What are the chances BTC is replaced by something better soon?

[thetruth]

There exists the real authority on this subject: Satoshi Nakamoto. This anonymous entity can answer your questions in greater detail. I would also like to hear from him.

[1714903001]

1714903001

[1714903001]

1714903001

[1714903001]

1714903001

[keithers]

I hate to say it, but IMO, the only companies with the resources to build a competitor to bitcoin are probably google, microsoft, and apple.  All of which are probablt researching this internally already.

[Morguk]

I hate to say it, but IMO, the only companies with the resources to build a competitor to bitcoin are probably google, microsoft, and apple.  All of which are probablt researching this internally already.

It won't work because it will be created by an entity that can be attached and taken to court. Bitcoin is decentralized and this can't happen.

[giveBTCpls]

Bitcoin was first to market. It will take something to go seriously wrong with it for another coin to take number one spot.

Facebook, Google and so on are your examples.
It won't get replaced.

P.S. NXT sucks.

What do you mean? Facebook replaced Myspace, Google replaced yahoo. Bitcoin is fucked.

[UltraPleb]

Can definitely see this happening, BTC was the start, it's like thinking the Model T would be the only car to be used in the future because it was the first.

[larem]

Can definitely see this happening, BTC was the start, it's like thinking the Model T would be the only car to be used in the future because it was the first.

This is true.

We're already seeing BTCs limits when it comes to transaction speed. The other day it took over 75 minutes to get 3 blocks. Imagine trying to pay someone in the store with that.

I think something like WDC may make a push for our daily purchases. Its blocks are fast enough that we can count on it, even on regular things like going to fast food restaurants.

[Sheldor333]

At the moment people seem to be concerned with privacy a lot. In my opinion some coin that makes everything more anonymous and protects it's user could beat bitcoin, but who can say for sure, bitcoin might change.

[BitCoinNutJob]

its possible, maybe doge? lol jk

[blade87]

My only issue with BTC is how slow it is. Fix the slowness and it won't go anywhere, ever.

[thetruth]

I already mentioned the problems of cryptocurrency such as lack of alternative Internet and the use of standardized public cryptography. Let's examine the second.

Quote from the original Satoshi's paper:

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust...

Emphasis above is mine to stress the following point.
The next quote is from the web page at www.ciphersbyritter.com/GLOSSARY.HTM#Proof

Security Proofs in Practice

While the mere existence of a math security proof may inspire
hope, it should provide no confidence.
Only the fulfilled conclusion of a proof can really give confidence,
and that is only possible when all assumptions can be
guaranteed and are in fact guaranteed.
Moreover, security proofs provide confidence only for someone who
can and does ensure that each and every assumption the proof
requires is actually met in practice.
That is hardly ever possible for users.

Although a proof may seem to offer users some confidence even
with partially fulfilled assumptions, that is logically wrong.
Unless all assumptions are completely fulfilled
and absolutely guaranteed, a proof guarantees
nothing at all!
Unfortunately, the typical proof has an all-knowing "omniscient"
form that implies a context quite unlike what users have in
reality.
Real users are limited in what they can guarantee, and so generally
can not ensure the assumptions made in such proofs,
which means the proof has given them nothing at all.

In mathematics, every assumption is equally important, but in
practice, some assumptions are more equal than others.
Whereas a user just might be able to guarantee some assumptions,
others are completely outside user control.
But assumptions which cannot be controlled or verified also cannot
be trusted, which means the "proven" conclusion cannot be trusted
either.
Such a "proof" provides no basis for confidence in practice, even
though cryptography often claims otherwise.

Academic Proof

In academic cryptography there are many "proofs" in the sense of the second definition above: the proof process, not the result. These proofs (2) make assumptions, and their results are true only if all their assumptions are true, but usually that is not proven, nor even provable. In a real sense, these proofs are best described as lemmas for the desired theorems of reality which do not (and probably cannot) exist. Note that a mathematical proof (2) is considered valid, and can be considered important, even if the assumptions in it cannot be achieved in practice.

A cryptographic proof (2) can be more difficult to understand than outsiders might think. Only rarely is there a clear statement of every assumption which the author of the proof thinks has been made. Sometimes, some of the assumptions needed in proofs are hidden (such as those implicit in the use of particular operations with which an outsider may be unfamiliar), but even hidden asumptions must be fullfilled for the proof to "work." The inability to decide whether all assumptions have been exposed and fullfilled makes proofs difficult to depend upon in practice.

Moreover, a cryptographic proof (2) may use terms of art which can be deceptive in not having the same meaning as the exact same phrase in more general cryptography. This problem of meaning carries through to the conclusion, where a language description of the results may not correspond to the long-accepted use of the exact same terms in cryptography or security.

To use a proof in actual systems, it is important to understand what it really says in the broader context of the outside world:

    Are all of the assuptions known? (Can we prove that?)
    Can all the assumptions be guaranteed? (Can we prove that in an implemented system?)
    Are the guaranteed results really what we need?

There is no "proof" that using any particular cipher (such as DES or AES) improves security over using no cipher at all. This is because a user cannot know if the cipher is being broken by an opponent in secret. And if the cipher is being broken, using that cipher is probably worse than having no cipher at all, because users will be mislead into not taking even ordinary precautions. (The possibility of repeatedly using a broken cipher can be addressed by multiple encryption and by having and using many different ciphers.)

Unfortunately, often someone will see an academic result and say: "A cipher using this technique is proven secure." Usually, such a statement is false. When we say "secure" we are talking about a final result, not a process which may or may not end in that result. No cipher is proven secure in practice, and only a very few (generally inefficient) ciphers are proven to depend upon some fairly well examined math problem which has not been solved.

Sometimes the situation is even worse: Sometimes, a ciphering technique will be said to be secure, provided the underlying cipher is secure. But since we cannot know whether the underlying cipher really is secure, the argument seems to be a form of circular reasoning: We cannot tell whether the enabling assumption is true until we know the outcome, and, in cryptography, we generally cannot expect to know the outcome. And if we somehow do know the outcome, we do not need the proof! Such a proof adds nothing at all to practical security.

Mathematical proofs may change and develop over time; see: Method of Proof and Refutations. Also see the Triple-DES is Proven to be Very Secure? discussion (locally, or @: http://www.ciphersbyritter.com/NEWS5/PROVSEC.HTM) and my IEEE Computer article "Cryptography: Is Staying with the Herd Really Best?" (Copyright 1999, IEEE) (locally, or @: http://www.ciphersbyritter.com/ARTS/R8INTW1.PDF). Also see the short article by: Devlin, K. 2003. "2003: Mathematicians Face Uncertainty." Discover. 25(1): 36. January, 2004.

[jbreher]

And after all that solipsistic bullshit: I can accept that the ciphers underlying bitcoin may not be provably secure. What I cannot accept is your bald unsupported assertion that TPTB already possess the ability to algorithmically reverse the encryption used in bitcoin.

Again - ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE would go far in convincing me your statement may have merit. Yet you are, this far, either unwilling or unable to provide such example. My money's on the latter.

[thetruth]

When an ordinary person makes a claim, they can be honestly wrong. But when a trained expert in the field makes a claim that we know cannot be supported, and continues to make such claims, we are pretty well forced into seeing that as either professional incompetence or deliberate deceit. Encouraging people to use only one cipher by claiming they need nothing else is exactly what one would expect from an opponent who knows how to break the cipher. Maybe that is just coincidence.

http://www.ciphersbyritter.com/GLOSSARY.HTM#CryptoControversies

[jabo38]

Many people think that bitcoin is unbeatable because it is soooo "big".  Let's remember though that bitcoin is a payment system, and right now of any market it effectively has a "0%" market share.  Visa and Mastercard do more in 5 minutes than bitcoin does in a year.  So yeah, there is still a lot of time and room for another coin to be established in the future, challenge, and then smash bitcoin.  It has a big start, but if a truly revolutionary alternative comes around that is faster, safer, more efficient and has more versatility, well...... Has any coin done that yet?  Not even close, most are just cheap clones of bitcoin saying they are doing the above, but not really doing it.  Is it faster? 10 minutes to 1 minute?  Okay, yes, but not that big of a deal.  Higher encryption??? Has bitcoins encryption been an issue?  More efficient??  NxT does address the issues of waster computer power and electricity, but is that going to be enough?  More options?  Lots of coins say they are going to implement more options, but has this really changed the game?  Not really.  Still...... again, if a code comes around that is faster, safer, more efficient and more versatile and it manages to capture even 0.1% of financial transactions, it will still be magnitudes larger than bitcoin, and much more powerful.   

[sexydh80]

However, any substantial change to Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency requires a hard fork, which is functionally equivalent to creating a new cryptocurrency form scratch and convincing holders of the old units to swap them out for new ones.

[lophie]

The market should first have an idea what cryptocurrencies worth to begin with, fluctuations we understand but the market is Not stable, what I mean by stable is a stable range of market cap or an apparent stable growth in market cap of combined major cryptos that main cryptos worth. Whatevrr happens with a coin like bitcoin will only drive users to other chain suiting thier usage.

Wyen that time comes it will be really irrelevent which crypto steal market share from another, We would have successfully stolen a decent portion of fiat market share, and that is the goal since day 0.

But regarding Bitcoin, it already started happening and this is clear on Nxt and Mnc, maybe a bit on litecoin. Which is the observation that these particular cryptos did not move in btc price even though Btc fell drastically, recently.

Just Lophie's opinion.

[kies1107]

These are the main issues that worry me... not shit like China banning bitcoin, or USA trying to regulate bitcoin... all that is expected. Every government and federal banks (basically the real crooks) should see bitcoin as a threat and for good reason.

[cybershawrk]

The awesome part about bitcoin is the anonnymity but it's also the thing that gives it such a bad rap by the media I wonder how long bitcoins will be around from here on out.

[hamiltino]

The awesome part about bitcoin is the anonnymity but it's also the thing that gives it such a bad rap by the media I wonder how long bitcoins will be around from here on out.

No bitcoins anonymity is not good at all. Zerocoin is aiming to fix this and a few others.

[adicted]

Theres nothing better than Bitcoin now other than Dogecoin and Litecoin

[marcotheminer]

NXT will destroy all

Doge coin? Butt seriously bitcoin will always stay around