Realistically does bitcoin have any competition ?

[cjmoles]

Enter bitcoin's competition!  They're here!

http://cointelegraph.com/news/115282/9-banking-superpowers-unite-behind-bitcoins-blockchain-tech-op-ed?source=dogechain.info

What does that mean for the future prices of bitcoin?

[1713583199]

1713583199

[Harpua]

It's not like Wall Street would want to use monero for any reason because why should they care about the anonymity of the transactions, and I wouldn't really see Wall Street wanting to put it in the market because, well, they want to keep S & P all fiat based.

 
  
Pretend you and me want to enter a contract that neither of us can back out of, and that we want to keep totally private until a later time.  For example, pretend that we are both mega-entities that believe the price of a certain asset will move soon.  I think it will go up, and you think it will go down.  We know that if the public knows that we are betting it will change the outcome because the public will take sides.  
  
At a later point, we want the ability to reveal the existence and contents of said contract in its entirety, but also need the security that no one will discover its existence before we choose.  
  
The answer is Monero.  
  

That may be the answer, but you have to convince these megacorps to use this in the first place.

That is a really interesting way of thinking about that americanpegasus, but yeah like RGBkey said it will be tough to convince the big dawgs to play in the field of monero.

But at the same time I think it's very plausible.  Hopefully with all the news about banks now getting into blockchain technology, major players in the world of Wall Street will start deciding what to do in regards of the whole crypto scene.

[brg444]

It's not like Wall Street would want to use monero for any reason because why should they care about the anonymity of the transactions, and I wouldn't really see Wall Street wanting to put it in the market because, well, they want to keep S & P all fiat based.

 
  
Pretend you and me want to enter a contract that neither of us can back out of, and that we want to keep totally private until a later time.  For example, pretend that we are both mega-entities that believe the price of a certain asset will move soon.  I think it will go up, and you think it will go down.  We know that if the public knows that we are betting it will change the outcome because the public will take sides.  
  
At a later point, we want the ability to reveal the existence and contents of said contract in its entirety, but also need the security that no one will discover its existence before we choose.  
  
The answer is Monero.  
  

My concern for Monero, one I have always expressed, is the likelihood of a sidechain-type service providing equivalent privacy while leveraging Bitcoin's network effect.

I also sat at the privacy related roundtable during last week's Scaling Bitcoin conference and it was mentioned many time that Monero could face the same scaling issues as Bitcoin and possibly worse given the apparent impossibility to prune the chain.

[americanpegasus]

I'm a big picture guy - I see broad strokes and connections. 
 
What I see is that we have been using the horse and buggy of cryptocurrency since 2008 and it has served us well.  However, the combustible engine (of cryptocurrency) was just invented. 
 
Is it perfect?  No, but it's light years ahead of what we've been using. 
 
Will it be all that civilization needs, forever and ever?  Maybe or maybe not - but it's the next step and it's here now.  There's no use arguing about adding small motors to horse carriages when you have the real-deal you can use instead.

[brg444]

I'm a big picture guy - I see broad strokes and connections. 
 
What I see is that we have been using the horse and buggy of cryptocurrency since 2008 and it has served us well.  However, the combustible engine (of cryptocurrency) was just invented. 
 
Is it perfect?  No, but it's light years ahead of what we've been using. 
 
Will it be all that civilization needs, forever and ever?  Maybe or maybe not - but it's the next step and it's here now.  There's no use arguing about adding small motors to horse carriages when you have the real-deal you can use instead.

I'm not sure how that holds. As much as there is value in privacy/anonymity there also is a lot in transparency.

I find myself mostly in agreement with your view that a private ledger could complement a public one but I'm not convinced this is sustainable if we somehow become able to transact privately within the public ledger.

[dothebeats]

I'm a big picture guy - I see broad strokes and connections. 
 
What I see is that we have been using the horse and buggy of cryptocurrency since 2008 and it has served us well.  However, the combustible engine (of cryptocurrency) was just invented. 
 
Is it perfect?  No, but it's light years ahead of what we've been using. 
 
Will it be all that civilization needs, forever and ever?  Maybe or maybe not - but it's the next step and it's here now.  There's no use arguing about adding small motors to horse carriages when you have the real-deal you can use instead.

Nice view on the matter. Bitcoin may not be the perfect engine there is to satisfy our needs, but it was indeed one of the (if not) the first of its kind to revolutionize the way we see money. Sure there may be something wrong on how we achieve x and y through bitcoin, but it greatly improved how we value money and how we look to it. There might come a time that we might be all using bitcoin as a part of our daily transactions, and there may also come a time that we may still be using fiat or any other successors of bitcoin that proved itself that it is much more ideal.

[americanpegasus]

I'm not sure how that holds. As much as there is value in privacy/anonymity there also is a lot in transparency.

I find myself mostly in agreement with your view that a private ledger could complement a public one but I'm not convinced this is sustainable if we somehow become able to transact privately within the public ledger.

 
  
That's the thing though; you can never transact privately when you start with a public asset.  You can obfuscate the origin, kind of like proxies do now with internet traffic, but you can never have a true private asset.  Bitcoin has what.... a headstart of a million users?  That's nothing.  There are still 6.998 billion people on Earth who don't use cryptocurrency.  
  
I do see a future with a public and private ledger (perhaps even a good programmable ledger), but I am not sure which one will be more valuable.  Ask yourself... if you were a powerful company or government, how much would it be worth to you to keep trade/state secrets?  
  

[boolberry]

It's not like Wall Street would want to use monero for any reason because why should they care about the anonymity of the transactions, and I wouldn't really see Wall Street wanting to put it in the market because, well, they want to keep S & P all fiat based.

 
  
Pretend you and me want to enter a contract that neither of us can back out of, and that we want to keep totally private until a later time.  For example, pretend that we are both mega-entities that believe the price of a certain asset will move soon.  I think it will go up, and you think it will go down.  We know that if the public knows that we are betting it will change the outcome because the public will take sides.  
  
At a later point, we want the ability to reveal the existence and contents of said contract in its entirety, but also need the security that no one will discover its existence before we choose.  
  
The answer is Monero.  
  

My concern for Monero, one I have always expressed, is the likelihood of a sidechain-type service providing equivalent privacy while leveraging Bitcoin's network effect.

I also sat at the privacy related roundtable during last week's Scaling Bitcoin conference and it was mentioned many time that Monero could face the same scaling issues as Bitcoin and possibly worse given the apparent impossibility to prune the chain.

There are ways that pruning can be done by Monero and other CryptoNote coins.

The idea is not theoretical. Boolberry does it today. Monero could do the same thing (or use a similar solution to solve their precise needs)
http://boolberry.org/files/Boolberry_Reduces_Blockchain_Bloat.pdf
http://boolberry.com/downloads.html

[a7mos]

I do not think that other altcoin have any chance to remove bitcoin and become in its place because these coins are only a copy from the original thing with is bitcoin
And I think banks can not control bitcoin because it is decentralized

[americanpegasus]

I do not think that other altcoin have any chance to remove bitcoin and become in its place because these coins are only a copy from the original thing with is bitcoin
And I think banks can not control bitcoin because it is decentralized

 
  
Monero is not a copy, goober.  It is an entirely new code base.  That's like calling Bitcoin a copy of Microsoft Excel.

[gentlemand]

I will start to get excited about Monero when its market cap is 10% or more of Bitcoin's and rapidly rising. Until then it's just another alt hyped by its fans like all the others.

All the talk in the world doesn't count for shit. Let's have results for all to see.

[chennan]

I do not think that other altcoin have any chance to remove bitcoin and become in its place because these coins are only a copy from the original thing with is bitcoin
And I think banks can not control bitcoin because it is decentralized

 
 
Monero is not a copy, goober.  It is an entirely new code base.  That's like calling Bitcoin a copy of Microsoft Excel.

a7mos: "I'm not a goober..."

[brg444]

I'm not sure how that holds. As much as there is value in privacy/anonymity there also is a lot in transparency.

I find myself mostly in agreement with your view that a private ledger could complement a public one but I'm not convinced this is sustainable if we somehow become able to transact privately within the public ledger.

 
  
That's the thing though; you can never transact privately when you start with a public asset.  You can obfuscate the origin, kind of like proxies do now with internet traffic, but you can never have a true private asset.  Bitcoin has what.... a headstart of a million users?  That's nothing.  There are still 6.998 billion people on Earth who don't use cryptocurrency.  
  
I do see a future with a public and private ledger (perhaps even a good programmable ledger), but I am not sure which one will be more valuable.  Ask yourself... if you were a powerful company or government, how much would it be worth to you to keep trade/state secrets?  

Please do not fall into this mistake of inferring Bitcoin's superiority on the basis of its userbase.

The headstart is much more than a simple number of users. It is a complex history where time, trust and capital growth are much more important than a simple assessment of its userbase. A very organic process which can scarcely be reproduced.

Have you contemplated the idea that by purchasing Monero through either fiat or Bitcoin you are also "starting" from a public asset?  

[americanpegasus]

Please do not fall into this mistake of inferring Bitcoin's superiority on the basis of its userbase.

The headstart is much more than a simple number of users. It is a complex history where time, trust and capital growth are much more important than a simple assessment of its userbase. A very organic process which can scarcely be reproduced.

Have you contemplated the idea that by purchasing Monero through either fiat or Bitcoin you are also "starting" from a public asset?  

 
  
It's true, the first speculators of Monero are transferring public assets into the Monero system (unless they are the lucky ones mining pure Monero).  But as the economy grows, goods and services will begin to be traded for Monero and these will be truly anonymous.  
  
As far as your initial point, let's first go back a *scant* four years to 2011:  
http://www.digitaltrends.com/android/iphone-overtakes-blackberry-to-become-top-phone-for-business-users/  
  
Secondly, let me take you back to the year 2008.  Something amazing happened that no one expected.  No, it wasn't bitcoin:  
  
http://www.zdnet.com/article/facebook-overtakes-myspace-globally/  
  
Let's go back a decade before that:  
  
http://www.wired.com/2009/09/0928ie-beats-netscape/  
  
Now let's step back a century:  
  
http://www.somdnews.com/article/20140108/NEWS/140109402/a-century-ago-autos-began-overtaking-horses&template=southernMaryland  
  
All these things required a superior replacement to disrupt an established competitor.  In some cases the original asset paved the way while the successor inherited the fruits of that labor with a refined version.  
  
 
  
Now again, I don't think Monero will completely replace Bitcoin (assuming it gets its shit together with blocksize issues) because a public ledger is valuable too.  But if you're only argument for why bitcoin is better is because "more people use it" in the face of overwhelming technological superiority... well, that's not an argument that stands up to the test of time.

[brg444]

It's not like Wall Street would want to use monero for any reason because why should they care about the anonymity of the transactions, and I wouldn't really see Wall Street wanting to put it in the market because, well, they want to keep S & P all fiat based.

 
  
Pretend you and me want to enter a contract that neither of us can back out of, and that we want to keep totally private until a later time.  For example, pretend that we are both mega-entities that believe the price of a certain asset will move soon.  I think it will go up, and you think it will go down.  We know that if the public knows that we are betting it will change the outcome because the public will take sides.  
  
At a later point, we want the ability to reveal the existence and contents of said contract in its entirety, but also need the security that no one will discover its existence before we choose.  
  
The answer is Monero.  
  

My concern for Monero, one I have always expressed, is the likelihood of a sidechain-type service providing equivalent privacy while leveraging Bitcoin's network effect.

I also sat at the privacy related roundtable during last week's Scaling Bitcoin conference and it was mentioned many time that Monero could face the same scaling issues as Bitcoin and possibly worse given the apparent impossibility to prune the chain.

There are ways that pruning can be done by Monero and other CryptoNote coins.

The idea is not theoretical. Boolberry does it today. Monero could do the same thing (or use a similar solution to solve their precise needs)
http://boolberry.org/files/Boolberry_Reduces_Blockchain_Bloat.pdf
http://boolberry.com/downloads.html

Interesting. Thank you.

[chennan]

Please do not fall into this mistake of inferring Bitcoin's superiority on the basis of its userbase.

The headstart is much more than a simple number of users. It is a complex history where time, trust and capital growth are much more important than a simple assessment of its userbase. A very organic process which can scarcely be reproduced.

Have you contemplated the idea that by purchasing Monero through either fiat or Bitcoin you are also "starting" from a public asset? 

 
 
It's true, the first speculators of Monero are transferring public assets into the Monero system (unless they are the lucky ones mining pure Monero).  But as the economy grows, goods and services will begin to be traded for Monero and these will be truly anonymous. 
 
As far as your initial point, let's first go back a *scant* four years to 2011: 
http://www.digitaltrends.com/android/iphone-overtakes-blackberry-to-become-top-phone-for-business-users/ 
 
Secondly, let me take you back to the year 2008.  Something amazing happened that no one expected.  No, it wasn't bitcoin: 
 
http://www.zdnet.com/article/facebook-overtakes-myspace-globally/ 
 
Let's go back a decade before that: 
 
http://www.wired.com/2009/09/0928ie-beats-netscape/ 
 
Now let's step back a century: 
 
http://www.somdnews.com/article/20140108/NEWS/140109402/a-century-ago-autos-began-overtaking-horses&template=southernMaryland 
 
All these things required a superior replacement to disrupt an established competitor.  In some cases the original asset paved the way while the successor inherited the fruits of that labor with a refined version. 
 
 
 
Now again, I don't think Monero will completely replace Bitcoin (assuming it gets its shit together with blocksize issues) because a public ledger is valuable too.  But if you're only argument for why bitcoin is better is because "more people use it" in the face of overwhelming technological superiority... well, that's not an argument that stands up to the test of time.

I'm really starting to like listening to these rants of yours lol. It's like your coaching a team of monero users and giving them a motivational speech before a "big game"... but at the same time it's like your blind and accidentally went into the wrong locker room and began giving your motivational speech to a team of bitcoin users.

Idk & idc, whatever you said has got me pumped up!

[brg444]

Please do not fall into this mistake of inferring Bitcoin's superiority on the basis of its userbase.

The headstart is much more than a simple number of users. It is a complex history where time, trust and capital growth are much more important than a simple assessment of its userbase. A very organic process which can scarcely be reproduced.

Have you contemplated the idea that by purchasing Monero through either fiat or Bitcoin you are also "starting" from a public asset?  

 
  
It's true, the first speculators of Monero are transferring public assets into the Monero system (unless they are the lucky ones mining pure Monero).  But as the economy grows, goods and services will begin to be traded for Monero and these will be truly anonymous.  
  
As far as your initial point, let's first go back a *scant* four years to 2011:  
http://www.digitaltrends.com/android/iphone-overtakes-blackberry-to-become-top-phone-for-business-users/  
  
Secondly, let me take you back to the year 2008.  Something amazing happened that no one expected.  No, it wasn't bitcoin:  
  
http://www.zdnet.com/article/facebook-overtakes-myspace-globally/  
  
Let's go back a decade before that:  
  
http://www.wired.com/2009/09/0928ie-beats-netscape/  
  
Now let's step back a century:  
  
http://www.somdnews.com/article/20140108/NEWS/140109402/a-century-ago-autos-began-overtaking-horses&template=southernMaryland  
  
All these things required a superior replacement to disrupt an established competitor.  In some cases the original asset paved the way while the successor inherited the fruits of that labor with a refined version.  
  
 
  
Now again, I don't think Monero will completely replace Bitcoin (assuming it gets its shit together with blocksize issues) because a public ledger is valuable too.  But if you're only argument for why bitcoin is better is because "more people use it" in the face of overwhelming technological superiority... well, that's not an argument that stands up to the test of time.

You puzzle me   On one hand you make these very insightful comments and on the other you fall into the most basic of logical traps.

First, if you accept that Monero speculators also happen to only obfuscate the origin of their money then I'm not sure why you brought up the point in the first place. Providing we eventually get a private sidechain goods & services will also be sold directly for these private tokens and therefore be "truly anonymous".

Now as for as breaking down your list of new technologies that supplanted their predecessor one doesn't have to think hard to realize the parallels you attempt to make with Bitcoin do not apply.

The iPhone and automobiles were truly a technological leap over their predecessor. I'm sorry but it is absolutely a stretch to pretend that Monero can claim that. Monero boasts one important additional feature but its technological "superiority" is certainly not on the level of, for example, Bitcoin over fiat.

Other examples you've pulled up are irrelevant since they came at absolutely no cost to the user. It was trivial for users to switch from myspace to Facebook or from netscape to IE. As it relates to money that is absolutely not the case.

I think where we seem to disagree is that you suggest that Monero has "overwhelming technological superiority" where as from where I stand it really only improves on one of the many important features of money.

[kelsey]

anything more complex then bitcoin has zero chance.


seems alot think if it came after bitcoin and is 'original' ish code then it must be better  


but bitcoin does have some competition in its own shadow......litecoin. (many may laugh that off but i could list a ton of real world reasons but then again all the blinkered crytpos pseudo techie types wouldn't really listen, luckily though its not upto them).

[brg444]

anything more complex then bitcoin has zero chance.


seems alot think if it came after bitcoin and is 'original' ish code then it must be better  


but bitcoin does have some competition in its own shadow......litecoin. (many may laugh that off but i could list a ton of real world reasons but then again all the blinkered crytpos pseudo techie types wouldn't really listen, luckily though its not upto them).

I'm very curious to hear that.

[Pursuer]

I think it is safe to assume that bitcoin has many competition. but which of these altcoins that everybody is enthusiastically talking about can even come close to bitcoin in terms of popularity and usages , I think that is the more important question.