Say no to maximalism

[legiteum]

Unfortunately even in this case the token issuers can be dishonest and achieve the same result. If there is an ICO, they can simply sell meme tokens to themselves. At least if the payment is anonymous -- or if the KYC is done by the issuers themselves.

The only way to prevent this really is to distribute the coin via mining or validation (like Doge) from the start or via PoS. If mining is not an option, premine a relatively small part and then distributing the rest via PoS is a possibility, although in this case of course the founders will likely participate in the PoS as well.

Or the whole distribution is done via an IEO or another centralized platform with KYC. However, there are many reasons such distributions are also not really ideal. I'd still prefer Doge's model.

Interesting stuff. I'm certainly taking notes on these ideas for our project! Our goal is to provide a safe, fair, scalable platform for memecoins

[Abiky]

Maximalism is the mindset that your project is the only valid one. This approach leads to a refusal to consider new information. It is dogmatic and somewhat intellectually limiting, in my opinion. And I have encountered it several times in this forum.

Bitcoin maximalists tend to dismiss the perspectives of those outside Bitcoin. While I respect the economic tenets of Bitcoin, such as digital scarcity, the superiority complex should not overshadow technical discussions. Bitcoin is not inherently superior to other cryptocurrencies like Monero or Litecoin; it simply has its own trade-offs.

However, there's more to consider. Bitcoin embodies the free-market ideals envisioned by Austrian economists, who would likely support a market of competing currencies. To me, that means Bitcoin embraces this variety of cryptocurrencies. Being a Bitcoin maximalist is actually contrary to the spirit of Bitcoin, because it involves unwavering support for Bitcoin, when you should be skeptical and rigorous in examining its potential weaknesses. We move forward in life by addressing our flaws, not by celebrating our achievements. As Charles Darwin said,

It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.

Don't be myopic and dogmatic. Say no to maximalism.

There's a reason why some people choose to be a "Bitcoin Maximalist". Around 99% of altcoins are nothing but centralized. Even when many of them have "superior features", none of them can outmatch the level of security/reliability of the original cryptocurrency (BTC). I don't identify myself as a "Bitcoin Maximalist", simply because I enjoy using Litecoin, Dogecoin, and Monero. But I always steer clear from centralized "shitcoins" that bring no value to the crypto industry. They're usually driven by hype. Solana, XRP, and the likes are one of them.

Ethereum used to be great back then, but the switch to PoS "killed it". It joined the ranks of other centralized "shitcoins". The more centralized the industry becomes, the more people will become Bitcoin maximalists. Perhaps, BTC will take over the world in the future? Only time will tell.

[tread93]

Maximalism is the mindset that your project is the only valid one. This approach leads to a refusal to consider new information. It is dogmatic and somewhat intellectually limiting, in my opinion. And I have encountered it several times in this forum.

Bitcoin maximalists tend to dismiss the perspectives of those outside Bitcoin. While I respect the economic tenets of Bitcoin, such as digital scarcity, the superiority complex should not overshadow technical discussions. Bitcoin is not inherently superior to other cryptocurrencies like Monero or Litecoin; it simply has its own trade-offs.

However, there's more to consider. Bitcoin embodies the free-market ideals envisioned by Austrian economists, who would likely support a market of competing currencies. To me, that means Bitcoin embraces this variety of cryptocurrencies. Being a Bitcoin maximalist is actually contrary to the spirit of Bitcoin, because it involves unwavering support for Bitcoin, when you should be skeptical and rigorous in examining its potential weaknesses. We move forward in life by addressing our flaws, not by celebrating our achievements. As Charles Darwin said,

It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.

Don't be myopic and dogmatic. Say no to maximalism.

I really love this synopsis and the Darwin quote at the end. I do think a lot of folks on here are Bitcoin maxis but then again there are a lot that aren’t too. Certainly there are pros and cons to each currency and the crypto currency market has a place for everyone. I do think Bitcoin will always have the majority market dominance though.

[Marvell1]

...

If you spend time on the WO thread, you will find a lot of Bitcoin Maximalists who cannot tolerate alts. I don't know why, but if someone posts something out of Bitcoin in the WO thread, they get attacked by Bitcoin Maximalist. It's probably because the thread is all about Bitcoin, and they don't want to see off-topic things. But, as you may know, the WO thread is different, and many people have a lot of off-topics, so the thread is not moderated anymore. I don't have a problem with Bitcoin maximalists; I believe I was similar at some point. But I don't like the way they treat other people.

Yes, sometimes they treat altcoin investors a bit too much and I have seen it a few times but like I said, everyone's opinion is different. If we don't want to argue with them, we can just ignore them, that's it. Arguing about who is right and who is wrong will not make us or them better, and don't forget what our goal is when entering this market. We are here to make a profit, not to prove right or wrong, and arguing is not profitable. Therefore, I choose to ignore it if I feel the debate is not having good results.
In addition in investing, the results will be the best answer, so we should use the results to talk, not argue endlessly.

[Learn Bitcoin]

Yes, sometimes they treat altcoin investors a bit too much and I have seen it a few times but like I said, everyone's opinion is different. If we don't want to argue with them, we can just ignore them, that's it. Arguing about who is right and who is wrong will not make us or them better, and don't forget what our goal is when entering this market. We are here to make a profit, not to prove right or wrong, and arguing is not profitable. Therefore, I choose to ignore it if I feel the debate is not having good results.
In addition in investing, the results will be the best answer, so we should use the results to talk, not argue endlessly.

If you ever posted anything related to altcoins in the WO thread, I believe JJG never missed to criticize you because of that. I am not complaining about that because the WO thread is for Bitcoin speculation, and if you post something about other coins/tokens, that will be off-topic there. But, honestly, I don't know why everyone attacks someone when someone posts about altcoins.

I never managed to understand what is the reason. I thought it was because of the forum rules. Probably, those people did not know about off-topic rules. Another thing is that whoever writes posts about Altcoins in the WO thread is either a merit farmer or doesn't know that it is frowned upon by the WO thread gangs.

[justdimin]

There are solutions to each of these issues, in particular the token being pre-mined, and the number of tokens outstanding thus being well-known to the buyers. Even better, an entire platform dedicated to low-end memecoins that are easy for consumers to understand and have well-defined rules that apply the same way for every coin on the platform such that users only have to learn the rules once for potentially thousands of different coins--and a platform dedicated to keeping things fair and fraud-free for users (sorta like how eBay is in the business of making things fair for buyers and sellers).

Unfortunately, there are way too many people who end up with a lot of issues and because of that we are going to end up with results that will not be profitable all that easily and this is why we are going to end up with a result that will not be steady, it will keep being volatile and there is nothing that we can do right now we should be considering the situation as sensitive.

If we keep on making money this way then we are going to see a lot of people make wild investments during this period we should be considering just making investments into things that makes sense and not really push us further, if we can do that then we are going to make that much more profit but if we are not careful then we are going to lose a lot more money. Just keep it at bitcoin or other stuff, otherwise it is not going to be that easy to handle, we are talking about strong coins and if you do that then you will be fine but if you invest into these memes then you won't.

[NotATether]

Bitcoin is plain and simple. It doesn't have any of those fancy tokens, premines, ICOs, NFTs or any of that unwanted get-rich-quick schemes that you will find in other coins such as Ethereum.

And it's a testament to the usefulness of coins like Bitcoin, Ethereum, LTC and monero that these are the only four coins that people are talking about in the context of actually using cryptocurrency (i.e. not money-making).

The rest have a very bad stench on them to the general public, reeking of get-rich-quick schemes I mentioned above

Just because "you can't pay for your coffee in Bitcoin" doesn't mean that work isn't being put in to fix that.

You can support Bitcoin without opposing all other coins.

[fuguebtc]

There's a reason why some people choose to be a "Bitcoin Maximalist". Around 99% of altcoins are nothing but centralized. Even when many of them have "superior features", none of them can outmatch the level of security/reliability of the original cryptocurrency (BTC). I don't identify myself as a "Bitcoin Maximalist", simply because I enjoy using Litecoin, Dogecoin, and Monero. But I always steer clear from centralized "shitcoins" that bring no value to the crypto industry. They're usually driven by hype. Solana, XRP, and the likes are one of them.

Ethereum used to be great back then, but the switch to PoS "killed it". It joined the ranks of other centralized "shitcoins". The more centralized the industry becomes, the more people will become Bitcoin maximalists. Perhaps, BTC will take over the world in the future? Only time will tell.

If talking about technology, altcoin investors have never denied anything from bitcoin, they all admit that bitcoin is the king of the market and no one will be able to replace it. But not everyone joins this market because of technology, I believe up to 90% of people come here for profit. Therefore, there is nothing wrong when they choose altcoins because clearly altcoins have a chance to bring many times better profits than bitcoin. Each person's purpose is different, so the choice will also be different.

Also, I don't believe that there will be more and more bitcoin maximalists because as I said, people's goal is profit rather than concern for technology or privacy.

[Wind_FURY]

Bitcoin is plain and simple. It doesn't have any of those fancy tokens, premines, ICOs, NFTs or any of that unwanted get-rich-quick schemes that you will find in other coins such as Ethereum.

And it's a testament to the usefulness of coins like Bitcoin, Ethereum, LTC and monero that these are the only four coins that people are talking about in the context of actually using cryptocurrency (i.e. not money-making).

The rest have a very bad stench on them to the general public, reeking of get-rich-quick schemes I mentioned above

Just because "you can't pay for your coffee in Bitcoin" doesn't mean that work isn't being put in to fix that.

You can support Bitcoin without opposing all other coins.

The fact is you could, but do you actually need to use a decentralized, censorship-resistant cryptocurrency for a mere coffee-transaction? Plus there's the consideration of like the 10,000 Bitcoin pizza, your $1.00 coffee might become worth more than $100.00 of units in Bitcoin that you paid for. I believe for financial transactions, Bitcoin should be saved to be used for more important things, like when you have no other option to send or receive value digitally because of censorship, sanctions and bans. The best examples I could post right now are the Canadian trucker's adoption of Bitcoin for donations, the Dark Markets, Ransomware payments, or any situation that gives you no other choice but Bitcoin.

[Reatim]

Maximalism is the mindset that your project is the only valid one. This approach leads to a refusal to consider new information. It is dogmatic and somewhat intellectually limiting, in my opinion. And I have encountered it several times in this forum.

Bitcoin maximalists tend to dismiss the perspectives of those outside Bitcoin. While I respect the economic tenets of Bitcoin, such as digital scarcity, the superiority complex should not overshadow technical discussions. Bitcoin is not inherently superior to other cryptocurrencies like Monero or Litecoin; it simply has its own trade-offs.

This is why you can only introduce so much of cryptocurrency to someone.

When they ask you which one is the best and which one should you invest in the answer should always be it depends on what you need. Diversification should be more encouraged. It will allow you to discover many more tech innovations and advancements that are not yet implemented in bitcoin.

Bitcoin might be the most valuable but it doesn’t make the other cryptocurrency useless already.

[legendbtc]

Maximalism is the mindset that your project is the only valid one. This approach leads to a refusal to consider new information. It is dogmatic and somewhat intellectually limiting, in my opinion. And I have encountered it several times in this forum.

Bitcoin maximalists tend to dismiss the perspectives of those outside Bitcoin. While I respect the economic tenets of Bitcoin, such as digital scarcity, the superiority complex should not overshadow technical discussions. Bitcoin is not inherently superior to other cryptocurrencies like Monero or Litecoin; it simply has its own trade-offs.

This is why you can only introduce so much of cryptocurrency to someone.

When they ask you which one is the best and which one should you invest in the answer should always be it depends on what you need. Diversification should be more encouraged. It will allow you to discover many more tech innovations and advancements that are not yet implemented in bitcoin.

Bitcoin might be the most valuable but it doesn’t make the other cryptocurrency useless already.

If we had to give investment advice to others, I think bitcoin should be the only cryptocurrency mentioned because investing in it would be the safest for them. Investing in altcoins should only be done by people with knowledge and experience in the market as investing in altcoins is more risky even with top altcoins like ETH or Solana.

To be fair, the existence of altcoins is necessary because bitcoin cannot build a market on its own. In addition, if we want to develop, we need competition, monopoly is never a good thing.

We often criticize traditional investors for being too stubborn and not open-minded when it comes to bitcoin, but many bitcoin maximalists have similar thoughts when it comes to ignoring newer technologies than bitcoin. Ignoring new technologies will not help bitcoin dominate forever or help us survive, we should adapt if we do not want to become obsolete like stubborn traditional investors.

[legiteum]

There are solutions to each of these issues, in particular the token being pre-mined, and the number of tokens outstanding thus being well-known to the buyers. Even better, an entire platform dedicated to low-end memecoins that are easy for consumers to understand and have well-defined rules that apply the same way for every coin on the platform such that users only have to learn the rules once for potentially thousands of different coins--and a platform dedicated to keeping things fair and fraud-free for users (sorta like how eBay is in the business of making things fair for buyers and sellers).

Unfortunately, there are way too many people who end up with a lot of issues and because of that we are going to end up with results that will not be profitable [...]

I'll try to keep my reply here general, and not specific to the project I work on, and say that... I think things are going to get a lot better for memecoins as there are a lot of us working on these issues, and working very hard to clean up the poor reputation non-Bitcoin digital currencies have.

[Rockstarguy]

Don't be myopic and dogmatic. Say no to maximalism.

For me I think it is good when one truly knows he is in the right part by having the real knowledge then at this point such person can be consider to be a maximalist. For one to choose to be a maximalist I think there should be a thorough check up on the things they believe if it is something that needs to be stick to and not being blinded with ignorance. I consider real maximalist as those who know the real thing, who choosed to be maximalist because they are aware of the main knowledge of the thing they believe in. Any maximalist that is not in the right sense of things but choose to hold things firm due to lack of understanding at this point such person should be considered as one that is being sentimental and swimming in ignorant.

People who claim to be maximalist with the real understanding of the thing they stand for are not maximalist but being ignorant.  A maximalist will always be maximalist not being dogmatic because they have the real knowledge and understanding of what they stand for or claim to know.

[vjudeu]

Maximalism is the mindset that your project is the only valid one.

It depends, how do you want to define it. Do I think that Bitcoin is the only valid project? No. Do I think that it is good to create separate monetary bases, and abuse 21 million coins limit? No.

Bitcoin is not the only valid project, but altcoins should not create their own coins, out of thin air. In case of Bitcoin, when it was launched in 2009, there were no other altcoins, so there were no reasons, to attach to other monetary bases, like dollars, because they were strictly incompatible with "digital cash". However, since 2009, you don't have to make new coinbase transactions outside of Bitcoin blockchain. All you really need, is to make regular, non-coinbase transactions, and extend existing use cases, without inflating the supply.

Bitcoin is not inherently superior to other cryptocurrencies like Monero or Litecoin; it simply has its own trade-offs.

Imagine how better could Litecoin be, if you would have just some P2Pool-like 2.5 minute blocks (or 30 second blocks with 20 times lower difficulty, as in the original protocol), and if every Litecoin transaction could be batched and notarized on Bitcoin, long after being confirmed on Litecoin.

And imagine how better could Monero be, if you could have just some single UTXO for Monero, with some assigned amount, and you would have just one-input-one-output, moved from time to time, with nobody knowing exactly, who owns what inside Monero, while staying perfectly auditable in BTC. You could have just a single signature, moving the whole coin forward, and hiding from the outside world, all details about amounts and public keys, which would be hidden inside.

Many altcoins were created in the way they are, because people didn't know, how to write a better code. The only reason, why people switched from SHA-256 into something else, is because they didn't implement Merged Mining properly: if they would, then 51% attacking their coins would be as hard as 51% attacking BTC. The same with Monero: it has "fake multisig", because people didn't think about pubkey-based commitment at that time.

Being a Bitcoin maximalist is actually contrary to the spirit of Bitcoin, because it involves unwavering support for Bitcoin, when you should be skeptical and rigorous in examining its potential weaknesses.

Note that being a Bitcoin maximalist doesn't mean, that if we would launch the network today, we wouldn't change it. You can see it, when you look at recently launched networks: all soft-forks are activated from the Genesis Block, without unnecessary glorification of legacy ways of doing things. If not limited by backward-compatibility, we would start new test networks with P2TR-only addresses, with all OP_CHECKSIGs working on Schnorr signatures, without SIGHASH_SINGLE bug, without duplicated transaction IDs, with witness stack in all transaction inputs, and so on.

If we will ever be forced to do the hard fork, then the new network will be started with all of those fixes. However, because we have around 600 GB of history, and 15 years of transaction data, we cannot just throw it away. However, as things will be simplified over time, and we will have for example purely UTXO-based model, like utreexo, then maybe we will reach a point in the future, where all nodes will be started in a new way, without handling a lot of legacy code.

Don't be myopic and dogmatic. Say no to maximalism.

First, try to say no to "abusing 21 million coins limit". If we will get there, then we can think about maximalism in the first place. In the past, when people launched new altcoins, they were told "Why are you doing that? You can do this on Bitcoin, too!". Now, I can see people saying the opposite, like "Launch an altcoin, because it is not going to be merged into Bitcoin". And this is bad in the long-term, because then users cannot have feature A and feature B. They have to sell one coin, and buy another, to get more features, instead of just using existing coins in new ways.

Having no maximalism is like being forced to buy vouchers for each and every store, where you want to go shopping. The end result is that instead of having dollars, BTCs, or some single and established coin, and buying things, you have a lot of useless vouchers, and you have to trade them on a daily basis to buy anything (and each trade costs you more money, than you would spend, if you would have all your savings in a single coin, used in different ways).

Another reason to have a single coin is speculation-related: in the long-term, many altcoins died, or lost their value over time. If they would be just wrapped BTCs, then you would have 1:1 peg, and they would never be "dead". You can check, what was LTC/BTC in the past. Or XMR/BTC in the past. Imagine having LTCs as wrapped BTCs from 2013, and having 0.03 BTC per LTC now. Or imagine having XMRs as wrapped BTCs from 2017, and having 0.03 BTC per XMR now. Sounds like a great deal, right? But no, you said "no to maximalism", and instead you have far worse exchange rates, and you have to sell your BTCs, to get some XMRs, and make some private transactions.

If you don't want maximalism, then what is your alternative? Hard-forking every time, when you want to make some big changes? Or maybe burning all BTCs, to get brand new BTCv2s, with new features? Or maybe selling all old coins, to get new altcoins, with new features? In the last case, it seems like the market price does not encourage people to do that, in the long term.

[legiteum]

Imagine how better could Litecoin be, if you would have just some P2Pool-like 2.5 minute blocks (or 30 second blocks with 20 times lower difficulty, as in the original protocol), and if every Litecoin transaction could be batched and notarized on Bitcoin, long after being confirmed on Litecoin.

A lot of your post is based around that basic idea, so I'll just cut out this part and respond.

The problem with that scheme--and every L2 solution--is that it ultimately doesn't work, since it invites timing attacks between when the block is verified on the first network and the second network. In short, no matter what, your system is still only as secure as the first-layer network, so adding another layer won't make any difference--and the added system complexity will actually detract from the overall security of the system.

In the world of financial transactions, the name of the game is for your transaction to be all or nothing: it is either memorialized in a permanent way, or it isn't. Introducing the notion of "almost memorialized" makes the system effectively useless.

Hence you should just use one layer or another, but not both.

[vjudeu]

it invites timing attacks between when the block is verified on the first network and the second network

The same is true with the current model, where you have Bitcoin and altcoins. Maybe you wonder, why testnet3 blocks require 100 confirmations on some exchange, while BTC block is accepted after a single confirmation? The same is true in other cases. And if you have altcoins, then nobody invented anything better than "just wait for N more confirmations". Talk with some exchange creators, see their deposit/withdraw conditions, and see, how BTC is accepted after a single confirmation, while many alts have to wait for tens or hundreds of confirmations instead.

it is either memorialized in a permanent way, or it isn't

If that would be the case, then people would never use the term "mempool congestion" and "zero-confirmation transaction". Those things would simply not exist, and people would not spend so much time, talking about full-RBF, if it would be the case.

Hence you should just use one layer or another, but not both.

Oh, so who is maximalist now? Because what is the difference between BTC maximalism and ALT maximalism? If you want to keep 100% of your funds in some ALT, instead of BTC, then it is just another maximalism, the only difference is the coin, used as the golden standard, but all other things stays the same.

[legiteum]

it invites timing attacks between when the block is verified on the first network and the second network

The same is true with the current model, where you have Bitcoin and altcoins.

Not all altcoins use Bitcoin as an L1. In fact, almost none of them do. So I am not sure what you are getting at here.

it is either memorialized in a permanent way, or it isn't

If that would be the case, then people would never use the term "mempool congestion" and "zero-confirmation transaction". Those things would simply not exist, and people would not spend so much time, talking about full-RBF, if it would be the case.

Most would agree that accepting a Bitcoin transaction after only (say) a single confirm is dangerous. You are asking for invalid blocks to be given to you and being ripped off. No serious entity would use Bitcoin this way.

Hence you should just use one layer or another, but not both.

Oh, so who is maximalist now? Because what is the difference between BTC maximalism and ALT maximalism? If you want to keep 100% of your funds in some ALT, instead of BTC, then it is just another maximalism, the only difference is the coin, used as the golden standard, but all other things stays the same.

Again, I really don't understand what you are talking about here. The blockchain architecture provides a means of memorializing a transaction. Bitcoin uses the blockchain architecture, as does many altcoins. I haven't talked about how much of my portfolio I want to keep in what instrument and why, and that has nothing to do with this conversation. I am not judging Bitcoin's efficacy at all here, except above where I mentioned that it is in fact a very reliable transaction store. I really think you missed the point of this conversation somewhere along the way here.

[betswift]

Maximalism is the mindset that your project is the only valid one. This approach leads to a refusal to consider new information. It is dogmatic and somewhat intellectually limiting, in my opinion. And I have encountered it several times in this forum.

Bitcoin maximalists tend to dismiss the perspectives of those outside Bitcoin. While I respect the economic tenets of Bitcoin, such as digital scarcity, the superiority complex should not overshadow technical discussions. Bitcoin is not inherently superior to other cryptocurrencies like Monero or Litecoin; it simply has its own trade-offs.

This is why you can only introduce so much of cryptocurrency to someone.

When they ask you which one is the best and which one should you invest in the answer should always be it depends on what you need. Diversification should be more encouraged. It will allow you to discover many more tech innovations and advancements that are not yet implemented in bitcoin.

Bitcoin might be the most valuable but it doesn’t make the other cryptocurrency useless already.

Some people don't want to think otherwise, but you are totally right. It's a game of possibilities, and they all should be used to get a better result.

[Ryu_Ar1]

I think in this case fairness becomes an important situation.
The concept of bitcoin maximalism is to assume that bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency that is the future of global finance. From this concept, I actually think there is nothing wrong, although for the future of global finance, it may have to be straightened out a little because of several aspects, but it is okay to do this and consider bitcoin an important currency.

I do this but it doesn't mean that when I am in bitcoin, I have to hate or consider altcoin a mistake because after all this can be a unity in the end where bitcoin and altcoin still need each other even though it is implied. It's just that when talking about choices, I will be firm in bitcoin rather than altcoin, it doesn't mean I hate them but it is the choice I take because I think bitcoin is more worth it.

[stadus]

Actually bitcoin is superior to the other alts in many ways. None of the alts have the same network effect which bitcoin has. Bitcoin had a natural coin distribution since the beginning and it is because even though satoshi was the first miner, his coins never moved.

Charlie Lee on the other hand, dumped his coins on the LTC investors. Whether it was a good thing or bad, it depends how you look at it but it happened and LTC couldn't recover from that dump. It is a good thing, because the worst has already happened. Nothing worse can happen to LTC. The bad thing is, the worst thing has happened. :/

Something like that will never happen to bitcoin.

Bitcoin is the king of crypto, so it goes to show that bitcoin leads the crypto market while altcoins follow the path of bitcoin. I tend not to be a maximalist but it’s obvious that bitcoin tops it all more than altcoins and the rest of shitcoins. If you have been here in the market for quite long, you will understand that bitcoin has an edge over the rest. And it’s undeniable, as everyone is going to side bitcoin no matter how few altcoins are still profitable.