*** THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT TELEVISED : BTC FAILED. A NEW BTC MUST BE BORN ***

[simbakamoto]

Without any doubt, the BIGGEST error of any project that is a fork of BTC is to automatically allocate coins to BTC holders. Many good projects started in an attempt to correct 2009-btc shortcomings.

Dear All, btc, as it stands today, failed Satoshi vision. BTC has become a CENTRALIZED system in the hands of few powerfull miners. The digital central banks I call them. BTC does NOT and will never hold Satoshi vision of "one cpu, one vote". We just created yet another centralized system. It is not a currency of the people by the people.

When automatically allocating new project coins to BTC holders, remember that BTC miners will systematically get lot of free coins without any effort and they do not want any competitor to BTC and their power, so they will concert and DUMP the new coins at a strategic moment and kill the project in its ascension. Or at the very least, significantly slow it down. Big mistake of any project forked from BTC!

It is high time for a revolution, a new truelly decentralized BTC for the people by the people. It that must achieve at least two things:

1) true decentralization by holding Satoshi vision of "one CPU, one vote" thus it should be GPU, FPGA and ASIC unfriendly.

2) it should be launched with no premining, but well advertized in advance for people to be ready to participate to give equal opportunity to the people.

3) take into account emerging threats like quantum computing by integrating from the start post quantum cryptography, otherwise it is doomed and born to fail when state actors (US, China, ?) will have enough quantum firepower to burry it should the new decentralized system become a threat to their power and centralized system.

AUX ARMES CITOYENS, A LA BASTILLE!!!

[NeuroticFish]

It is high time for a revolution, a new truelly decentralized BTC for the people by the people.

1. We don't care about the fork coins. Since they are not part of this consensus, they are not part of this blockchain, hence they are altcoins.
2. You are free to make your "revolution", your altcoin and see whether it will have success or not. Just please be kind and not call it Bitcoin "whatever".
3. There do exist altcoins that are at least ASIC resistant. And while they do exist for many years, they are still far from Bitcoin's success. But again, you are welcome to do better.

[Charles-Tim]

Without any doubt, the BIGGEST error of any project that is a fork of BTC is to automatically allocate coins to BTC holders.

Hardforks make bitcoin to be decentralized.

Many good projects started in an attempt to correct 2009-btc shortcomings.

That is why they are centralized. That is why many are scam.

Dear All, btc, as it stands today, failed Satoshi vision. BTC has become a CENTRALIZED system in the hands of few powerfull miners. The digital central banks I call them. BTC does NOT and will never hold Satoshi vision of "one cpu, one vote". We just created yet another centralized system. It is not a currency of the people by the people.

With this, I can not read you post further, all I can encourage you to do is to read more about bitcoin mining, what mining pool is and reaad more about bitcoin. Do not get it wrongly while reading like you are now.

3. There do exist altcoins that are at least ASIC resistant. And while they do exist for many years, they are still far from Bitcoin's success. But again, you are welcome to do better.

Maybe he wants bitcoin to be mined with something cheap so that bitcoin can be cheap and be of low value. 

[Poker Player]

-snip

I'm guessing you didn't write this to make us laugh, but at least in my case, you succeeded.

Now let's assume you're serious. Why should we listen to you? There have been many debates on how to develop Bitcoin and in some cases resulted in hard forks. If your ideas are so good, propose them to see if another hard fork is done, but I bet your idea would end up being a shitcoin cash or something like that.

Of course Bitcoin is much more decentralized than the banking system or the thousands of shitcoins out there. It is not 100% decentralized? So what? Nothing is perfect.

Anyway, I'll let you stop by the Bastille and I'll continue to accumulate Bitcoin in the meantime.

[Lucius]

2) it should be launched with no premining, but well advertized in advance for people to be ready to participate to give equal opportunity to the people.

I will refer only to this sentence because I believe that it contains the essence of what you consider a problem when proposing a new alternative Bitcoin. I wouldn’t agree that not all people were given the opportunity to participate in Bitcoin from the start, but the problem was that very few people at the time believed that something like this could work, because similar projects like B-money or Bit Gold were presented back in 1998, but they remained just an idea. Whether people believed it was a scam, Ponzi, or that the thing would fall apart within a year, the fact was that they didn't believe Bitcoin would succeed until the moment when the price crossed $1000 - and even then Bitcoin didn't get too much public attention.

Your view of the situation is not something isolated, many believe they are deprived of what they call "fair distribution", but no one has forbidden us to mine BTC during 2009 nor does it prevent us today. Bitcoin has never been a charity project in which everyone should get their share, but as others have already mentioned - if you want to do something like that, you should know that so far there have been 105 official projects called Bitcoin forks, and none can be called successful, try to understand why this is so

[mk4]

Satoshi's vision of "one CPU, one vote" was too good to be true; and ASICs was pretty much bound to happen when mining interest increased. What can we do to prevent ASICs anyway? Police them? lmao. There's nothing we can do in this front without having a centralized authority.

[Slow death]

another revolutionary, I understand your point, but it is necessary to see that at this point where the market is already open, there is no way to put your points into practice, we are in a very large market where people are free to take their money and buy great equipment mining or they can choose what currency they want to buy in. So I don't see any reason to go back to talking about the same problem as in the past.

[masterrex]

IMHO, honestly, I was tired of reading this so-called revolution in Bitcoin since 2017 they fork it to do better, but what was the result most of it is failed and turned into a scam that's why I don't believe this so-called revolution anymore its all about money and nothing else. Bitcoin already exists and there is only one Bitcoin and then why do they want to create more? they have bombarded Bitcoin with their never-ending issues, Anyway improving Bitcoin is a welcome idea as long as it will solve the current problems and there's no need to create a new one.       

[DooMAD]

One issue which the proponents of ASIC-resistance generally fail to acknowledge, or raise any proposals to remedy, is the existence of botnets. 

If you did somehow manage to create a coin that is only profitable to mine with CPUs, some unscrupulous individual will start spreading a virus to hijack a bunch of PCs all over the world and use them to covertly mine the ASIC-resistant coin.  If you infect enough devices, you naturally mine a lot of blocks.  It also creates a strong incentive to attack the network, because someone could quite easily gain a majority of the hashrate during the coin's infancy when it doesn't have as many users as a mature and battle-hardened coin.

Even if you believe mining pools and ASICs to be somehow immoral, I would argue they're still far more open and honest compared to people seeking to gain an unfair advantage by infecting devices with malware.  You are effectively guaranteeing that a larger sum of coins will end up in the hands of criminals and cheats and not in the hands of the honest users.

Until anyone can find a solution to that problem, there is no doubt in my mind that CPU-mineable coins are inherently weaker than Bitcoin.

[simbakamoto]

It's inevitable! whining won't stop it...

[DooMAD]

It's inevitable! whining won't stop it...

Uh-huh.  Cool.  Was there a coherent argument somewhere in there that I missed?  Because I've definitely heard people spouting the same nonsense before.  If it was "inevitable" 6 or 7 years ago, then I don't think it somehow became more inevitable since then.