Do you think any of the other "alt" currencies will overtake bitcoin?

[OneEyedJack]

I think, in order for all the alt currencies to gain ground, first, need to stop calling them alt currencies. Like they are are an alt currency from bitcoin.
They will never gain any ground if the people who are promoting them degrade their value by comparing them to bitcoin.
Secondly, these other currencies need to stop having their value based upon the value of bitcoin.
If that continues they will never been accepted as a serious alternative. They need to gain ground on their own. Push for them to be used in marketplaces.
It will only gain value when you put faith into it.

[Trademan1]

Don't know too many of these other "E-Currencies" that can be utilised in as many places or ways as Bitcoins at the moment. Although it would be good if one of the other mineable coins that hasn't already been overrun with big mining outfits comes up to the plate.

[nerFohanzo]

I think, in order for all the alt currencies to gain ground, first, need to stop calling them alt currencies. Like they are are an alt currency from bitcoin.
They will never gain any ground if the people who are promoting them degrade their value by comparing them to bitcoin.
Secondly, these other currencies need to stop having their value based upon the value of bitcoin.
If that continues they will never been accepted as a serious alternative. They need to gain ground on their own. Push for them to be used in marketplaces.
It will only gain value when you put faith into it.

Your right, but the only use of altcoins is just buy/sell for Bitcoin. This is why I think all altcoins will fail

[nahtnam]

Something that scales to millions of transactions per second and has easy/cheap transfers of vending-machine size transactions  is gonna win.  But whatever it is (and it might even be a redesign of Bitcoin), it won't work exactly like Bitcoin works now.

The best option is to just modify bitcoin to improve the bad parts of it.

[e521]

No, current alt currencies will never ever replace bitcoin, they don't bring anything new to the table (or if so, not that important to motivate a switch)
bitcoin and many others can certainly coexist together, for different scopes (commodity, currency, mixer, etc.)
sometimes it doesn't matter if a technology is superior, there is a barrier and this barrier is set quite high at the moment

Something that scales to millions of transactions per second and has easy/cheap transfers of vending-machine size transactions  is gonna win.  But whatever it is (and it might even be a redesign of Bitcoin), it won't work exactly like Bitcoin works now.

The best option is to just modify bitcoin to improve the bad parts of it.

agree

[pand70]

Something that scales to millions of transactions per second and has easy/cheap transfers of vending-machine size transactions  is gonna win.  But whatever it is (and it might even be a redesign of Bitcoin), it won't work exactly like Bitcoin works now.

There isn't a need for millions of transactions per second anyway. Not for many years to come

[nahtnam]

Something that scales to millions of transactions per second and has easy/cheap transfers of vending-machine size transactions  is gonna win.  But whatever it is (and it might even be a redesign of Bitcoin), it won't work exactly like Bitcoin works now.

There isn't a need for millions of transactions per second anyway. Not for many years to come

Unless BTC overtakes usd there is no way its going to get close. How many transactions per second are happening right now?

[Heutenamos]

Something that scales to millions of transactions per second and has easy/cheap transfers of vending-machine size transactions  is gonna win.  But whatever it is (and it might even be a redesign of Bitcoin), it won't work exactly like Bitcoin works now.

millions of transactions per second is 100.000x more than Bitcoin can handle with 1 MB block.
Bitcoin is store of value instead, like gold

[nahtnam]

Something that scales to millions of transactions per second and has easy/cheap transfers of vending-machine size transactions  is gonna win.  But whatever it is (and it might even be a redesign of Bitcoin), it won't work exactly like Bitcoin works now.

millions of transactions per second is 100.000x more than Bitcoin can handle with 1 MB block.
Bitcoin is store of value instead, like gold

Maybe the Core team should improve that to allow many more per block.

[Heutenamos]

Something that scales to millions of transactions per second and has easy/cheap transfers of vending-machine size transactions  is gonna win.  But whatever it is (and it might even be a redesign of Bitcoin), it won't work exactly like Bitcoin works now.

millions of transactions per second is 100.000x more than Bitcoin can handle with 1 MB block.
Bitcoin is store of value instead, like gold

Maybe the Core team should improve that to allow many more per block.

All what is need is increasing block size, so one line change I guess

[nahtnam]

Something that scales to millions of transactions per second and has easy/cheap transfers of vending-machine size transactions  is gonna win.  But whatever it is (and it might even be a redesign of Bitcoin), it won't work exactly like Bitcoin works now.

millions of transactions per second is 100.000x more than Bitcoin can handle with 1 MB block.
Bitcoin is store of value instead, like gold

Maybe the Core team should improve that to allow many more per block.

All what is need is increasing block size, so one line change I guess

No, why not make everything more efficient rather than increasing the block size. That would be better than using the lazy way to fix it.

[Heutenamos]

Something that scales to millions of transactions per second and has easy/cheap transfers of vending-machine size transactions  is gonna win.  But whatever it is (and it might even be a redesign of Bitcoin), it won't work exactly like Bitcoin works now.

millions of transactions per second is 100.000x more than Bitcoin can handle with 1 MB block.
Bitcoin is store of value instead, like gold

Maybe the Core team should improve that to allow many more per block.

All what is need is increasing block size, so one line change I guess

No, why not make everything more efficient rather than increasing the block size. That would be better than using the lazy way to fix it.

But you cant compress the transactions much, it is almost like recompressing the same file again

[PrintMule]

I would prefer litecoin's faster confirmation times. Of course there are even faster coins too.

But to crush bitcoin - it should have some discerning quality - like eversmall blockchain size or something like that.

Also imagine if multiple world economies would say bitcoin is a no-no, and , say, dogecoin gets a pass, with no taxes attached... It would skyrocket in a day and stay there.

[lutz1013]

 ;)no idea

[neordicICE]

Also imagine if multiple world economies would say bitcoin is a no-no, and , say, dogecoin gets a pass, with no taxes attached... It would skyrocket in a day and stay there.

These world economies would say decentralized cryptcurrency is a no-no instead  

[nahtnam]

Something that scales to millions of transactions per second and has easy/cheap transfers of vending-machine size transactions  is gonna win.  But whatever it is (and it might even be a redesign of Bitcoin), it won't work exactly like Bitcoin works now.

millions of transactions per second is 100.000x more than Bitcoin can handle with 1 MB block.
Bitcoin is store of value instead, like gold

Maybe the Core team should improve that to allow many more per block.

All what is need is increasing block size, so one line change I guess

No, why not make everything more efficient rather than increasing the block size. That would be better than using the lazy way to fix it.

But you cant compress the transactions much, it is almost like recompressing the same file again

I dont seem to follow you. They could make it so that after block x the compression is different.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Something that scales to millions of transactions per second and has easy/cheap transfers of vending-machine size transactions  is gonna win.  But whatever it is (and it might even be a redesign of Bitcoin), it won't work exactly like Bitcoin works now.

millions of transactions per second is 100.000x more than Bitcoin can handle with 1 MB block.
Bitcoin is store of value instead, like gold

Maybe the Core team should improve that to allow many more per block.

All what is need is increasing block size, so one line change I guess

No, why not make everything more efficient rather than increasing the block size. That would be better than using the lazy way to fix it.

But you cant compress the transactions much, it is almost like recompressing the same file again

I dont seem to follow you. They could make it so that after block x the compression is different.

tx are mostly hashes which are by their very nature random and thus generally not compressible.   If you want to try an experiment yourself take a list of hashes and attempt to compress it with various file compression tools. You will find either the compression savings are tiny or possibly the compressed size is larger than the original. There is no effort being put into compressing the blockchain and that would be ultimately useless.  There is effort in pruning the blockchain by removing txs which are no longer needed.

[pand70]

Unless BTC overtakes usd there is no way its going to get close. How many transactions per second are happening right now?

What transactions per second has to do with btc overaking usd? And what btc overtaking usd means anyway?
Btw visa can peak at around 10k tps if i 'm not mistaken.

[nahtnam]

Unless BTC overtakes usd there is no way its going to get close. How many transactions per second are happening right now?

What transactions per second has to do with btc overaking usd? And what btc overtaking usd means anyway?
Btw visa can peak at around 10k tps if i 'm not mistaken.

BTC overtaking USD meaning that more people use BTC over USD (probably the whole population of the US needs to use BTC to reach that many transactions per second). Also I meant how many bitcoin transactions per minute.

[nahtnam]

Something that scales to millions of transactions per second and has easy/cheap transfers of vending-machine size transactions  is gonna win.  But whatever it is (and it might even be a redesign of Bitcoin), it won't work exactly like Bitcoin works now.

millions of transactions per second is 100.000x more than Bitcoin can handle with 1 MB block.
Bitcoin is store of value instead, like gold

Maybe the Core team should improve that to allow many more per block.

All what is need is increasing block size, so one line change I guess

No, why not make everything more efficient rather than increasing the block size. That would be better than using the lazy way to fix it.

But you cant compress the transactions much, it is almost like recompressing the same file again

I dont seem to follow you. They could make it so that after block x the compression is different.

tx are mostly hashes which are by their very nature random and thus generally not compressible.   If you want to try an experiment yourself take a list of hashes and attempt to compress it with various file compression tools. You will find either the compression savings are tiny or possibly the compressed size is larger than the original. There is no effort being put into compressing the blockchain and that would be ultimately useless.  There is effort in pruning the blockchain by removing txs which are no longer needed.

So there is no way to compress it? I heard that compressed addresses use less space in the blockchain? What does that mean?