Any coin that replaces Bitcoin will use the Bitcoin blockchain.

[go1111111]

Any cryptocurrency that succeeds in replacing Bitcoin will use the Bitcoin blockchain. Here's why:

Suppose a new cryptocurrency comes out which is a significant advancement over Bitcoin (something no existing altcoin can claim), call it Bitcoin2. Let's say Bitcoin2 uses a new blockchain. People invested in Bitcoin realize Bitcoin2 is superior and realize they should do something. They fork Bitcoin2 into a new cryptocurrency called Bitcoin3 which is identical to Bitcoin2, except it preserves the original Bitcoin blockchain.

Now people have a choice as to whether to use Bitcoin2 or Bitcoin3. Which one will people use? The people who are working on building the current Bitcoin infrastructure are heavily invested in the existing blockchain. These are some of the smartest cryptocurrency experts/developers/entrepreneurs in the world, and the cryptocurrency that they back will have a huge advantage.  Businesses and consumers will feel more comfortable with a currency developed and supported by the same people and businesses who brought us Bitcoin if there's no longer any technical reason to favor another coin. So Bitcoin3 will win out.

Another way to think of this is: is it harder for the smart people working on Bitcoin to clone a technical advancement from another coin, or is it harder for the founders of another coin to build something replicating Bitcoin's infrastructure and community?

[MineForeman.com]

That is nothing new sorry (I commend you for coming up with it on your own though).  It has been a long standing contingency since the inception of bitcoin that allows you to do exactly that.

The idea is that if a SHA256 vulnerability if found (doubtful) or quantum computers or even super intelligent aliens arrive that can hash in their head breaking bitcoin security, we can just swap out the engine and keep going.  Litecoin is an example of an engine swap (SCRYPT) among other things.

Neil

[go1111111]

The point of my post is that people often don't appreciate how "secure" an investment in Bitcoin is. Of course most of us have known for a long time that Bitcoin can change over time and pieces can be swapped out. What people may not appreciate is the strength of the pressure to stay with the existing block chain even if the eventual wildly used dominant cryptocurrency is extremely different from Bitcoin technically (if the blockchain has a completely different structure).

In other words investments in Bitcoin will still translate to investments in this new coin, and investments in the actual new coins whose technology ends up replacing bitcoin will be worthless if they don't preserve the Bitcoin blockchain.

[Mylon]

Thing is, you can't you restructure the client overnight, when the new alt-coin has something truly innovating (which would be the only reason to switch) it would require an hardfork in bitcoin, if you would want to implement it. Not something that will happen overnight.

On the other hand, switching over to the new currency (by trading) would be real easy.

[go1111111]

Thing is, you can't you restructure the client overnight, when the new alt-coin has something truly innovating (which would be the only reason to switch) it would require an hardfork in bitcoin, if you would want to implement it. Not something that will happen overnight.

On the other hand, switching over to the new currency (by trading) would be real easy.

Buying the new currency would be easy for pretty much everyone on this forum. However it would likely take years to build up the infrastructure and community that Bitcoin has now. I think people vastly underestimate how hard it is to build up the infrastructure and community that Bitcoin has now (Erik Voorhees has talked about this a lot recently).

On the other hand, even for a radically different new coin, I expect the Bitcoin community could integrate it within a couple months as they'd have the source code of the new coin.

[Mylon]

Thing is, you can't you restructure the client overnight, when the new alt-coin has something truly innovating (which would be the only reason to switch) it would require an hardfork in bitcoin, if you would want to implement it. Not something that will happen overnight.

On the other hand, switching over to the new currency (by trading) would be real easy.

Buying the new currency would be easy for pretty much everyone on this forum. However it would likely take years to build up the infrastructure and community that Bitcoin has now. I think people vastly underestimate how hard it is to build up the infrastructure and community that Bitcoin has now (Erik Voorhees has talked about this a lot recently).

On the other hand, even for a radically different new coin, I expect the Bitcoin community could integrate it within a couple months as they'd have the source code of the new coin.

Well this might be me personally, but I see the entire layer build on top of Bitcoin, separate from Bitcoin itself. Because all that those layers do, is build on the Bitcoin API. Where the Bitcoin client is forcibly delayed by hardforks, I don't see any reason for the infrastructure on top of it, to be so depended on specifically Bitcoin. (Hardfork means at least 6 months, before it can be enforced) While everything build on top of it, just needs to recheck all the API hooks, and can technically be ready to go again in a matter of hours/days.
Plus the moment litecoin gains some more traction, there will most likely be a lot of merchants adding that one in, which opens the door to easily addable crypto currencies.

[AnonyMint]

Any cryptocurrency that succeeds in replacing Bitcoin will use the Bitcoin blockchain. Here's why:

Suppose a new cryptocurrency comes out which is a significant advancement over Bitcoin (something no existing altcoin can claim), call it Bitcoin2. Let's say Bitcoin2 uses a new blockchain. People invested in Bitcoin realize Bitcoin2 is superior and realize they should do something. They fork Bitcoin2 into a new cryptocurrency called Bitcoin3 which is identical to Bitcoin2, except it preserves the original Bitcoin blockchain.

That assumption isn't necessarily possible. The advances might not be able to be incorporated into the Bitcoin block chain for technical and/or vested interests reasons.

[go1111111]

That assumption isn't necessarily possible. The advances might not be able to be incorporated into the Bitcoin block chain for technical and/or vested interests reasons.

Even if the technology is completely different, a technical hack could be done with lots of if/else statements in the code:

if( the input transaction is of the old format )
       use this code taken mostly from the old Bitcoin code
       then convert it into an input of the new format..
else
       just use the new, incompatible code



...it'd be very hard to come up with a technological change that made that sort of hack impossible.

 

Well this might be me personally, but I see the entire layer build on top of Bitcoin, separate from Bitcoin itself. Because all that those layers do, is build on the Bitcoin API. Where the Bitcoin client is forcibly delayed by hardforks, I don't see any reason for the infrastructure on top of it, to be so depended on specifically Bitcoin. (Hardfork means at least 6 months, before it can be enforced) While everything build on top of it, just needs to recheck all the API hooks, and can technically be ready to go again in a matter of hours/days.

I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of switching to a new coin. Look at how long it has taken Mt. Gox to add Litecoin support. Litecoin is almost identical to Bitcoin. One might think that it should take them a day or two. But there's a lot of hidden complexity if things weren't engineered from the ground up to support multiple coins. I also think 6 months is a very long estimate for a Bitcoin hard fork time, given that the Bitcoin devs would have the source code of the new coin.

[bitfreak!]

it'd be very hard to come up with a technological change that made that sort of hack impossible.

When you don't even have a complete blockchain (aka mini-blockchain) then it will be impossible.

[btc4ever]

The counter argument is that bitcoin devs/investors might not WANT the new feature that makes Bitcoin2 special, or regulators and lawmakers may exert a lot of pressure to not include it.

For example, look at zerocoin.  Supposedly they are going to launch an alt-coin that will offer real anonymity.  The bitcoin community seems to be a house divided as to whether that is desirable or not.

So maybe we end up with bitcoin that is trackable, and zerocoin that is not.  Both are valuable and have their uses.

I could see them co-existing for quite a while, though I do tend to think that a majority of people will opt for greatest fungibility in the long run.

[hieroglyph]

Well this is deep and makes my mind tickle a bit.  You make a great case and I cannot find a fault in your argument at this time.  Kind of gutted right now that I didn't get in on the last rally but what are you gonna do it is what it is.

[Anon136]

No i think this is wrong. The coin that surpasses bitcoin, if a coin surpasses bitcoin, will be one that discovers a better proof scheme than proof of work.

[stompix]

That is nothing new sorry (I commend you for coming up with it on your own though).  It has been a long standing contingency since the inception of bitcoin that allows you to do exactly that.

The idea is that if a SHA256 vulnerability if found (doubtful) or quantum computers or even super intelligent aliens arrive that can hash in their head breaking bitcoin security, we can just swap out the engine and keep going.  Litecoin is an example of an engine swap (SCRYPT) among other things.

Neil

If a SHA256 vulnerability is found the coming months / years , I doubt bitcoin will be our biggest problem.

[Peter R]

Any cryptocurrency that succeeds in replacing Bitcoin will use the Bitcoin blockchain. Here's why:

Suppose a new cryptocurrency comes out which is a significant advancement over Bitcoin (something no existing altcoin can claim), call it Bitcoin2. Let's say Bitcoin2 uses a new blockchain. People invested in Bitcoin realize Bitcoin2 is superior and realize they should do something. They fork Bitcoin2 into a new cryptocurrency called Bitcoin3 which is identical to Bitcoin2, except it preserves the original Bitcoin blockchain.

Now people have a choice as to whether to use Bitcoin2 or Bitcoin3. Which one will people use? The people who are working on building the current Bitcoin infrastructure are heavily invested in the existing blockchain. These are some of the smartest cryptocurrency experts/developers/entrepreneurs in the world, and the cryptocurrency that they back will have a huge advantage.  Businesses and consumers will feel more comfortable with a currency developed and supported by the same people and businesses who brought us Bitcoin if there's no longer any technical reason to favor another coin. So Bitcoin3 will win out.

Another way to think of this is: is it harder for the smart people working on Bitcoin to clone a technical advancement from another coin, or is it harder for the founders of another coin to build something replicating Bitcoin's infrastructure and community?

Agree go11111111.  I (and many others) have said similar things over the months/years.  But it is always good to re-start this discussion because it is an important realization for people new to bitcoin to come to.  

The blockchain will be preserved.

[Rokund]

That assumption isn't necessarily possible. The advances might not be able to be incorporated into the Bitcoin block chain for technical and/or vested interests reasons.

Even if the technology is completely different, a technical hack could be done with lots of if/else statements in the code:

if( the input transaction is of the old format )
       use this code taken mostly from the old Bitcoin code
       then convert it into an input of the new format..
else
       just use the new, incompatible code



...it'd be very hard to come up with a technological change that made that sort of hack impossible.

 

Well this might be me personally, but I see the entire layer build on top of Bitcoin, separate from Bitcoin itself. Because all that those layers do, is build on the Bitcoin API. Where the Bitcoin client is forcibly delayed by hardforks, I don't see any reason for the infrastructure on top of it, to be so depended on specifically Bitcoin. (Hardfork means at least 6 months, before it can be enforced) While everything build on top of it, just needs to recheck all the API hooks, and can technically be ready to go again in a matter of hours/days.

I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of switching to a new coin. Look at how long it has taken Mt. Gox to add Litecoin support. Litecoin is almost identical to Bitcoin. One might think that it should take them a day or two. But there's a lot of hidden complexity if things weren't engineered from the ground up to support multiple coins. I also think 6 months is a very long estimate for a Bitcoin hard fork time, given that the Bitcoin devs would have the source code of the new coin.

I think we can use another way to include Bitcoin block chain in Bitcoin3 with lower complexity.
The new Bitcoin3 can have a protocol compatible with Bitcoin network and accept to exchange your Bitcoin into Bitcoin3 with 1:1 exchange rate.
The protocol defined a plain text and valid Bitcoin address like 1YouCanGetBitcoin3BySendBitcoinHere to ensure that no one owns its private key.
And if bitcoin owner send bitcoin to this black hole address, Bitcoin3 protocol will create new Bitcoin3 coin and bind to the owner's Bitcoin3 address.
Then the new Bitcoin3 coin can run a completely new block chain or blockcahin-like structure and any other crypt algorithms.

[W2014]

Mastercoin, but it will enhance not replace Bitcoin.

http://www.mastercoin.org/

[Rokund]

Mastercoin, but it will enhance not replace Bitcoin.

http://www.mastercoin.org/

I don't think the private key of the "Exodus Address" of mastercoin was not owned by anyone.
So this is the difference between mastercoin and Bitcoin3 I mentioned.

[go1111111]

The counter argument is that bitcoin devs/investors might not WANT the new feature that makes Bitcoin2 special, or regulators and lawmakers may exert a lot of pressure to not include it.

For example, look at zerocoin.  Supposedly they are going to launch an alt-coin that will offer real anonymity.  The bitcoin community seems to be a house divided as to whether that is desirable or not.

The Bitcoin devs wouldn't need to be involved in the zerocoin fork which preserves the Bitcoin blockchain, although it would help (as described on the OP). In your case, there would be three coins: Bitcoin, Zerocoin, and BZcoin (zerocoin technology with bitcoin blockchain). Assume you're a Bitcoin user who cares a lot about anonymity. All your current holdings are in bitcoins, but you know you want to switch to either Zerocoin or BZcoin. There's a built-in advantage for you to go with BZCoin if you already have a decent number of bitcoins, because you automatically have bzcoins for "free."

Btw, I know the Zerocoin blockchain is totally different than the Bitcoin blockchain, but I'd be surprised if there weren't some way to allow people with Bitcoin private keys to claim bzcoins.

No i think this is wrong. The coin that surpasses bitcoin, if a coin surpasses bitcoin, will be one that discovers a better proof scheme than proof of work.

The point is that a clone of this hypothetical coin with a better proof of work which preserved the blockchain would outcompete a version that didn't preserve the Bitcoin blockchain.

I think we can use another way to include Bitcoin block chain in Bitcoin3 with lower complexity.
The new Bitcoin3 can have a protocol compatible with Bitcoin network and accept to exchange your Bitcoin into Bitcoin3 with 1:1 exchange rate.
The protocol defined a plain text and valid Bitcoin address like 1YouCanGetBitcoin3BySendBitcoinHere to ensure that no one owns its private key.
And if bitcoin owner send bitcoin to this black hole address, Bitcoin3 protocol will create new Bitcoin3 coin and bind to the owner's Bitcoin3 address.
Then the new Bitcoin3 coin can run a completely new block chain or blockcahin-like structure and any other crypt algorithms.

Interesting idea!

[Cryptolator]

That is nothing new sorry (I commend you for coming up with it on your own though).  It has been a long standing contingency since the inception of bitcoin that allows you to do exactly that.

The idea is that if a SHA256 vulnerability if found (doubtful) or quantum computers or even super intelligent aliens arrive that can hash in their head breaking bitcoin security, we can just swap out the engine and keep going.  Litecoin is an example of an engine swap (SCRYPT) among other things.

Neil

If a SHA256 vulnerability is found the coming months / years , I doubt bitcoin will be our biggest problem.

True !

[Sindelar1938]

Great point and one which needs to be spoken about more
Still confusing to a lot of people