More altcoins should become satellite chains or systems of Bitcoin

[Ucy]

Instead of creating "endless" amount of altcoins and tokens why not focus more on creating or becoming auxiliary systems or sidechains of Bitcoin.

So instead of creating standalone altcoins, shouldn't we focus more on creating well decentralized Bitcoin auxiliary systems, with well decentralized bridges that allow for the bridging of bitcoins to the systems for the creation of bitcoin pegs that can be used for more advanced purposes.

— To qualify as Bitcoin sidechains or auxiliary systems:
* Bitcoin should be regarded as Parent or Main chain for the Altcoin auxiliary systems.
* Bitcoin (bitcoin peg) should be more important or more prioritized than the system native coin and non native coins/tokens .
* And we can allow for the creation of other decentralized bridges for altcoins/tokens especially stablecoins, but they should be less important than Bitcoin
* The systems should possibly be multichain systems:
The chains could be made of Superchains(all system chains combined, that can be hosted by an individual, with collection of nodes on a SuperNode container) and other single or multi chains with their own hosts and nodes.
* Should be advanced enough for smart-escrow (or smart contract) and other advanced features
* Should be very decentralized, transparent, permissionless, trustless, censorship resistant, privacy-friendly, immutable, etc

[TastyChillySauce00]

The idea is great, however there are already bitcoin L2s such as Stacks, Babylon, Rootstock, Bitlayer, Merlin, and many others, but their usage are quite low and their token market capitalization isn't that high, in reality bitcoin haven't seen any use of these L2s especially after the fee has been getting low. Nobody wants to lock up their bitcoin and mint bitcoin on the other less secure blockchain because it adds counterparty risk. The bitcoin maxi which supposedly become their main audience don't like these.

Instead of creating "endless" amount of altcoins and tokens why not focus more on creating or becoming auxiliary systems or sidechains of Bitcoin.

The creation of endless amount of altcoins is because they want to get rich by creating economy of altcoin out of thin air, it's a get rich quick scheme for developers which is the reason why they prefer to create their own blockchain. They knew their altcoin will be short lived, but they became rich out of it which was the main reason they aren't nearly as invested to create sidechains for bitcoin. They want to sell "innovations" which honestly just gimmicks and create their own blockchain, because it's easier to develop when you don't have to adhere with the requirements.

[jossiel]

The idea is nice but I don't think that many would like to do it. That's the reason why they're choosing to do it on other chains because it's probably easier and cheaper, I don't know exactly because if those attributes are great for them. Then, it should be the first option than the rest.

They want to sell "innovations" which honestly just gimmicks and create their own blockchain, because it's easier to develop when you don't have to adhere with the requirements.

Exactly.

They want to propose and sell what exactly has been solved by bitcoin long time ago. And still into their fantasies that there's a need to solve and provide scalable solutions.

[fullfitlarry]

Yes, as others have said.

But you have to understand that most devs take pride on what they've created. And they could be thinking that they could give us some unique altcoins that can change the market. So I don't think that they are willing to be just a satellite chains.

Bitcoin is enough already, no need to add any layer although we have lightning. But still, it's a different market for altcoin devs and they will not go under the prime mover.

[Abiky]

Instead of creating "endless" amount of altcoins and tokens why not focus more on creating or becoming auxiliary systems or sidechains of Bitcoin.

So instead of creating standalone altcoins, shouldn't we focus more on creating well decentralized Bitcoin auxiliary systems, with well decentralized bridges that allow for the bridging of bitcoins to the systems for the creation of bitcoin pegs that can be used for more advanced purposes.

— To qualify as Bitcoin sidechains or auxiliary systems:
* Bitcoin should be regarded as Parent or Main chain for the Altcoin auxiliary systems.
* Bitcoin (bitcoin peg) should be more important or more prioritized than the system native coin and non native coins/tokens .
* And we can allow for the creation of other decentralized bridges for altcoins/tokens especially stablecoins, but they should be less important than Bitcoin
* The systems should possibly be multichain systems:
The chains could be made of Superchains(all system chains combined, that can be hosted by an individual, with collection of nodes on a SuperNode container) and other single or multi chains with their own hosts and nodes.
* Should be advanced enough for smart-escrow (or smart contract) and other advanced features
* Should be very decentralized, transparent, permissionless, trustless, censorship resistant, privacy-friendly, immutable, etc

This concept is similar to Ardor's (formerly NXT) child chains. They're essentially chains living under a parent chain (hence, the name child chain). Altcoins benefitting from the core Bitcoin network's security, is desirable. But it'll be up to developers whenever they want to do this or not. The problem with sidechains is that they heavily depend on their parent chain to survive. If something goes wrong with the parent chain, sidechains will also be affected. Having a seperate network for each coin, ensures each can grow on their own without being tied to the main network's success.

At least, there are multiple L2s or sidechains living within Bitcoin. Stacks and RSK are one of them. Hopefully, the number of options grow as BTC becomes more popular.

[MAAManda]

Yes, as others have said.

But you have to understand that most devs take pride on what they've created. And they could be thinking that they could give us some unique altcoins that can change the market. So I don't think that they are willing to be just a satellite chains.

Bitcoin is enough already, no need to add any layer although we have lightning. But still, it's a different market for altcoin devs and they will not go under the prime mover.

Altcoins belong to a different sector, that's my understanding. We can't rely entirely on Bitcoin (BTC), as each blockchain offers something unique to adopters. For instance, if Vitalik Buterin had held the view that Bitcoin (BTC) should be the only one, we might not be familiar with smart-contracts today.

If we look at it from a more positive perspective, altcoins can serve as a point of comparison for Bitcoin (BTC), demonstrating that Bitcoin (BTC) is actually superior to all altcoins. In terms of both security & decentralization. Well, altcoins certainly need to remain in the industry.

[internetional]

Supporters of this idea should pay attention to the hardfork that Paul Sztorc and his team plan to execute in 21 hours. Its main goal is precisely to enable the creation of various sidechains with different properties under a single standard. Unfortunately, over the past 11 years, the mainstream Bitcoin community hasn't shown enough support for this idea, making a hard fork necessary. However, you still have time to exchange all your altcoins for bitcoins to get more coins from the new forked chain.

[o48o]

I think i have heard something similar over and over coming from ETH holders, complaining why people are making more altcoins when they could make so much more money if everything run on ETH layer 2.

Talking about bridges / multichains as a solution is kinda weird, when bridges have been a huge attack vector for scammers. Bringing bitcoin to center of it all would just taint the reputation of bitcoin in eyes of normies. Personally i am glad that there are altcoins to choose from and that they don't have to play along with each other, but are free to develop what ever they want without compromising others.

[retreat]

With so many Bitcoin L2s (I searched, there are around 70+), I don't think there's a need for more. Because from what it looks like, not many people care about these L2s, to the point where some projects have simply died due to lack of support and market demand. Especially with more people using Bitcoin as a store of value and for transactions (since the fees are cheaper), it hasn't made more Bitcoiners interested in using L2s. So most likely, the L2s that survive today can really bring innovation and are needed in the market, while others, may just fade away over time.

[internetional]

Supporters of this idea should pay attention to the hardfork that Paul Sztorc and his team plan to execute in 21 hours. Its main goal is precisely to enable the creation of various sidechains with different properties under a single standard. Unfortunately, over the past 11 years, the mainstream Bitcoin community hasn't shown enough support for this idea, making a hard fork necessary. However, you still have time to exchange all your altcoins for bitcoins to get more coins from the new forked chain.

It looks like I was wrong when I said there were 21 hours left until the hard fork. Yesterday, the timer on the main page of ecash.com indicated exactly that. But today, there is already a new timer, and according to it, there are still 28 days left until the hardfork.

The eCash alpha network that was launched today is a testnet. In it, you can make transactions with the coins that were at your Bitcoin addresses at the time this network was split. And someone is already making these transactions; there are no empty blocks in it (see https://explorer.alpha.ecash.ninja/). You can even try transferring these coins to different sidechains with different properties. However, during the final hard fork, these coins will not make it into the final chain.