[edited out]
I will take this first part as exaggerated humor.
@JJG
Thanks for making this conglomerate of fud, you've earned a merit for your trouble.
But you know fine well bitcoin cannot morph to absorb other coins features, it can't even agree on blocksize change.
I am not joking around when I suggest that bitcoin is going to likely absorb good features of various other coins, either on layer 1 or layer 2 or layer 3. Sure, it could take 50 years or more, but if there are truly good and sound market features in other coins, then they will likely move over to bitcoin.
Without going into a long thesis about the slowness of change in bitcoin, the essence of the matter remains that slowness of change in bitcoin is a feature rather than a bug, because bitcoin is not striving to serve as a experiment platform for all kinds of bullshit , but instead attempting to get a few things done really well which is making itself secure and attack proof. If bitcoin is secure, then the rest will follow - including value and features. Of course, there are features being built on bitcoin all the time, and bitcoin continues to have the best of the best developers and features.
Sure, there might be a lot of whining about bitcoin's supposed "failure to agree on blocksize change" (as you put it), but that failure to agree remains a feature rather than a bug.. because what seems to you like a failure to agree is actually a kind of agreement not to change and an agreement that segwit is good enough and powerful enough.. and such change that you believe to be needed has been largely decided as NOT needed.. at least not at this time... maybe in the future, and that is a BIG FUCKING MAYBE in the future.... I blocksize limit increase is going to be needed, and there seems to be quite a bit of evidence demonstrating that such block size limit increase is not needed, in spite of a bunch of whiners and in spite of a bunch of alt coin pumpers spewing out nonsense talking points trying to suggest that bitcoin is either defective or broken.. .which bitcoin is not either.
But thats OK that is what bitcoin is good at, being very conservative. As for being on topic. The topic was double spends and 0-conf transactions. I was on that topic. Or from now on we all stick to price walls only?
Fair enough... We don't really need to go into those other topics... and if peeps want to keep attempting to play with 0 confirmations on other coins, then let them do it.. NO problema.
@Torque
Noone is pretending Lignting Network is ready for use yet. I'm trying to be open minded about offchain transactions but there are limitations with LN.
You are correct that LN is in very early stages of experimentation, but it still seems to be showing a lot of good potential for carrying a lot of bitcoin pegged transactional burden... fast and cheaply.
@Jbreher
I'm dissapointed in you spreading outright lies, obviously I have misjudged you. Dash is a distributed decentralised blockchain secured with proof of work. Just like bitcoin.
I think that Jbreher made a decent point.. .. and surely DASH is not "just like bitcoin" in terms of its design and incentive structures. Anyone should realize that there is a certain qualitative difference in the way that DASH has set up Masternodes, and surely there is no coin that comes anywhere near to the level of POW networking (hash) power that is being carried out on bitcoin. NO alt coins are even close, including DASH.
Poll
