Do you think that other coins move faster?

[andylioe78]

Certainly fast-moving Coins generally have smaller market cover and also try to solve real-world problems, Bitcoin has been traveling fast since the creation of bitcoin, but the bitcoin end is a bit slow for travel, but also not so missed with altcoin travel for the time being.

[Rupok]

Do you think that Bitcoin has become too slow to compete with the relatively quick alt coins out there? Is it realty competitive to have a slow community rather than a centralised decision making in development?

In other words, does the community effect of decentralisation enough to counterbalance the difficult decision making processes?

I doubt about this issue. I am feeling very disappointed at the position of the market. As prices of other coins are decreasing along with bitcoin. Now it is not possible to say that the other coins can not go ahead. If the price comes back again, then I can hope .

[Hexcolyte]

Correct, we don't need centralized speed.

At least there's one reasonable, critically thinking individually poking their head up in the thread.

Pro-tip, when you want to post twice in a row like you just did you can easily Edit the first post to include what you would've made the second post. That way things are less messy.

Bitcoin has been determined as semi-decentralized due to the big miners out there controlling most of the network, and the fact that it hasn't receives rapid development, it might be much harder to update a decentralized protocol than we think.

By that logic there can be no true decentralization. The decentralization will become broken down to some extent if you analyze it based on inequality of hash power among miners. At some point, unless everyone is running an equally powered mining rig / full-node then the best we can hope for is semi-decentralization without a radical change in the foundation. Even if everyone was running an equally powered rig, we would also have to somehow nullify any influence that someone may have over miner(s), because this could be abused as if the power was the influencers, if the influence is great enough.

I might be going off on a tangent, but my point is this: Even if we agree that Bitcoin is only semi-decentralized, then it would still be a better option than anything centralized. Harder to update, because of the requirement of consensus among the development community in my opinion has kept Bitcoin healthy all these years.

True decentralization would be giving everyone equal power in a consensus, but currently this is basically impossible to achieve. Afaik Bitcoin's future is being determined by less than 0.001% of the entire population on Earth, other people simply don't own the required mining power. I am sure that most people demand faster transaction speed and lower transaction fee, but Lightning network and SegWit were proposed decades ago and only until now they are happening.

[bill gator]

True decentralization would be giving everyone equal power in a consensus, but currently this is basically impossible to achieve. Afaik Bitcoin's future is being determined by less than 0.001% of the entire population on Earth, other people simply don't own the required mining power.

Exactly. This is what I was getting at, and I don't believe there is a "true" decentralization solution at the moment that would get us more decentralized in a realistic manner. Bitcoin is being determined by a ridiculously small number of people, but the opportunity is decentralized and there is no barriers in the way of interested outsiders from taking part. It is as decentralized as a voluntary system can be, while utilizing the technology necessary; at least this is what I've concluded.

These solutions take longer than they should to implement though, I can agree to that. It might be the case that developers and miners are inherently intertwined and it also might be the case that there is more profit for miners if a solution isn't implemented. This alone would heavily influence development direction and speed.

[Nicoinsky]

It's depends on what happens to bitcoin, because we all know that all altcoins from now are connected to what the bitcoin is doing is also having an effect on the altcoins.

[Hexcolyte]

These solutions take longer than they should to implement though, I can agree to that. It might be the case that developers and miners are inherently intertwined and it also might be the case that there is more profit for miners if a solution isn't implemented. This alone would heavily influence development direction and speed.

I agree, most miners are looking at profits. Miners are not the one who use Bitcoin and spend them, they are investing to make roi. I think this is considered as a weakness of POW. Imo, to increase the development speed and advance the technology, users should be the majority in the network rather than miners, users are being incentived to use a better currency, while miners are being incentived to make money.

[merrillolive]

Although there are some co-altcoin, their growth rate is quite fast. But compared to the price is still much lower bitcoin. In the crypto market, no coin always increases. They rise and stop at a fixed price. Bitcoin is the market leader in crypto. Other altcoin can not pass bitcoin.

[The_prodigy]

Do you think that Bitcoin has become too slow to compete with the relatively quick alt coins out there? Is it realty competitive to have a slow community rather than a centralised decision making in development?

In other words, does the community effect of decentralisation enough to counterbalance the difficult decision making processes?

No, I honestly think that bitcoin is still the undisputed leader when it comes to growth potential. THough some other cryptocurrencies have been holding more steadier its potential and balue is still nothing compared to that of bitcoin and it is actually good that there are growth in the other currencies being currency served in the cryptomarket it is just that bitcoin is ahead of the pack

[Vaflia]

Yes, it is a fact. Transactions in the bitcoin network go about two hours with an average Commission of$3. While transaction Ethereum in cost 1 gas move 10 minutes.

[RACallanta]

i think if bitcoin is not moving forward the price, other coins cannot move faster as you think.. your coins that you say is like eth that cannot increased the price when the price of bitcoin is too low. but i think the price of it will be rise up soon. for now will be still waiting for that thing to be happened.

[Jaemouns]

Do you think that Bitcoin has become too slow to compete with the relatively quick alt coins out there? Is it realty competitive to have a slow community rather than a centralised decision making in development?

In other words, does the community effect of decentralisation enough to counterbalance the difficult decision making processes?

For me it will move faster if the bitcoin will grow also.Altcoins must be independent for bitcoin and I've notice that when the value of bitcoin will decrease.

[bill gator]

Imo, to increase the development speed and advance the technology, users should be the majority in the network rather than miners, users are being incentived to use a better currency, while miners are being incentived to make money.

I don't think that regular-users will ever be the majority of the network power, because like you said there simply is no incentive for them to acquire this much power, while there is endless incentive for the miners to hoard this power. I think we need to make mining a more specialized niche, where more transactions are being processed, the blocksize is larger and the equipment for mining becomes increasingly specialized, expensive, yet competitive. As long as there is profit in mining there will be incentive to competitively mine and so long as this is the case I believe there will be sufficient decentralization to maintain the network satisfactorily.

Satoshi themselves was speaking of this in their original e-mails; they mention that fewer and fewer people would be running full-nodes or mining blocks as Bitcoin was adopted to a greater extent. They explained that there simply is no need for this and in doing so it doesn't actually increase decentralization effectively. It's worth a read if you haven't already, but we can maintain decentralization with the current framework without attempting to force resource equality.

[asdalani]

Yes, it is a fact. Transactions in the bitcoin network go about two hours with an average Commission of$3. While transaction Ethereum in cost 1 gas move 10 minutes.

All the coins and tokens should move faster. If they want to have a competition with Mastercard and Visa then they gotta speed up the transactions.

[Utogah]

I think only bitcoin can move quickly than other coins. Coz bitcoin can changed its value everyday.
And it's pretty good to see that the value of bitcoin today has moving up.

[Jaya912]

Do you think that Bitcoin has become too slow to compete with the relatively quick alt coins out there? Is it realty competitive to have a slow community rather than a centralised decision making in development?

In other words, does the community effect of decentralisation enough to counterbalance the difficult decision making processes?

of course bitcoin become slower since the price is very high right now.
the other moves quicker because they have no high price which normally very easy to pump and dump, but its not bitcoin.

[Hexcolyte]

I don't think that regular-users will ever be the majority of the network power, because like you said there simply is no incentive for them to acquire this much power, while there is endless incentive for the miners to hoard this power. I think we need to make mining a more specialized niche, where more transactions are being processed, the blocksize is larger and the equipment for mining becomes increasingly specialized, expensive, yet competitive. As long as there is profit in mining there will be incentive to competitively mine and so long as this is the case I believe there will be sufficient decentralization to maintain the network satisfactorily.

Satoshi themselves was speaking of this in their original e-mails; they mention that fewer and fewer people would be running full-nodes or mining blocks as Bitcoin was adopted to a greater extent. They explained that there simply is no need for this and in doing so it doesn't actually increase decentralization effectively. It's worth a read if you haven't already, but we can maintain decentralization with the current framework without attempting to force resource equality.

As the increasing of capital required to mine, the Bitcoin should as well rise, or else there is no profit for the miners. Will this become price manipulation by miners? If miners are holding most of the Bitcoin supply, it is pretty easy for them to manipulate the price to ensure their profitability, this might make Bitcoin overpriced, creating illusion for other buyer and ultimately stealing their money. Not sure if this is healthy for Bitcoin network.

[thend1949]

Do you think that Bitcoin has become too slow to compete with the relatively quick alt coins out there? Is it realty competitive to have a slow community rather than a centralised decision making in development?

In other words, does the community effect of decentralisation enough to counterbalance the difficult decision making processes?

Yes it is possible that they grow faster but it is dependance to bitcoin price.If the bitcoin price will grow and automatic that all coins must be follow also.It looks great if all the crypto coins value will accelerate its because the demand of of coins especially bitcoin will pricely generated.A big reason why investors and a bounty hunter really do their best because this kind of opportunity will make us wealthy.

[Ukaraki]

Do you think that Bitcoin has become too slow to compete with the relatively quick alt coins out there? Is it realty competitive to have a slow community rather than a centralised decision making in development?

In other words, does the community effect of decentralisation enough to counterbalance the difficult decision making processes?

Bitcoin is not a slow development compared to another coin, but Bitcoin has been around for a long time and continued to grow well. The currencies are now much more developed than Bitcoins. In short, these coins are also slow to develop and maintain to have more coins

[Dudeperfect]

That is very natural in my opinion, as it is always easy to score 1 to 20 and difficult to score 20 to 50 and even difficult to score 50 to 90. Bitcoin is now in 20 to 50 phase on a scale of growth so comparing it with any other coins which are still growing on a scale of 1 to 20 would not be a wise comparison. I do see next 10 years as the shaping as well as the adventurous years of crypto industry and we should compare the pace of growth on a larger timescale.

[bill gator]

As the increasing of capital required to mine, the Bitcoin should as well rise, or else there is no profit for the miners. Will this become price manipulation by miners?

The capital required to mine increases as the difficulty of mining increases. The difficulty of mining increases with the speed at which blocks are mined/solved, which is proportional to (I think) the computational power being put into the network. So, Bitcoin has not traditionally correlated with difficulty otherwise we would be pretty consistently rising without the significant dips we've been seeing. The profit for the miners would be the block reward, even if there were no transaction fees (I think?).

Though, powerful miners and developers still stand as our biggest weakness when it comes to manipulation in many forms. They would be able to manipulate the progression of Bitcoin, indirectly affect the prices of transaction fees and transaction confirmation times among many other things.

If miners are holding most of the Bitcoin supply, it is pretty easy for them to manipulate the price to ensure their profitability, this might make Bitcoin overpriced, creating illusion for other buyer and ultimately stealing their money. Not sure if this is healthy for Bitcoin network.

I actually have no clue what percentage of the supply miners are currently holding. I'd be willing to bet that it is indeed significant enough for them to dump coins and cause a crash. We should look at the criteria and parameters for development/developers and miners being able to manipulate and operate for their own gain rather than the health and longevity of Bitcoin.