Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin 2.0 is quite different from 'altcoins'. Shouldn't this forum have a category 'Bitcoin 2.0' for all those projects?  It is VERY hard to find posts related to the Bitcoin 2.0 concept as they forever lost in the trash that is 'Altcoins'.  What gives? 

C'mon Theymos - organize the site in a way which is most useful to the readers.  Maybe the management here has something against Bitcoin 2.0 world?  Weird.

What is BTC 2.0? Can you link me to article/thread?

Nxt coin, master coin, ethereum, swarm etc.

And yes it is not fair to categorize these as 'alt coins'.  They are so much more than that

The altcoin section has been a wasteland ever since dogecoin came out and all the alts that followed that.

It's a place where not many are there to bring innovation and new technology, it's mostly a place of who scams who.

We should really get some restrictions in that section, clean it up a little bit. Basically anyone can make a new thread with a shit coin they made in 2 hours.

There is no Bitcoin 2.0 what are you talking about?
Do you mean '2nd gen. coins'?
Also the forum is pretty organized now, it was worse in the past.

They do not deserve anything. An altcoin is and stays an altcoin.
Also this is the wrong section if we're discussing the forum.

bitcoin 2.0 is a fabrication

its simply an altcoin or group of altcoins that is simply trying to steal the fame of bitcoin by attempting to make these altcoins sound like they are the new versions of bitcoin.

they are not.

this is why bitcoin 2.0 does not have a subsection of its own, because all alternative variations of crypto-coins belong in the altcoin section. if any altcoin is deemed to hold any chance of a success, then they will make their own .org websites/forums and form their own dev teams and infrastructure.

It is? I haven't dared to check that section in a couple of months, maybe I should go back for a bit. :)

Bitcoin 2.0 is not Bitcoin, so they belong to Alternate cryptocurrencies (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=67) board.

Ah, another altcoin with a strange name. It won't stand well imo.

Perhaps its because people don't want anything to do with alt-coins? I know I don't.

None of the alts in the alt trash can, including those alts, deserve to be called "Bitcoin 2.0"

They will all be totally wiped out by the first coin to implement Peter R's great idea in this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563925.0

The first coin to implement the initial coin distribution idea described in that thread will be the first coin that might deserve the designation "Bitcoin 2.0", but only if it is actually better than Bitcoin 1.0 in a market defining way.

Until then let's keep all the alts in their own cess pool sub forum so they are easy to ignore.

Indeed, Etherum is the perfect example. I always felt like those people were just after the money. After all it's still only a concept nothing more. You're right many do not want to be touching that, especially not after so many scams (and because of the current one *waves to IPO coins*).

True true true

Bitcoin 2.0 doesn't exist yet, there are several altcoins which can take btc slot in the future but not today.

You can call any altcoin Bitcoin 2.0.
That dosent mean it's a bitcoin. It's still an altcoin

How can you guys talk smack about Altcoins... They are great contrast to Bitcoins, I think without them Bitcoins wouldn't be as popular as it is today.

“Altcoins offer ways to gain exposure to different segments of the crypto-universe. Darkcoin is a brilliant coin that addresses a real need. As I said before, the market as a whole is set for 100x growth so there is plenty of upside.” -Max Keiser

Just because some of you guys traded in shitcoins and lost money, you have a negative view on them altcoins now. Look at what Nxt coin and ethereum are doing now. Besides being able to trade different coins is a great way of making money and investing in particular altcoins in the future. If you believe in Bitcoins and want it to progress, dont knock altcoins... Support it and be part of the ever growing community!

BTC The Future!

I didnt loose money on altcoins. I made money on it. That dosent change the fact that calling a coin Bitcoin 2.0 makes it any diffrent from any other altcoin

Sounds pretty cool...so will this be a completely different thing from bit coin or will it be an extension?  

I wouldn't mind getting in on a game early for a change!

Any ?  Not at all!

Some are so clear comin' just to scam ppl, while there are others with a huge innovations and potention

Wow, the owner couldn't find a better name? BTC 1.0/original will be the best always..

I suspect this coin will crash.

These coins are nothing but gimmicks, Bitcoin is the real deal, deal with it  8)

Unless they implement this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563925.0

(which they do not) they will all be wiped out by the first alt that does.

Unless they implement this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563925.0

then don't bother since it will not last.  If they do implement it then by owning BTC you are already in on the ground floor!  Just buy and hold more BTC and you will be able to be in on the ground floor of every coin that implements the suggested initial distribution method.

They will be wiped out by the first true "Bitcoin 2.0" alt coins, coins that implement this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563925.0

None of the current alt coins will ever "take btc slot" because they will all be wiped out by the first real "Bitcoin 2.0" coins.

Dump all your alt coins as quickly and quietly as you can and buy BTC then wait for or create new alt coins based on the distribution model proposed by Peter.  This includes all the latest "darlings" of the alt coin cess pool.

It is remarkable how few people understand what Bitcoin 2.0 is.  It doesn't replace Bitcoin at all.  For example, Mastercoin merely extends the functionality of Bitcoin.  Bitcoin blockchain, bitcoin mining, it is still bitcoin.  It is just bitcoin with some added features. 

All altcoins can burn in hell.  Pure garbage.  Litecoin, Dogecoin = dumb as hell. 

Bitcoin is the only coin.  But Mastercoin is Bitcoin on steroids and is nothing like an Alt coin. 

Maybe if the admins didn't try to suppress this, more people would understand what bitcoin 2.0. is.

Good idea to add section of btc2.0 to that forum. Can you give some information about btc2.0????

The new section would be empty.

There are alt coins which are not Bitcoin (litecoin, NXT, dogecoin, etc. too many to list or count).

There are extensions and enhancements to the Bitcoin protocol.  Things that are build on top of or use the Bitcoin protocol like colored coins and Mastercoin, etc.  These are not "Bitcoin 2.0" either.

There is nothing that can properly be called "Bitcoin 2.0", yet.  Nothing.

...by your definition which reigns supreme over all others?  Please tell us when we can call something bitcoin 2.0 according to your definition.  

By other peoples definition, colored coins, Mastercoin, Counterparty, et cetera, which are not new coins, but rather extensions of the standard bitcoin protocol to enable new interesting functionality - is Bitcoin 2.0.  

But somehow BurtW wants to tell everyone what they can and can't call things.  Burt the head arbiter of the dictionary.  WTF?

Bitcoin 2.0 is a very interesting new space.  It will be quite popular in about 1 more year.


Well, the very beginning of this started with JR Willet's white paper.  Maybe you should start there. 

what are the significant features of bitcoin 2.0?

Easy, when it is a new and improved version of the actual Bitcoin protocol - as anyone and everyone would expect it to mean.  We are using the first version of the Bitcoin protocol (1.0) when the next version of the protocol is released that would be called "Bitcoin 2.0"

I wanted to add something here:

It will be Bitcoin 2.0 when it is an improved version of the Bitcoin 1.0 protocol and my Bitcoin 1.0 BTC can be seamlessly and effortlessly converted (or duplicated) into the new version 2.0 BTC in a fair and transparent way (see Peter's proposal).

Evidently anything that can be bolted on to the Bitcoin protocol is to be called "Bitcoin 2.0" so any wild idea of something that can be added on is your list of features.

Bitcoin 2.0 isn't a coin. It is a group of competing/co-operating projects trying to innovate the next iteration of the cryptocurrency technology. First to market with a truly innovative advancement will do VERY VERY well.

We are actually not using Bitcoin 1.0 yet.  We are still in Beta.  Actually, 0.9.2.1  So if you must be a fucking pedant - then go with that definition.  However, to nearly everyone else 'Bitcoin 2.0' simply refers to the general area of an extended Bitcoin.  

WTF do you think 'Web 2.0' means?  Why don't you Google that to learn what the common meaning of the '2.0' extension is?  

Your very strict definition is just plain dumb.  

Everyone except you understands what 'Web 2.0' and 'Bitcoin 2.0' is intended to mean.  

Maybe we should start calling it: "Bitcoin Plus"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better

Those aren't Bitcoin 2.0. Those are just secondary protocol chains.

what i would define as a viable bitcoin 2.0 is where the blockchain holds the bitcoin genesis block of 2009 as designed and created by the pseudonym Satoshi, and all blocks thereafter.... but where the protocol has evolved to such an extent that the protocol is unrecognizable compared to bitcoin 0.1 and the features and benefits are evolved to not be the same as bitcoin 0.1

at the moment the changes to the protocol only amount to 0.9 so a bitcoin 2.0 is far far far away from happening any time soon.

in short if it does not have the bitcoins genesis block in it. its not any version of bitcoin at all

Why does the opinion of some random guy on the Internet (me) upset you so?  

I think you doth protest way too much.

Do you happen to have a lot invested in one of these "Bitcoin 2.0" bolt ons to the Bitcoin protocol?

Bitcoin IS Bitcoin 2.0

http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2014/06/bit-thereum.html

As someone who has lost considerable amounts from failed or dishonest exchanges and from regulatory seizure of accounts and on centalized crypto equity markets:

The central points of failure in Bitcoin are well known and are very worrying.
De-centralization is of paramount importance.

Bitcoin 2.0 projects are attempting to do away with centralized points of failure by providing decentralized banks and decentralized exchanges and decentralized markets.

Let's hope one or more of them succeeds.

The invention of the blockchain marks the beginning of the end of centralization OF ALL THINGS, not only money.

the bitcoin genesis, bitcoin protocol and the 5 years of blocks are only at 0.9
will you get it into your head that unless a blockchain contains bitcoins genesis block and 5year block history, then it is simply no version of bitcoin and is purely an altcoin


what you are describing is businesses which is a layer/step away from the protocol. and its not that exciting. localbitcoins has been a decentralised exchange for a long time.

all these altcoins are just redesigning the wheel where the function already exists, but the 'spit and pollish' makes their gimmicks sound and look new. i have yet to see anything that is what i would describe as 'special' or unique, worthy of adding to bitcoins protocol

Here's the dev behind one 2.0 project:

"BTSX was designed with the assumption that all crypto would be banned from formal exchanges.   The need for a trust-free proxy to the dollar / gold / silver was required as well as decentralized price discovery.   Localbitcoins is much more viable with BTSX and BitAssets because you don't have to match bid/ask/location... just location." 

Just wanna point out that the original idea for BTC is peer to peer , not centralized exchange.

Yeah, but that has been eroding ever since mining by cpu was no longer feasible. The tendency for bitcoin has to become more and more subject to centralizing forces and central points of failure (mining pools, massive mining farms. exchanges) and now the regulators are trying to jump in big time.

Evolve or become irrelevant.

Imo the idea of Bitcoin 2.0 sucs. We didn't even have 1.0 BTC core! What are you want? To jump over the generation of a crypto currency?

Bitcoin 2.0...haha I am wondering what did the owner think before naming it..

It will crash easily..

It's NOT a coin.

It's is a group of competing and cooperating projects: Ethereum, Nxt, Bitshares, and others.

What did the owner think before naming it? What are you talking about?

Cooperating? I don't think so. Competing projects? scams? Yes.
Like it was previously said in the thread, you can't name something Bitcoin 2.0 when in fact it is not Bitcoin.
We are a far far away from reaching v2.0.
It's not hard to find posts related to these projects and there is no need for their own sub-forum/s.

OK, I've decided to agree with you  :)

Let's not call the innovation happening Bitcoin 2.0, let's call it blockchain 2.0.

Good?  Or you just don't like innovation?

http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/gavin-andresen-outlines-bitcoin-2-0-without-ethereum/2014/06/09  (http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/gavin-andresen-outlines-bitcoin-2-0-without-ethereum/2014/06/09)

We dont need ethereum, we should Stop thinking about 2.0 untill 1.0 is out of the door nice and stable and clean we can should start thinking of advancing BITCOIN!!! All that is ethereum is, is someone trying to get rich because they missed out the glory of BTC.

Sidechains, tree chains & Multi-sig contracts  should be able to do the vast majority of what ethereum is and make Bitcoin even greater. But , everyone wants to be rich so they push alt coins and 2.0 pump and dumps with all their might.

Have you seen the ethereum paper? For fuks SAKE its like one big complicated mess!!! Even Gavin says we can do all with bitcoin and with much less work and less complications. People need to think!!

I was never heard about bitcoin 2.0. Is it really exist? or such like altcoin..

Let me know when Bitcoin 3.0 is announced. lol

no.. what he is talking about is something like multigateway which is the first semi-decentralised crypto exchange.. meaning no one single person has control over the currency.. it uses multisig on 3 servers controlled by 3 separate people who, in order to run their businesses need to be trust worthy.. 2 of 3 servers need to agree before a withdrawal of coins happens.. so you only need to trust that 2 of the 3 people will not cooperate in a malicious way.. seeing as these people have a very high vested interest in being trust worthy and have invested allot of money in their businesses it makes it far less likely for them to cooperate to commit a theft... hacking it would be fairly damn hard too seeing as it uses multisig. its the first step toward a fully decentralized exchange so far. and by far one of the most exciting things to come out in a long time.

Allow me to debunk that.

I kidnap all three of these people (or only 2!), hit them with a 5$ wrench until they push the transactions through that I want.

Incredible you can call only 3 points of trust decentralized. Decentralization needs to have the control in the hands of everyone, not simply 3 people. What will these 3 do with pressure from the government or whatever other criminal?

your suggestion of kidnapping is just stupid... :/

i said semi-decentralized.. its not centralised because one single entity does not have full control over the private keys of the coins.. its not decentralized because it is only 3 people. so its somewhere in the middle.

can you name one other solution that is even half as good? forgot to even mention there arent even any fees involved. just transaction fees for withdraw and deposit.

learn how the technology works before bashing it... http://multigateway.org/

THIS

What does 2.0 offers in additional which 1.0 couldn't?

Edit : Ah, its a new coin from new owner..

Generally the second generation coins go beyond being merely money. Features include voting, asset exchanges, text messaging, digital shops, escrow and other automated transactions. The idea is for these things to be implemented in a distributed, de-centralised, trust-free yet secure way, using block-chain technology.

Calling them "second generation" is, I think, relatively uncontroversial. Calling them "Bitcoin 2.0" is controversial, because they typically don't have much to do with Bitcoin other than using a block-chain as a means of distributed consensus. Many of them also use "Proof of Stake", which is very different to the Proof of Work that Bitcoin is founded upon. However, that doesn't mean they are scams. Most of them are proud of being their own thing, and don't want to appropriate the "Bitcoin" name, although it can be a convenient short-hand when talking to people who have only heard of Bitcoin.

Some say that to warrant the name "Bitcoin 2.0" they must be a fork of the original Bitcoin block-chain (but not necessarily a fork of the source code). I don't care.

The real question here, in my view, is not over what a new sub-forum should be called, but whether it is worth having separate sub-forums to separate the coins with wholly new source, from ones which are essentially based on the Bitcoin source.

That is fine with me.  I was only opposed to using "Bitcoin 2.0" to describe any alt that is not Bitcoin.  "Next Generation" is as good a marketing term as any for those coins that believe they are.

I still contend that any "next generation" coin, no mater how cool or how feature rich, that does not include the current Bitcoin user base through Peter's proposal or something similar is destined to failure because it can be duplicated by a coin that does.

Let's take Ethereum as an example.  Assume you have Ethereum which does not include the current Bitcoin users and AEthereum which does and all other features are identical.  As a Bitcoin holder I would be curious to try out AEthereum since I already own them but I have no desire and would have to be sold hard on the idea of even trying Ethereum or even caring enough to find out what it is.

Ah finally a nice post. Yes, I definitely agree with you on this one.
These coins that want to be 2.0 are just an attempt to get money because they missed out. Why would you want to make something else, Bitcoin is all we need. I wonder how long it will take us to reach 1.0 though.
Indeed Ethereum is nonsense right now.

Bitcoin 2.0

http://www.evilenglish.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2391064-4436741716-ngbbs-300x264.jpg

When I first found out about Bitcoin, I was struck by a quote to the effect that "money is merely the first application of Bitcoin". The block-chain concept can do far more. There are more areas that can benefit from de-centralised, trust-free consensus. I had hoped Bitcoin would evolve to address them.

It hasn't. It won't. The Bitcoin community are too conservative, and its development has become moribund. Hence the torch passes to new coins that are designed with a more flexible architecture to address more areas.

Please tell me how much your loved Ethereum has been developed so far?  ::)
If you complain about lack of features, take up coding and go do them yourself. Anything that these alts provide can be added to Bitcoin.

I'm not a lover of Ethereum. A look at my signature will give you a clue where my interests lie. Both the 2.0 coins in it have developed lots.

I used to think that, too. They could be, but they won't be. Bitcoin will never adopt Proof of Stake, for example: I'll probably get mocked here for even suggesting it. If I were to write a Bitcoin node that supported multiple transaction types, nobody but me would run it. It'd be stuck on a lonely fork. In practice, only the core Bitcoin devs can make changes like that, and they aren't interested. They've not even fixed transaction mutability, despite it being a known problem (with known fixes) for months, if not years. All the interesting work with Bitcoin is being done on top of it, with wallets and the like, not with changes to the core.

I can only moderate Turkish board and newbie posts.

No, this thread belongs to Meta, as I've already reported before my first post here. It's about where to put Bitcoin 2.0 discussion threads. But after a lot of off-topic replies (thread was in Bitcoin Discussion board at that time, I don't blame anybody) it turned to general Bitcoin 2.0 discussion thread. When you look at the OP, it's discussion about the Bitcoin Forum, fits Meta perfect.

You don't need to say what I should do. ;)
We are equal here.

What term would those who dislike the term "Bitcoin 2.0" suggest to account for projects which use blockchain technology but us it to facilitate different services than Bitcoin does? Examples for those services would be: Decentralized lottery, decentralized predictions markets etc.

Why not call them what they are:  enhancements and extentions to Bitcoin.

I like "bolt ons"

If you must have a snazy maketing term then possibly "Next Gen" , "G2", etc.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=752221.msg8500197#msg8500197

Just not "Bitcoin 2.0" since that indicates the next version of the actual Bitcoin protocol - and has been stated many times in this thread we have not even released "Bitcoin 1.0" yet, we are still in the beta phase at "Bitcion 0.9"

This is actually true. It can be interpreted this way.

Earlier I suggested "second generation".

To me that suggests they are based on the Bitcoin source code. Most of them aren't. If they aren't, then they shouldn't mention Bitcoin at all, in my view. I tend to call them "coins" or "crypto-currencies". Most of them include something like a currency even if they aren't focussed on being money.