"Blockchain is useful, Bitcoin is not" — How do you respond to this?

[BlackHatCoiner]

Meanwhile Bitcoin just sits there. No yield, no nothing. Price goes up because people think price will go up.

Hard money does nothing other than sitting and appreciating. Gold goes up because people understand it can buy you more overtime.

So what happens when those institutional products start competing for the same money? That's what I wanted to discuss.

What other institutional product can compete with Bitcoin, an apolitical, counterparty-free, permissionless asset with a fixed supply? There is no other product that checks these. If BlackRock creates a token, it will have counterparty risk, it will not be permissionless and you'll have to trust the morals of BlackRock for keeping the supply fixed.

[Satofan44]

I was asking something pretty simple: BlackRock, JPMorgan, Franklin Templeton — they're all building tokenized stuff on blockchain now. Yields, regulation, the whole package. And it's growing fast.

Which is complete bullshit and has no purpose of existing. You could do that already on centralized blockchains called databases. Pilot projects on public blockchains will never lead to anything. If it works out well, why should they use Ethereum when they can do the same on their own private blockchain? By issuing their own centralized blockchain they can get all the features of centralized Ethereum without any downside, it comes with an added bonus of having complete control which is what they need. You are falling for the latest trendy buzzwords relating to RWA stuff. How many scams and market cycles does it take for you to learn your lesson?

Meanwhile Bitcoin just sits there. No yield, no nothing. Price goes up because people think price will go up.

False. Yield is a scam, and Bitcoin has literally been invented as a solution to the inflation (read POS and other shit).

So what happens when those institutional products start competing for the same money? That's what I wanted to discuss.

Nothing. One has nothing to do with each other. Did you come here to promote some shitcoin scam while pretending to ask "legitimate" questions? Literally there have been hundreds of buzzword relating to blockchain uses since the earliest cycle. ICOs were going to change the world, people being able to issue their own tokens, NFTs -- how about the world will put all supply chains on VeChain or some other bullshit? Wake the fuck up, you are brainwashed after taking a bucket load of blue pills.

But what happens when the system takes the tech and builds something most investors actually prefer?

Not a single altcoin has tech that competes with Bitcoin, get the fuck out of here centralized shitcoin promoter.

So what happens when those institutional products start competing for the same money? That's what I wanted to discuss.

What other institutional product can compete with Bitcoin, an apolitical, counterparty-free, permissionless asset with a fixed supply? There is no other product that checks these. If BlackRock creates a token, it will have counterparty risk, it will not be permissionless and you'll have to trust the morals of BlackRock for keeping the supply fixed.

This is not even an advanced concept, therefore an inability to understand it implies malicious motives. Do not treat every user here seriously, instead always ask what motivates them to write something. As you can see, most often the answers are easy. Either they are spamming (which is more obvious in spam super sections like Gambling) or they have malicious motives for which they pretend to ask questions or be unable to understand the answers.

[d5000]

If it works out well, why should they use Ethereum when they can do the same on their own private blockchain? By issuing their own centralized blockchain they can get all the features of centralized Ethereum without any downside, it comes with an added bonus of having complete control which is what they need.

Simple - because Ethereum is already integrated by most exchanges, so they don't need to beg on being listed there and perhaps even developing stuff for the exchange. And you don't have to bother about neither consensus nor some regulatory stuff I mentioned in the other post.

The price is paid by the customers - in the form of gas fees (for the consensus). It's all about outsourcing costs for the centralized providers. Thus, from the point of view of the company who issues the RWA asset it makes sense.

But the total cost of the system is much higher than implementing everything on a totally centralized structure.

Everything else is already answered in both your and my posts about that topic. OP either hasn't read them (I don't believe that) or purposefully ignores the arguments because they can't counter them

[alani123]

Well, I think if Ethetrum keeps becoming more popular as a network eventually it will be put to test in terms of its immutability.

So the current administration already tried to play hardball with tornado cash and its Devs. But what if they try to also put validators in trouble? Will they try to force validators to run OFAC lists again? Maybe even force validators to ban tornado cash? Perhaps even go after Vitalik and other project developers on the platform? Make exchanges illegal again?

The government is going to put on a lot of pressure and surely it's something to observe if it happens. Maybe Ethetrum would budge more easily and maybe that's why banks like it more.

[Satofan44]

If it works out well, why should they use Ethereum when they can do the same on their own private blockchain? By issuing their own centralized blockchain they can get all the features of centralized Ethereum without any downside, it comes with an added bonus of having complete control which is what they need.

Simple - because Ethereum is already integrated by most exchanges, so they don't need to beg on being listed there and perhaps even developing stuff for the exchange. And you don't have to bother about neither consensus nor some regulatory stuff I mentioned in the other post.

The price is paid by the customers - in the form of gas fees (for the consensus). It's all about outsourcing costs for the centralized providers. Thus, from the point of view of the company who issues the RWA asset it makes sense.

But the total cost of the system is much higher than implementing everything on a totally centralized structure.

I do not fully agree, even though I will acknowledge that there is an advantage there -- but in my view it does not outweigh the other things because if it did then almost nobody would have created their own incompatible chain so far. Yet there are hundreds of standards or even thousands (since we do not know the full scope of private implementations). You perhaps have no experience with how projects are listed or have been listed for the past 2 cycles? It has nothing to do with any kind of begging really. There are only 2 different cases:

• Requires payment.
• Listed because popular or volume without payment.

Most of the projects go with the first route, and then that splits into 2 categories: is it compatible with the existing chains/implementations that are supported or does it require its own implementation. In the first case it is almost trivial, the amount of developmentv work that exchanges put into it is a joke. They spend a couple thousand of $ and ask for $50k to $1m for listing to integrate a copy of an existing implementation. These issues will not need to provide a custom implementation or making it arduous to add their project because:

• They can make it compatible with existing projects, EVM-compatible for example.
• They can easily pay.

Everything else is already answered in both your and my posts about that topic. OP either hasn't read them (I don't believe that) or purposefully ignores the arguments because they can't counter them

Exactly, dubious motivations at best. The thing is that everything that you can do on any shitcoin chain you can do already on Bitcoin, there exists nothing that you can't -- what you can't do is replicate the implementation exactly how it is. For example, you could store advanced things or run advanced configurations such as smart contracts but with a combination of on-chain and off-chain implementation -- you just can't do everything on chain, because the system is designed against that. RWA and everything else could be done on Bitcoin if they wanted to, but we are much safer than any chain who does all of those things on chain.

The government is going to put on a lot of pressure and surely it's something to observe if it happens. Maybe Ethetrum would budge more easily and maybe that's why banks like it more.

They budged once already and there was zero government pressure at the time, there was only some small capital pressure to revert on chain transactions relating to the DAO hack. With that, they have failed the decentralization and immutability test forever. You can't go back to the state of being innocent after murdering anyone even once, you are forever a murderer. You can run and hide in denial, but that won't change anything. Ethereum has long been ruined through several ways, one of which is this.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Either they are spamming (which is more obvious in spam super sections like Gambling) or they have malicious motives for which they pretend to ask questions or be unable to understand the answers.

But, spam for what reason? This particular user is not advertising anything directly, as far as I can tell. In his profile, I can only see a "Sbercoin" which is probably just another token. I'll agree with you that various motives are behind "innocent" questions, however.

Well, I think if Ethetrum keeps becoming more popular as a network eventually it will be put to test in terms of its immutability.

Hasn't this already happened? Wasn't Ethereum hard forked because someone stole a large amount of ETH? Maybe it is somewhat resistant when it comes to transaction reversibility, but Ethereum is primarily used for its dApps, which are far from immutable by their developers.

[alani123]

@BlackHatCoiner @satofan44 let's not be too harsh for Ethetrum. The DAO recovery effort was a one time event that was seen as foundational in restoring trust to the project, simply because some developers were acting carelessly and also too many people decided to put money towards that cause. It has never happened since but then again, we saw it happen on a foundational level with Arbitrum who froze their entire chain to reclaim hacked funds just very recently. So now there's the layer twos who are doing the exact same thing.

Yes, in a way, Ethetrum is already open for compromise through use of L2s. But also people could return to the main chain and pay slightly more expensive fees if they want more immutability. For instance, the hackers on the kelp/AAVE compromise were able to actually launder a lot of their bags without issue through the main chain.

My worry though is also valid for bitcoin because big industry heads are too buddy buddy with the government and the authorities lately.

[d5000]

It has nothing to do with any kind of begging really.

"Begging" should not be meant literally, but as a term to describe just the payment or any other process where you have to communicate with an exchange to adopt a new protocol. And these payments should be cheaper for tokens on existing blockchains (at least Gemini agrees with me here But you're correct about my lack of expertise, at least I've never listed a token myself on an exchange.).

I think the bigger issue is anyway to have to maintain an own consensus mechanism. Some exchanges also wouldn't accept coins on completely private blockchains (which are relatively easy to maintain/manage). And having to incentive a relatively safe validator set (e.g. a PoS mechanism incentived with some "ecosystem" premine) is more work than just create a token on an existing chain. I think it largely depends on the coin issuer's financial capacity, an own blockchain should be always more expensive if it's a "real" (public] blockchain.

There is also the network effect of established chains like Ethereum and Solana. Here you can address a large user base of potential buyers if they can use their favourite DEXes to acquire the tokens. In this case, you can say that you "outsource" a bit of your marketing costs, as you automatically "reach out" to Ethereum / Solana users using these DEXes already.

The thing is for me - in an ideal world, that all shouldn't be necessary, they should run their private PayPal-style coins (with or without some kind of ledger hashing) or private blockchains, and the whole system would be more efficient. But I think in the short term, from the point of view of the RWA token issuers, there is less audience available for that approach than if you release your token on an established chain. Bitcoin is currently not really in that "game" because the mechanisms you could use with offchain components, like RGB and sidechains, still have few users (and others, like Omni, Counterparty and ... Runes, are too limited).

Eventually the market should adjust to that though. Maybe regulation is the problem that limits CEXes from accepting totally privately managed coins.

The thing is that everything that you can do on any shitcoin chain you can do already on Bitcoin, there exists nothing that you can't -- what you can't do is replicate the implementation exactly how it is. For example, you could store advanced things or run advanced configurations such as smart contracts but with a combination of on-chain and off-chain implementation -- you just can't do everything on chain, because the system is designed against that.

Yep, RGB, Taro or some sidechain should provide the tools to release any RWA and create any kind of smart contract on Bitcoin. In the case of sidechains, even Monero-/Grin style privacy protocols should be possible.

[sbercoin.one]

What other institutional product can compete with Bitcoin, an apolitical, counterparty-free, permissionless asset with a fixed supply? 

None, if that's what the buyer wants.

But here's the thing: most capital doesn't want that. Pension funds, family offices, retail through ETFs, they already trust custodians. Counterparty risk is a feature for them, not a bug. It means someone to call, someone to sue, someone regulated.

So the question isn't "is Bitcoin unique?" - yes it is. The question is: how much capital actually values that uniqueness enough to pay a premium for no yield, no legal protection, and 80% drawdowns?

The ideological holders aren't going anywhere. But $2T market cap isn't built on ideology alone - it's built on speculators who came for "number go up". When they get a better deal elsewhere, they leave.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

Questions for the Community

1. How do you respond to the argument "blockchain is useful, Bitcoin is not"?

I would simply say that the work is shared or divided, blockchain is useful in it's own side and bitcoin is also very useful in it's own side..
First, bitcoin is useful because blockchain alone can't serve as a currency that can be earned or spent on goods and services, blockchain on its own can not serve as a digital gold can people can invest in and make good profit from..
But on the other hand, blockchain is also useful because it is where every bitcoin transaction is recorded and stores, it is the means through which transactions are verifed and stored for posterity sake, bitcoin definitely can not be bitcoin without a blockchain but this does not make bitcoin less important than a blockchain.

2. Are ETF buyers adoption or just speculation?

The answer is very simple, creating an ETF version of bitcoin is adoption because this is not something anybody can just wake up one morning and do, it's directly the government that effects the creation of this ETF and it shows acceptance and adoption.
Then on the other hand, those who are buying the ETF are doing so out of speculation and not really about adoption.

3. If tokenized assets offer everything Bitcoin does + yield + regulatory protection — what remains unique about Bitcoin besides trustlessness?

What remains unique about bitcoin itself is privacy, freedom, real ownership of your money, no limitation, no restrictions, no censorship of any kind, you are in full control and not under any rules and regulations, terms and conditions whatso ever.

[BlackHatCoiner]

But here's the thing: most capital doesn't want that. Pension funds, family offices, retail through ETFs, they already trust custodians.

The primary goal of most capital is to reduce counterparty risk. I don't know where you're coming from, but historically, in almost every Western country, the government has repeatedly messed with people's pensions, savings, and property. Most people don't actually care about playing the stock market or buying houses just to become real estate investors. They buy these assets simply to protect their savings from inflation. But, these investments come with their own counterparty risks, like relying on corporations or dealing with the State's ultimate control over property. Ideally, people want to remove that risk completely; they just want to ensure their purchasing power doesn't diminish over time.

Michael Saylor talks about this better than I do: https://youtu.be/cH2t6VOdgkE

[Satofan44]

@BlackHatCoiner @satofan44 let's not be too harsh for Ethetrum. The DAO recovery effort was a one time event that was seen as foundational in restoring trust to the project, simply because some developers were acting carelessly and also too many people decided to put money towards that cause. It has never happened since but then again, we saw it happen on a foundational level with Arbitrum who froze their entire chain to reclaim hacked funds just very recently. So now there's the layer twos who are doing the exact same thing.

This claim is false. This one time event did not restore trust, it led to a collapse of the core principles that only Bitcoin sustains. The further developments in Ethereum have completely centralized it by bloating the chain exponentially, sacrificed key security guarantees by introducing fast synchronization methods, introduced completely centralized layer 2's that rely on master keys and all sorts of shenanigans that Bitcoin is against. Once you do what you perceive to be actions relating to a "one time event", you start down a endless road of compromises and changes in opinion that never stop. Since the DAO event, Ethereum can consistently been centralizing itself. If you are too blind to see that, that does not change the reality of it.

My worry though is also valid for bitcoin because big industry heads are too buddy buddy with the government and the authorities lately.

"Big industry" can't do anything to Bitcoin, with or without the governments support. We have tested our resiliency several times, and each victory has led to a strengthening of the fundamental principles. That is the core difference between us and shitcoins. We could have bailed Mt.Gox out, but we chose not to. Others bailed many projects out in many different ways, even "one time events" are grave sins that can never be undone.

"Begging" should not be meant literally, but as a term to describe just the payment or any other process where you have to communicate with an exchange to adopt a new protocol. And these payments should be cheaper for tokens on existing blockchains (at least Gemini agrees with me here But you're correct about my lack of expertise, at least I've never listed a token myself on an exchange.).

They should, but in most cases they are not and that is why I have given you a good example with implementations that are basically just a copy paste of an existing token. If you adopt some tokens on Ethereum, adding another costs anything. And before you go into the ideological bullshit about them having to verify the tokens and do due diligence, most exchanges do not do that. You pay, you sign some bullshit contract and give them information relating to basic data (supply) or APIs and that is it. Just because some have stricter listing requirements, that does not mean it is the norm -- it is the exception.

I think the bigger issue is anyway to have to maintain an own consensus mechanism. Some exchanges also wouldn't accept coins on completely private blockchains (which are relatively easy to maintain/manage). And having to incentive a relatively safe validator set (e.g. a PoS mechanism incentived with some "ecosystem" premine) is more work than just create a token on an existing chain. I think it largely depends on the coin issuer's financial capacity, an own blockchain should be always more expensive if it's a "real" (public] blockchain.

Why would that be an issue with big companies, especially those that have several divisions and partnerships? It is almost trivial really in those cases. Most of the ways in which Bitcoin can be attacked do not apply in cases like that anyway, they have much fewer things to worry about when you can revert things together with partners besides denying access to the system in the first place.

There is also the network effect of established chains like Ethereum and Solana. Here you can address a large user base of potential buyers if they can use their favourite DEXes to acquire the tokens. In this case, you can say that you "outsource" a bit of your marketing costs, as you automatically "reach out" to Ethereum / Solana users using these DEXes already.

You are thinking like someone who has been in crypto too long and got the angle confused a little bit. An existing product whose userbase entirely comes from non-crypto sources does not have any need of this at all. We are talking about business process improvements, not tapping into new markets. Costs, efficiency, control matter, network effect of networks is irrelevant for that.

The thing is for me - in an ideal world, that all shouldn't be necessary, they should run their private PayPal-style coins (with or without some kind of ledger hashing) or private blockchains, and the whole system would be more efficient. But I think in the short term, from the point of view of the RWA token issuers, there is less audience available for that approach than if you release your token on an established chain. Bitcoin is currently not really in that "game" because the mechanisms you could use with offchain components, like RGB and sidechains, still have few users (and others, like Omni, Counterparty and ... Runes, are too limited).

Those that are seeking to leverage the network effects from existing chains are mostly players that are new, that is why they need to do that. Most of the scam funding in shitcoin spaces circulates around ETH and then around a few smaller players. If you want funding, create it on ETH or as an ETH L2 -- which is exactly what happened in recent history, hundreds of L2s that shouldn't even be a thing because they are useless and pointless. The other group is established players who want to get a good and quick test out in the public, and the network effect of ETH makes that easy. It is easier to find developers that can write something for ETH than some shitcoin listed in position number 300 on Coingecko and using its own unique VM and specifics.

[d5000]

Why would that be an issue with big companies, especially those that have several divisions and partnerships?

Of course those big issuers can run an own public blockchain. But they would lack the network effect. See below.

An existing product whose userbase entirely comes from non-crypto sources does not have any need of this at all. We are talking about business process improvements, not tapping into new markets. Costs, efficiency, control matter, network effect of networks is irrelevant for that.

But then why to use blockchain at all? RWA assets mirror existing assets which can also be sold by these entities. Another reason to adopt blockchain technology could be to facilitate microinvesting into assets like stocks which can't easily be sold in small fractions, but non-blockchain solutions for that exist since several years.

Thus for me the main answers to the question "why does RWA need a blockchain?" are still outsourcing costs (and in this case, an existing chain comes handy) and entering new markets (the "crypto" market isn't that small, in some countries more than 10% hold/trade "crypto").

I don't know if we really disagree -- if the essence of your posts is that "apart from capturing crypto users (often borderline scamming them), RWA are useless" -- then I'm with you.

[Somegory]

Everyone is free to make their own opinions, believe what you want to and I will believe in mine, Bitcoin should have serve as an example to all developers out there, it's a shame that only Bitcoin actually delivers what the people need.

Blockchain can't do shit on its own, someone needs to build on the Blockchain, yes Blockchain is the system and it's useful, but the best most useful thing that came out of Blockchain is Bitcoin, there are unfortunately hundreds of thousands others.

The question is why have not any surpassed bitcoin till date then? It's no more about the system, Blockchain is functional but for what use? Bitcoin brings decentralisation, nothing else ever did, true ownership belongs to Bitcoin.

[legiteum]

The question is why have not any surpassed bitcoin till date then? It's no more about the system, Blockchain is functional but for what use? Bitcoin brings decentralisation, nothing else ever did, true ownership belongs to Bitcoin.

There was a period when ETH was more valuable than Bitcoin, and while Bitcoin subsequently pulled way ahead, Bitcoin is still only about one half of the total crypto market value, with the other half being spread among the next 6-8 coins down the list.

In that scenario, I wouldn't be confident that Bitcoin will be the most valuable crypto "forever". It might stay that way, but there are many reasons why it might not as well. There are many very good direct competitors to Bitcoin like SOL, ETH, XRP, and a few others. Then there are structural competitors like the stablecoins. And finally, there are political competitors like $TRUMP. Trump hasn't leveraged the US government to push his own coin very hard yet, but he could, and it would be very easy for Trump to coerce Americans to switch from BTC to $TRUMP. I'm not saying this is going to happen, but it's not impossible either.

So long story short, just because BTC is #1 right now doesn't mean it absolutely has to stay that way.

[...]
The thing is for me - in an ideal world, that all shouldn't be necessary, they should run their private PayPal-style coins (with or without some kind of ledger hashing) or private blockchains, and the whole system would be more efficient. [...]

I think the point you are making is that blockchain is a pointless waste of time when used in a private context (and I completely agree), but I'd take it one step further and say that blockchain isn't necessary at all anymore since Bitcoin et. al. is completely legal and protected by the US and other governments. Blockchain's sole unique purpose was to evade government shutdown of the network, which it accomplished. But it also accomplished, through its popularity, regulatory reform that basically made Bitcoin's government-evasion architecture--which comes at an enormous cost in time and money--unnecessary.

Hence the question I posed in this thread: if you changed Bitcoin's architecture to a more centralized model (and therefore faster/cheaper), then wouldn't this make the price of BTC go up? I'd argue that such a move would be all upside and no downside (but that's an argument for another thread). But for purposes of this thread, the key point is that the market no longer needs the technology--blockchain--that Bitcoin originally offered.

[PrivacyG]

There are many very good direct competitors to Bitcoin like SOL, ETH, XRP, and a few others.

Then there are structural competitors like the stablecoins.

it would be very easy for Trump to coerce Americans to switch from BTC to $TRUMP.

I opened this Topic again after two months to see the new replies totally not expecting to read the dumbest thing of this week.  I would have understood if you compared Bitcoin to a possibly better version of Blockchain or 'Bitcoin' that may appear in the future.  Or such things.  But comparing it to XRP, Stablecoins and finally TRUMP COIN calling it a possible take over is just.. dumb.

[Cookdata]

The question is why have not any surpassed bitcoin till date then? It's no more about the system, Blockchain is functional but for what use? Bitcoin brings decentralisation, nothing else ever did, true ownership belongs to Bitcoin.

There was a period when ETH was more valuable than Bitcoin, and while Bitcoin subsequently pulled way ahead, Bitcoin is still only about one half of the total crypto market value, with the other half being spread among the next 6-8 coins down the list.

By value I hope you meant by market cap. If that's what you meant then it makes sense considering that Ethereum pre-mine some coins and sold large chunk of coins to early investors to raised millions back then and since had large circulating supply, even xrp was having on that battle then but having irritating supply doesn't do good for the market, Bitcoin with little supply was never wrong, it remain one of the most valuable coin to ever exist on the market.

In that scenario, I wouldn't be confident that Bitcoin will be the most valuable crypto "forever". It might stay that way, but there are many reasons why it might not as well. There are many very good direct competitors to Bitcoin like SOL, ETH, XRP, and a few others. Then there are structural competitors like the stablecoins. And finally, there are political competitors like $TRUMP. Trump hasn't leveraged the US government to push his own coin very hard yet, but he could, and it would be very easy for Trump to coerce Americans to switch from BTC to $TRUMP. I'm not saying this is going to happen, but it's not impossible either.

I hope you are been sarcastic here because you made no sense. Which coin are you expecting to pass Bitcoin by market cap? Let's assume stable coins get more adoption and people mint more stable coin to buy Bitcoin, it make a little sense but Bitcoin isn't stable it will outgrow the market after sometime.

Don't even mention Solana, chain that get switch off and patches all the time when valodators reach maximum capacity? Not even close please. Xrp is a old dead glory, it's everyday they are trying to replace the bank but the team and founder sell their bags. Want to consider Ethereum? The foundation just sold some last 2 weeks and investors are mad for been dumped on, this madness has been going for long time.

You mentioned Trump coin, you can't be serious please.

[legiteum]

The question is why have not any surpassed bitcoin till date then? It's no more about the system, Blockchain is functional but for what use? Bitcoin brings decentralisation, nothing else ever did, true ownership belongs to Bitcoin.

There was a period when ETH was more valuable than Bitcoin, and while Bitcoin subsequently pulled way ahead, Bitcoin is still only about one half of the total crypto market value, with the other half being spread among the next 6-8 coins down the list.

By value I hope you meant by market cap.

It's the only value I would discuss publicly. Maybe somebody out there has a pet hamster that is more valuable than all of the Bitcoin in the world to them, but in this kind of discussion using such a metric would be pretty weird  .

I hope you are been sarcastic here because you made no sense. Which coin are you expecting to pass Bitcoin by market cap? Let's assume stable coins get more adoption and people mint more stable coin to buy Bitcoin, it make a little sense but Bitcoin isn't stable it will outgrow the market after sometime.

Don't even mention Solana, chain that get switch off and patches all the time when valodators reach maximum capacity? Not even close please. Xrp is a old dead glory, it's everyday they are trying to replace the bank but the team and founder sell their bags. Want to consider Ethereum? The foundation just sold some last 2 weeks and investors are mad for been dumped on, this madness has been going for long time.

You mentioned Trump coin, you can't be serious please.

I guess I've been around long enough to see markets change and market leaders swap. Maybe I'm just old. IBM was the biggest computer company once and MySpace was the biggest social network back in the day. It leads me to believe that change is, you know, possible. If you are young enough to believe that everything is going to stay exactly how it is today then... I envy you .

I opened this Topic again after two months to see the new replies totally not expecting to read the dumbest thing of this week.  I would have understood if you compared Bitcoin to a possibly better version of Blockchain or 'Bitcoin' that may appear in the future.  Or such things.  But comparing it to XRP, Stablecoins and finally TRUMP COIN calling it a possible take over is just.. dumb.

To each his own. I think a mindlessly religious devotion to a pile of lines of code is... dumb. I think believing the present state of the market will be the same exact way it is for the next 1000 years is... yeah... dumb... AAPL is the biggest computer company. Will it still be in 10 years? It's hard to imagine that changing, but sure would never be caught asserting that such a thing is absolutely impossible. That doesn't sound smart at all.

But that's just me...

[3kpk3]

Firstly, your statement about BTC taking away power from the central authorities not applying to the average investor is bullcrap. Many of them love BTC primarily because of this fact due to which their reliance on traditional currencies like the dollar etc decreased.

Secondly, my earlier statement answered why BTC is useful while the blockchain tech is even more useful. Simple!

[CryptoYar]

[...]

As opposed to Bitcoin, Ethereum has become more vulnerable to institutional pressures as few big players are in control of vast amounts of staked ETH which makes them easy target for legal subpoenas.

Ethereum strongest feature is its enterprise adoption and yet it becomes its Achilles Heel as well. Banks love it for its flexibility, but flexibility may come with price, Hard Immutability. If Vitalik or core devs are put under pressure, community may see User-Activated Soft Fork to preserve integrity of network. True test will be whether Ethereum community cares more about Global Legality or Censorship Resistance. In event that they move, ETH could turn into quicker rendition of conventional banking system as opposed to genuinely decentralized revolution.