What would a new coin need to overtake bitcoin

[AnonyMint]

3) bitcoin has anonymity until you want to exchange it for FIAT. same will happen with any altcoin that wants some actual purpose

Bullshit. Bitcoin has no reliable anonymity even when used with Tor+VPN. The only way to be surely anonymous is connect to the internet in a way that the connection can not be associated with you such as a different netcafe or a new unregistered mobile device and sim card every time you transact.

Since most people aren't doing that, Bitcoin can be easily taken over by the government. End of story.

And Bitcoin can't be fixed, here is why:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455141.msg5723957#msg5723957

[Trillium]

Re: What would a new coin need to overtake bitcoin

This reminds me of an argument between two young siblings, where one wonders when they'll be older (and "better" at everything) than the other.

[AnonyMint]

Re: What would a new coin need to overtake bitcoin

This reminds me of an argument between two young siblings, where one wonders when they'll be older (and "better" at everything) than the other.

That is so intelligent. Compare two rocks, the smaller of which isn't only a rock, and state the bigger rock is better at doing things rocks don't do. Notwithstanding that smaller rocks can do things bigger rocks can't.

[eightspaces]

What features that are improved over bitcoin will allow a new coin to ultimately dethrone the king.

Only three things:

1.) a great name meaning value to every human since the dawn of time.
2.) a developer with mad satoshi-like skills.
3.) a growing and peaceful community.

.. for more information go here >>> http://gldcoin.com

ROFLMAO

the "goldcoin" you posted is the opposite of your points, lolololokl

[Mjbmonetarymetals]

Dethroning Bitcoin will be the media's dream come true "kumquatcoin takes bitcoins crown" cryptocurrrency will become a complete hyper inflated laughing stock including everybody involved in it.

This would set the stage that all top tier crypto's to get their 5 minutes of fame only to be replaced and forgotten. Rinse and repeat.

Bitcoin and if you want an altcoin it's litecoin supporting this foundation is critical.

[marine4u]

Marinecoin already took over Bitcoin in Market cap, and its merchant integration strategy is far more realistic and easy to apply.

from now on all Bitcoin will do is just decrease in value. ecommerce crypto does not rely on bitcoin due to exchange activity, any respected crypto
will be and can be used just like bitcoin the same way to purchase stuff on and off line.

[Brangdon]

Are you suggesting that all miners hate regulation so much that truth and liberty is their prime directive?

No. I'm saying there is demand for a global currency, and that regulation is inherently centralised, and therefore a global currency can't be regulated. A government may well succeed in creating a regulated crypto-currency, but that won't kill Bitcoin because it won't be accepted in parts of the world that don't trust the government that created it.

(I don't really hate regulation myself, by the way. I think it will happen to Bitcoin, but as a layer on top, not as part of the core protocol. Each government will regulate how bitcoin are converted to the local fiat, for example. Exchanges are already subject to "know your customer" laws, and they might be required to carry insurance against loss. Local regulations, different in each country, and there will always be countries that allow unregulated exchanges so it will always be optional.)

I can imagine (call me cynical) that the prime directive for many will be profit,

As I already explained, the more miners switch to the new currency, the more profit is made by the ones that don't switch. So profits will keep some mining Bitcoin, as long as the currency itself has value. If Bitcoin fails, miners switching will be a symptom, not a cause.

That's why I think you have this backwards. A government-backed crypto-currency would be a threat in the same way that an Amazon-backed one would be. Nothing to do with regulation or deep pockets to bribe miners with, just people believing that the new coins would be more spendable. If the users switch, the miners will follow.

Miners don't influence users much. People don't prefer Bitcoin because it has more miners. The influence goes the other way. Miners are paid in the coin they are mining, so if the currency is worthless (because no users) the miners won't bother with it. They might mine a few if they think it might become valuable later, but that's speculation. We've seen time after time that having miners is not enough to guarantee an alt-coin success, because it's not the miners who create the value. It's the users.

[roslinpl]

What features that are improved over bitcoin will allow a new coin to ultimately dethrone the king.

Only three things:

1.) a great name meaning value to every human since the dawn of time.
2.) a developer with mad satoshi-like skills.
3.) a growing and peaceful community.

.. for more information go here >>> http://gldcoin.com

ROFLMAO

the "goldcoin" you posted is the opposite of your points, lolololokl

hehe

I love point 2) Satoshi-likr skills
Omg

Huston ... we have a problem

[ashapasa]

Are you suggesting that all miners hate regulation so much that truth and liberty is their prime directive?

No. I'm saying there is demand for a global currency, and that regulation is inherently centralised, and therefore a global currency can't be regulated. A government may well succeed in creating a regulated crypto-currency, but that won't kill Bitcoin because it won't be accepted in parts of the world that don't trust the government that created it.

(I don't really hate regulation myself, by the way. I think it will happen to Bitcoin, but as a layer on top, not as part of the core protocol. Each government will regulate how bitcoin are converted to the local fiat, for example. Exchanges are already subject to "know your customer" laws, and they might be required to carry insurance against loss. Local regulations, different in each country, and there will always be countries that allow unregulated exchanges so it will always be optional.)

I can imagine (call me cynical) that the prime directive for many will be profit,

As I already explained, the more miners switch to the new currency, the more profit is made by the ones that don't switch. So profits will keep some mining Bitcoin, as long as the currency itself has value. If Bitcoin fails, miners switching will be a symptom, not a cause.

That's why I think you have this backwards. A government-backed crypto-currency would be a threat in the same way that an Amazon-backed one would be. Nothing to do with regulation or deep pockets to bribe miners with, just people believing that the new coins would be more spendable. If the users switch, the miners will follow.

Miners don't influence users much. People don't prefer Bitcoin because it has more miners. The influence goes the other way. Miners are paid in the coin they are mining, so if the currency is worthless (because no users) the miners won't bother with it. They might mine a few if they think it might become valuable later, but that's speculation. We've seen time after time that having miners is not enough to guarantee an alt-coin success, because it's not the miners who create the value. It's the users.

very well reasoned

[MicroGuy]

Goldcoin is probably going to be THE game changer.


Warning: Off Topic

What am I listening to at the moment? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBIJohYSR3g

[g4c]

Are you suggesting that all miners hate regulation so much that truth and liberty is their prime directive?

No. I'm saying there is demand for a global currency, and that regulation is inherently centralised, and therefore a global currency can't be regulated. A government may well succeed in creating a regulated crypto-currency, but that won't kill Bitcoin because it won't be accepted in parts of the world that don't trust the government that created it.

(I don't really hate regulation myself, by the way. I think it will happen to Bitcoin, but as a layer on top, not as part of the core protocol. Each government will regulate how bitcoin are converted to the local fiat, for example. Exchanges are already subject to "know your customer" laws, and they might be required to carry insurance against loss. Local regulations, different in each country, and there will always be countries that allow unregulated exchanges so it will always be optional.)

I can imagine (call me cynical) that the prime directive for many will be profit,

As I already explained, the more miners switch to the new currency, the more profit is made by the ones that don't switch. So profits will keep some mining Bitcoin, as long as the currency itself has value. If Bitcoin fails, miners switching will be a symptom, not a cause.

That's why I think you have this backwards. A government-backed crypto-currency would be a threat in the same way that an Amazon-backed one would be. Nothing to do with regulation or deep pockets to bribe miners with, just people believing that the new coins would be more spendable. If the users switch, the miners will follow.

Miners don't influence users much. People don't prefer Bitcoin because it has more miners. The influence goes the other way. Miners are paid in the coin they are mining, so if the currency is worthless (because no users) the miners won't bother with it. They might mine a few if they think it might become valuable later, but that's speculation. We've seen time after time that having miners is not enough to guarantee an alt-coin success, because it's not the miners who create the value. It's the users.

Yes, very well reasoned. I guess I'm just VERY cynical with the status quo, I've known many people over the years profess to want a better way, only to see them join the ratrace and become zombified and apathetic, maybe there's something in the water?

I still think you underestimate the userbase (subjects of the government) size that follows the yellow brick road without too much thinking going on, were talking large numbers, it makes current cryptocoin userbase look like a weekend meetup group.

But thumbs up and keep on truckin'!

[Brangdon]

Perhaps another change would be to an inflationary policy. A lot of economists think a steady inflation rate of 1% or 2% is good for the economy, to stop people hoarding coins and to encourage investment. Without getting into the argument of whether they are right to think that, a new coin with such a policy hardwired might attract a lot of support in some circles.

It might also attract miners, who would presumably continue to get a high block reward for mining, while keeping transaction fees low. In effect, the people who hold onto their coins would be subsidising, via inflation, the people who spend them. The low transaction fees would make the altcoin attractive to users and the high block rewards would make it attractive to miners, and the inflation would make it attractive to economists who believe that inflation is good provided it is low and predictable. Everyone wins.

(Apart from savers.)