocurrencies that existed by the time of bitcoin is no more in the market. With this I believe bitcoin will be the successful asset in the cryptocurrency market. Even now we can find more crypto related projects getting promoted through the term in comparison to the technology of bitcoin. No cryptocurrency is gonna takeover the bitcoin at any aspect.

you dont want a honest answer seriously a honest answer is usually being deleted by the admins.

you are just a private group of people not a formed will of humanity, that wants to introduce a POW concept.

To get you up to speed on recent events, the two most vocal critics of Lightning on this forum are franky1 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=65837) and Khaos77 (who likes to pretend they aren't Zin-Zang (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1777865), who said they were never going to post again (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5096055.msg49186218#msg49186218) within 2 days of the Khaos77 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2522969) account being registered and appears to share all of the same obnoxious mannerisms, so make of that what you will).  

They have this theory that because LN will facilitate Atomic Swaps, where you can effectively move funds between the different blockchains Lightning can be used with (namely Litecoin and Vertcoin at the moment), that this means people will use Lightning to leave Bitcoin in favour of other coins with lower fees.  They like calling it the "thunderdome" from the Mad Max films.  "Two men enter, one man leaves".  Dramatic stuff, right?

The reason this is a poor argument to make is that people can already use exchanges to leave Bitcoin and buy other coins with those attributes.  The reason those other coins tend to have lower fees is because there isn't as much competition on those networks to include transactions in a block.  If more people started using those other chains and blocks started to fill up, users might start offering larger fees to increase the chance of their transaction being included promptly.

Moreover, while they do everything they can to convince people that Lightning is the worst thing that could possibly happen, they also seem to argue that LN usage would have to increase for their scary campfire tales to come true.  Lightning usage is still comparatively low on the other blockchains which currently support it.  If Atomic Swaps were commonplace right now, Litecoin and Vertcoin currently lack the capacity for any large number of users to leave Bitcoin via the Lightning network.  Bitcoin currently has a BTC network capacity (https://1ml.com/) on Lightning of over 1000 BTC.  Litecoin, by comparison, only has just under 200 LTC network capacity (https://1ml.com/litecoin) on Lightning.  At current market rates, 200 LTC is worth about 3 BTC.  That means out of the ~1000 BTC capacity, only ~3 BTC could be currently used in atomic swaps.

Another point to consider is that when you use Atomic Swaps to move funds from one blockchain to another, it's a swap.  There has to be someone on the other blockchain wanting to move their funds to the blockchain you are on.  If you atomic swapped your BTC for LTC, they have to swap their LTC for your BTC in return.  So unlike the thunderdome, it's actually "two users enter, then both users leave again", but you can see why they wouldn't describe it accurately, since it doesn't sound quite as foreboding or scary that way.

TLDR version:  Once you understand how it all works, their "concerns" (all sarcasm intended) are nothing more than fearmongering.  There's a strong likelihood they are trolling the forums and you should judge the quality of their arguments very carefully.

Genuine question: can you name these coins that you think has "better and newer" tech? Just really curious what some people think here. Also, it's a lot more than that why people continue to use bitcoin.

LN notes? What? Are you referring to the Lightning Network being a separate currency?

Along with bitcoin, some altcoins like litecoin can definitely use LN, but does it automatically mean that litecoin will necessarily decrease the utility of bitcoin? How so? Not because people can use litecoin through LN, it doesn't automatically mean they would. Me personally, I'm pretty positive that I wouldn't.

I'm not convinced about the "much better and newer technologies" part. There are some coins that are marginally better in some areas, but at the end of the day, Bitcoin's ecosystem, versatility, and resiliency far outweigh them.

I can assure you that people won't ignore a far superior product just because the alternative has turned into an icon. Look at Kodak, Nokia, etc.

you should ask who not what!

because it is the people who are stopping this supposed "bitcoin 2.0" to take over bitcoin. people as in both developers and the investors. developers because they chose the rout that ends in the most amount of profit by creating shitcoins, copying bitcoin, scamming people through ICO/STO/... and all kinds of nonsense,... and the investors because they stopped thinking before giving their money to shitcoins. that effectively killed any kind of improvement of altcoins and they remained useless for the most part.

doomad is happy about core devs owning the bitcoin network. he loves that CORE opposition get rekt off the network.
he lacks the understanding of consensus and byzantine generals theory

he is happy that without consensus of a feature activation to cause SOME nodes to have issues with upgrades that a pre apartheid kill off should occur to ensure core dominance and is happy now core are "permissionless" and dont need community consent that the core roadmap is now law.

doomad loves the idea to de-burden the bitcoin network of user utility and persuade users that LN is the future of transacting, he over embellishes LN, over promotes LN, over commits on what LN is and does. and yet seems to have no experience of using LN even after months of requests to get doomad to even use and research such.
he is like a 'phoneplan/cable' sales guy who has yet to try the service himself so is just getting by from using scripts and prompts from a supervisor

doomads flaw in his rebuttle of the thunderdome analogy by comparing to exchanges is that exchanges are just a tool/option.
your not forced to lock funds up for set periods. your not forced to just use one service.

yet the way dev's are playing with the bitcoin network by stifling BITCOIN NETWORK SCALING and instead just adding new tx formats as a gate way to LN, and thn to promote LN as the single scaling solution network is again about de-burdening bitcoin of utility. and persuading users in one direction

thats the major difference between exchanges utility and LN utility. the dev's and LN promoters literally trying to push people into using LN by making bitcoin expensive, unable to handle normal spending habits.

my actual analogy is that of the same gameplay of 18th century banking. taking in gold, vaulting it up and letting users play with promissory notes that are unaudited(unconfirmed) where by fortknox(factories) can be used to cycle bank account fund ownerships around without users having to touch real gold per settlement

thus keeping people away from touching real gold(bitcoin) again. and then offering the option of silver and copper(altcoins) as the settlement option

if doomad cared for the BITCOIN network more then his commercial group. you would not see him defend LN or core, you would see him actually try to promote more BITCOIN NETWORK utility and not these other networks or commercialised dev teams, or pegged coins(promissory notes) as ways to deburden the bitcoin network of utility

I don't find hard to imagine that some new coin could or will take bitcoins place as a number one crypto coin. Some with bigger support of the investors and  community. Take for example MySpace and Facebook. It's not the same thing but same analogy can be implied.

bitcoin may not be replaced by any coin, first because of the trust of market participants who are already entrenched. and bitcoin is the parent coin and its value is always the benchmark for the price of all coins, so why should we look for others if this is already very good ??

What ?  I dont understand this . you mean bitcoin will soon end but there are still alot of other cryptos that will exist ? No meyt , bitcoin will not end but let say bitcoin will end,  other cryptos will also end because all coins are all connected to bitcoin.


Currently its obvious that bitcoin is the only leading crypto coin based on its price and ranking but we dont know yet on the future if this good performance could continue  .

While I agree with some of your statements, goodluck waiting for Bitcoin(BTC) to die though. If Bitcoin were to die someday, very likely for the unnecessary altcoins to die first.

I'm pretty sure btc has value to people as long as it's worth something in fiat.

Extremely limited supply cap (such as the 42 coin and One coin) ultimately defeats bitcoin in terms of rarity, but that does not make them better coins in any way. Also, fancy features found on a coin and 100% anonymity does not guarantee a coin to get the lion's share of the market. At the end of the day (at least at these current days), speculative purposes and market activity is what entices people to buy whichever coin they want. Bitcoin gets the huge market share over any other altcoins out there but its features are somewhat behind over the current altcoins that devs are introducing, so again, cool features and rarity does not guarantee an altcoin a spot at the top when it comes to market share.

i prefer my analogy better.
my dog does 1 poop a day and will live 12 years average. thats a rarity of 4380 poops ever to be avaiable.
that makes my dogs poop worth 4795x more then bitcoin. lets start the bids. who wants a bag of poop for $19m. any takers

rarity and perceived value based purely on rarity does not give something real value.
function/utility/purpose gives it value. and its the desire of multiple people wanting it that gives it value.

if people start seeing it as too expensive to handle, slow/heavy boring. and they find something else fastr/cheaper mor useful. then value dies of the first thing.
(myspace vs facebook, aol vs skype)

the main thing that can actually kill bitcoin and promote another coin is if merchants/exchanges start shifting away from bitcoin and promote altcoins. EG merchant shopping cart tools drop btc and only accept LTC

take 2017
imagine if all the NYA agreement srvices (bitpay, coinbase, multiple exchanges) decided to not support cores segwit thus not support bitcoin. and instead would only support litcoin
soon enough people holding bitcoin wont find services/merchants or ways to spend their btc. so btc would lose value. mining pools will realise they dont have exchanges to swap their btc for fiat. so drop their hashrate and pool hop to an altcoin that is exchange acceptable

in essense its not about 'faith' that bitcoin has value du to rarity or being first or having value just for sake of value. its actually UTILITY/SPENDABILITY

people always miss the fact that 90% of the altcoins are copies of bitcoin, some are nearly exact copies and some others are  copies with small meaningless changes. which is the main reason why they don't have any meaningful value and also why if bitcoin died all of them will die right afterwards.