Bitcoin Forum

Look at the top altcoins.. All that market share taken away from Bitcoin mostly for the promise of tolkenization and smart contracts..

Most of that can already be done on Bitcoin, and with more development time and expertise even more is possible..

So why are you all so complacent to let all that market share slip away to other shitcoins when it could be kept in Bitcoin itself?

All of you supposed Bitcoin maximalists, have you ever even used the DEX on bitcoin? Did you even know their was a DEX on Bitcoin? Have you ever created or traded assets on Bitcoin, even just to experiment and see what can be done?
Why not?

I just don’t understand..

Why is this development not encouraged and funded?
Is everyone just content to let this market segment slip away to other shitcoins?

Bitcoin dominance is only 40% right now..
Is that OK with you?

You don't really buy this, do you?

There is work done. If you have a proposal, feel free: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org

I have only used DEX on bitcoin.

Yes.

Bitcoin Core development is funded: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5405325.msg60728623#msg60728623

Market cap is a meaningless measure.

What is the difference, in the end the market is decentralized and over time people will learn that Bitcoin is the best.

As for 40% and others, it is a misleading criterion, because if a token is created and there are 300 million in the circulation supply and this token succeeds in selling ten thousand at a price of 1K USD, this will create 3 billion dollars out of nothing and it will be deducted from the Bitcoin percentage while the real number is 100K USD.

Therefore, over time, most altcoins will collapse, and two or three projects will survive.

In crypto marketcap is not as meaningful as in stock market. Tokens get printed out of thin air, then the volumes are pumped by fake trades on unregulated exchanges, and it creates an illusion that a coin is doing well, that it's the next big thing and a potential Bitcoin killer. All while it has no actual uses and users, its code is not properly reviewed and developers are just chasing hype with their new features. That's how we end up with coins like Terra Luna that inevitably collapse and defraud investors.

Bitcoin does not need smart contracts and tokens because the world does not need them.

Investments that go to shitcoins were very unlikely to go into Bitcoin, if those shitcoins didn't exists.
Trends are fancy and attractive, and give huge returns to some, fast; sort of like a get rich quick scheme, if you can identify it early.

Bitcoin is very different from a trend, and is not built on hype. Those who follow hype, would not be interested in an appreciating asset, which one has to hodl long term.

Most investors are always after profit and due to the 4 years cycle of the market after some correction, there will be altcoin season, correction, and halving market. I believe in preparation for the altcoin season is the reason why the market share moves to the altcoin market.

Countless time.

The last time I checked some crypto entrepreneurs are always ready to fund an innovative concept that follows the right channel. An example is Sovyrn when it

Yes, there's and it's called hype.

The thing is, 20% of innovations on altcoins are related to doomed enterprises such as:
- Proof of Stake (aka. sell the network to the largest whale)
- DeFi, which is just lending without a govt. bailout net (!!!)
- NFTs (abused to make money and many are on the brink of being auctioned off at fire-sale prices)
- Smart contracts (always getting hacked especially by NK, because nobody can cover all edge cases properly)
... some slightly more sensible things like:
- Increased blocksize (== centralization, more illegal content on blockchains)
- Ring signatures (makes transactions 100% anonymous BUT at the price of being cross-haired by all governments around the world)
- Tail emmission (very difficult to get right, has net result of either introducing inflation in the coins or drastically underscaling the network's security)
- Stablecoins on layer 2 (central entity managing the coins = corruption)
and that is ignoring consensus-disrupting features like difficulty bombs, forced hardforks, and "development funds" and "founders rewards" taken away from miners to enrich devs.

70% more of the innovations are just weak copycats of the 20%, so the altcoin teams who implemented this stuff have security headaches way more frequently than Bitcoin although they do get patched eventually. But the vast majority of shitcoins never get a patch... they are literally unsafe to use for day-to-day commerce.

The rest of the 10% is innovations which have proven themselves to be sustainable, like merged mining (it even has a BIP or two), lightning network, and MimbleWimble (sorry, I don't see regulators like Australia going after Litecoin) for example.

The last section is the only stuff that's even going to be considered going into BTC. I know that because I've wrote BIPs, proposed some, commented on others so I'm well aware that it's difficult to arrive at a majority consensus about all the parts related to an issue.

I'm not concerned about the market: The market mostly consists of people who want to get rich quick. You'd think they'd go sign up for Andrew Tate's Hustler University scam instead of bothering us here, but they actually directly them to exchanges to long&short (especially short) crypto so yeah. When the bear season comes in, the current crop of long&short traders get torched by the price body slams, and get replaced by even more but equally dumb long&short traders.

The number of newbie traders (the primary userbase of crypto), is only going to increase assuming there is no government regulation related to that. That's one thing we know. What we can't estimate is what the proportion of Bitcoin users in proportion to transient long&short traders is going to be after 20-30 years, let alone at 2147.

---

It was never about being the most innovative, it's about being the most secure and stable form of money ever. We've got people attacking us left and right, saying "bitcoin's a bubble", "bitcoin mining pollutes the environment", "bitcoin enables crime and terrorism" and so on, so forth. All because we collectively chose to liberate the financial system from aggressively-lending banks who have more solvency crises than earnings calls (which people seem to be OK with until they lose their life savings!). This is territory which altcoins haven't even mapped yet - the market caps say it all.

Most of these so-called "crypto"-currencies are actually centralized or have a strong capability of being influenced by a central entity (e.g. a government or a very rich person or corporation). So they are not truly decentralized. Most do not have significant, real transaction activity in the first place.

Bitcoin's the only cryptocurrency that can be advertised truthfully as decentralized, vulnerability-free, and having real-world levels of transacion activity. People criticize it as "ancient" because it only does on average 7 transactions per second, but they're not even giving us a chance to figure out a totally-decentralized solution to that [Lightning network is still experimental alpha]; they are being impatient and are expecting Rome to be built in one day.

I repeat: Bitcoin dominance is at 40% because the other 60% are just looking to make a quick buck. Bitcoin was never meant for those kind of people, it's meant for real users who want to buy and sell stuff with it.

Why do you think bitcoin stands a unique digital currency amidst other cryptocurrencies, the reason is what you see below here as the fact, take a look.

https://twitter.com/tradingview/status/1563167271987515393?t=q3lvg9uHcjz39SS0Lk-zFg&s=19]
https://i.imgur.com/3qKXpZR.jpg

This is the real explanation between bitcoin and altcoins, you can see the difference clear enough, the first queue is the one with green which is the bitcoin lane, while the other is the red indicating altcoins lane respectively, you can judge with the end result all by yourself to choose where to belong.

Even we do hate it then there's nothing we can do because thats how the community or the market do behaves and making up decisions to be that on this way.
Yes, Bitcoin does have it all but we know its flaws and this is where other developers creating something which cant really be seen on Bitcoin just like for example on smart contracts.
We cant really deny that it does really have that utility which is really that useful and since people does have different mindsets and seeing on things
then we cant blame that they do trust up other projects aside from Bitcoin.

The vast majority of NFTs, tolken issuances, and smart contracts are being done on altcoins, 90% of which can already be done on Bitcoin, and meanwhile Counterparty (the cost to do this on Bitcoin) is only on one obscure exchange with almost no volume..
And development is very slow because interest is very low..

The only good points I’ve seen in this thread so far is about get rich quick scheme hype and fake market cap..

Still the vast majority of this action is being done on ETH while it can be done even cheaper on BTC..

Look at all these exchanges listing ETH tolkens and none listing ones on Bitcoin..

It seems to me that Bitcoin maximalists have just given up on this market segment..

Yes, you can say we "gave up" on that market segment, but you're missing the point. Bitcoin is no longer an experimental sandbox where you can just introduce any feature without testing it first. It is a mission-critical program now, so if even the slightest error is introduced, it has the potential wreak unimagineable havoc on people's life savings...

This testing requires almost-scientific observation of the feature's behavior in real-world conditions. Altcoins volunteered to be test beds so we are watching how its behaving.

Let's take smart contracts for example (NFTs and tokens are just specific types of smart contracts so the same reasoning that will follow also applies to these technologies).

This is a technology that replaces the script interpreter with a programming language. It also means that its just as possible to accidentially introduce bugs in the smart contracts which can't be recitified without possible fund loss.

History way before bitcoin has shown us that programmers can be quite sloppy, even on mission-critical systems, and Solidity and other smart contract langs are no exception. People will still make bugs by accident because its human nature.

Even worse, because of the very nature of the applications that use it, all bugs are now upgraded to security vulnerability status because even the smallest bug can allow for theft. Take nation states like North Korea for example, who think that anything inside a smart contract is their personal treasury.

Years ago, people observed exactly this on Ethereum, and then thought: Is it really worth the risk to implement it just for market share? Accordingly, the answer they arrived to was: No.

Observing new features getting trialed in altcoins is a common way for people do discern how well this would work out for Bitcoin. In a majority of these trails, the results are very poor and indicate failure, because no design is fool-proof, not even the ones in Bitcoin.

Like I said, it's not foolproof, but this scientific method allows us to immediately throw out the ideas that will never work on Bitcoin.

I should remind you, that Bitcoin has reached the $20K - $60K range not because of innovation, but increased faith in the existing tech.

Bitcoin is a currency and is not created to be traded for us to care about how much "market share" it has. Specially if by market share you mean market cap ratio which is meaningless anyway.

Most of what? Scamming people by creating tokens and selling a useless digital thing to them?
That is not possible on bitcoin and will never be.

Give us one actual use case of tokens in real world then we talk about whether bitcoin should add this useless feature or not.

Because bitcoin is a currency. You don't see me trading on Forex market either. I earn bitcoin, get paid in bitcoin, pay others in bitcoin. Just like I do with fiat currencies.

So it all comes down to you not understanding the difference between dominance and market cap ratio :P

So, how do you suggest... we stop people from making their own choices?

Everyone is free to create their own coins and also to decide what coins they want to buy. We are interested in the success of Bitcoin and crypto currencies...

A lot of us believe the development of Alt coins can be beneficial to Bitcoin, because it is the breeding ground for innovation. Bitcoin can cannibalize any technology it wants to... so if something groundbreaking are developed by someone else... then Bitcoin can use that too.  ;)

I thought it's because of the promise of getting rich quick. All those people who missed out on cheap Bitcoin and then created their own hype hoping to still get rich, meanwhile scamming billions of dollars from gullible "investors".

Is it? CoinMarketCap (https://coinmarketcap.com/) shows this Top 10:
Bitcoin: $383.5
Ethereum: $182.5B
Tether: $67.5B
USD Coin: $52.2B
BNB: $45.0B
Binance USD: $19.3B
XRP: $16.6B
Cardano: $15.3B
Solana: $11.0B
Dogecoin: $8.4B
Out of a total market cap of $968.6B, this $801.3B is 82.7% and Bitcoin is 47.9% of the Top 10.

Ethereum is centrally controlled, abandoned it's core principle the moment it was convenient for the creator, and doesn't stand for anything Bitcoin stands for. It simply doesn't count. Tether is centrally controlled and isn't even a cryptocurrency. USD Coin also. BNB and Binance USD are also centrally controlled. XRP is centrally controlled. I'm not sure about Cardano and Solana, but don't care enough to check. Dogecoin is a real cryptocurrency, even though it's a joke and hyped by the biggest troll on the internet. So let's give the last 3 the benefit of the doubt. That makes Bitcoin's market cap 91.7% of the real cryptocurrencies in the Top 10! And possibly more, since I'm not sure Cardano and Solana even qualify.

It's going to be fun if CBDCs are added to CMC :D

I'm not a Bitcoin maximalist, but I do not ignore the whole coins.

Currently only both Monero and DAI that I think deserved to appeared on the top 3 coins since they have a real use cases than the rest copy cat project. Monero is a privacy coin, so if you're really concern about your privacy you can use it and trade on Bisq. DAI is a decentralized stable coin from DAO community, it's used to convert your coins to stablecoin in order to prevent from dump market and can't be frozen.

Market share, price, capitalization, crowdfunding etc is just a number and doesn't make the project become successful.

development in bitcoin has become stifled by its central point (core) where any idea's or innovation or growth has to go through them.. as omitted by people previously denying it.. so a nice change to see them admit it now*

these side and subnets of bitcoin(LN/LIQUID aka DCG product (https://dcg.co/portfolio/#l)) again were majority made and paid by the same group that is paying core(blockstream aka DCG (https://dcg.co/portfolio/#b))
whereby they have flaws and not finished so people are reluctant to use them..
even coinbase and circle aka a DCG company (https://dcg.co/portfolio/#c) are resistant to using LN and liquid for multiple reasons (buggy code, value liquidity flaw, regulatory problems/ headaches)

meaning those sub/side networks endorsed, developed and funded by DCG.. then function even less.. due to the reluctance/flaws.. which because of the lack of liquidity needed just to make them somewhat workable(another flaw that creates a flaw)..
yea its a failed system if the snowball effect doesnt run uphill(liquidity growth), like they expect

other subnets and systems can bridge to bitcoin and yes a BTC backed NFT is possible.. but, of course not pushed due to the "seek core permission" mindset devs have which gets hit by hostility and opposition if those idea's dont fit the DCG roadmap.. which is why devs with idea's outside the DCG roadmap end up doing things for different cryptocurrencies instead, because other cryptos have more freedom / no hierarchy / no core control / no core permissions required
 
it is funded and certain people are now omitting to the command structure of the DCG which then uses subsidiaries of its company blockckstream, whos sister with chaincode labs and brink.. the main "sponsors" of all the main devs with merge and maintainer privilege and also the moderators of development in the forums, and irc, and mailing lists

*and now the certain people have learned and ommited about the core/central point of control/permission and funding, they can relax their defences of pretending the opposite.. and instead try to actually help bitcoin become less central controlled which even the lead maintainer admits is a problem of bitcoin

https://laanwj.github.io/2021/01/21/decentralize.html


PS:
due to backhatcoiner and his chummy clubhouse of 12 buddies now learning, accepting and omitting things they spent years fighting to deny previously.. ill give him merit (my usual satire large amount because merit to me is meaningless, because i dont care about merit.. but they do).

Because the vast majority of these things have no real world use. Bitcoin has a very clear and defined real world use - as a currency - with millions of people using it for this exact reason. What's the point of 99% NFTs other than to make profits for their creators? What's the point of 99% of tokens other than to make profits for their creators? I don't want them anywhere near bitcoin.

Leaving out stablecoins, then the token with the largest marketcap is Shiba Inu. Knowing absolutely nothing about this token, I decided to read the text about it on Coinmarketcap:
Yeah, I don't want my global peer to peer currency, which is securing and transferring billions of dollars worth of value every day for people around the world, encumbered with this sort of trash, thanks.

Over 100 clones of a completely pointless memecoin. I'm more than happy for Ethereum to bog down their whole project by catering to this sort of nonsense.

Tell me what problem Shiba Inu is addressing? What question can be asked in which Shiba Inu is a solution (other than how do we part fools from their money)?

Next up is wrapped bitcoin, which would obviously be pointless on the bitcoin network.

Next up is UNUS SED LEO. The only reason it exists is to bail out Bitfinex after they lost a whole bunch of users' funds.

If you can present a token which actually solves a real world issue, and isn't either some part of a get rich quick scam or otherwise built simply to make the creators profit, then it could be a potential addition to bitcoin. Otherwise, I'm more than happy that 99% of tokens, NFTs, and so on are issued on altcoins.

The only bitcoin "token" I use is BSQ colored bitcoins. I would be curious to hear if other people are regularly using other such projects?

In general, all derivatives of Dogecoin as well as anything that runs on their chain is useless for all practical purposes. It's full of greedy vultures who want to make a profit of $10 or $100* shorting their preferred DOGE shitcoin.

*I call them foolish greedy people aka. cheapstakes, instead of intelligent greedy people.

Bitcoin maximalists? I would prefere the label crypto maximalist and enthusiast. What I do see value in more than being as simp for BTC just because BTC is that itger avenues could take crypto into other interesting and worthwile avenues. Could those avenues be explored with BTC? Maybe if the tech is up to the task, but that dosen't mean it needs to nor does it mean that we are creating comoetition with other coins, just that ideas that might get overlooked or dissregarded can find a home somewhere else. Your assumption that people who do work in BTC dev are all knowing and without fault, and you sir would be wrong.

It is entirely possible and has been for like 8 years.. It is absolutely functional..
The point is that most run to some other shitcoin to do these things instead of using Bitcoin..


You don’t want all this thriving economy to be flowing on Bitcoin rather than its competitors?
You don’t want Bitcoin miners making all this profit off of TX fees rather than the competitors?
You’d rather all this volume be on Bitcoin competitors because you simply dislike them?

Like it or not, OpenSea has done over $30 billion in volume.. On the competitors blockchains..

You know what they are even doing? They are even taking MY stuff, that I created on Bitcoin, wrapping it into Etherium, and selling it to be traded on the Etherium blockchain!

I have even caught these f***s claiming to be the creators of MY stuff after having wrapped it onto ETH, and even some straight up plagiarizing MY stuff..

OpenSea lists things on 3 shitcoin blockchains, but won’t list things on the Bitcoin blockchain..


“I would be curious to hear if other people are regularly using other such projects?”
I use the crap out of Counterparty on Bitcoin.. It’s worth less than 1/3 of the Bitcoin that had to be burned to create it now, and is only listed on one obscure exchange..

Everyone on this forum: “We don’t want that on Bitcoin! Ick! Let the shitcoins have all that economy..”
Ok guys..

Well I like to use Bitcoin because I think USING Bitcoin is good.. I think pretty much ANY use of Bitcoin is good, and would rather give my business to Bitcoin than those centralized shitcoins (as loyse correctly points out)..

But just because they are centralized doesn’t mean they aren’t competitors, taking economy away from Bitcoin..
Exactly what TPTB want..

Most “crypto” users don’t know or care much about the principles of decentralization, and are happy to just use some centralized competitor..
“Let them” I guess eh? Don’t compete?

“Those Japanese cars will never be able to compete with the American big 3” they said..
“They aren’t really competitors because they aren’t exactly the same”…

I hold this to be true for 99% of altcoins. I have never made any secret of the fact that Monero is the only altcoin I use, exactly because it achieves a solution to a real world problem which bitcoin does not, that being completely private transactions. If anyone can show me a token which achieves a solution to a real world problem, then there is a discussion there to be had about whether or not that would be a viable or useful addition to bitcoin. I am not aware of any such token.

Conversely, we can look through the history of this forum, of Reddit, of Twitter, and see literally thousands of different altcoins and tokens which have been launched or promoted for various reasons, which have all either faded away in to complete obscurity over the span of a couple of years, or exit scammed/been hacked and resulted in all the regular users/foolish greedy people losing everything.

Because that's where the foolish greedy people are. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. These token creators don't want to launch their no-real-world-use trash on bitcoin because launching on some useless altcoin means there are more gullible people to scam. And anyone who is actually using bitcoin as intended is quite happy for all this scam activity to take place elsewhere.

As above, what useful things are you envisaging which should be conducted on bitcoin instead of some shitcoin?

Simply because bitcoin didn't slip away from its fundamentals while most shitcoins including the top altcoins turned to favour for something but bitcoin remain how it was which gives the confidence for a common man to have more trust on it than any other shitcoins.

Probably a coin will replace the bitcoin in the future because change is the only thing in this temporary world but the coin will replace the place is yet to be identified in my opinion.

shitcoins evolution of NFT has resulted in shit utility of shit NFT

mainly people selling crap for excess amounts where the new owner then cant do much
however there are many real world things where a NFT utility could actually have good prospect

NFT is used mainly to crap auction other crap that would never sell in real auctions..
but imaging the real utility factors of positive use web3.

where by instead of buying cloud/hosting services with fiat. you buy/lease it as 'the metaverse 'land' where you then can design 3d retail stores(on the servers), to display your products in 3d and let users navigate it in 3d instead of boring 2d webpage display.
people can be like architects designing shopping malls. and selling their 3d renders to businesses, which then lease the retail store space inside.

ofcourse right now metaverse is just a silly game style view of people just chatting and playing games. but it can become its own retail/business/service universe of real business and utility, where lots of businesses can run and operate in it selling real product displayed in metaverse and then real world delivered to peoples homes on payment.

we should be trying to get bitcoin to be the main backed asset for the pegged tokens used in the metaverse, before ethereum takes too much control and become the common currency of web3

Absolutely!
Things like this..

It should be pushed that if you want to do serious/important things, it needs to be done on Bitcoin..


That $30 billion NFT volume is an obvious one..
Just because you think their stupid doesn’t mean it isn’t a huge market..

I think they can be a lot of fun, and then at times when some people want to pay stupid money for them, I sell them..

I think a lot of crypto users talk about NFTs just like nocoiners talk about Bitcoin.. They see a huge profit opportunity slip by so they have to come up with reasons to justify to themselves why they didn’t partake..

So there goes a $30 billion market away from Bitcoin to ETH, and news headlines all over the place for ETH and not Bitcoin..


All that tolken mania in 2017..
Scammy or not that pumped the price of ETH HUGE because of the use case and gas fees..



https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2018/02/19/the-real-problem-with-nocoiners/
 what makes a nocoiner a nocoiner is not simply the absence of cryptocurrency from his investment portfolio, but his sanctimonious attitude about it.
people who missed their opportunity to buy Bitcoin at a low price ... and who [are] now bitter at having missed out. The nocoiner takes out his or her bitterness on Bitcoin Hodlers, by constantly claiming that Bitcoin will crash, is a scam, is a bubble, or other types of easily refuted FUD.
In other words, a nocoiner is full of what philosophers call ressentiment, defined by La Wik as "a reassignment of the pain that accompanies a sense of one's own inferiority/failure onto an external scapegoat.
The nocoiner isn't just skeptical or even bearish about bitcoin. He feigns epistemic certainty that it will fail.
A nocoiner doesn’t simply express doubt about the use cases for cryptocurrency – he declares, unequivocally, that there are no use cases at all, in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Now if that doesn’t sound familiar… Hmmmm..

Sorry, I missed your edit when I posted my previous reply.

I'm not sure I do, because I don't see it as a thriving economy. I see it as a short lived scam.

$30 billion on pictures of apes and other utterly stupid NFTs is not a sustainable economy. I'm sure there are some legitimate uses of NFTs, but such uses are dwarfed by the (as you point out) billions of dollars being traded on absolutely worthless crap. I'm of the opinion that this will go the same way of all the altcoins of the 2017 boom, all the ICOs/IEOs/ITOs and other three letter acronyms, all the lending platforms tokens which are now collapsing, and so on. Yes, we there will be a very small minority of the NFT sector which will survive to longevity, but that vast majority will disappear to nothing or exit scam.

Would having all this activity on bitcoin bring a short term benefit in terms of price and volume? Most probably. Would having bitcoin forever associated with millions of people losing billions of dollars in a huge scam be worth it? I don't think so.

The difference here is the nocoiners have been nocoiners on the same asset for over a decade, and that same asset continues not just to survive, but to grow and develop. People like me who have little time for the vast majority of altcoins have seen literally thousands of different altcoins over dozens of different "sectors" (ICOs, NFTs, DeFi, etc.) completely disappear over half that time.

And they will ignore your efforts and trade shitcoins anyway.

You're asking a question I've asked many times while watching the market of some worthless shitcoins like all those bitcoin "clones" like bitcoin god. There even was "bitcoin turbo koin". All those things had hundreds of thousands in volume. Who the hell buys that shit?

The answer is idiots.The world is full of them. Every one out of 10 people you meet is a fool and those fools finance the industry that builds, lists and pumps these coins so that a group of people can make money and start another shitty project. The money must come from somewhere and it comes from fools who work overtime to later buy a bitcoin SV "because Craig satoshi said it's the real bitcoin" or buy BCH because Roger said "it's the new king".

They do exist in bitcoin, if you didn't know: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Colored_Coins. They don't have the same activity as in Ethereum, because they weren't disgustingly hyped up. They do have a purpose, as said by o_e_l_e_o (BSQ tokens), but I've seen nobody interested in trading bitcoin-apes, probably because reasonable people don't trade digital scarcity for hashes of jpegs.

Not as part of bitcoin protocol.

Well, that's the only purpose the token platforms such as ethereum serve so obviously shittokens are created there instead of bitcoin which is not a token platform but payment system.

You can put dog poop in a beautiful looking bag and sell it for a lot of money per bag but that doesn't make it useful.

These are my favorite types of arguments that people use against the prospect of having to learn something new: "We own the high ground by continuing to not understand the subject of discussion."

Pretty much all the counterpoints being made in this thread come from a place of arrogant ignorance, and they largely overlap with the same arguments that no-coiners have been making against bitcoin for years:

- NFTs are a fad
- they're not real
- they're not backed by anything
- they're a ponzi scheme
- they have no utility.

Well, you're wrong, just as no-coiners are often wrong in their attacks on bitcoin. Its just more comfortable to make sweeping generalizations and stick with them forever than make slight alterations to your world view in light of new information.

Conversely, I do believe that NFTs have some legitimate uses - as art.

Emphasis on the word "art". Anybody can see that Bored Apes and Founders Club and similar high-value NFTs are a small minority of the population, because they were designed by real artists (similar to 14-15th century Renascence artists).

The rest of the stuff being sold on opensea is, in fact, garbage paintings drawn on MS paint or just taken with a video camera, by non-artists who are hoping to make a quick buck. I mean, there are literally NFTs that are just GIFs or screenshots of tweets and other stuff and these kind of things make a majority of the stuff for sale.

Even Adolf Hitler's paintings (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paintings_by_Adolf_Hitler) look better than a lot of the pixelated graphics on OpenSea drawn (or stolen) by amateurs. [And they say he was as bad an artist as he was a leader.]

P.S. the Nakamoto Pepe cards you just displayed are also in this category. The truth is, it is quite easy to reproduce if you have basic art skills (or just use a website (https://www.apppicker.com/apps/1044008573/create-your-own-pepe) that does it for you).

At this point, it ceases to be a question about: which blockchain should this be hosted on, and more about: why the hell did people ruin the NFTs? Which by the way is not our problem or Ethereum's, but that of the artists, buyers and sellers on the NFT markets. The fact that people everywhere are lynching (*edited for typo) Ethereum for that goes on to demonstrate that the blockchain shares some responsibility for the layer 2 stuff it hosts on it.

By hosting something, you share that responsibility with what happens to it. So is it really worth the daggers thrown by the media and investors just to have all the volume?

Why do you think despite all this tech and volume, Eth is still only at $2K?

The value behind the NFT has very little to do with subjective perceptions of the quality of the art. The art isn't even attached to the token on a blockchain level, by URL or image hash, or anything. The reasons why it commands a huge price tag include:

- its token name (RAREPEPE -- it was in essence the first Rare Pepe)
- its age (a week shy of being 6 years old, which is nearly ancient by NFT standards)
- its scarcity (it was created with a total quantity of 300 tokens, many of which are out of circulation)
- it represents the beginning of a new use for Bitcoin technology (making collectibles, more or less)

It actually cannot be "reproduced" whatsoever. The essence of its existence is secured on the blockchain, just like your bitcoin. You can make forgeries, but those in the know will be able to spot them.

Think of it like a baseball card.

https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/M0cLXz2GFZjdYSt87zMVTg--~B/aD03NDQ7dz03NDQ7YXBwaWQ9eXRhY2h5b24-/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/76254bb9434462003509cece628f9498

Looks a bit low-quality, and not a very impressive portrait. Yet these sell for millions of dollars. Why? Because they are scarce, very old, and made back when hardly anybody else was making baseball cards.

Age or historical-ness of NFTs certainly isn't the only reason they are collected -- they are collected for all sorts of reason. But the vast majority require perpetual hype to sustain elevated floor prices, and yeah, a lot of them are scams.

To answer your question, if you think NFTs have been "ruined," then its the same forces that ruined the name of bitcoin or crypto that are to blame -- mainly greed. This space just attracts a lot of incredibly greedy people. It always has. But once the meaningfulness of the technology can be separated from instinctual connotations, people can go a lot farther in understanding what beneficial uses it actually possesses.

Can you please share names of bitcoin Dexes? Have not used one and after 4 years in the space it is surprising to know it exist. I so consider it for trade in countries with strong restriction for cryptocurrency. How do people convert there stable coin to fiat in USA without wallet monitoring ?

I think we all know the answer to that one. Greed.

You can compare them to baseball cards, but is there any reason we can't compare them to something like beanie babies instead? A short lived fad, which people will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on now, in 5 years will be worth nothing, and in 20 years we will look back on it and shake our heads at how people could be so stupid as to spend all that money on a stuffed toy/some MS paint drawing?

Exactly my point. There are some legitimate uses for NFTs, and I would have no problem with these legitimate uses being based on Bitcoin, but I see no reason to attract what are 99% scams to migrate from Ethereum to Bitcoin. But if other people do, then go ahead. I can't stop you. :)

Bisq, LocalCryptos, HodlHodl, RoboSats. See more: https://kycnot.me/

Except that bitcoin gives a solution to a real-world problem, that is sending electronic cash over communication channels cheaply, fast, and in a censorship resistant fashion? Who's generalizing now?  ::)

I don't ignore your points on NFTs, neither do I say they're ponzi. I just find no utility on buying hashes of binaries. That's all. I've already told you before: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5408273.msg60681117#msg60681117

And because they're cards... with a physical beingness? Owning one card means you get the (physical) rights to share it with your friends, show it to the public, completely disappearing it off the face of the planet-- generally, you own the card, and not a liability / receipt of the card. On the other hand, the moment I upload my digital card on OpenSea, it stops being in my possession, and everyone can utilize it.

I honestly see no benefits on buying an NFT art. I do see some benefit of buying a painting, but not the rights that I own it. Especially when these rights are community-driven and not by the law.

I almost bought one of those back in 16 or 17 before the $20k pump.. I was there, had the funds, and could have got one for around 0.25 BTC in value iirc..

I didn’t and bought a bunch of other lesser ones..

That Nakamoto Card didn’t just boom out of the middle of nowhere, it always had high value soon after the Rare Pepe project started gaining traction..

It slowly gained and gained value.. From little to 0.25 BTC, to 0.5 BTC, to 1 BTC, all through the pump, and held all through the bear thereafter..

These were and are not some pump and dump.. These early cards always held very well and keep gaining..


Now, for those of you not in the know.. These times were before the term “NFT” existed.. Before OpenSea existed.. Before any of the NFT hysteria ever happened..
We all had TONS of fun doing this! And put down tons of use on Bitcoin doing this..

And now what?
They are commanding the highest price after being moved to the ETH blockchain!
To me this is sickening! How much more Bitcoin does it get than Nakamoto?
WTF?


And to the point of the value being the “art” and “real artists” etc..
Their is more to “art” than simply the supposed quality of the imagery..
Their is an entirely different concept of “art” in memes..
You can be the greatest artist in the world and not be able to create “memes”.. Great memes are the art of condensing one or many points and meanings into a simple concise image that is TRULY worth a thousand words, and the simpler the better.. A great meme is simplicity that describes or represents complex things, and that’s the beauty of it.. The “art” is in the meaning and the simpler the representation the better..

“Rare Pepe” itself is a meme, quite fresh back then..
Dorian Nakamoto is a meme..
The meme of making Pepes truly rare by stamping them on the Bitcoin blockchain in limited tradable and transferable quantities is and was absolutely genius..

The “art” isn’t that great? Well let’s see your great artists do something genius like that..
It’s a whole lot more than the subjective quality of the appearance..

And it’s being moved to ETH  :'(
Very sad..


Let’s have a little look at the general thoughts about/toward ETH within the project at the time..

https://i.ibb.co/31vdQk0/DFE51447-925-C-4-E2-F-9-A3-D-17-A117-F1-BAB3.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)
https://i.ibb.co/my6tLpc/014-CEF76-6344-404-F-9566-530005816-ED1.png (https://imgbb.com/)
https://i.ibb.co/6NS7Gfz/77569-C8-D-CE68-4329-B7-E3-E5755793-CEFD.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)
https://i.ibb.co/7pG9cWJ/9-C59-E367-E38-C-41-EF-B17-E-4-F3-AE7-A66-C52.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)
dnd dice creator (https://freeonlinedice.com/)

Hmm…
Shit art you say? Let’s see your artists express meaning like that..


This isn’t just about the Rare Pepes project though.. It’s just a great and ironic example that proves the point of Bitcoin losing this market share this topic is about..


——————————————

Another great irony I’m seeing here..
“Merit cycling club” avatars arguing against the value of memes/“poor art”, while being paid handsomely to wear a meme avatar which is “poor art”, being merited by foxpup himself who pays them to wear this meme which is “poor art”, and meriting eachother..
 ::)

Can’t make this shit up folks..

It is just a meme, right guys?

Are you bicycling the merit speedway?
Some sort of charity like a marathon to end breast cancer riding your bicycles to be paid in forum merits?
Are you cycling merits amongst yourselves gaming the system in your club to control DT with your I’ll gotten voting power?

Or, is it a poorly drawn MEME mocking other users who complain about you all meriting eachother?
(Good example of a great meme, poorly drawn, “low quality”, one would only know the meaning of you were “in the know”, picture worth a thousand words)

Also of great value to some it seems.. Hold on, let me see if I can figure out how much $$/BTC is being spent to show it around..
Calculating…




March 2019..
About 3.5 years..
52X3.5X0.015=2.73BTC per participant..
Holy shit..
How many participants? Let’s guess 5..

Over 13 BTC for a meme..
Even at a paltry $20k per that’s a fucking quarter million $$ USD..

Y’all better 180 and praise the value of memes to the highest heaven..

Damn y’all are getting rich posting on this forum, on top of your CM signatures.. No wonder you post so much..
If only I could conform myself to the “in” crowd and spend all my time posting..





I’m lost for words..

all the people in the above posts, talking about NFT, from the scammy scenario of where NFT is being used for stupid stuff

i agree NFT for silly trading cards and art thats all overpriced is all crap... useless utility of NFT


..
but in other usecases that NFT could do some actual business, retail and experience for people on the internet.. NFT can actually be used for alot that is nothing to do with silly art crap..


we should be pushing for a bitcoin sidenet(with strong peg/unlike other pegs for bitcoin altnets)
which then bridge value over to the side net. which then allows REAL ideals of actual things of business and trade which are done via NFT.. not the silly art show crap

I've never argued against NFTs from the point of view of memes or "poor art" being worthless. I've argued against them from the point of the very concept of me "owning" a meme but that everyone else can still use, share, edit, print, display, etc., is pointless. I think NFTs probably have future utility in terms of proving ownership of physical assets such as property, vehicles, etc., maybe even for trademarks and copyrights, but not for memesa.

Even if Foxy declares that she absolutely loves NFTs and thinks they are the best thing since sliced bread, doesn't mean I still can't think they are 99% stupid. And Foxpup is getting our avatar space (and a few hidden bonuses too ;)), not some hash of the avatar she designed.

---

Still, as I said above, if you want to port all your NFTs to bitcoin, then I, or anybody else for that matter, can't stop you. People like me are obviously not the target market here. So rather than arguing about the utility or futility of NFTs, let me ask you (as someone who is obviously heavily involved in NFTs) this: Why do you think people are doing all this activity on Ethereum instead of on Bitcoin? What should we do to get this activity on to Bitcoin instead?

BTC is a cult, you can't talk to them like they are rational.
If they were rational, they be concerned about the issues you raised, and the government threats of PoW mining bans.

But they just yell decentralized, and Moon, and expect everything to be ok.

The main reason, I dumped all of my BTC at the 1st $20K years ago,
is there is no one left with any sense in the btc driver seat.

That way I won't care when BTC runs off of the inevitable ever closer cliff.  ;)

Ethereum will take the #1 spot, and the real future of crypto is Proof of Stake, the ones not affected by the coming government PoW bans.
PoS is over 99% more energy efficient than Proof of Waste.
Smart Contracts are becoming more important.
Onchain Transaction Capacity matters
PoS chains can achieve transaction finality in 4 seconds, as algorand has done, btc never achieves transaction finality.
PoS Pools like in cardano are thousands of times more decentralized than BTC PoW mere 4 mining pool operators.
BTC cultists can't understand any of that,
but when the PoW bans happen and the price of BTC hits zero, we will see if they understand it then.  ;)
 

As much as I'd love to be able to change ownership of my car without government approval, I don't think this is ever going to happen. What if someone loses their private key? Now they just pay €32,60 (https://www.kentekenloket.nl/kentekenbewijs-kwijt-dit-moet-je-doen/) and get new papers. If you can replace your "registration token" by a new one, it defeats the purpose of using a token. I can think of more problems: what if someone steals your token?

I wouldn’t consider myself extremely heavily involved in NFTs, or a expert.. I have just done it for fun for a long time..

I have only ever used Bitcoin for NFTs, and more recently a little bit on Doge (same tech just cheaper, less serious)..
What grinds my gears a bit is people porting them FROM Bitcoin TO ETH..

I’m not trying to sell any of you anything except the idea that we should be concerned about Bitcoin competing in this market, come to an understanding of why it isn’t competing, and do something about it..

I am not only showing that Bitcoin is not competing here, but also that ETH is even directly taking some of this market from Bitcoin that was originally on Bitcoin..

Why is this? Good question.. We should brainstorm about this (if anyone cares)..
A main reason I can think of.. Nobody cares!!!
Y’all don’t care.. Just dismiss it.. Even enforce your dismissal by bashing it entirely..

Another big reason could be awareness.. I don’t think people are even aware of the capability of doing the same things on Bitcoin, or why it would be better to do on Bitcoin..

With ETH 2.0 coming up so soon their is good chances that ETH could crash entirely, and I would not consider it a stable and reliable blockchain at all, is one good reason I would say it would be better to do on Bitcoin..

What should we do to get this activity on to Bitcoin instead?
I don’t know.. Any ideas instead of just bashing and dismissing it?
Awareness? Support? Usage? Investment? Interest? Development support? Network support? Exchange support?
All of which are almost zero!

Really, most of the replies in this thread show exactly why..
So much hostility..
Guarantee you wouldn’t find this same hostility in the ETH community, even if persons don’t like NFTs or tolkens at all, I bet their glad that they are using ETH and that they have almost all but cornered the market..

Someone creates a digital/physical art.
They create a token for it and sell that token to someone for a lot of money.
2 days later the artist decides that they didn't earn enough money from the first sale so they create another token and sell it to someone else.
A third party downloads the same art from the internet and creates their own token from that art and sells it to someone else making money that way.

So yeah NFTs have a lot of "utility" :)

The ugly truth is that so far there has not been even single real world problem that tokens solved. It's true that the market is big and a lot of money is changing hands (and being laundered through tokens) but they still haven't solved anything.
They are simply used to raise funds and nothing else. And fund raising can be done through many other methods.

The problem is that the real question is never answered by avoiding it altogether and focusing on irrelevant matters such as the market size, how expensive a token was sold, the profit, quality of the art, ...