Competing could mean debunking hype that Bitcoin-alt promoters spread, adopting new protocol features (e.g. a shorter block time)
That's not hype. Litecoin having a faster block time is a fact.
Almost everything claimed about litecoin is hype:
Scrypt is not GPU proof, as we've seen. It's not FPGA or ASIC proof either.
2.5 minute block times have very little effect in real use-cases. It's too long for point of sale, and not necessary for shipped goods. It's only useful for depositing BTC at an e-wallet, by reducing the time it takes for the deposit to be considered confirmed.
Shorter block times do NOT make Bitcoin-alts more secure. They reduce the time it takes for transactions to reach the maximum level of network security, but reduce that maximum level by wasting more honest work on latency. It's a trade-off between securing transactions more quickly and making a blockchain more secure from >50% attacks.
I personally think a shorter block time is in fact a slight protocol improvement, but I don't think an alternative network with this feature makes up for the advantage Bitcoin has in the size of its network of users/nodes, its hashrate and the amount of supporting services/software it has, and claims suggesting otherwise are pure hype by miners looking to make money on their low-demand coins.
I also don't think it makes sense to start a new blockchain that resets everyone's currency holdings to zero every time a minor protocol improvement comes along. It's better to upgrade the Bitcoin protocol over time in my opinion.
... that are found to be advantageous, choosing to make Bitcoin the exclusive cryptocurrency traded on an exchange, etc. ...
You'll never successfully control a truly free market, which is why they are so powerful and why I love that Bitcoin depends on it. What I don't think you understand is that whether or not Mt.Gox adds Litecoin matters little to Litecoin's success now. Litecoin has IMO reached a critical mass of adoption to be successful in the long run, providing nothing kills it (or Bitcoin) like some hashing flaw or something else unforeseen.
I strongly disagree. Litecoin is near copy of Bitcoin, and is less useful than it in almost every use-case. Its success is not inevitable, and MtGox could do Bitcoin and Bitcoin-based cryptocurrency a big favor by not hosting near-copycats of Bitcoin like it on its exchange.
Going against market wishes to add Litecoin exchange support would only provide more opportunity for exchanges that did.
You're defining the market as anything you and litecoin miners want. They are constantly sending MtGox messages to add it, because inflation profits them. What's not visible is the number of Bitcoin users who do not want near-copycats of Bitcoin being traded alongside Bitcoin on MtGox.
Since I, and others who don't want Bitcoin-based networks to fragment, are also part of the market, you can't accurately say that the market 'wishes' for MtGox to add litecoin and other Bitcoin-alts.
Eventually the market would get what it wants provided the free market continues without being stifled.
Yea it could get what it wants and not add litecoin to the exchange.
Yes, I agree changing the hashing algorithm is one case where we might have a successful protocol change with a user base even at global scale.
Thank you for conceding that.
Like I said before you can't increase Bitcoin above 21 million coins. Not every user that holds bitcoins will hold litecoins and vice versa. I do of course believe there will be lots of overlap in user bases, but technically your bitcoins would still be subject to a 21 million total limit.
You're dwelling on a technicality that is completely irrelevant to my point, which is that Bitcoin users and investors are hurt by the adoption of nearly identical networks that add new coins that can be used in similar roles as bitcoins. The effect of their adoption is the same as the number of bitcoins increasing past 21 million.
But from the point of view of someone who wants their bitcoins to maintain their value, an almost identical peer-to-peer currency, with virtually identical properties, and with its own set of 84 million coins, seeing adoption has the same effect as the supply of bitcoins increasing.
That's true, but like I said before the total limit on globally accepted cryptocurrency I believe will be measured in the millions, which is extremely scarce.
A bitcoin is an arbitrary unit. Only if you use the 100,000,000 Satoshi unit known as a bitcoin would it be seen as scarce. If we use a smaller unit, then it's not scarce.
In any case, what's important is that the adoption of near copies of Bitcoin leads to a rapid rate of inflation in the Bitcoin-based cryptocurrency money supply. I think that's bad.
I think either Bitcoin will remain the dominant cryptocurrency, or we will see increasing fragmentation and inflation of BTC-based cryptocurrency. I don't think it's likely that Bitcoin will only have one competing parallel network, and no more after that. In other words, it's either a universal money protocol known as BTC or it's a steadily increasing number of incompatible protocols.
The inflation of cryptocurrency is inevitable, but how fast alternative cryptocurrencies are adopted is a matter of decisions.
I agree. That's why I said it was critical to start making Litecoin a viable Bitcoin market competitor before Bitcoin got too far ahead, and I began promoting LTC as part of
my solution to the Bitcoin foundation when it was at $0.04.
I disagree with your assessment of this being the best way to plan against the corruption of Bitcoin. I explained my opinion on what is a much better way to create a Bitcoin-alt:
fork the blockchain with all of the transaction data that exists up to some point in time, so the new blockchain doesn't dilute the currency holdings of all Bitcoin users.
This way, if you had 50 BTC in the original network, you would have 50 BTC in the new network too. The two forks could then compete, and if the new one with the protocol change is in fact more effective, then it will take market share from the old network.
This method respects the 21 million BTC limit, which is what gives it its ability to maintain value. I believe this method of creating competing forks would significantly increase the probability that Bitcoin-based cryptocurrency as a whole succeeds.
...Maybe in the long run, this happening will be for the best. I don't know, I can only guess. My guess is that the promotion of cryptocurrencies that are very similar to Bitcoin is harmful to adoption. I believe investors will be turned off by seeing currencies that are nearly identical to Bitcoin gaining users.
Perhaps those who don't yet see things as I do might, but they will be ultimately overruled by the market.
Perhaps the market agrees with them and it will overrule you. Maybe BTC-based cryptocurrency in general will fail to gain traction because people won't feel it's a secure store of wealth, with new copycats constantly reducing the market share of each.
Making an appeal to the will of the market without explaining why you think the market agrees with you doesn't add anything to the discussion.
... I think that if litecoin gains any level of acceptance, it will not be the last derivative of Bitcoin to do so.
I believe that's true, but also that the level of acceptance at a global scale will be limited to only a few coins, the reason being spinoffs must significantly add value or have any traction quickly killed by other spinoffs.
We can agree to disagree. I think endless fragmentation is a very serious threat to BTC-based cryptocurrency, and worth the community rallying around a single universal protocol that is able to maintain the value of coins.
I understand that investing in Bitcoin-alts can be very profitable. I just think they are bad for the field in the long run.
I choose to call it 'Bitcoin technology', as that is what makes sense to me. I'm not asking for law enforcement to break down your door for using a different name, but I have a right to call it whatever I want.
What I meant was there is no such thing as 'Bitcoin technology' that belongs only to something called Bitcoin.
I disagree. I think almost all of the code and concepts used in BTC-based cryptocurrency are 'Bitcoin technology', since it came from Bitcoin, and the many developers who contributed to the BTC network (and were remunerated in BTC for their work).
crazy_rabbit is continuosly promoting alternative currencies, including Bitcoin testnet coins. He strives to put his ads in the Bitcoin discussion thread, instead of the alt-coins thread, where it should really stay.
In my opinion, this behavior does no good to the cryptocurrency world. Currently, all alt-coins are just forks any guy can create in one afternoon, and just dilutes the focus on Bitcoin.
Anyway, I will personally abandon Mt Gox if this happens and I will join some other exchange.
+1
