Bitcoin will one day be superseded by a technically superior NuCoin. What then?

[eternaluniverse]

There is also the possibility of jump starting nucoin by importing unspent btc from the bitcoin blockchain. So nucoin wouldn't necessarily destroy bitcoin. It might be more like moving from ounces of gold to grams of gold. Everyone would still keep the value of their money.

Even if the designers of nucoin didn't like this idea, it still might happen. The people with a big investment in Bitcoin could just create an alt of nucoin using the cool new algorithm that gives nucoin it's advantage. But they would also incorporate the btc blockchain in this nucoin 2.0, maybe even allowing you to create nucoin2.0 coins by sending btc to an unspendable address with a message that includes your nucoin2.0 address.

The point being: Any new algorithm can be either added to the bitcoin protocol or, in worst case, will probably allow bitcoins to be migrated to the new protocol.

Great points. Absolutely, but I see the power being in the hands of the miners and not just the investors(ones with most btc) but I would hope they would have reason to preserve the blockchain. Also our current ASICs would not work if this NuCoin is running a on a different encryption type correct? So it may actually be a problem depending on some variables.

[1714061381]

1714061381

[beetcoin]

i'm thinking the OP missed the gravy train and wants to make up for it now.

[Peter R]

i'm thinking the OP missed the gravy train and wants to make up for it now.

And there are still many seats left on this train.  Bitcoin gives everyone a second chance. 

[JorgeStolfi]

i'm thinking the OP missed the gravy train and wants to make up for it now.

I am skeptic about Bitcoin as investment, in case you haven't noticed    (Are skeptics welcome in this forum?)

It seems I am not expressing myself clearly.  When European countries junked their currencies for the Euro, each State took care to swap the old (soon to be worthless) currencies for Euros so that owners would not suffer any loss.  Other countries did the same when they replaced hyperinflated currencies for new money.

But there is no entity that would offer to do that service for Bitcoin, if (OK, let's say it is onlly a possibility) and when it is replaced by something else.  Sure, Bitcoin owners would want NuCoin to be just an evolution of Bitcoin, preserving its blockchains and hence the value of their coins; but why would the NuCoin community want to do that? 

[maxxoccupancy]

To be far superior, a currency would only need to have a feature that stopped the sudden drops that make holding on to it over the long haul such a scary prospect.

Can this new alt-coin also vacuum my floors and cook me dinner?  That would make it the superiorest.  

Sorry, just having fun with you  .  But, isn't this impossible?  You either legislate its value by fiat (and live with the problems of fiat money) or you let the free-market figure it out (with a series of booms and busts).  

If we all *know* the value will just go up and can't come down, then we'd all throw everything we have into it right?  Then we'd have one big super bubble!

I do marketing, where everything is possible.  Software people work on code, where nothing new is possible until it's so well established in the marketplace that they have no hope of winning the argument.

To maintain a stable, less volatile value, one must establish a track record and mechanism as clear and convincing proof of U.S. Dollar-like stability.  How is that done?  One mechanism is to create a foundation (like the Bitcoin Foundation) that gets a parallel mine large enough both to provide a reserve and to market the new currency.  Mining difficulty (or reward amount) is adjusted daily, reduced only after there is an increase in price/demand.  The Altcoin Foundation establishes a clear, realistic target price and sets buy orders 2% below that price, and sell orders 5% over it.  This prevents those price spikes that draw in speculators and drive away those interested in a good long term investment.

There are several other techniques, like adjusting the final mining quantity to match market demand automatically.  Of course, most of these things have to be done when the altcoin is created, because they cannot be retrofit into the software after the fact.

[beetcoin]

i'm thinking the OP missed the gravy train and wants to make up for it now.

I am skeptic about Bitcoin as investment, in case you haven't noticed    (Are skeptics welcome in this forum?)

It seems I am not expressing myself clearly.  When European countries junked their currencies for the Euro, each State took care to swap the old (soon to be worthless) currencies for Euros so that owners would not suffer any loss.  Other countries did the same when they replaced hyperinflated currencies for new money.

But there is no entity that would offer to do that service for Bitcoin, if (OK, let's say it is onlly a possibility) and when it is replaced by something else.  Sure, Bitcoin owners would want NuCoin to be just an evolution of Bitcoin, preserving its blockchains and hence the value of their coins; but why would the NuCoin community want to do that?  

why are you comparing bitcoin to currencies? there is no precedent for anything like bitcoins. i've yet to hear any solid reasons as to why nucoin or any other cryptocurrency could take BTC's place. if bitcoin becomes ubiquitous, there will be more room for another cryptocurrency, but you have not brought up any real reason why you think bitcoin can't succeed, and new cryptocurrency will take its place.

[Peter R]

To be far superior, a currency would only need to have a feature that stopped the sudden drops that make holding on to it over the long haul such a scary prospect.

Can this new alt-coin also vacuum my floors and cook me dinner?  That would make it the superiorest.  

Sorry, just having fun with you  .  But, isn't this impossible?  You either legislate its value by fiat (and live with the problems of fiat money) or you let the free-market figure it out (with a series of booms and busts).  

If we all *know* the value will just go up and can't come down, then we'd all throw everything we have into it right?  Then we'd have one big super bubble!

I do marketing, where everything is possible.  Software people work on code, where nothing new is possible until it's so well established in the marketplace that they have no hope of winning the argument.

To maintain a stable, less volatile value, one must establish a track record and mechanism as clear and convincing proof of U.S. Dollar-like stability.  How is that done?  One mechanism is to create a foundation (like the Bitcoin Foundation) that gets a parallel mine large enough both to provide a reserve and to market the new currency.  Mining difficulty (or reward amount) is adjusted daily, reduced only after there is an increase in price/demand.  The Altcoin Foundation establishes a clear, realistic target price and sets buy orders 2% below that price, and sell orders 5% over it.  This prevents those price spikes that draw in speculators and drive away those interested in a good long term investment.

There are several other techniques, like adjusting the final mining quantity to match market demand automatically.  Of course, most of these things have to be done when the altcoin is created, because they cannot be retrofit into the software after the fact.

Have you read the Hunger Games?  At the end of the 3rd book, the rebels overthrow the elite.  The woman leading the rebels wants to have "just one more hunger games" where only the old elite and their children participate (and then the hunger games will be over, "we promise"). 

Katniss Everdeen shoots an arrow through her heart. 

[beetcoin]

To be far superior, a currency would only need to have a feature that stopped the sudden drops that make holding on to it over the long haul such a scary prospect.

Can this new alt-coin also vacuum my floors and cook me dinner?  That would make it the superiorest.  

Sorry, just having fun with you  .  But, isn't this impossible?  You either legislate its value by fiat (and live with the problems of fiat money) or you let the free-market figure it out (with a series of booms and busts).  

If we all *know* the value will just go up and can't come down, then we'd all throw everything we have into it right?  Then we'd have one big super bubble!

I do marketing, where everything is possible.  Software people work on code, where nothing new is possible until it's so well established in the marketplace that they have no hope of winning the argument.

To maintain a stable, less volatile value, one must establish a track record and mechanism as clear and convincing proof of U.S. Dollar-like stability.  How is that done?  One mechanism is to create a foundation (like the Bitcoin Foundation) that gets a parallel mine large enough both to provide a reserve and to market the new currency.  Mining difficulty (or reward amount) is adjusted daily, reduced only after there is an increase in price/demand.  The Altcoin Foundation establishes a clear, realistic target price and sets buy orders 2% below that price, and sell orders 5% over it.  This prevents those price spikes that draw in speculators and drive away those interested in a good long term investment.

There are several other techniques, like adjusting the final mining quantity to match market demand automatically.  Of course, most of these things have to be done when the altcoin is created, because they cannot be retrofit into the software after the fact.

Have you read the Hunger Games?  At the end of the 3rd book, the rebels overthrow the elite.  The woman leading the rebels wants to have "just one more hunger games" where only the old elite and their children participate (and then the hunger games will be over, "we promise").  

Katniss Everdeen shoots an arrow through her heart.  

dude, why did you have to spoil it for us?! now it's time to play the anger games, with you..

[Peter R]

To be far superior, a currency would only need to have a feature that stopped the sudden drops that make holding on to it over the long haul such a scary prospect.

Can this new alt-coin also vacuum my floors and cook me dinner?  That would make it the superiorest.  

Sorry, just having fun with you  .  But, isn't this impossible?  You either legislate its value by fiat (and live with the problems of fiat money) or you let the free-market figure it out (with a series of booms and busts).  

If we all *know* the value will just go up and can't come down, then we'd all throw everything we have into it right?  Then we'd have one big super bubble!

I do marketing, where everything is possible.  Software people work on code, where nothing new is possible until it's so well established in the marketplace that they have no hope of winning the argument.

To maintain a stable, less volatile value, one must establish a track record and mechanism as clear and convincing proof of U.S. Dollar-like stability.  How is that done?  One mechanism is to create a foundation (like the Bitcoin Foundation) that gets a parallel mine large enough both to provide a reserve and to market the new currency.  Mining difficulty (or reward amount) is adjusted daily, reduced only after there is an increase in price/demand.  The Altcoin Foundation establishes a clear, realistic target price and sets buy orders 2% below that price, and sell orders 5% over it.  This prevents those price spikes that draw in speculators and drive away those interested in a good long term investment.

There are several other techniques, like adjusting the final mining quantity to match market demand automatically.  Of course, most of these things have to be done when the altcoin is created, because they cannot be retrofit into the software after the fact.

Have you read the Hunger Games?  At the end of the 3rd book, the rebels overthrow the elite.  The woman leading the rebels wants to have "just one more hunger games" where only the old elite and their children participate (and then the hunger games will be over, "we promise").  

Katniss Everdeen shoots an arrow through her heart.  

dude, why did you have to spoil it for us?! now it's time to play the anger games, with you..

lol sorry beetcoin!  But research does show that you actually enjoy a story more if you know the plot line beforehand.  Shakespeare always told the audience what would happen before you got to see it.   

[maxxoccupancy]

You frickin' bastard!  Now there's no point in reading those damned books.  My friend just gave me the first one. 

NuCoin WILL be technically superior, because it won't spoil and entire frickin' trilogy on some random argu-forum!

[Peter R]

You frickin' bastard!  Now there's no point in reading those damned books.  My friend just gave me the first one.  

NuCoin WILL be technically superior, because it won't spoil and entire frickin' trilogy on some random argu-forum!

Oh man, I feel bad now.  But I sort of think you guys are just getting my goat.  All my friends around here make fun of me for reading those books.  (I still think they were excellent and recommend reading them, BTW!).  

I'll spoil the BTC trilogy too: it ends at $100,000+ !!

[maxxoccupancy]

My point about stabilizing the value is that, if moderate swings in daily demand (less than a few million) can affect the price by a factor of two, then the number of people putting their earnings--and their trust--into bitcoin is likely to be less.

As important, the other crypto-currencies on the exchanges tend to largely be Bitcoin clones that simply rise and fall with BTC's current market price.  Stock exchanges only work if a variety of investment options (index funds, money market funds, derivatives, futures, securities, etc) are available to put a portfolio together.  Some of those investment options have to be built for stability, rather than get-rich-quick opportunities.

[thinkloop]

Yes Bitcoin is based on solid math principles. Yes it is constantly adapting and changing. Yes it has first mover advantage and a powerful network effect. Yes a sophisticated infrastructure is being built around it. There is no denying that Bitcoin is in a very advantageous position.

But Bitcoin is still also an implementation, and implementations can be better and they can be worse. While the idea of a decentralized anonymous currency will never die, the way we achieve that will continue to progress. There may come a time when the recommended updates are so fundamental that the only option is to start over. Or there may be disagreement on the right direction to go.

If that happened, the migration to NuCoin would start out slow, then gradually increase at an accelerated pace as the network proved itself. When a critical momentum is reached, people will begin to realize that it could become the dominant coin, and a large and rapid transfer of value between coins will occur. There will be winners, and there will be losers. It would be up to the individual to foresee the changes.

[JorgeStolfi]

If that happened, the migration to NuCoin would start out slow, then gradually increase at an accelerated pace as the network proved itself. When a critical momentum is reached, people will begin to realize that it could become the dominant coin, and a large and rapid transfer of value between coins will occur. There will be winners, and there will be losers. It would be up to the individual to foresee the changes.

That is my guess too.

Say, 5 years from now, you own 1 BTC that you bought a week earlier for 100,000 USD.  Then you (and everybody else) learn that NuCoin already accounts for 5% of world cryptocurrency payments, and its share is increasing 1% per week at the expense of Bitcoin's share. Its market price is still only 1000 USD but is rising fast.

Presumably you will want to convert your BTC to NUCs, directly or through USD.  Will you find buyers, and at what price?

[amencon]

i'm thinking the OP missed the gravy train and wants to make up for it now.

I am skeptic about Bitcoin as investment, in case you haven't noticed    (Are skeptics welcome in this forum?)

It seems I am not expressing myself clearly.  When European countries junked their currencies for the Euro, each State took care to swap the old (soon to be worthless) currencies for Euros so that owners would not suffer any loss.  Other countries did the same when they replaced hyperinflated currencies for new money.

But there is no entity that would offer to do that service for Bitcoin, if (OK, let's say it is onlly a possibility) and when it is replaced by something else.  Sure, Bitcoin owners would want NuCoin to be just an evolution of Bitcoin, preserving its blockchains and hence the value of their coins; but why would the NuCoin community want to do that? 

There are plenty of entities that allow swapping of one crypto currency with another.  I imagine if in the future a "NuCoin" was judged as far superior to bitcoin it would compete with it on the marketplace and grow while bitcoin shrank as people sold their BTC for NuCoins.  It would be up to each individual to make the decision to use one over another and not be centrally planned like fiat currencies.  I think you're stuck on the idea of something "replacing" bitcoin when in fact they would both exist with one gaining popularity while the other declined.

And of course this would mean that the people that identified this trend the earliest and swapped their BTC for NuCoin would gain more wealth than the bag-holders of BTC that waited until much later.

[zimmah]

Aren't we still using 80s technology for bank wires?  Haven't we had "dollars" since 1792?

The lifecycle of each new credible monetary system is looooonnnngggg.  Congress passed the Gold Reserve Act on 30 January 1934, nationalizing all the US citizens' gold.  (The next day F. D. Roosevelt changed the value of the dollar from $20.67 to the troy ounce to $35 to the troy ounce.)  We lasted on this monetary system for 37.5 years!  It wasn't until August 15, 1971, that R. Nixon ended convertibility of the dollar to gold.  Our new "unbacked" dollar has lasted 42 more years, bringing us to today.  After excessive money printing and debt accumulation, there is now incredible pressure to adopt a new monetary system!

In 15 years, bitcoin will still be young.  If bitcoin grows to become a dominant currency, it will last for generations.

Yes, but bitcoin is not legal tender unlike money in the monetary systems you described in your post, so its life may actually turn out to be very short. Why should a government which money system lasted for more than a century give in?

Maybe the fact that bitcoin is NOT legal tender will actually protect it from being destroyed so easily, as it is backed by people from all over the world, no matter their race or (geo-)political ideologies.

Legal tender quickly loses value when the empire that backs them loses their position as the 'supreme world leaders' and vice versa. America is quickly losing their position and the petrodollar is quickly losing value, you can't deny those facts and both of them go hand in hand.

Bitcoin does not back a country or nation and is not backed by one, so there is no empire that will enivatibly fall and take bitcoin with it. Likewise the fall of bitcoin (if and when it will happen) will not bring down any nation. Therefore it's a good thing bitcoin is not legal tender.

[Moogle]

If this magic "NuCoin" (seriously why nu coin, why not say New Coin, you promoting Tee nucoin?) were to replace bitcoin it wouldnt happen overnight and make bitcoin suddenly worthless.
Bitcoin will always have a value. It had one way back when it first started (although it was tiny, ie 10,000 coins being worth around $40 in 2009) and it will continue to do say way into the foreseeable future.

[JorgeStolfi]

seriously why nu coin, why not say New Coin, you promoting Tee nucoin?

Is there a NuCoin? I did not now, sorry, should have picked some other name.

[cbeast]

I'm partial to Gnucoin.

[maxxoccupancy]

I believe that the change over would happen just as if we were switching to another altcoin now.  Those who saw the need early would jump ship while BTC price was still high and the NuCoin's price was still low, making the most money in exchange for being early.

If BTC really became unfeasible only because of some limitation on trade volume, for example, its market cap and volume would likely stall, then decline in velocity and therefore value.  If widely accepted, it would likely take some time before it the house of cards fell.