Let's hard fork the world, or just use the good 'old' Bitcoin?

[spartak_t]

I mean, come on! Digital currencies are meant to be the Internet money, but they're still extremely young. Everything else, which tries to offer something different is failing. Not to mention that 99,99% of them are manipulated on the exchanges. What currently happens with Ethereum is completely normal (market reaction). Not sure about Augur, Factom and Decred, since I am 100% distancing myself from them. Same goes to Waves and LISK. AMP has been already discussed (I saw someone mentioned they team got into fight?). STEEM is going up at the moment, but the main concept of it is to make some people rich (and this already happened), so I really don't care what happens with it either. There are even 10s of completely dead coins (well, with somehow working blockchain, so not 100% dead, but they serve no purpose), which are traded more often than coins with active development.

I would be happy to see new coins using the old tech (FUCK this scaling issue, ok? SW and LN should bring much improvements, and we're not talking only about 1-2 coins/currencies), but focused on a certain market niches. Someone may say that you have Bitcoin, but BTC is 'boring'. 

[1715028525]

1715028525

[1715028525]

1715028525

[freshman777]

Don't rush it, we're at the beginning. There will be hundreds of cryptocoins, niche, non-niche, all kinds. There is no other way it could happen in the free market. Enjoy the ride.

[Fuserleer]

Dude it takes time, Bitcoin may have been around for nigh on 8 years, but nothing really happened for the first 5. Early adopters were simply getting to grips with the ideas and possibilities behind it.

Things didn't really start to move forward until the likes of NameCoin, LiteCoin, Tenebrix and PeerCoin came on the scene 3-4 years ago.

I agree though that things seem to have stalled, there is innovation in niche areas, but the critical issues have remained unsolved and most of the solutions aren't real solutions at all.

Segwit is a knee-jerk reaction to miners forcibly sticking to 1MB blocks, and Lightning is an ill-conceived attempt to get around the undeniable limits of a truly decentralized block chain's architecture (300-500 tps on-chain is the practical limit right now due to all manner of issues without semi/full centralization)

For a crypto technology to really become global, the following NEED to be solved in a satisfactory manner:

Scaling "on-ledger" without any form of centralization
Centralization resistant consensus
Efficiency of the consensus
Fair reward to network participants
Better economic model promoting stable currency value (not pegging or oracles)
Integration into existing payment infrastructure
No requirement for centralized 3rd parties (exchanges/off ramps)
Ease of use

I've been working on these problems for 3+ years now and I'm getting really close to a complete solution.

Time will tell.

[Cryptotraider16]

Yeah new good altcoin coming with good tech and dev team with big community!
We need to know that btc have real big community! Approx 8 milion users!
What other coin have close to 1 milion users?

[Fidel007]

Yeah new good altcoin coming with good tech and dev team with big community!
We need to know that btc have real big community! Approx 8 milion users!
What other coin have close to 1 milion users?

Fuck off with your Leoscam shit you fucking asshole

[spartak_t]

Dude it takes time, Bitcoin may have been around for nigh on 8 years, but nothing really happened for the first 5. Early adopters were simply getting to grips with the ideas and possibilities behind it.

Things didn't really start to move forward until the likes of NameCoin, LiteCoin, Tenebrix and PeerCoin came on the scene 3-4 years ago.

I agree though that things seem to have stalled, there is innovation in niche areas, but the critical issues have remained unsolved and most of the solutions aren't real solutions at all.

Segwit is a knee-jerk reaction to miners forcibly sticking to 1MB blocks, and Lightning is an ill-conceived attempt to get around the undeniable limits of a truly decentralized block chain's architecture (300-500 tps on-chain is the practical limit right now due to all manner of issues without semi/full centralization)

For a crypto technology to really become global, the following NEED to be solved in a satisfactory manner:

Scaling "on-ledger" without any form of centralization
Centralization resistant consensus
Efficiency of the consensus
Fair reward to network participants
Better economic model promoting stable currency value (not pegging or oracles)
Integration into existing payment infrastructure
No requirement for centralized 3rd parties (exchanges/off ramps)
Ease of use

I've been working on these problems for 3+ years now and I'm getting really close to a complete solution.

Time will tell.

One can argue if SW and LN will solve Bitcoin scaling issues, but no one (with his right mind) can argue with this: Bitcoin came for free. Period.

You do realize that this sometimes cost billions of $, which were taken from the masses? That's why I once said:

Technology is becoming more and more sophisticated. I'm kinda against that, because majority of the people are not "geeks". This could be a big problem for Bitcoin (and others), since it is cryptocurrencies against fiat money "thing" (i.e. people vs. banks). Making things more hard to understand will eventually interfere the adoption of the cryptocurrencies (at least in the way we see it now, because in the future, the banks can use the technology for themselves and the ordinary guy will be screwed... again). Maybe current technologies may find its use in 5-10-20 years (who knows...), but not now...  

Most of the people are getting fooled and they are losing money. Of course it takes time, but what are the costs? Ethereum is forking every now and then and currently only the whales saved the day (we all saw to where it was headed, until the whales put their fat buy orders). This is a completely centralized and manipulative way!

[Fuserleer]

Dude it takes time, Bitcoin may have been around for nigh on 8 years, but nothing really happened for the first 5. Early adopters were simply getting to grips with the ideas and possibilities behind it.

Things didn't really start to move forward until the likes of NameCoin, LiteCoin, Tenebrix and PeerCoin came on the scene 3-4 years ago.

I agree though that things seem to have stalled, there is innovation in niche areas, but the critical issues have remained unsolved and most of the solutions aren't real solutions at all.

Segwit is a knee-jerk reaction to miners forcibly sticking to 1MB blocks, and Lightning is an ill-conceived attempt to get around the undeniable limits of a truly decentralized block chain's architecture (300-500 tps on-chain is the practical limit right now due to all manner of issues without semi/full centralization)

For a crypto technology to really become global, the following NEED to be solved in a satisfactory manner:

Scaling "on-ledger" without any form of centralization
Centralization resistant consensus
Efficiency of the consensus
Fair reward to network participants
Better economic model promoting stable currency value (not pegging or oracles)
Integration into existing payment infrastructure
No requirement for centralized 3rd parties (exchanges/off ramps)
Ease of use

I've been working on these problems for 3+ years now and I'm getting really close to a complete solution.

Time will tell.

One can argue if SW and LN will solve Bitcoin scaling issues, but no one (with his right mind) can argue with this: Bitcoin came for free. Period.

You do realize that this sometimes cost billions of $, which were taken from the masses? That's why I once said:

Technology is becoming more and more sophisticated. I'm kinda against that, because majority of the people are not "geeks". This could be a big problem for Bitcoin (and others), since it is cryptocurrencies against fiat money "thing" (i.e. people vs. banks). Making things more hard to understand will eventually interfere the adoption of the cryptocurrencies (at least in the way we see it now, because in the future, the banks can use the technology for themselves and the ordinary guy will be screwed... again). Maybe current technologies may find its use in 5-10-20 years (who knows...), but not now...  

Most of the people are getting fooled and they are losing money. Of course it takes time, but what are the costs? Ethereum is forking every now and then and currently only the whales saved the day (we all saw to where it was headed, until the whales put their fat buy orders). This is a completely centralized and manipulative way!

The problem there is that nearly everything post Bitcoin has been rushed to market and had insufficient peer-review and attack testing.

Most projects go from idea->development->launch within a year, and with technology as difficult as this to get right, it's just disasters waiting to happen (as we've seen).

Compound that with the fact that there is very little UX and marketing experience here in general, the roll out and scale up efficiency is also going to be...well...terrible for the most part

[spartak_t]

The problem there is that nearly everything post Bitcoin has been rushed to market and had insufficient peer-review and attack testing.

Most projects go from idea->development->launch within a year, and with technology as difficult as this to get right, it's just disasters waiting to happen (as we've seen).

Compound that with the fact that there is very little UX and marketing experience here in general, the roll out and scale up efficiency is also going to be...well...terrible for the most part

That's not the main problem here. The main problem is that these "project" start with the solely purpose to make more BTC/fiat money to their creators. That's why they are rushed on the market. We can work with the current (proven) tech for years to come.

[freshman777]

The problem there is that nearly everything post Bitcoin has been rushed to market and had insufficient peer-review and attack testing.

Most projects go from idea->development->launch within a year, and with technology as difficult as this to get right, it's just disasters waiting to happen (as we've seen).

Compound that with the fact that there is very little UX and marketing experience here in general, the roll out and scale up efficiency is also going to be...well...terrible for the most part

That's not the main problem here. The main problem is that these "project" start with the solely purpose to make more BTC/fiat money to their creators. That's why they are rushed on the market. We can work with the current (proven) tech for years to come.

You both are wrong.
The main problem is the world is only beginning to need and appreciate crypto, there is little demand for it, it's growing but slowly.

[Fuserleer]

The problem there is that nearly everything post Bitcoin has been rushed to market and had insufficient peer-review and attack testing.

Most projects go from idea->development->launch within a year, and with technology as difficult as this to get right, it's just disasters waiting to happen (as we've seen).

Compound that with the fact that there is very little UX and marketing experience here in general, the roll out and scale up efficiency is also going to be...well...terrible for the most part

That's not the main problem here. The main problem is that these "project" start with the solely purpose to make more BTC/fiat money to their creators. That's why they are rushed on the market. We can work with the current (proven) tech for years to come.

Well yeah, but thats the other side of the "coin"

Some projects are a victim of both.  They start with good intentions, but due to a complex mix of priorities and decisions they end up pressured into releasing too soon, which results in the speculators making short term bank and the project over the long term running into issues.

"It's ready when its ready!" should be the default response of all projects that are aspiring to greater things with the right intentions.

[Fuserleer]

The problem there is that nearly everything post Bitcoin has been rushed to market and had insufficient peer-review and attack testing.

Most projects go from idea->development->launch within a year, and with technology as difficult as this to get right, it's just disasters waiting to happen (as we've seen).

Compound that with the fact that there is very little UX and marketing experience here in general, the roll out and scale up efficiency is also going to be...well...terrible for the most part

That's not the main problem here. The main problem is that these "project" start with the solely purpose to make more BTC/fiat money to their creators. That's why they are rushed on the market. We can work with the current (proven) tech for years to come.

You both are wrong.
The main problem is the world is only beginning to need and appreciate crypto, there is little demand for it, it's growing but slowly.

We aren't wrong and you aren't either...the whole current situation is a complex combination of factors.

[spartak_t]

"It's ready when its ready!" should be the default response of all projects that are aspiring to greater things with the right intentions.

^This. See FAILCoin for a reference.

[Fuserleer]

"It's ready when its ready!" should be the default response of all projects that are aspiring to greater things with the right intentions.

^This. See FAILCoin for a reference.

LOL right!

That's the approach I've taken and stuck with no matter what, and it pissed of a LOT of people!  But 95% of those people only wanted to make a quick buck off the back of my hard work, so they aren't missed at all