Bitcoin Forum

So far most (all?) of bitcoin's competitors, i.e 'altcoins' are created by random groups of people who aren't that influential in the grand scheme of things. As such, bitcoin's first mover advantage is huge; it is almost impossible to overcome. Another common argument for bitcoin, is that whatever features altcoins come up with, it can be implemented in bitcoin as well, if it's beneficial enough.

But what if bitcoin's competitors are not random 'altcoins' but cryptocurrencies designed and controlled by large governments or corporations? In the Economics sub-forum, we see threads like Canada trying to make its own cryptocoin pegged to the Canadian dollar, and IBM is possibly going to make their own as well. How will bitcoin fight against these competitors? Though bitcoin already has some infrastructure set up, for many bitcoin companies, they can probably switch to a government controlled crypocurrency easily. Bitcoin's first mover advantage can be easily overshadowed by governments trying to promote their own currencies, while making it harder for bitcoin to succeed.

So how will bitcoin edge out against these competitors? Before you say "well, bitcoin is decentralized so centralized government cryptocurrencies will not succed", are you sure about that? The majority of bitcoin supporters are either huge techies or motivated by their political beliefs, thus they see value in decentralization, getting rid of fiat, and stuff like that. But even for someone like me, who has read a lot about crypto, its benefits and effects, I'm not wholly convinced that decentralization is such a big advantage. Heck, I'm not even convinced it's a good thing. And I believe the majority of the world is like me, and not like you guys. If a government based crypto gets better infrastructure, approval from the government, ease of use, etc, I just don't see how the normal Billy Bob Joe will care for or understand the benefits of decentralization. I think a good example is Ripple. Though it's centralized, it's still bigger than most alt coins. Now imagine what a government backed Ripple can do.

I am bullish on bitcoin, and I hope that bitcoin will succeed versus a government/large corporation controlled coin. But I think we need to critically look at bitcoins strengths and weaknesses, and how exactly bitcoin will edge out all competitors, including huge goliath's like the government. If bitcoin's technology proves to be as innovative and revolutionary as promised/hoped in the next few years, I think we can be sure that governments will seriously try to promote their own crypto instead. If we don't want centralization, if we don't want government controlled money, we have to take steps now to prevent that from happening.

This is definitely a good question and I think one of these type of competitors could potentially hurt bitcoin. Though I think most people would not be for a governmental controlled or sponsored coin because one of the major advantages of Bitcoin is the decentralized nature of it. However, if one of these big players does try to put out a competing cryptocurrency it could certainly drive some of the bitcoin users away so it is good to think of how bitcoin would overcome these challenges.

Well, to loosely paraphrase Andreas Antonopoulos:

"There are already hundreds of currencies, so what's a few more? There could be multiple successful cryptocurrencies."

I think the biggest problems, some governments have with Bitcoin is the following :

1. It's decentralized
2. It's too anonymous
3. It cannot be manipulated
4. It's origin is suspect {Satoshi's identity}

Bitcoin cannot address these matters, without losing it's identity / goal ...... so it's inevitable that a Alt coin with features that address these issues, will be developed to suite the governments or private companies purpose.

Sofar Bitcoin had a lot of appeal from a group of people, who understood the need for it's current features....but... if it wants mass adoption, it would have to decide if it wants to change or allow Alt coins with newer features to take it's place.

You cannot have a single coin, with ALL the features that everyone wants.. so Alt coins will always exist.. and the most popular one will survive. {Or the one forced down on the consumer by governments} 

How do you expect to trust a coin made by 'some' company, or 'some' influential man? One would expect that they're up to no good.
Since Bitcoin was created by satoshi who may or may not be a simple and good man, I'd rather stick with that.

As long as we, the main community standing behind Bitcoin don't start changing the ship, others will be less likely to follow.

The bolded part is wrong. YOU would expect that they're up to no good. Maybe most bitcoiners would feel the same way. But the fast majority of the world doesn't care, just as they don't care about governments printing more fiat. In fact, they think that's the way it should be and can't imagine any other way.

The problem is not about a governmentcoin taking away the current bitcoin adopters. It's about a governmentcoin taking over the other 99.999% of people who are not bitcoin adopters. Bitcoin will then be relegated to a non-official, anarchist/drug dealing currency that most people avoid. I'd imagine merchants would feel the pressure to not adopt bitcoin, and bitcoin will essentially be either destroyed, or at least completely contained within a very small niche, with no further growth.

Again, the problem is, does the world really care about decentralization? My personal opinion, without any hard statistics to back it up, is No. In fact, I believe that a significant number of people would believe that centralization is a necessity*.

*I say WOULD believe, rather than believe, because I bet that most people don't really care enough to think about these topics, so they'd simply come up with an opinion when someone asks them the question. For now, they have no opinion.

So in the end, this question is about how we can achieve mass adoption with decentralized crypto like bitcoin, rather than a centralized government controlled one taking up 99.999% of the rest of the population.

I want to comment on some points you bring up:

1. While it is generally true that bitcoin network is decentralized but various bitcoin projects and services are not and they are susceptible.
2. Bitcoin is semi-anonymous you can be tracked relatively easy.
3. Bitcoin CAN and IS manipulated on daily basis it probably is the biggest bitcoin fault.
4. You think that government agencies do not know 'Satoshi"? I would think otherwise.

Governments cannot shut down bitcoin and that is the most important about bitcoin. Government controled coin is a digital form of their fiat, it suffers from the same flaws of their banking system. Bitcoin has value detached from any country's system, I would prefer bitcoin over local government crypto, but I can own both, or more.

Again, the problem isn't about governments shutting down bitcoin. It's about them taking over the other 99.999% of the market, stopping bitcoin's growth.

A government coin can allow government backed/favoured companies to take advantage of other advantages offered by crypto, like fast confirmation times, less cost, and stuff like that. Savings normal people care about. If you go out and ask a random person on the street "what is the problem with fiat?" I bet most of them would ask "what is fiat?" So if government move before the world is aware of the problems, they can conveniently cover it up and continue their system while bitcoin stagnates into the background, and the vast majority of crypto becomes centralized.

bitcoin being the first crypto holds the advantage just because it is the first coin that people ever know about. Meaning also that the community built around it is strong. And also it is the trust here that I'm talking about. If you browse in google and just typing the keyword, you will see the numerous search results that comes up. Here it is about the "name" and "branding" which it has established over the long period of time. 

absolutely agree about what you say
government can't control, can't manipulate, and can't track who using bitcoin
and the government create their own coin (if this very urgent)

Bitcoin's biggest edge is the first mover advantage.
It doesn't really have too many features that haven't been imporved upon by alt coins, it isn't the fastest, it isn't the most efficient, etc but it is the most established and will be the make or break of the near furure of Crypto.

If bitcoin fails, Crypton fails for the foreseeable future, if it suceeds, then it can be superceded in the future by better Alts, but it has to succeed first

I don't really consider the rest of altcoins in competitors. There is no way a layman who knows about only bitcoin will be too willing to accept a new altcoin. However they have their own different world. They do promise things which are better in respect to bitcoins, but still bitcoin doesn't really have to fight them off.

It doesn't need to fight them off as none of them are a threat. One could come along that is superior but I welcome the challenge as the best coin should win. Even if corporations did try create their own they likely couldn't compete with the hashing power of bitcoin by themselves so I don't think one could overtake bitcoin. It also likely wouldn't be decentralized so many will stay away.

Bitcoin can adapt. If an alt coin did come along that was better or had something unique and interesting bitcoin could very likely implement their code and evolve.


Agreed. It's a free market, but I think we only really need bitcoin to be honest.

Just look at all the competitors (ie crapcoins) that have been created and one hasn't come close to getting anywhere near bitcoin and most offer absolutely nothing new. If bitcoin was going to be overtaken in would have likely happened by now.


This is also a good point. Most people love bitcoin because it is decentralized and free from manipulation by it's creator. A corporate coin very much probably wouldn't so that's why people will stick with btc.

I can't see Bitcoin being overtaken by any of the current alt-currencies (maybe in the future...who knows). I agree with Andreas there could specific alts for different services, if an anonymous alt became the de facto currency for the dark-markets it would take a lot of heat off bitcoin.

My highest hopes about bitcoin is to be the tender that is out of the sight of goverment, as here in Europe, they are going to legislate a law that will allow fiscal services to investigate your bank account deatils (especially transactions), whenever they want, without specific reason.

For now, Bitcoin doesn't get the attention of the common internet user(the one that just keeps wasting time on social networks and listening to music), and as for now, it seens that it'll go to nowhere.
The lack os stability of the price and the simplicity of getting stolen all your money in one click is also reasons that Bitcoin cant grow much further, and if another currency does a good solution for that(even if it means mass adoption and good developers) it can pass by Bitcoin.

What competitors are you referring to?

Fiat? Cash? or other Digital Currencies?

Yes. The security could be the most important concern. If somebody new in bitcoins would take a look at the "Thefts and scams" list he/she could feel frightened a bit.

At this moment there are not much real challenger for bitcoin perhaps NXT and bitshares but these two are still not very well known outside the altcoin section.

It's already thought/fighting them off pretty well. Bitcoin is pretty much perfect as far as cryptos go and the only reason an alt hasn't come close to stealing its crown is that they've offered nothing truly exceptional. Bitcoin also has the 'brand' name (if you can call it that) and it's in the public eye with many merchants already accepting it and many more to come. I really can't see any alt coins stealing its thunder or gaining merchant adoption like bitcoin has.

I meant smarter half of the Bitcoin community and me. Should the average sheep even matter to you? I know that it does not for me.
If people want to get fucked over, then let them.

2nd bold: Like I've said, this is not possible. People have 0 computer skills and 0 understanding of technology (the mentioned majority).

The network effect.  Same reason  no one is going to dethrone Facebook, or LinkedIn anytime soon no matter how good they make the site.  After all its fairly trivial to make something better than  eg  Facebook,  but no one is going  to use it because...  No one uses it.

well, first, I have to say thank you for being one of the only people who actually understands (or actually read my post) what I was trying to say.

The thing is, those sheep don't matter to me normally, but having them join bitcoin instead of another government controlled program would benefit bitcoiners, because that would necessarily mean more businesses accepting bitcoin, higher bitcoin prices, etc.

I honestly think it would. I believe bitcoin is too strong and popular now and it can not be compromised by other online money.

Furthermore, I believe value of bitcoin will raise in future and now it is good time to invest in it.

Bitcoin has no competitors. Bitoin's edge is an event horizon. All non-blockchain financial matter is waiting to be sucked past it and consumed.

One BIG advantage Bitcoin has is several years of intense software development and support, producing hundreds of aps that work with bitcoin from simple android stuff up to commercial systems like the bitcoin processors. No company or government will be able to replicate that without a tremendous amount of work and a budget to match. But without that it becomes much harder to deploy their bitcoin-competitor and get people using it.

As others have pointed out there is also the trust factor. Governments today are routinely selling future generations of their citizens into debt slavery, to pay off the welfare class and maintain the status quo for the ruling class. This involves devaluation of their currency over time. Why should we trust a cryptocurrency generated by a government functioning on this basis any more than we trust fiat currency from that same government?

Communication protocol seldom have competitors, unless hindered by tradition, the most widely accepted protocol have the tendency to expand and dominate, since that will reduce the friction for any party involved

If these competitors happen to come from centralized entities, people will (hopefully) be repelled by it when we have the original, open source, no strings attached, apolitical option (Bitcoin).

In any case, Bitcoin will forever remain the e-Gold, even if another crypto takes off as a replacement for fiat.

I don't think bit coin needs to "fight off" other coins. The market will inevitably choose the best coin. Alt coins also make wonderful laboratories for innovation. The best ideas can always be integrated. Progress is a sloppy business, but eventually a few crypto's will crawl out the digital soup and hopefully compete with fiat in a real way.

"we see threads like Canada trying to make its own cryptocoin pegged to the Canadian dollar"

failed long ago (google "mint chip")

How is this an advantage for Bitcoin since the government could fork it, upgrade it as they wish. Wouldn't that coin easily be compatible with existing Bitcoin infrastructure?

The "govcoin" would also pretty much artificially go mainstream overnight since the government could require businesses and banks to accept it.  

There is no level playing field for privately created crypto currencies. Of course it could also have the unintended consequences of creating the illusion that government endorses crypto currency in general and a fast infrastructure build up that bit coin could piggy back on.

Haha. U.S. government shitcoin would be #1 marketing tool for BTC.

Actually, when I think about it, you're right. The government could make it mandatory, just like you have to accept $ in the US.
Well that wouldn't surprise me. It's well known that the government is manipulating people. First they are against crypto, then they endorse it.

See, that's what I've been trying to say. Bitcoin's "first mover" advantage is pretty much useless against a government backed crypto. All of the current infrastructure could possibly be easily modified to work with the government coin, and it might be made mandatory.

I doubt they'd force businesses to accept it, since it's still the same currency that they can manipulate/steal/etc., but in electronic form. Most 1st world nations already have the majority of their fiat supply in electronic form anyway.

This, it will clearly backfire and get the people's attention on BTC because it will be the "cool, non official outsider coin".

I doubt that government will even try to compete with bitcoin openly. If they create their own altcoin people will get suspicious of it pretty fast.
The more likely scenario would be that government would try to quietly take over various bitcoin initiatives and side projects but not the structure of bitcoin itself.

Governments of large countries suck. U.S., Russia and China all have shitty governments who try to control too much.

One thing I haven't seen explained is just what characteristics people think a government-issued altcoin, or clone/fork of bitcoin, would have. Why do people have a concern about a "government generated crypto"? All the cryptos besides Ripple, it doesn't matter whether they were created by satoshi or Mother Theresa or Adolf Hitler, it's decentralized after release. So I'm curious what people have in mind when they voice concern over the concept of a government-linked altcoin.

I mean, if they peg it to their fiat currency, then by definition their alt does not have a fixed supply and is subject to inflation and devaluation. So it seems to me the only way a government could compete with bitcoin would be by delinking their alt from their fiat, in which case it's just another new alt with an interesting backstory.

If government issued cryptocurrency would be totally transparent with source code available to check I will probably have no issues with it.
I still wouldn't use it at all because I believe in ONE global and dominant cryptocurrency - Bitcoin. At this point it is almost certain that government would
link their cryptos to FIAT, why wouldn't they? That is the only logical choice if they want to appeal to people with it.

I believe in competition, but since BTC was the first, so it's the natural leader, and it will keep on leading up to someone comes with a better cryptocurrency. Maybe one 100% anonymous, but BTC shouldn't fear big corporations or governments.

Apple already has Apple pay and it could launch some kind of a cryptocurrency but I'll never use it because I hate Apple. Their products are overpriced. Could a government launch a cryptocurrency, and compete with BTC? I'd rather stop drinking for one whole week than to use any national cryptocurrency. BTC will remain the best because it's decentralized, without any fascist ruler behind it.

See, most of the people on this forum are running on this assumption that people CARE about decentralization, etc.

That is simply an unfounded assumption. If people happily use fiat now, why would they suddenly become suspicious of it?

My scenario is this: Bitcoin slowly gains ground in terms of becoming a legitimate (in the eyes of people) currency, and grows stronger everyday. The governments of the world begins to view it as a threat rather than a cute toy. They create their own crypto, that is completely centralized, and advertise that it has all the benefits of crypocurrency technology, and none of the negatives.

It's possible they'll even say that being decentralized is a fatal flaw of bitcoin, and that being centralized and monitored by the government makes it more secure and better. I bet most people would believe the government if they did say that.

This, coupled with penalizing bitcoin use by making it extremely hard to obtain bitcoin (or obtain a license to obtain bitcoin) etc.

The central point here, is, I think most people on this forum has become somewhat "delusional", in that they think that decentralization is so obviously this holy grail, and everyone can see the benefits. It's just not true.

But what does it mean to speak of a "centralized cryptocurrency"? What characteristics would it have different from bitcoin? If it is POW mined, for example, then the miners control the coin. I suppose a government could develop its own algorithm and mining hardware and try to keep control of the mining. That would create interesting scenarios of foreign agents and rebels trying to steal or back-engineer the algorithm and hardware for it, to attack a nation's currency.

The thing is even if someone does come up with a better crypto it does not mean it will take the lead, the lead bitcoin has over anything else that is to be released is huge and i doubt that anything is coming close to it now. Look at what it has had to go threw to get to here. The governments will have a big following but they will also in the process bring more users to bitcoin because once they have been brought into the game then they are bound to figure out the daddy of crypto is bitcoin the decentralized coin  :)

A centralized cryptocurrency does not make sense. Why even bother? Just issue the coins with their serial numbers on government run servers, which would then track the changes in ownership as the coins are spent. You don't need a blockchain for that.

Because they can....Decentralisation and the limited supply IS the actual point of bitcoin in my mind and clearly was on Satoshi's too. But what we understand and perceive as its strengths are actually being demonised in the media and mainstream and I think the masses are very susceptible to being sold a centralised government central bank backed coin based on the dollar that doesn't fluctuate and has an expandable supply. What we think isn't what everyone else thinks......The masses already accept a fiat based reserve currency that is nothing more than monopoly money, does anyone think they will reject a similar digital one?

We know there is no difference, but common people have deeply rooted, strong conviction that something strong and durable stands behind their paper notes. Maybe there is a need of educating people not only about what bitcoin, but also fiat money really is?

Many have been trying for years...Don't forget Bitcoin is actually a fiat currency, I mean its not backed up by anything tangible. But its the perfect fiat, ie fixed supply which cant be counterfitted.

But yes if and when a government fiat coin is made and i'm convinced it will happen then the next work is to educate people to what makes Bitcoin different to what will probably be a highly controlled and tracked expandable centralised coin with an expandable supply.


Maybe I'm having a negative day but IF bitcoin actualy ends up leading to our money being highly tracked etc then in some ways Bitcoin has actually opened the door to less liberty not more....potentially.

I don't see BTC ever having competition, everything is going to get compared to Bitcoin, which in effect keeps giving Bitcoin more attention. It's like a feedback effect. There's literally no way Bitcoin will lose it's spotlight.