Say no to maximalism

[vjudeu]

So I am not sure what you are getting at here.

In the current model, you have altcoin miners, which are selling their altcoins, just to get some BTCs. Because it is more profitable to mine some altcoins, and sell them, than to mine BTC directly. Which means, that first, you get some altcoins (weak blocks on layer two), and then you convert them to BTCs (stronger blocks on layer one). In between, your altcoin can lose or gain value, it can be unstable, there could be some timing attacks, some speculation attacks, and a lot of other attacks.

So, why not have a proper layer two, instead of having weak altcoins, and selling them, just to get some BTCs? As you can see, those who sold their LTCs, XMRs, or other coins in the past, and converted them into BTCs, they gained more, than those, who simply kept their altcoins. And of course, there are cycles, there are times, when people buy a lot of altcoins, and there are times, when they sell a lot of them. But as long as BTC domination is jumping around 50%, it is the same situation, as having 100% domination, and 42 million coins, but locked in different networks.

No serious entity would use Bitcoin this way.

There are many parties, which accept a single BTC confirmation as "rock solid". Also, many sites will show you, that some transaction is "pending", if it will have zero confirmations, and will be recorded in their mempool. As long as your amount is "coinbase covered", you are good to go. Which means, if the coinbase amount is for example 3 BTC, and you are sending 1 BTC, then you won't reorg this "3 BTC block", and replace it with something else, because it will cost you more than 1 BTC, to successfully execute a double-spending attack.

Obviously, "coinbase coverage" also works in altcoins. Which means, that if the altcoin reward is 50 ALTs, and you are sending 1000 ALTs, then you should wait something around 20 blocks (1000/50=20). To get exact numbers, you can of course compute Poisson distribution, but using "coinbase coverage" is just easier: for amounts smaller than the coinbase, a single confirmation is usually sufficient, and for amounts bigger than the coinbase, this rule will usually give you bigger amount of confirmations, than you need.

Again, I really don't understand what you are talking about here.

Using more than one coin is not that different, than using more than one layer. If you have some altcoin, you mine it, you sell it, and then you get some BTCs out of that, then it is not that much different, than having a proper second layer, instead of using two coins on the first layer.

The main difference, is if you have layers, then you can have a strong peg, for example 1:1 peg. However, if all coins are on their first layer, then there are different exchange rates, there are different network conditions, and you risk more, when converting between BTCs and ALTs, than if they are all connected, through some kind of layers.

For example: if you use LN, then you lock your BTCs, you get 1:1000 constant exchange rate, and everything is converted from satoshis to millisatoshis, and then you can convert it back, using 1000:1 constant exchange rate, to get all of those locked satoshis back. However, if you do the same with BTC and ALT, then it is no longer 1:1, 1:1000, or some other constant rate. It is volatile. And those networks are different, there are different risks, different network rules, timing attacks, and so on. And by rejecting maximalism, and second layers, every coin uses just their first layer, and it is much harder to make a risk-free trade (because even if your ALT fees are smaller, then the price of your ALT can change in the meantime, and it may turn out, that BTC fee was higher, but the price change was smaller, so the final outcome was better).

[legiteum]

So, why not have a proper layer two, instead of having weak altcoins, and selling them, just to get some BTCs?

I guess my perspective has been that of a mainstream digital currency users, whereas yours is that of a miner.

[vjudeu]

Guess what: Litecoin was created, because of mining. Old Bitcoin users mined their coins on their CPUs and GPUs, and they noticed, that by mining with double SHA-256, they can get less and less coins. The difficulty adjustment worked exactly as intended. But: many people still wanted to mine.

And what altcoin developers did? Well, they switched from double SHA-256, into something else, called Scrypt. Why? Because at that time, it was not profitable to create an ASIC for a completely different hash function. And the same thing happened with Monero, and other altcoins: they picked some different hash functions, to make sure, that they will not compete with double SHA-256 miners (because they lost that competition, otherwise, they would all just mine Bitcoin).

So, it is not "just a perspective of a miner". Many altcoins have only one purpose: to be mineable, without upgrading your hardware. So, instead of switching from CPUs or GPUs into ASICs, some people just made some altcoins, to serve the only purpose: mine ALT, sell it for BTC, and create some field for experimentation.

And then, in the short term, some users can even win. They can bring some of their BTCs into exchanges, sell them for ALTs, and get some new features. However, in the long term, they lose, because all of those miners are just producing ALTs, and selling them to those users, because they can get more BTCs in the process, than they could, if they would mine BTC directly.

Also, if you don't believe me, that "mining is the only purpose for a lot of altcoins", then check, how many times they changed their mining algorithms. Bitcoin uses double SHA-256 from the very beginning, and it is not going to change, as long as it is not broken. However, many altcoins do some hard-forks, and they switch from one mining algo to another, if they can no longer mine with their network difficulty. It is easier for them to change the code, than to upgrade their hardware.

Which also means, that altcoins' difficulty is somewhat "fake". Because they don't promise, that "if the difficulty will rise, then you will get less coins". Instead, what they deliver is "as long as we can mine coins with our hardware, we keep it as it is, but if you rise it by too much, then we will switch the algo again, and again".

[ABCbits]

And what altcoin developers did? Well, they switched from double SHA-256, into something else, called Scrypt. Why? Because at that time, it was not profitable to create an ASIC for a completely different hash function. And the same thing happened with Monero, and other altcoins: they picked some different hash functions, to make sure, that they will not compete with double SHA-256 miners (because they lost that competition, otherwise, they would all just mine Bitcoin).

FWIW, Monero is one of few altcoin which continuously put some effort to stop ASIC. I remember XMR had few hard-fork which discourage creation of ASIC, although such method is rather crude.

[legiteum]

Guess what: Litecoin was created, because of mining.

So in other words, it succeeded despite not trying to solve any problems consumers had. Lots of products get created that way, but I wouldn't recommend doing that on purpose.

So, it is not "just a perspective of a miner". Many altcoins have only one purpose: to be mineable, without upgrading your hardware.

Why would you create a product that not meant to be used by anybody? Why does an end-user of a currency care how easy it was to mine, or even whether it was mined at all?

Also, if you don't believe me, that "mining is the only purpose for a lot of altcoins", then check, how many times they changed their mining algorithms.

Lots of altcoins aren't mined at all. I get that a lot are, and that you are absolutely right about a lot of them or even most of them, but that's not how it has to be, necessarily. It makes no difference to the end-user of a currency in terms of transactions, although I suppose it makes a difference if you are investing in the coin.

[betswift]

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.

But it's still viable to have not only BTC with you because diversification is key for a good portfolio.

[DubemIfedigbo001]

Maximalism is quite a thing though. I've never been of the opinion that bitcoin is 100% better than every other crypto currency. Undoubtedly bitcoin has been the best when it comes to investment so far especially in the case of long term investment.  However for a couple of other things like fees especially in times of congestion bitcoin wasn't the best option. The fact is everyone is condemning altcoins because too many of them out there are simply pump and dump schemes.

Many persons are unable to differentiate these pump and dump coins that's why they end up losing funds to them . Bitcoin has actually proven to be the best at long term returns and that's just fact coupled with decentralisation. Altcoins too have their own applications like in cases of more frequent and light weight transactions.

It is bad enough to think that a certain cryptocurrency is autonomous and complete in terms of integration into the various sectors and needs of the internet space and everyday life activities. Nothing is ever complete; every project solves a problem and leaves others for other innovations to solve too and your neutrality to making decisions on what is needed at any point in time helps you get the best.

Bitcoin has its unique features which makes people run to it which includes being a store of value and a hedge against inflation and appreciating in value when held for a longer period of time to the benefit of the investor and you can use your investments in bitcoin to secure your financial future. It also has a very high liquidity which makes it very easy to buy, sell and trade, but the same bitcoin requires high transaction fees to be sent around which makes it a very bad Idea for day to day activities of a company, sending bitcoins across to another person is also a slow process and may not happen in real time.

Ethereum has  its own application of smart contracts, allowing it to sustain creation of decentralized apps and platforms and has one of , if not the largest ecosystem of developers, DAPPS and NFTs, although it is very expensive to send around and is not a positive choice for little transactions and implementations.

Solana on the other hand happens to be one of the fastest in terms of transaction speed up to (65,000 transactions per second) and offers low fees, with a rapidly growing ecosystem that supports many Dapps, NFTs and other projects being integrated into it. It is also getting increasingly decentralized and can possibly do better in the future

Ton on the other hand has been integrated into telegram, the largest platform for gaming apps and micro projects development and offers fast transactions at reduced prices making it suitable for smaller scale and Immediate transactions . It also uses a multi-blockchain structure to enhance scalability, speed and efficiency in transactions. only issues being that it is purportedly centralized and native to telegram and its being new with low adaptation owing to the numerous uncertainties surrounding its development.


The above and many more unmentioned points should educate us of the different important roles each cryptocurrency might play and when to utilize them or others to your own advantage. Personally, when I want to invest, I turn to bitcoin, but when I wish to send little funds around, I convert bitcoin to USDT and use BNB(beep20) to limit transaction fees and deliver payment in less than a minute. Some level of flexibility is required of us even in thinking and execution of concerns in order to be more balanced and effective in our activities

[franky1]

when certain individuals celebrate code that adds bloat of upto 4mb to a single transaction, where most data does not even go through a validation set of rules to check its actually viable bitcoin transaction related data..

when certain individuals celebrate code that bumps the fee's too easily, where by it then excludes populations in their billions due to the fee's alone being multiple hours of nominal wage for such populations..

when certain individuals celebrate a centralised group of devs with their self controlled moderation and member banning of whom gets to propose new features, upgrades, expansions and scaling options..

when certain individuals celebrate any and all events, added headaches and hindrances that cause people to abandon bitcoin to then use other networks..

.. and then those same individuals want to pretend those that want whats best for bitcoin are the enemy of bitcoin.. it really shows those people whom promote other networks and the abandonment plans of bitcoin, are actually the real anti-bitcoin folk

yes there are other crypto's and payment systems and each have their own smaller niche purpose people are free to choose for own personal uses.. but to have individuals trying so hard to push an agenda of wanting to cripple bitcoin and make it undesirable and want people to not be loyal to bitcoin, just to recruit them over to other networks.. just shows how mentally insecure they are..
their favoured other systems should at the very minimal actually work without bugs and issues, without having to lie or sweep under the rug the flaws.. basically if a secondary favoured network was to popularise it would be able to do so naturally via actually meeting users needs securely and not need deceitful people trying to sway everyone to abandon a secure working network, by making the secure network less desirable

[Abiky]

FWIW, Monero is one of few altcoin which continuously put some effort to stop ASIC. I remember XMR had few hard-fork which discourage creation of ASIC, although such method is rather crude.

Isn't that "censorship"? I understand the Monero team is trying to make the XMR blockchain equal or fairer to everyone. But restricting ASICs would go against crypto's true principles of freedom. With Bitcoin, you can still mine with a CPU or FPGA (albeit at a lower chance to turn a profit). Even if ASICs have taken over the market. Some developers proposed taking down Ordinals inscriptions to solve the "high fee problem". It didn't go anywhere because this was nothing more than an attempt to censor Bitcoin.

There's a reason why BTC is still #1. And that's because it sticks to the values of decentralization and censorship-resistance. Tell me one altcoin that is as good as Bitcoin. The only ones that come close to it are Litecoin and Dogecoin. Yet, they're not as battle-tested as Bitcoin is. As long as unreliable and centralized altcoins exist, don't expect Bitcoin maximalists to change their mind anytime soon.

[ABCbits]

FWIW, Monero is one of few altcoin which continuously put some effort to stop ASIC. I remember XMR had few hard-fork which discourage creation of ASIC, although such method is rather crude.

Isn't that "censorship"? I understand the Monero team is trying to make the XMR blockchain equal or fairer to everyone. But restricting ASICs would go against crypto's true principles of freedom. With Bitcoin, you can still mine with a CPU or FPGA (albeit at a lower chance to turn a profit). Even if ASICs have taken over the market. Some developers proposed taking down Ordinals inscriptions to solve the "high fee problem". It didn't go anywhere because this was nothing more than an attempt to censor Bitcoin.

I don't know how you define word "censorship", but Monero initially designed to be ASIC resistant. So IMO anyone who attempt to make ASIC for it should be aware of the risks. Besides, there's no way you can mine Bitcoin using with CPU or FPGA at profit, unless you managed to mine a block through solo block.

There's a reason why BTC is still #1. And that's because it sticks to the values of decentralization and censorship-resistance. Tell me one altcoin that is as good as Bitcoin. The only ones that come close to it are Litecoin and Dogecoin. Yet, they're not as battle-tested as Bitcoin is. As long as unreliable and centralized altcoins exist, don't expect Bitcoin maximalists to change their mind anytime soon.

As reminder, LTC+DOGE merged mining exist where DOGE security depends on LTC.

[EarnOnVictor]

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

I can't believe I'm just seeing this beautiful post just now, it's one of the best to say the reality of the situation and not biased in seeing Bitcoin as perfect.

Many of the shortcomings of Bitcoin were certainly taken advantage of in most altcoins and even the traditional Fiats/Gold has some peculiarities that Bitcoin does not have. This is just as Bitcoin has some penalties they do not have too. By virtue, we should appreciate all of them if they show us value and find a way to use them where necessary for our benefit.

[TsenTsen]

If we consider how Investment trend has shifted several times in history and nowadays' trend is about cryptocurrency, I think that more people will follow this mindset because of social medias are making people join the trend out of the Fear of Missing out. It is becoming worse especially after a lot of so-called Investment influencers are talking about it massively and has fed on internet users' fear of missing out especially on nowadays' uncertainty on economy and making money.

If this cryptocurrency has becoming more common among all people in different age has accepted it, since we know older generation are still being skeptical towards it,  perhaps when their skepticism are gone, people will start to look for another alternative to invest their money on something, probably property will rise and become a trend again, we never know

[BlackHatCoiner]

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.

How does creating other currencies abuse the 21 million coins limit?

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.

What if I want my network to not be dependent on transaction fees but on tail emission? Or, what if I don't want my network to be dependent on another network? (In this case, Bitcoin.)

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.

What if I want my network to be ASIC resistant?

[Kamustapo]

"Bitcoin maximalists tend to dismiss the perspectives of those outside Bitcoin."

This sentence alone serves a valuable impact to say to any maximalist out there. Most them tend to overshadow other alternative coins out there, sometimes they could be very stubborn and do not care about people's capability in investing money are all different. If we don't have secure job, it rather hard to invest in Bitcoin since most them expecting some returns in a quite short time, therefor there are other alternatice coins beside BTC, eventho most of them are quite more speculative than Bitcoin.

[vjudeu]

How does creating other currencies abuse the 21 million coins limit?

If you have only one cryptocurrency, with a limited supply, then the limit is enforced properly. If you have two cryptocurrencies, and each of them has 21 million coins limit, and also each of them has 50% of the market, then there are 42 million coins on the market. If both chains have 1:1 peg, and you can do exactly the same things on each coin, then you have 42 million coins, and you don't have to worry, which one you are currently holding. Then, you are in a situation, where the end result is exactly the same, as if you have a single network, but with 42 million coins.

And then, it doesn't matter, that you can say "I accept only coins from network A, but not from network B". As long as 1:1 peg is maintained properly, users will find a way to swap, and give you exactly the coins you want. Also because there will be two camps, and someone else will accept "only coins from network B, but not from network A". And if you will try to actively enforce the limit of your favourite network, then people will call it "censorship".

What if I want my network to not be dependent on transaction fees but on tail emission?

You can do that, but it doesn't change the fact, that by doing it, you are creating additional inflation. Instead of tail supply, you could also grab single satoshis from each UTXO, and enforce it by your consensus rules. The whole economy of your network would be identical, but tail supply is just a more obscure way of doing that. If you have a limited supply, you can actually see, how you gradually lose your coins. If you have no limits, then numbers stay the same, but they are worth less, so you can purchase less products and services, for the same amount.

Or, what if I don't want my network to be dependent on another network? (In this case, Bitcoin.)

Then, other people will make swaps, and it will be dependent. For example: testnet3 was supposed to be worth zero, and independent of the main network. Now, it is actively traded, and even though some people are trying to kill it, the outcome will depend mainly on users: if they will want to keep it alive, then it will live as an altcoin.

If you have two properly spinned networks, then it is cryptographically possible to always trade between them, without trusting anyone. And of course, a lot of centralized services will be built as well, if users will want that.

What if I want my network to be ASIC resistant?

Then you should be at least honest in your consensus rules, and set "a difficulty limit", where after reaching it, produced coins are invalid, and for example the whole chain stops (or: rather a chainwork limit, that would avoid some difficulty attacks, where powerful miners can produce weak blocks, and keep the network running, despite breaking the rules).

Surprisingly, "ASIC resistance" is probably not what users really want. For example: testnet3 and testnet4 are networks, where CPUs and ASICs can co-exist. And this is probably more close to what people tried to achieve. Because then, ASICs still can secure your network, but you, as a developer, can still mine your blocks on your CPU. And then, some ASIC can burn a lot of energy, to produce 50 coins, while you can spend a fraction of that energy, to produce the same 50 coins on your home computer. Then, the end result is a network, which is not "ASIC-resistant", but where ASICs are basically discouraged, because "why produce a block with 64 leading zero bits, where you can get the same reward for 32 leading zero bits".

[garlonicon]

Bitcoin maximalists tend to dismiss the perspectives of those outside Bitcoin.

A question to non-maximalists: If it would be possible, to directly receive an equivalent value of Bitcoin, instead of your altcoin, would you agree? For example: if 1 ALT is worth 0.001 BTC, what do you want to get? Directly receive 0.001 BTC? Or 1 ALT?

I think many people defend altcoins, not because they are better, but because they don't know, how things could look like, if they could execute all of their features on Bitcoin. And then, instead of working on making Bitcoin better, we lose those people, and they compete with us. And then, the end user cannot get "feature A and feature B on Bitcoin", but instead, only feature A is on BTC, and only feature B is on ALT. Which forces people to unnecessary trading, and they risk losing some of their coins in that process (because of network fees, price changes, and so on).

[BlackHatCoiner]

If you have only one cryptocurrency, with a limited supply, then the limit is enforced properly. If you have two cryptocurrencies, and each of them has 21 million coins limit, and also each of them has 50% of the market, then there are 42 million coins on the market.

That's not 21 millions limit abuse. It's just capital deprecation. If Bitcoin went down by 50%, you wouldn't call it "21 millions limit abuse", you would just accept that people valuate Bitcoin differently.

If you have a limited supply, you can actually see, how you gradually lose your coins. If you have no limits, then numbers stay the same, but they are worth less, so you can purchase less products and services, for the same amount.

It's not only a matter of inflation. It's a matter that I may not want to risk my network's survival on the assumption that Bitcoin will not experience significant decline in hashrate due to insufficient fees. There's no problem for a user to want that, and you can't achieve it if the currency is pegged to Bitcoin.

Then, other people will make swaps, and it will be dependent. For example: testnet3 was supposed to be worth zero, and independent of the main network.

We understand "dependency" differently. When I say that my network is dependent, I mean that it can operate with no requirement that another network must be operating. testnet3 is not dependent on mainnet. If it was dependent, then you couldn't verify everything on testnet3 without having a mainnet node running.

Then you should be at least honest in your consensus rules, and set "a difficulty limit", where after reaching it, produced coins are invalid

That seems very subjective ruling. Based on what do I enforce such a limit? A more objective ruling would be to choose an algorithm that is optimized for general purpose CPU, like RandomX.

A question to non-maximalists: If it would be possible, to directly receive an equivalent value of Bitcoin, instead of your altcoin, would you agree? For example: if 1 ALT is worth 0.001 BTC, what do you want to get? Directly receive 0.001 BTC? Or 1 ALT?

It largely depends on the details. If ALT was pegged with BTC, then I wouldn't care about holding the ALT. In fact, I'd rather want to hold an ALT, knowing that I can always redeem it for 0.001 BTC, since the on-chain transaction fee would be lower. But, in the real world case, where there is no peg, I choose to use ALT sometimes, when features that I need cannot, have not or will not ever be implemented in Bitcoin.

Edit:

I think many people defend altcoins, not because they are better, but because they don't know, how things could look like, if they could execute all of their features on Bitcoin.

I know, but certain features cannot be added without changing the consensus and introducing a change that allows pegging bitcoin with a sidechain currency. And it is completely understandable, because that raises security concerns.

[d5000]

A question to non-maximalists: If it would be possible, to directly receive an equivalent value of Bitcoin, instead of your altcoin, would you agree? For example: if 1 ALT is worth 0.001 BTC, what do you want to get? Directly receive 0.001 BTC? Or 1 ALT?

As a "non-maximalist", my preference would depend on:

1) which altcoin you're talking about, of course. My favourite altcoin is Monero, and there are several "second favourites" like LTC and even some small ones like SLM I would accept.
2) the composition of my current portfolio - do I want more Bitcoin at this moment or more of $altcoin?
3) my personal opinion about the current overvaluation / undervaluation of both Bitcoin and the $altcoin we're talking about.

In general I would tend slightly to prefer Bitcoin, at least trying to always have a majority of BTC in my portfolio. But this can also change: if BTC is bubbling and I don't see a reason why, then I may prefer another coin. And there are coins which look like they could offer an opportunity of growth in some moments.

Practical example: Just after Binance delisted Monero, I would have preferred to receive "the same value in XMR" because the price dumped hard (almost -50%) but there were some indicators of severe undervaluation (mainly the "scarcity" on instant exchanges like Exch.cx). And judging from the price evolution of both XMR and BTC until now this would have been the correct decision. And I still believe XMR has a bright future. Just as an example, not to be interpreted as XMR shilling

Thus I think non-maximalism is related to flexibility but it needs a certain "knowledge" of the coins in question. Of course there are people who aren't so much into crypto and would prefer "the less risky one". So if the money was for family relatives without much crypto knowledge I would prefer Bitcoin probably.

In contrast, I would have rejected a coin like Solana even if it was about to bubble, because I don't see much utility for me in it.

I think many people defend altcoins, not because they are better, but because they don't know, how things could look like, if they could execute all of their features on Bitcoin. And then, instead of working on making Bitcoin better, we lose those people, and they compete with us. And then, the end user cannot get "feature A and feature B on Bitcoin", but instead, only feature A is on BTC, and only feature B is on ALT. Which forces people to unnecessary trading, and they risk losing some of their coins in that process (because of network fees, price changes, and so on).

For me it's only partly about features - XMR is an example where this applies, but other coins maybe not that much. And I like L2s as you may know. I think I already wrote in this thread that I also consider altcoins a "backup" of Bitcoin so in the case of malfunction or severe bugs it could be important to continue to uphold a healthy cryptocurrency environment.

[thecodebear]

Why?

These guys are the reason why Bitcoin has been thriving and growing. They never said anything bad about Bitcoin but they did infor everyone that apart from Bitcoin nothing can survive that long. They were the one who made Bitcoin a global essential commodity. These are the guys which make Bitcon what it is meant to be and they are right about it.

The problem here is that we guys don't have the capacity to buy a full 1BTC and to get it fast we use the altcoins route. Which according to my understanding is the fastest way to get to that point rather than accumulating more every moth or week with the hard earned fiat.

You might be a privilege one as being some of the first guys to be part this forum. We were not that lucky enough but we still feel that we can be a big supporter of Bitcoin by becoming a maximalist by using altcoins as an alternative to gain more satoshis.

nope it is elitism and a terrible way to think.

Sad that you argue for it.

Now does that mean I want 12000 other coins  no I don't.

A few hundred are more than what is needed.



The math so so fucking simply that scrypt algo for small p2p payments meaning LTC and Doge crushes BTC for small p2p payments that I basically. get disgust when people talk btc and second layer is all you need. Bullshit simply not true.

Stop the fucking argument
 Stop wanting to use a tractor trailer to deliver a single lunch.


thus at a minimum you need to accept sha 256 and scrypt. or you are simply delusional

Sorry to rip you but I am right and you are wrong.


Oh wait sound like I am practicing crypto inclusionim is that as bad as BTC maximalism

up to you to decide. not me.  my mind is made up

Did you seriously just try to argue that LTC and Doge should be used for payments???! lol.

This is exactly why people are maximalists. Because when you aren't you make mistakes like this - trying to claim that any old random cryptocurrency that nobody cares about or uses and is inherently terribly weak compared to Bitcoin, is actually better than Bitcoin simply because it's cheap...because nobody uses it.


Crypto has led to interesting experiments and ideas, but in the end the world doesn't need other cryptocurrencies. The few interesting ideas that have come out of the crypto world should just be built into the Bitcoin ecosystem. The weakness in Crypto is that there ARE different ones, when we only need Bitcoin. Why would anyone EVER want to use some random crypto when you can use a global secure (etc etc great qualities) currency for all of humanity: Bitcoin.

I don't like the maximalists who try to say stuff like literally everything in crypto is a scam, because obviously that's not true, but it is true that Crypto is basically just a distraction. So far not a single thing in Crypto has shown any real reason for existing. ICOs: failed as pump and dumps which then became illegal. DeFI: failed as nothing more than token schemes. NFT pictures: failed because the whole concept was flawed. Even actual crypto apps that tried to have some sort of business value failed because who the hell wants to deal with a different token for every single app lol. And the older cryptos who actually tried to compete with Bitcoin as money all failed because they all lack most or all of the things that make Bitcoin amazingly good money. Payments can be done with Bitcoin L2, you don't need anything else. Savings and moving money around can be done on Bitcoin L1, you don't need anything else. "Crypto apps" can simply be built using Bitcoin (and maybe with smart contracts with some more Bitcoin L1 or L2 upgrades), you don't need anything else.

It just makes a hell of a lot more sense to keep building on top of Bitcoin for anything that is actually useful and let all these weak Crypto attempts die out as doomed experiments.


Everyone goes through their own educational journey on Bitcoin/Crypto. Eventually, most people realize it has always been about Bitcoin, and Crypto is just an interesting proving ground to figure out the few good ideas that should be built into the Bitcoin ecosystem, while leaving all those tokens and their failed experiments to die out.



Even Ethereum, which for two cycles looked like it was actually following Bitcoin's growth thanks to a couple fads it had (ICOs in 2017, DeFi token schemes and NFTs in 2020/2021), is starting to look like it has kinda run its course and it no longer has any fads up its sleeve to keep up with Bitcoin growth.

The Ethereum upgrade formerly known as ETH 2.0 was supposed to make it better, but it massively increased Ethereum's centralization and therefore weakened it. The token burning was supposed to be a gimmick to get people to think it had a pseudo cap to its supply but since all the people still messing around with crypto apps just do stuff on ETH's second layers now there isn't even enough burning going on to balance out the issuance. For a while people thought staking might turn Ethereum into a dividend-like investment for the investment class, with people thinking it'd have 6% earnings or even some crazy predictions of 10% or 12% earnings, and that all fizzled and earnings are like 3% at best, and the recent ETFs don't even allow staking so the class of investor that may have been still somewhat interested in what would be somewhat decent stock earnings at 3%, can't even use ETH as an income generating asset, so the ETH ETFs have very little interest.

And compared to everything else in Crypto Ethereum was the golden shining example of massive success, it's the bright shining center of the Crypto world, and it's starting to look fairly dim now. So everything outside of Ethereum is far far worse off. And so we are seeing that outside of "crypto degens", people (aka the general public) are only really going to be interested in Bitcoin. And there is no reason for them to be interested in random crypto projects, hell it's hard enough for people to wrap their heads around what is obviously the alternate currency for the future of humanity.

[betswift]

Bitcoin maximalists tend to dismiss the perspectives of those outside Bitcoin.

A question to non-maximalists: If it would be possible, to directly receive an equivalent value of Bitcoin, instead of your altcoin, would you agree? For example: if 1 ALT is worth 0.001 BTC, what do you want to get? Directly receive 0.001 BTC? Or 1 ALT?

I think many people defend altcoins, not because they are better, but because they don't know, how things could look like, if they could execute all of their features on Bitcoin. And then, instead of working on making Bitcoin better, we lose those people, and they compete with us. And then, the end user cannot get "feature A and feature B on Bitcoin", but instead, only feature A is on BTC, and only feature B is on ALT. Which forces people to unnecessary trading, and they risk losing some of their coins in that process (because of network fees, price changes, and so on).

It's diversification in a way If I've got enough amount of BTC accumulated (of course, it can be said that it's not enough, but let's imagine I have zero alts and all is BTC) - would I have a portfolio that consists of two parts or only BTC? From my point of view, having a diversified portfolio is better, but it depends on what alts we are talking about. Of course, that's my opinion.

Imagine if there was only BTC as well..