Is Bitcoin and Crypto Currencies the great equalizer?

[CyberKuro]

Not as great equalizer but I consider bitcoin is another way from banks which monopolize world economy for a long time.
I would say, bitcoin is a digital currency and blockchain is a better banking system, decentralized is the best part.
Even though bitcoin price is expensive and not everyone could access it in 3rd world countriess, could be changed as time goes on.

[rjbtc2017]

For long the banks have ruled organisations and organisations and businesses the Government.
So to say that the banks have had their monopoly for far too long now. The cats out in the open and every one can see the skeletons in their closet.

Do you think that the Bitcoin revolution will server as the great equalizer?
Is the Crypto revolution revolution going to bridge the gap between the poor and the rich; the market and the consumer?

Let me know what you think..

It still depends, as of now we can see how Government and Other Big Companies adjust and also invest in the same time at bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. We can conclude things after bitcoin's future upgrades and until bitcoin become stable we can now conclude if it will be a great equalizer between poor and rich people.

[ManavKalyan]

Not as great equalizer but I consider bitcoin is another way from banks which monopolize world economy for a long time.
I would say, bitcoin is a digital currency and blockchain is a better banking system, decentralized is the best part.
Even though bitcoin price is expensive and not everyone could access it in 3rd world countriess, could be changed as time goes on.

Thank you for the comment.. Decentralized is the key here.. not under any one's control..

[KaranRaut]

Not as great equalizer but I consider bitcoin is another way from banks which monopolize world economy for a long time.
I would say, bitcoin is a digital currency and blockchain is a better banking system, decentralized is the best part.
Even though bitcoin price is expensive and not everyone could access it in 3rd world countriess, could be changed as time goes on.

Thank you for the comment.. Decentralized is the key here.. not under any one's control..

I hear the tech can be implement in e-governance and e-voting ... You know what this means... I vote per person...

[ManavKalyan]

For long the banks have ruled organisations and organisations and businesses the Government.
So to say that the banks have had their monopoly for far too long now. The cats out in the open and every one can see the skeletons in their closet.

Do you think that the Bitcoin revolution will server as the great equalizer?
Is the Crypto revolution revolution going to bridge the gap between the poor and the rich; the market and the consumer?

Let me know what you think..

It still depends, as of now we can see how Government and Other Big Companies adjust and also invest in the same time at bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. We can conclude things after bitcoin's future upgrades and until bitcoin become stable we can now conclude if it will be a great equalizer between poor and rich people.

That is so true .. Its too premature to call it an equalizer just yet but I see the disruption it creates will have long cascading effects that could translate the benefits to the many from the few.. (Wishful)

[Kakmakr]

Banks could care less. They have governments in their pockets, so they can do what they want. They nearly destroyed the global economy in 2008 and the government rewarded them for that by bailing them out with tax payers money. A year after that, these bankers got huge bonuses for "saving" the economy.

Bitcoin cannot stop corrupt politicians and government employees. Bitcoin cannot change corrupt practices in the banking sector. < it might make things more transparent if it was on the Blockchain, but banks will never use Bitcoin >

What Bitcoin might change, is to remove banks from the payment process. People will be able to transfer wealth directly from person to person and not through banks. This might also make transactions cheaper and more affordable for users.

[KaranRaut]

Banks could care less. They have governments in their pockets, so they can do what they want. They nearly destroyed the global economy in 2008 and the government rewarded them for that by bailing them out with tax payers money. A year after that, these bankers got huge bonuses for "saving" the economy.

Bitcoin cannot stop corrupt politicians and government employees. Bitcoin cannot change corrupt practices in the banking sector. < it might make things more transparent if it was on the Blockchain, but banks will never use Bitcoin >

What Bitcoin might change, is to remove banks from the payment process. People will be able to transfer wealth directly from person to person and not through banks. This might also make transactions cheaper and more affordable for users.

Thank you for the comment..
This is exactly what I meant, isn't this the reason why Bitcoin was conceived in the first place?

[JayJuanGee]

For long the banks have ruled organisations and organisations and businesses the Government.
So to say that the banks have had their monopoly for far too long now. The cats out in the open and every one can see the skeletons in their closet.

Do you think that the Bitcoin revolution will server as the great equalizer?
Is the Crypto revolution revolution going to bridge the gap between the poor and the rich; the market and the consumer?

Let me know what you think..

It is not an equaliser. It just redistributed wealth. Early adopters are the nouveau rich. But nobody is going to get out of poverty because of Bitcoin or blockchain technology.

You are generally correct on the first part of your comment, that we are witnessing some redistribution of wealth to those who hold bitcoin and/or invest in bitcoin - however, this redistribution is not all or nothing because rich people can also choose to invest their shitty and abundant fiat into bitcoin, yet if they do not have confidence in bitcoin, then they will have to jump on board when the train is further down the track.  Furthermore, there are ups and downs in this volatile market, so the poor are only going to benefit from this redistribution if they do not get shook out by the volatility and the FUD.. so they gotta continue to invest and accumulate at whatever ability that they have, even if it is only $5 per week....


So the last part of your statement is both right and wrong.  It is wrong because it is framed as an absolute and it is right because people are not going to get out of poverty unless they are strategic about what little resources that they have and if they are able to identify investing in bitcoin now and into the near-term future.. and to muster up even small amounts of money to invest in bitcoin... If they dedicate no money to bitcoin, then any benefit that they might get from bitcoin/blockchain may be a lot more indirect - by the disruption of the total system that possibly provides them some decentralized avenues (will take some time to play out).

[anon4250158]

I think that it has become very difficult to get into crypto over the last couple or three years simply because of the rapid price increase.  That's great for early adopters, certainly, but now prices are so high even on some of the best altcoins that those with less resources will have problems entering the crypto world.  That's not to say it's not possible to buy some relatively cheap new altcoin that eventually skyrockets, but that's a lot easier said than done.

[BitFinnese]

I think that it has become very difficult to get into crypto over the last couple or three years simply because of the rapid price increase.  That's great for early adopters, certainly, but now prices are so high even on some of the best altcoins that those with less resources will have problems entering the crypto world.  That's not to say it's not possible to buy some relatively cheap new altcoin that eventually skyrockets, but that's a lot easier said than done.

I guess you are wrong on that.  You maybe correct if you said Bitcoin alone but crypto means all cryptocurrency including Bitcoin and altcoin.  Though they might be some argument about getting into bitcoin is still easy because it does not need us to buy a whole of it (1 BTC) rather we can buy smaller chunks.  Altcoins are far cheaper than Bitcoin so that would be an option if we still wants to get in cryptocurrency and have no capability to buy a whole of bitcoin (that is if you want to buy 1 whole coins/token)


I guess Bitcoin and cryptocurrency is not the great equalizer for the reason that it can still be exploited by rich people.  Rich people getting richer and poor people left behind.  Remember before anyone can access cryptocurrency, they need to have to meet the minimum requirement, that is to have a gadget and an internet.   Poor people are having difficulty to acquire these, worst they really cannot buy these things.

[JayJuanGee]

I think that it has become very difficult to get into crypto over the last couple or three years simply because of the rapid price increase.  That's great for early adopters, certainly, but now prices are so high even on some of the best altcoins that those with less resources will have problems entering the crypto world.  That's not to say it's not possible to buy some relatively cheap new altcoin that eventually skyrockets, but that's a lot easier said than done.

That is ridiculous to judge the price of bitcoin as compared with various alts based largely on unit price - rather than fundamentals and deeper context. 

Sure there has been a considerable price appreciation in bitcoin and also in various alts, but that does not mean that bitcoin is more over appreciated compared with various alts... which seems to be your suggestion to invest in alts because they are possibly more affordable... NONSense!

I will concede that all of the cryptos are somewhat gambles as compared with some traditional investments, but bitcoin likely remains the strongest of the cryptos in terms of fundamentals and in terms of its various network effects - and that is considering longer term prospects for bitcoin, as well.

So, yeah, be careful if you are overvaluing various alts based on unit price and some kind of perception that they may or may not be going places or they may get pumped (or dumped), and sometimes, you just need to establish and follow a manageable strategy .. which I would suggest putting the large majority of your focus on bitcoin rather than some misplaced ideas about getting rich quicker through gambling.

Of course, you could also play your cards correctly on some alts, but the safer long term bet is likely to figure out some kind of dollar cost averaging investing into bitcoin (and attempt to be reasonable rather than fantasizing about getting rich quick with some manipulated alt).

[KaranRaut]

For long the banks have ruled organisations and organisations and businesses the Government.
So to say that the banks have had their monopoly for far too long now. The cats out in the open and every one can see the skeletons in their closet.

Do you think that the Bitcoin revolution will server as the great equalizer?
Is the Crypto revolution revolution going to bridge the gap between the poor and the rich; the market and the consumer?

Let me know what you think..

It is not an equaliser. It just redistributed wealth. Early adopters are the nouveau rich. But nobody is going to get out of poverty because of Bitcoin or blockchain technology.

You are generally correct on the first part of your comment, that we are witnessing some redistribution of wealth to those who hold bitcoin and/or invest in bitcoin - however, this redistribution is not all or nothing because rich people can also choose to invest their shitty and abundant fiat into bitcoin, yet if they do not have confidence in bitcoin, then they will have to jump on board when the train is further down the track.  Furthermore, there are ups and downs in this volatile market, so the poor are only going to benefit from this redistribution if they do not get shook out by the volatility and the FUD.. so they gotta continue to invest and accumulate at whatever ability that they have, even if it is only $5 per week....


So the last part of your statement is both right and wrong.  It is wrong because it is framed as an absolute and it is right because people are not going to get out of poverty unless they are strategic about what little resources that they have and if they are able to identify investing in bitcoin now and into the near-term future.. and to muster up even small amounts of money to invest in bitcoin... If they dedicate no money to bitcoin, then any benefit that they might get from bitcoin/blockchain may be a lot more indirect - by the disruption of the total system that possibly provides them some decentralized avenues (will take some time to play out).

Thank you for the comment: Really appreciate you sharing your perspective .. I wonder sometimes because of the push and pull that the industry experiences (industry=cryptosphere),I mean w.r.t. the governments and banks (the current powerhouses of our society/world) being pessimistic about it, if we will actually revolutionize the world/economics... Don't get me wrong but they are right in certain aspects (too much fraudsters lurking around) but then again that's true in the fiat world as well.. Governments should focus on curbing the wrong doers and not the system, like in the case with fiat or banking..
Banks are super scared because they would get hit the hardest unless they have some innovative way of evolving.. This leads me to think maybe the banks bought the coins and short sold them short to cause panic and they will do this again.. So if more and more individuals participate and believe in the value of a decentralized system the banks would have less control..
 

[JayJuanGee]

For long the banks have ruled organisations and organisations and businesses the Government.
So to say that the banks have had their monopoly for far too long now. The cats out in the open and every one can see the skeletons in their closet.

Do you think that the Bitcoin revolution will server as the great equalizer?
Is the Crypto revolution revolution going to bridge the gap between the poor and the rich; the market and the consumer?

Let me know what you think..

It is not an equaliser. It just redistributed wealth. Early adopters are the nouveau rich. But nobody is going to get out of poverty because of Bitcoin or blockchain technology.

You are generally correct on the first part of your comment, that we are witnessing some redistribution of wealth to those who hold bitcoin and/or invest in bitcoin - however, this redistribution is not all or nothing because rich people can also choose to invest their shitty and abundant fiat into bitcoin, yet if they do not have confidence in bitcoin, then they will have to jump on board when the train is further down the track.  Furthermore, there are ups and downs in this volatile market, so the poor are only going to benefit from this redistribution if they do not get shook out by the volatility and the FUD.. so they gotta continue to invest and accumulate at whatever ability that they have, even if it is only $5 per week....


So the last part of your statement is both right and wrong.  It is wrong because it is framed as an absolute and it is right because people are not going to get out of poverty unless they are strategic about what little resources that they have and if they are able to identify investing in bitcoin now and into the near-term future.. and to muster up even small amounts of money to invest in bitcoin... If they dedicate no money to bitcoin, then any benefit that they might get from bitcoin/blockchain may be a lot more indirect - by the disruption of the total system that possibly provides them some decentralized avenues (will take some time to play out).

Thank you for the comment: Really appreciate you sharing your perspective .. I wonder sometimes because of the push and pull that the industry experiences (industry=cryptosphere),I mean w.r.t. the governments and banks (the current powerhouses of our society/world) being pessimistic about it, if we will actually revolutionize the world/economics... Don't get me wrong but they are right in certain aspects (too much fraudsters lurking around) but then again that's true in the fiat world as well..

We are not going to expect any kind of transformation to take place quickly; however, if you think about it, this phenomenon of bitcoin is becoming quite powerful quickly, and it seems likely to me that people who are able to identify such power are going to be rewarded immensely as long as they can accumulate and HODL their bitcoin in spite of various likely volatility and manipulation and FUD spreading.  So, it does not matter if you are rich or you are poor, you will be able to better your station in life if you recognize the power of bitcoin and are able to act upon that recognition without over-investing and able to persist with your strategy and not get shaken out.  

Of course, you can do  much better if you already have wealth; however, the poor person is not excluded from this system, if s/he can figure out a way to invest.  A problem is that frequently poor people will not have as much access to information or time in order to sort between the good information and the bad information, and they may well get tricked into investing into some crap pump and dump alt coin rather than in the real deal, bitcoin.

Governments should focus on curbing the wrong doers and not the system, like in the case with fiat or banking..

I don't know.  Governments are all over the place on this, and each of us, as individuals, have to figure out our accumulation and HODL strategy - which is going to vary depending on jurisdictional and geographical options that are available to us.

whatever the fuck governments should or should not do, I don't give a ratt's ass because I just try to figure out what I am going to do based on what "is" rather than what "ought to be", and what "is" will be continuously changing and vary somewhat depending on location - even though bitcoin is global.

Banks are super scared because they would get hit the hardest unless they have some innovative way of evolving.. This leads me to think maybe the banks bought the coins and short sold them short to cause panic and they will do this again..

There may be some banksters that can see the writing on the wall; however, a lot of them are likely still cocky and engaging in various attempts and campaigns to undermine bitcoin.  Surely, we cannot see everything that banks are doing - and some of them are likely just sitting back, too.. so there is even variation in the banking sector, and some of them could be hedging their bets too...

Still seems like early stages to me, and it could be that at some point in time there is going to be more coordinated attacks from banks... and other cryptos, again varying on jurisdiction, too.  But there is probably going to be some confusion, too, about what is being attacked, whether bitcoin or some other pump and dump alt coin.




[quote author=KaranRaut link=topic=2186087.msg22014617#msg22014617 date=1505859034

So if more and more individuals participate and believe in the value of a decentralized system the banks would have less control..
 
[/quote]


Yep.. sure with the passage of time, more and more difficulties to stop individual and decentralized participation..  We are still in very early stages of the spread of this bitcoin phenomenon.. stay tuned...   

[KaranRaut]

Of course, you can do  much better if you already have wealth; however, the poor person is not excluded from this system, if s/he can figure out a way to invest.  A problem is that frequently poor people will not have as much access to information or time in order to sort between the good information and the bad information, and they may well get tricked into investing into some crap pump and dump alt coin rather than in the real deal, bitcoin.
[/quote]

I am loving this discussion and like your perspective. I'll take the opportunity to share another doubt that I have regarding Bitcoin being the at the Helm for ever..
I've been reading about the upcoming hard fork and how the signatories have not been in sync with what is the way forward POW vs POS etc..
If enough ppl were to get onboard the other ship could Bitcoin cash be bigger than BTC and there's also the Russians "Universa" claiming to be a 100 to 1000 times faster than BTC or ETH with lower cost of operation..
Bitcoin has the first movers advantage but is that enough to keep it ahead of the game?  

[/quote]

There may be some banksters that can see the writing on the wall; however, a lot of them are likely still cocky and engaging in various attempts and campaigns to undermine bitcoin.  Surely, we cannot see everything that banks are doing - and some of them are likely just sitting back, too.. so there is even variation in the banking sector, and some of them could be hedging their bets too...

Still seems like early stages to me, and it could be that at some point in time there is going to be more coordinated attacks from banks... and other cryptos, again varying on jurisdiction, too.  But there is probably going to be some confusion, too, about what is being attacked, whether bitcoin or some other pump and dump alt coin.
[/quote]

Some say Ripple was introduced so that the banks could have the market share and also be able to influence the market... I think the best way for BTC and others to survive will need us to get accepted into the legal framework because since the banks have more money they could play unfair ..

[/quote]

[JayJuanGee]

I am loving this discussion and like your perspective. I'll take the opportunity to share another doubt that I have regarding Bitcoin being the at the Helm for ever..
I've been reading about the upcoming hard fork and how the signatories have not been in sync with what is the way forward POW vs POS etc..
If enough ppl were to get onboard the other ship could Bitcoin cash be bigger than BTC

You are mixing together a variety of ideas - and sure it becomes easy to get all fucking mixed up about a variety of the concepts and the supposed deficiencies in bitcoin that are propagated by a large number of bitcoin challengers from a variety of perspectives.

If we attempt to look at bitcoin's situation in context - and even let's say from about 2013 and then more recent contentions that began to amplify in about mid-to-late 2015.

In 2013, we had two explosive growth periods that resulted in nearly an 80x increase in price from $15 to $1163, then year long correction through 2014 that brought BTC prices into the mid $250s for most of 2015.   Sure, some of the correction was probably necessary and natural; however, there was a lot of misinformation spread about bitcoin too.. and even starting in late 2015, with the various scale or die proposals that went from XT, to Classic, to emergent consensus, to B-cash (and also segwit2x).  

A lot of these scaling talking points were campaigns by persons with purported differing visions of bitcoin; however, they were also propagated and supported by forces that were hostile to bitcoin (whether banksters or government or other traditional institutions that felt threatened by the decentralized nature of bitcoin).  So there has been a constant guise that suggests various ways that bitcoin is technically deficient (or that it should have goals to immediately be able to compete with visa) , while the real goal has been to attempt to undermine bitcoin's governance and to make bitcoin easier to change.  So if there is some way to accomplish undermining the governance of bitcoin and to make bitcoin easier to change, then bitcoin becomes no longer decentralized, no longer a threat, no longer valuable.  So whether you are a banker, a government official or some short-sighted alt coin pumper, your goal may have been to consider it in your interest to undermine bitcoin and to join alliances with these various big blocker camps and to spread propaganda, including your point about whether proof of stake is better than proof of work.  Further nonsense asserting deficiencies in POW, which really is part of the innovativeness that bitcoin brings to the table and differentiates it from previous systems.

So, in essence what I am saying is that a lot of the information that we have been encountering have been guises to undermine bitcoin, and if you can see through the nonsense, then you won't get your bitcoin's shaken from you you will continue to BUYDL and HODL... and just try to accumulate to the best of your ability without overinvesting (because everyone has to surely attempt to cover his/her monthly expenses and not get shook out of bitcoin because of volatility and bad planning of those expenses in advance and with strategies whether you have high income or low income).

and there's also the Russians "Universa" claiming to be a 100 to 1000 times faster than BTC or ETH with lower cost of operation..

I would not get too worried about the variety of upstarts, even if they are supposedly technically superior.  The problem with a lot of them is they are not truly decentralized, including Ethereum.  Bitcoin is really the only game in town with a bunch of competitors trying to attempt to act like they are Bitcoin 2.0 or that bitcoin is dead or that bitcoin is technologically deficient.. blah blah blah.

On the other hand, if you have some faith in the long term prospects of some other coin(s) to take over bitcoin market share or to possibly surplant it, then of course, you can put some of your money in that direction.  Each of us are going to come to different judgements regarding the viability of these various other projects and whether there is much of any truth in the various bitcoin is dead or broken claims.

Bitcoin has the first movers advantage but is that enough to keep it ahead of the game?  

Sure there is some truth to the claims about first mover advantage, but the fundamentals are much greater than a simplified description of first mover advantage.  A lot of bitcoin denigrator folks strive to put down bitcoin by suggesting that bitcoin is technologically deficient and that all it's got going for it is it's first mover advantage - which frequently involves over exaggerated claims - and a bunch of fucking so what.  Bitcoin is a project that competes on the merits and does not have marketing - and so there are a bunch of folks in bitcoin working on a bunch of scattered projects that are going to take a long time to innovate, improve and adopt.  And, bitcoin's security and computing power brings value. Even if 80% of the miners were to leave bitcoin, bitcoin is still secure - but don't get me wrong, I doubt that there is going to be any vast exodus from bitcoin.. because the value remains with various networking effects that continue with bitcoin.. and if we see it leave or believe it is leaving then, there would be an advantage to leave, as well, but those various projects that you name are not threat to bitcoin as you seem to imply, including Ethereum.

Some say Ripple was introduced so that the banks could have the market share and also be able to influence the market...

I think that Ripple was around before bitcoin, but it was transformed in light of bitcoin, so yeah.. ripple attempts to be another distractive competitor that is also largely centralized and manipulated in its own rights.

I think the best way for BTC and others to survive will need us to get accepted into the legal framework because since the banks have more money they could play unfair ..

I don't think that we can really say that there is any best - because sure there are better case scenarios that could play out, but in the end, the market is going to evolve and folks are going to chose where to invest and systems will adapt to such movements.  Don't get me wrong, because there is almost no fucking way that bitcoin is going to become wide spread adopted without a large number of continued battles that may well become more and more intense during any time periods that banks, governments, traditional institutions believe that they have ways to attempt to undermine and/or weaken it.  In the meantime, expect continued manipulation, volatility and misinformation, and try not to gets scared or shaken away from the level of bitcoin that you believe to be prudent for your own financial, timeline and viewpoint circumstances.

[DoublerHunter]

Yes that is possible for bitcoin to be the bridge to fill the gap between rich and poor because bitcoin can help the poor people to earn money through different ways and that will make the poor people to improve their life and become a middle class type of people and if they will continue working then they can become rich also.

[smartbitcoininvestor]

Most definitely, Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are the great equalizers for the financial strait we are in. Fiat currency is mathematically unfair because of how credit is created (hint: used to be backed by gold; now out of thin air by Central Banks) and has the potential to implode at any moment. The only thing truly holding up our current financial system is the government and central banks themselves.

Bitcoin will bring about money 3.0 and represent a world of fraud-free, inflation proof transactions that the world as a whole can enjoy regardless of location. 

I would recommend Mike Maloney's series on YouTube if you want to get a true sense of where the economy is and where it is going.

[KaranRaut]

I am loving this discussion and like your perspective. I'll take the opportunity to share another doubt that I have regarding Bitcoin being the at the Helm for ever..
I've been reading about the upcoming hard fork and how the signatories have not been in sync with what is the way forward POW vs POS etc..
If enough ppl were to get onboard the other ship could Bitcoin cash be bigger than BTC

You are mixing together a variety of ideas - and sure it becomes easy to get all fucking mixed up about a variety of the concepts and the supposed deficiencies in bitcoin that are propagated by a large number of bitcoin challengers from a variety of perspectives.

If we attempt to look at bitcoin's situation in context - and even let's say from about 2013 and then more recent contentions that began to amplify in about mid-to-late 2015.

In 2013, we had two explosive growth periods that resulted in nearly an 80x increase in price from $15 to $1163, then year long correction through 2014 that brought BTC prices into the mid $250s for most of 2015.   Sure, some of the correction was probably necessary and natural; however, there was a lot of misinformation spread about bitcoin too.. and even starting in late 2015, with the various scale or die proposals that went from XT, to Classic, to emergent consensus, to B-cash (and also segwit2x).  

A lot of these scaling talking points were campaigns by persons with purported differing visions of bitcoin; however, they were also propagated and supported by forces that were hostile to bitcoin (whether banksters or government or other traditional institutions that felt threatened by the decentralized nature of bitcoin).  So there has been a constant guise that suggests various ways that bitcoin is technically deficient (or that it should have goals to immediately be able to compete with visa) , while the real goal has been to attempt to undermine bitcoin's governance and to make bitcoin easier to change.  So if there is some way to accomplish undermining the governance of bitcoin and to make bitcoin easier to change, then bitcoin becomes no longer decentralized, no longer a threat, no longer valuable.  So whether you are a banker, a government official or some short-sighted alt coin pumper, your goal may have been to consider it in your interest to undermine bitcoin and to join alliances with these various big blocker camps and to spread propaganda, including your point about whether proof of stake is better than proof of work.  Further nonsense asserting deficiencies in POW, which really is part of the innovativeness that bitcoin brings to the table and differentiates it from previous systems.

So, in essence what I am saying is that a lot of the information that we have been encountering have been guises to undermine bitcoin, and if you can see through the nonsense, then you won't get your bitcoin's shaken from you you will continue to BUYDL and HODL... and just try to accumulate to the best of your ability without overinvesting (because everyone has to surely attempt to cover his/her monthly expenses and not get shook out of bitcoin because of volatility and bad planning of those expenses in advance and with strategies whether you have high income or low income).

and there's also the Russians "Universa" claiming to be a 100 to 1000 times faster than BTC or ETH with lower cost of operation..

I would not get too worried about the variety of upstarts, even if they are supposedly technically superior.  The problem with a lot of them is they are not truly decentralized, including Ethereum.  Bitcoin is really the only game in town with a bunch of competitors trying to attempt to act like they are Bitcoin 2.0 or that bitcoin is dead or that bitcoin is technologically deficient.. blah blah blah.

On the other hand, if you have some faith in the long term prospects of some other coin(s) to take over bitcoin market share or to possibly surplant it, then of course, you can put some of your money in that direction.  Each of us are going to come to different judgements regarding the viability of these various other projects and whether there is much of any truth in the various bitcoin is dead or broken claims.

Bitcoin has the first movers advantage but is that enough to keep it ahead of the game?  

Sure there is some truth to the claims about first mover advantage, but the fundamentals are much greater than a simplified description of first mover advantage.  A lot of bitcoin denigrator folks strive to put down bitcoin by suggesting that bitcoin is technologically deficient and that all it's got going for it is it's first mover advantage - which frequently involves over exaggerated claims - and a bunch of fucking so what.  Bitcoin is a project that competes on the merits and does not have marketing - and so there are a bunch of folks in bitcoin working on a bunch of scattered projects that are going to take a long time to innovate, improve and adopt.  And, bitcoin's security and computing power brings value. Even if 80% of the miners were to leave bitcoin, bitcoin is still secure - but don't get me wrong, I doubt that there is going to be any vast exodus from bitcoin.. because the value remains with various networking effects that continue with bitcoin.. and if we see it leave or believe it is leaving then, there would be an advantage to leave, as well, but those various projects that you name are not threat to bitcoin as you seem to imply, including Ethereum.

Some say Ripple was introduced so that the banks could have the market share and also be able to influence the market...

I think that Ripple was around before bitcoin, but it was transformed in light of bitcoin, so yeah.. ripple attempts to be another distractive competitor that is also largely centralized and manipulated in its own rights.

I think the best way for BTC and others to survive will need us to get accepted into the legal framework because since the banks have more money they could play unfair ..

I don't think that we can really say that there is any best - because sure there are better case scenarios that could play out, but in the end, the market is going to evolve and folks are going to chose where to invest and systems will adapt to such movements.  Don't get me wrong, because there is almost no fucking way that bitcoin is going to become wide spread adopted without a large number of continued battles that may well become more and more intense during any time periods that banks, governments, traditional institutions believe that they have ways to attempt to undermine and/or weaken it.  In the meantime, expect continued manipulation, volatility and misinformation, and try not to gets scared or shaken away from the level of bitcoin that you believe to be prudent for your own financial, timeline and viewpoint circumstances.

Thanks for your response Jay,
This has been an absolutely good read... I was busy with my day job the last couple of days but was subconsciously craving to get back into this discussion.
Your POVs have restored my faith in Bitcoin and has inspired to do a more thorough research into the philosophy of Bitcoin..
Yup, I do trade in altcoins, mostly to capitalize on the ups and some of them have very good use cases, Just bought some Cindicator as well..
The coordinated attacks  from the haters continue and I know now that it will continue and I hope more and more individuals come in the circle to  support the decentralized Bitcoin and that the Banks influence over governments dwindle as against the influence of the masses that support it...
This gives me another thought, we must educate out friends and family about the advantages and philosophy about Bitcoin...
Appreciate your time for sharing your views against my questions..

[KaranRaut]

Yes that is possible for bitcoin to be the bridge to fill the gap between rich and poor because bitcoin can help the poor people to earn money through different ways and that will make the poor people to improve their life and become a middle class type of people and if they will continue working then they can become rich also.

Thanks for your comment ..

[KaranRaut]

Most definitely, Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are the great equalizers for the financial strait we are in. Fiat currency is mathematically unfair because of how credit is created (hint: used to be backed by gold; now out of thin air by Central Banks) and has the potential to implode at any moment. The only thing truly holding up our current financial system is the government and central banks themselves.

Bitcoin will bring about money 3.0 and represent a world of fraud-free, inflation proof transactions that the world as a whole can enjoy regardless of location. 

I would recommend Mike Maloney's series on YouTube if you want to get a true sense of where the economy is and where it is going.

Exactly, I concur with your views.. Just subscribed to Mike Maloney on youtube (GoldSilver).. Thank you for that and the comment..