15 years after the first altchain: Is any altcoin "better" than Bitcoin?

[d5000]

In April 2011, the first altcoin, Namecoin, was launched. Terracoin, Litecoin and many others followed shortly after.

Many altcoins advertised themselves as "better than Bitcoin", or an "evolution of Bitcoin". In olden times (2015-17) I also believed some of these claims could be true and some altcoins would even put Bitcoin's leadership in danger. But now, in 2026, 15 years after the first altcoin was launched, I am a bit disappointed.

Ethereum claimed it could revolutionize the Internet as the "world computer", and we would see a "decentralized Uber" and whatnot. But what we see on Ethereum and other "smart contract chains" now primarily are tokens. And tokens of DEXes to speculate with other tokens. DeFi loans exist but you need to overcollateralize them. Coins like Ardor and later Arbitrum/Optimism promised to solve scaling, but the promise has not been delivered or the chains are totally centralized. Stablecoins are perhaps the altcoin type with most "real use cases", but most are centralized. RWAs are not really different from derivatives you can buy via an online broker or your bank.
 
There are a few altcoin projects I still consider interesting. Monero and Grin as privacy coins for example, Dai as a relatively decentralized stablecoin, and some layer 2 ideas which could act as a decentralized bridge (e.g. Threshold Network's tBTC). And Ethereum at least has the potential to generate some killer app, although currently I see none (well, Dai is perhaps the only one).

So some innovations exist. But all altcoins seem have some tradeoff. Altcoins with fast block times? Are much more centralized than Bitcoin. Privacy coins? Are less scalable. And smart contract chains suffer from MEV and other vulnerabilities. AI tokens? Are not really worth thinking about. Memecoins / NFT? Exist since 2015.

This is however only my opinion. In this thread, I'd be interested in opposed opinions. Does somebody think there is any altcoin project that is, on a whole, "better" than Bitcoin? If yes, please explain why you think the innovation is more relevant than possible tradeoffs like centralization. I'll discuss it in a fair manner and will honour good arguments.

[Primark]

I have nothing to say, but I learned a lot of new things after reading your post, which I may not have known before. I can only give my personal opinion, but I don't know how true or realistic it will be. I think there are some projects that can do better than Bitcoin, for example, in terms of fast transactions and privacy or smart contract benefits.

However, since your question is about whether there is an overall better alternative to Bitcoin, I would say that it probably depends on which features we value the most. Your analysis was good. I am interested to know from you what is your opinion on this matter? If you please share your opinion, at least I could know something.In my opinion, the biggest advantage by far is Bitcoin's network effect and long-term credibility with people.

[lavaai]

I thought Nano, which was called Raiblocks, was a cool innovation using a "block DAG" or "lattice" that was sufficiently complicated so that people could not invent competing histories.  This solved the problem bitcoin solved with history not being forgeable but in a totally different, less computationally intense way.  But the supply was always just owned by one specific owner and there was no way to mine or earn the token meaningfully.  So I think btc is very cool in that Proof-of-Work made it such that you could participate in upholding the network and get rewarded with payouts.  In a similar way, LavaAI (https://lavaai.io) is our token and rather than reward people for upholding the network, our basis is Proof-of-Content which means the historical ledger of top content serves as the "fruit of the tree" so-to-speak.  Rather than a long historical record of SHA-256 hashes going bananas.  While we have just launched our platform 5 days ago it still makes sense to compare  it with bitcoin because bitcoin also had a very humble start. 

I don't really understand the drive toward privacy tokens.  Decentralized money is helpful in many ways but it is not helpful in ways that require legitimacy regulation and oversight, and privacy coins seem to lean more in that dimension rather than less.  I suppose with an ethically ambiguous outlook that has a dubious concern and wreckless abandon regarding ethics and causality one might be alright with working on such projects.  But for us, something that actually improves the internet, human experience, and adds value to the economy is what we strive to build.  We are not trying to sidestep the traditional channels, we want to complement them. 

Bitcoin itself proved there is a space for decentralized digital currency , if one may call it currency - I know Warren Buffet is very averse to calling it that.  But bitcoin fell short of providing real authentic innovation to the planet aside from proving out that there is a need for something like it that can operate fully autonomously on the web without needing haphazard human intervention from capricious ruling parties.  Where bitcoin left off, we continue the mission...

[m2017]

In April 2011, the first altcoin, Namecoin, was launched. Terracoin, Litecoin and many others followed shortly after.

So, where are all the projects (and the rest of them)? Who needs them now?

Many altcoins advertised themselves as "better than Bitcoin", or an "evolution of Bitcoin". In olden times (2015-17) I also believed some of these claims could be true and some altcoins would even put Bitcoin's leadership in danger. But now, in 2026, 15 years after the first altcoin was launched, I am a bit disappointed.

Time has put everything in its place (bitcoin has only strengthened its position, despite its "technical backwardness"). All those coins that "screamed" they would become the best version of bitcoin turned out to be practically useless.

Ethereum claimed it could revolutionize the Internet as the "world computer", and we would see a "decentralized Uber" and whatnot. But what we see on Ethereum and other "smart contract chains" now primarily are tokens. And tokens of DEXes to speculate with other tokens. DeFi loans exist but you need to overcollateralize them. Coins like Ardor and later Arbitrum/Optimism promised to solve scaling, but the promise has not been delivered or the chains are totally centralized.

The promises remained nothing but promises.

Stablecoins are perhaps the altcoin type with most "real use cases", but most are centralized.

Well, actually, one could say that stablecoins have outperformed bitcoin in terms of their use as a means of payment. It must be admitted that they succeeded in this and have carved out a niche for themselves - though this is solely due to their price stability (pegged roughly 1:1 to the dollar).

There are a few altcoin projects I still consider interesting. Monero and Grin as privacy coins for example, Dai as a relatively decentralized stablecoin, and some layer 2 ideas which could act as a decentralized bridge (e.g. Threshold Network's tBTC). And Ethereum at least has the potential to generate some killer app, although currently I see none (well, Dai is perhaps the only one).

These are projects that addressed bitcoin's shortcomings (such as privacy issues - XMR) and managed to carve out their own niches. While one could argue that they managed to surpass bitcoin in specific areas, this doesn't place them on the same level as bitcoin. In the 15 years since its inception, it seems to me that an "BTC-killer" has never emerged (and I suspect never will; even if a project appeared that surpassed bitcoin in every respect, bitcoin would likely remain the leader simply because it was the first, unlike the "secondary" altcoins).

So some innovations exist. But all altcoins seem have some tradeoff. Altcoins with fast block times? Are much more centralized than Bitcoin. Privacy coins? Are less scalable. And smart contract chains suffer from MEV and other vulnerabilities. AI tokens? Are not really worth thinking about. Memecoins / NFT? Exist since 2015.

No one denies these innovations, but they are all fragmented across different projects. In theory, if you were to combine them all into a single coin, then perhaps (though it’s unlikely) this "Frankenstein" might surpass bitcoin.

This is however only my opinion. In this thread, I'd be interested in opposed opinions. Does somebody think there is any altcoin project that is, on a whole, "better" than Bitcoin? If yes, please explain why you think the innovation is more relevant than possible tradeoffs like centralization. I'll discuss it in a fair manner and will honour good arguments.

If such a project emerges, we will immediately notice it in the crypto market (specifically in the price), as it surpasses bitcoin; in other words, users will vote with their investments for the coin that truly outperforms bitcoin.

But personally, I have serious doubts about that. Very serious doubts.

[Oshosondy]

This is however only my opinion. In this thread, I'd be interested in opposed opinions. Does somebody think there is any altcoin project that is, on a whole, "better" than Bitcoin?

I do not think there is anything that can be explained because there is no altcoin that is better than bitcoin.

I would have said exchange tokens because if the exchange continues to exist, there is chance that the exchange token will increase in value. But see what happened to FTT of the FTX. Who knows if this will happen to any other exchange token like GT, BGB or MX.

There are many small exchanges with useless tokens, I am not referring to them.

Another thing is that they are very centralized. Everything about crypto is just risky. I only buy the altcoins for some weeks or months and sell them when their prices increase, but I can not hold them for a long period of time.

[RGBTC]

When looking at Bitcoin's value, the general perception is clearly that it reigns supreme and remains the top choice, and the primary repository of trust for millionaires and institutions alike. However, we must first narrow down the specific advantages being discussed here; certain altcoins, such as Monero and Ethereum, possess their own unique strengths regarding their respective use cases.

The big question is: "Why do they never surpass Bitcoin?" The reality is that we cannot accurately measure the true extent of global need. Market demand does not necessarily reflect actual utility; much of it is driven by speculation.

• Ethereum’s smart contract features are excellent and useful for launching fully customizable business protocols. Consequently, a key factor in Ethereum's advantage is the growth of its ecosystem. In reality, however, not all business ideas launched on Ethereum offer tangible, long-lasting value. Hype can sometimes propel a token to fame, only for it to be forgotten a few weeks later.
• Monero excels in privacy features, yet not everyone wishes to conceal their transactions; furthermore, it is generally acknowledged that XMR is viewed as an adversary by regulators. Users will inevitably encounter certain limitations.

[ColdLava40]

I think there are some projects that can do better than Bitcoin, for example, in terms of fast transactions and privacy or smart contract benefits.

I don't see any that can do better than Bitcoin in the next few decades

I just choose to believe Bitcoin is the better version of cryptocurrency for now, with a little touch on different areas where many other altcoins have failed including security, decentralization, monetary policy, network effect and many I cannot mention.

Altcoins works like a barter system, where they offer you something in exchange for another. All they have to offer are just promises of a better future, a future better than Bitcoin had given, but we are still back to where it all began.

Bitcoin keeps it simple. It doesn't need a fast Blockchain or a completely private network it keeps everything transparent to the public. Even it's forked versions still couldn't meet up to it's standard and people don care about them.

[pooya87]

Sadly the answer is a big fat NO!

Unlike some people I never thought any of the altcoins were going to be "better" than Bitcoin, least of all those who actually made such a claim. In fact whenever I saw them even compare themselves with Bitcoin (claiming to be doing something better) I considered it a red flag.
But I always hoped though. You should be able to find some of my ancient posts where I tell people that some day someone will come up with some new ideas that would lead to creation of something that is far better than Bitcoin and that would overtake bitcoin very easily. But that hasn't happened yet... I lost some of that hope though.

I think the problem is the monetary gains. The altcoin developers aren't creating a coin to solve a real world problem. Instead they create a coin to make some money. Satoshi never did that, which is why Bitcoin is so successful. He didn't run an Initial Coin Offering to raise funds. He never pre-mined bitcoin, he never had some magical stash to sell. The coins he mined early on are still untouched... all of that is because Satoshi created Bitcoin to solve a problem not to fill his own pocket.

We need that kind of mindset. That will bring innovation and the result will be "better than Bitcoin".

[d5000]

I am interested to know from you what is your opinion on this matter?

Well I think I already gave some hints In principle, I think there is no altcoin clearly better than Bitcoin. The tradeoffs are mostly too big, even in the case of most smart contract chains (see below). There are some small experimental altcoins I consider interesting, but they have not achieved a relevant network effect (apart from the mentioned for example Signum - ex Burst - and Slimcoin, both are old and experimental) and it's totally unclear how they would perform in a massive adoption scenario. My answer to my poll would be "None, but some are close."

I do see some merit for Proof of Stake, but it has a clear tradeoff: you need to check carefully the chain tip you downloaded initially on block explorers to ensure you are not attacked ("weak subjectivity"). The trust assumptions are not the same as Bitcoin's. So it's a case for "close, but not better", even if it requires less energy. In very adversial scenarios (state actors or big criminal networks attacking the chain) PoS could be unsafe and would require constant re-checking of block-hashes. And bootstrapping coins is impossible with PoS.

I thought Nano, which was called Raiblocks, was a cool innovation using a "block DAG" or "lattice" that was sufficiently complicated so that people could not invent competing histories.  This solved the problem bitcoin solved with history not being forgeable but in a totally different, less computationally intense way.  But the supply was always just owned by one specific owner and there was no way to mine or earn the token meaningfully.

Both Gregory Maxwell and Anonymint have written good analysis about Nano and why it doesn't solve the problems it claims to solve (see the original Block lattice thread). Its first draft simply was not secure, and then they applied a proof of stake model, which is not very different to other coins with that idea (conflicting spends are voted via PoS balance).

I remember Nano was "beloved" for the low or non-existent transaction fees. But all altcoins with low usage actually have that "feature", as long as there is no block congestion. BSV also "exists" with near zero fees, but to what price? And a low-fee coin which is actually somewhat used, Solana, has insane full node requirements, making it very centralized.

I completely disagree with your opinion on privacy coins. Censorship resistance and decentralization, which are cryptocurrencies main advantages, are only possible if the users are not de-anonymized. In Bitcoin it is possible to stay "anonymous" but it has become increasingly difficult for non technical users due to chain analysis. So privacy coins have their niche.

Well, actually, one could say that stablecoins have outperformed bitcoin in terms of their use as a means of payment. It must be admitted that they succeeded in this and have carved out a niche for themselves - though this is solely due to their price stability (pegged roughly 1:1 to the dollar).

The issue I have with centralized stablecoins is that they don't really have advantages over e-wallets (PayPal etc.) regarding payments. They are centralized walled gardens (like PayPal - you can't pay someone with USDC if he only accepts USDT), you can be excluded/blocked (blacklist discussion), and there are even fees to convert them (PayPal hasn't). This is also the reason why their main use case is transferring coins around between exchanges and DeFi. Payment usage is mostly limited to countries with heavy Forex restrictions.

Dai is different, but it has also centralized elements, so I would consider it a classic case of a tradeoff, not really "better" than Bitcoin.

In theory, if you were to combine them all into a single coin, then perhaps (though it’s unlikely) this "Frankenstein" might surpass bitcoin.

Some coins do adopt some innovations from others, like LTC which added MimbleWimble privacy. However, some innovations also somewhat contradict each other. For example, a smart contract probably would not make sense in a privacy coin, as you need "accounts" for most typical smart contracts. But if you don't know which account sent a transaction for example, how can a contract properly react to it?

Ethereum’s smart contract features are excellent and useful for launching fully customizable business protocols. Consequently, a key factor in Ethereum's advantage is the growth of its ecosystem. In reality, however, not all business ideas launched on Ethereum offer tangible, long-lasting value.

The big problem in the case of Ethereum is that most (I'd say over 90%) of the "business protocols" could be achieved with traditional architectures. It's often a case where the question "do you need a blockchain for that?" can be answered with "No". DeFi is the only exception, but it enables mostly to speculate with other altcoins. If you know an example which couldn't be achieved without a blockchain and solves a real-life problem (i.e. not only speculation), then please write about it, I'd be genuinely interested

I think the problem is the monetary gains. The altcoin developers aren't creating a coin to solve a real world problem.[...] We need that kind of mindset. That will bring innovation and the result will be "better than Bitcoin".

While I agree with the idea that the profit mentally killed part of the innovation, the question if a coin "better than Bitcoin" is even possible can be debatable. Blockchain technology has some limits that aren't easy to circunvent, for example the "trilemma" of scalability-decentralization-security. And if a breakthrough e.g. for scalability is found without the tradeoffs i mentioned, it is likely Bitcoin could adopt it too.

[atookz]

My response is "No" – not "better as a whole". While some coins excel at one thing (e.g. Monero for privacy), “on the whole” also means matching Bitcoin's security and decentralization… which they don't deliver.

Smaller PoW chains don't have as much hashrate as Bitcoin, so they're much cheaper to attack. Ethereum Classic suffered three 51% attacks in August 2020 alone, and Bitcoin Gold was hit in 2018 and again in 2020. Bitcoin also launched without an ICO or premine, so it has a head start that is difficult to beat, even with better tech.

IMO, altcoins are more useful as testing grounds. Good ideas can be brought into Bitcoin without replacing it: Litecoin activated SegWit in May 2017, a few months before Bitcoin did.

It is not impossible, but after 15 years, nothing has come close to Bitcoin in terms of security, decentralization, and monetary policy.

[Curious T]

In this thread, I'd be interested in opposed opinions. Does somebody think there is any altcoin project that is, on a whole, "better" than Bitcoin? If yes, please explain why you think the innovation is more relevant than possible tradeoffs like centralization. I'll discuss it in a fair manner and will honour good arguments.

I don't have an opposing opinion. I don't think any altcoin is better than Bitcoin. Some might have a faster confirmation time, but will be lacking in other areas. Some has less fees, but would be lacking in other areas as well.

Bitcoin is not perfect, but there are reasons why those imperfections are there. When you take away those imperfections, you either reduce its decentralization feature or you make it inferior. If Bitcoin was centralized, it would be able to process transactions faster, but it would be decentralized and it would not be as secured as it is now. So no altcoin has been better than Bitcoin. Moreno like you mentioned, is the closest, but it's not as transparent as bitcoin.

[Mayor of ogba]

Considering how bitcoin has performed since it was created by Satoshi Nakamoto and the adoption it has gained, to answer your question, no altcoin is close to bitcoin talk more of being better than bitcoin. Bitcoin is the only coin that fixed what it was created for. I was never bothered when some people were pushing a narrative that altcoins are going to be better than bitcoin because I just knew that they were trying to lure people to invest in altcoins, and some people that were deceived by that statement are regretting it till today

[d5000]

Smaller PoW chains don't have as much hashrate as Bitcoin, so they're much cheaper to attack. Ethereum Classic suffered three 51% attacks in August 2020 alone, and Bitcoin Gold was hit in 2018 and again in 2020. Bitcoin also launched without an ICO or premine, so it has a head start that is difficult to beat, even with better tech.

I agree with that. But I could clarify:

I would also be interested in altcoin projects which have currently a weaker security (due to poor participation / mining / value) than Bitcoin, even if this makes is currently less usable -- but offer, in general, a mix of features which is better than Bitcoin's own feature mix.

For example, I could bring up the example of BCH. BCH has activated some opcodes (e.g. regarding covenants) which Bitcoin still is discussing, so it is in some way "better". OP_CAT for example was re-enabled.

But the tradeoff is that BCH was created after a minority chain split, which can be considered against the principles of the Bitcoin protocol. It is not forbidden, but (from my point of view) brings disadvantages to the whole consensus system creating bad incentives. And also the discussion of the usefulness of the covenant opcodes and possible vulnerabilities has not been concluded. And of course, BCH's "big block" policy brings its own set of problems.

It is basically the same thing with smart contract chains - they have lots of features, but the usefulness is still not really proven, as said in earlier posts.

There are other ideas like the reward calculation which may be "better" than Bitcoin's system with its halvings, for example enabling a more constant security budget. Also here, I would be interested in examples (and the reasoning behind it). Of course in this case also there are a lot of tradeoffs (the 21 million coin limit is quite attractive and popular as a "symbol for scarcity").

[NeuroticFish]

Does somebody think there is any altcoin project that is, on a whole, "better" than Bitcoin?

Better? Hard to say, Bitcoin being the main coin it has pretty much the better development and focus.

But, while sadly it's not a realistic wish, I'd love to see as a norm the privacy Monero comes with. The fact one doesn't need expensive gear to mine it is one more plus.
I also miss the hearth warming kindness I've seen in the early days of Dogecoin.
There are coins with more advanced scripting capabilities and support, bringing huge ecosystems of tokens and NFTs with good and bad (I blame more the lack of regulations than the fact the software allowed doing the shitload of scam tokens). I never liked Ethereum, but I did respect it, at least until it became PoS.
And I am sure some newer ones are worthy to this list too.

So there are "contenders". But better? Hmm, again, hard to say, hard to compare. Bitcoin seems to have the near-perfect finetuning plus the advantage of first mover. That seems to worth more than being "better". When/if the market will find a real weakness in Bitcoin or something truly better will emerge or get discovered, it will switch to that. For now it's not the case.

[Freeveto]

So there are "contenders". But better? Hmm, again, hard to say, hard to compare. Bitcoin seems to have the near-perfect finetuning plus the advantage of first mover. That seems to worth more than being "better". When/if the market will find a real weakness in Bitcoin or something truly better will emerge or get discovered, it will switch to that. For now it's not the case.

From what @d5000 expressed in his main thread, some capons came up few days after Bitcoin was launched and claim to do better than Bitcoin, and now all of them are no where close to Bitcoin price, and value because some of them and among them, I think only Litcoin LTC is what I can recognize and its value is nowhere near that of ETH not even Bitcoin; this should just conclude the debate that no altcoin will ever come close to Bitcoin because it has survived so many critics since it was created, and it is still valuable and demanding and due to its limited supply.

[Alonso_]

Reading what you have written, I must say I have learnt so much from your post, but there is something I did understand is that altcoin projects aren’t credible they can’t be trusted, we can’t totally trust any altcoin, considering here is an alternative coin’s discussion I’m expecting people to disagree with me, bitcoin is the most credible cryptocurrency that you will come across so there is no comparison between Bitcoin and any altcoins, since bitcoin was made it’s been making massive waves in the cryptocurrency market, bitcoin is special, I have previously said that if I want to play with altcoins I will choose Etherum, I know there is going to be some sort of disagreements because some people doesn’t like bitcoin and might prefer some altcoins probably because it might be working for them.

[nelson4lov]

None are better than Bitcoin.

Imo some altcoins do specific things better, but "better" as a whole also means security and decentralization,  and that's where they fall short.

Here are a few that I think give genuine value but still aren't better than Bitcoin when everything is considered:

1. Solana: fast and cheap, and it provides the infrastructure for things that are not practical to be built on Bitcoin. The tradeoff is the hardware needed to run a node, which pushes it toward centralization, plus its history of outages. Useful, but not as secure or decentralized.

I forgot to mention that the number of validators on solana will drop even more in the near future now that its double disinflation proposal has passed. Here is the double disinflation discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5591274.msg67045327#msg67045327

2. Ethereum: same idea as Solana, more mature and slower.

3. Hyperliquid: it edges centralized exchanges on transparency and user control, but the validator set is small, so it's not fully decentralized. It's also a trading venue, so it's not really competing with Bitcoin as money.

4. RWA / tokenized assets: real demand from institutions. It's good for crypto's image, but it doesn't make anything better than Bitcoin.

So they're useful in their lanes, but nothing matches Bitcoin's security and decentralization together. Bitcoin also launched with no ICO and no premine, which none of these can claim.

[Rengga Jati]

Well, if they were truly superior, they should have overtaken Bitcoin by now. Yet the fact remains that, to this day. Nothing has managed to defeat Bitcoin. A solid project is one built for the long term. One capable of surviving through every cycle so it can continue to grow and evolve. But what has actually happened? The projects that claimed to be better failed to endure, and in the end, their communities abandoned them. Bitcoin, on the other hand? It is still here.

We may acknowledge that certain altcoins are superior. Perhaps in terms of technology, concepts, or other aspects. But it does not mean that they can beat Bitcoin. Ultimately, Bitcoin is unique. it is far more than just an ordinary asset.

[cryptoaddictchie]

Does somebody think there is any altcoin project that is, on a whole, "better" than Bitcoin? If yes, please explain why you think the innovation is more relevant than possible tradeoffs like centralization. I'll discuss it in a fair manner and will honour good arguments.

Well Id rather say None actually but Id like to mention the inception of hyperliquid a noncustodial dex that caters traders with spot and future margin like any of the centralized exchange offered. Its still young and early to say that they are better but I love the way they started and become known.

They dont have VC and any funding means its the developers pocket money when they spend on infraatructure and they gave some of their tokens to their users which is quite a decent way to release shares of their tokenomics. I probably thinking that they got their team shares with this but thats not something new for todays style unlike bitcoin before.

I dont know if youll find it justified as good altcoin but its one of the best Id seen performed.

[RGBTC]

If you know an example which couldn't be achieved without a blockchain and solves a real-life problem (i.e. not only speculation), then please write about it, I'd be genuinely interested

I think it would be a voting system in politics. I speak in the context of my own country, which is rife with collusion and fraud, even extending to presidential elections. Strangely enough, the public (the majority of whom live in poverty) has come to accept this as the political norm.
A few years ago, a joke by a Singaporean pastor about Indonesia's voting system went viral; for us, however, it wasn't a joke, it was reality. https://www.tiktok.com/@scaryjournalmedia/video/7089852191569169691

We have yet to fully explore the potential of blockchain technology to address transparency issues in politics. My idea involves using Ethereum smart contracts: the voting authority would mint a specific number of tokens based on eliglibe voters, with each token claimable only via fingerprint verification (though the exact mechanism remains to be determined). These tokens would serve as voting tickets; naturally, rigorous smart contract auditing would be essential to ensure the tokens actually reach the eligible voters.