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

[tromp]

The biggest problem for Grin and Monero is probably the last issue you mentioned. Coins without scripting will never be able to create a decentralized layer-2 solution, and that means that they will be bound by the limits of the layer-1 chain.

You don't need scripting for payment channels.

Multisig (specifically, 1-of-2) and relative timelocks suffice, both of which are supported by Grin.

Chained payment channels can use either hash locks or adaptor signatures, the latter of which Grin supports.

[tromp]

Monero and Grin as privacy coins for example

I consider Grin more of a simplicity coin than a privacy coin [1].

Privacy coins? Are less scalable.

True for Monero, but Grin is more scalable than bitcoin despite its privacy benefits [2].

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5309951.0
[2] https://forum.grin.mw/t/scalability-vs-privacy-chart/8114

[pawanjain]

No there is currently no altcoin out there which is realistically better than bitcoin, in fact, not even close to bitcoin.
Out of all the altcoins out there, Ethereum is still far better than the rest but it is still very far from taking over bitcoin.
The thing I like about Ethereum is it's tech and how it has enabled smart contracts over blockchain and this is the only reason why I respect Ethereum for what it is.
Other than that, most of the altcoins are just there without providing much to the community.

[d5000]

Multisig (specifically, 1-of-2) and relative timelocks suffice, both of which are supported by Grin.

Okay, seems I stand corrected with this. I've read a bit about the NRD kernel project, looks interesting. It's still not there on mainnet, I think?

I know it's also not really urgent. But it could boost its popularity if it's the only known pure privacy coin -- "pure" would exclude "partial" privacy coins like Zcash and LTC -- that could power, in theory, a payment network for hundreds of millions.

The "scalability" problem I mentioned was not that much related to the size of transactions, but about the possibilities for layer-2's. Grin's approach also here is interesting, so it's indeed one of the closest options to a "yes" to the thread's question ...

While reading about L2s on Grin, I read the opinion that a payment channel network on Grin would work differently than on Bitcoin because there's no way to punish participants which broadcast old states due to the cut-through mechanism. An Eltoo-like solution could perhaps work, but it has an incentive problem (scammers could try to attack without major risk). If this is true, then Bitcoin's LN still seems to be a bit "better" of "safer" than a theoretical Grin "LN". I may be wrong though, I'm interested in your opinion on this.

[tromp]

Okay, seems I stand corrected with this. I've read a bit about the NRD kernel project, looks interesting. It's still not there on mainnet, I think?

Correct; NoRecentDuplicate kernels are only enabled on testnet.

I know it's also not really urgent. But it could boost its popularity if it's the only known pure privacy coin -- "pure" would exclude "partial" privacy coins like Zcash and LTC

That's a misleading use of "pure". The privacy features of Zcash and LTC are optional.
With Grin, 2 of the three privacy features (no visible amounts or addresses) are non-optional, while the 3rd (obfuscating the tx graph) is optional [1].
Monero is more pure in that all 3 are non-optional, but of course it pays a huge scalability price in not knowing which utxos are unspendable (as does ZCash).
Also, privacy is not the focus of Grin. Simplicity and elegance are.

While reading about L2s on Grin, I read the opinion that a payment channel network on Grin would work differently than on Bitcoin because there's no way to punish participants which broadcast old states due to the cut-through mechanism.

I don't see how cut-through prevents a punishing L2 design. I think we mostly explored the non-punishing designs because they are simpler and have less overhead.

[1] https://forum.grin.mw/t/mimblewimble-coinswap-proposal/8322

[bananaunana]

Bitcoin is still king and I don't see any Altcoin coming close to it. Avalanche is a good coin from a technical side and it is also a scarce coin but it can compete for Bitcoin.

[ultrloa]

No there is currently no altcoin out there which is realistically better than bitcoin, in fact, not even close to bitcoin.
Out of all the altcoins out there, Ethereum is still far better than the rest but it is still very far from taking over bitcoin.
The thing I like about Ethereum is it's tech and how it has enabled smart contracts over blockchain and this is the only reason why I respect Ethereum for what it is.
Other than that, most of the altcoins are just there without providing much to the community.

Some other altcoins is good on other things like better transaction speed and much better smart contracts. But no other coin is more really better if we talk about decentralization.

Many think that ETH is the next Bitcoin, but that asset has no cap, while Bitcoin it only have 21 million fix supply which make this coin became more valuable and ideal to hold.

Yeah ETH is good on tech matters, but on reliability side Bitcoin raise the bar way more better. That's why many people prefer to buy Bitcoin rather than picking ETH for their investment matters.

[pawanjain]

No there is currently no altcoin out there which is realistically better than bitcoin, in fact, not even close to bitcoin.
Out of all the altcoins out there, Ethereum is still far better than the rest but it is still very far from taking over bitcoin.
The thing I like about Ethereum is it's tech and how it has enabled smart contracts over blockchain and this is the only reason why I respect Ethereum for what it is.
Other than that, most of the altcoins are just there without providing much to the community.

Some other altcoins is good on other things like better transaction speed and much better smart contracts. But no other coin is more really better if we talk about decentralization.

Many think that ETH is the next Bitcoin, but that asset has no cap, while Bitcoin it only have 21 million fix supply which make this coin became more valuable and ideal to hold.

Yeah ETH is good on tech matters, but on reliability side Bitcoin raise the bar way more better. That's why many people prefer to buy Bitcoin rather than picking ETH for their investment matters.

Yeah I mean, that's the major reason why bitcoin is bitcoin and why everything else is called an altcoin.
ETH is still better than rest of the altcoins though because it still provides value in the crypto market.
Otherwise it would not have sustained its position till date in the crypto market where most of the altcoins fail to exist in 3-4 years.

[2stout]

No, there is not altcoin "better" than Bitcoin.  Yes, some may have new or improved features but lack the history and store of value that Bitcoin has.  Besides, without Bitcoin, there would be no Altcoins and if Bitcoin failed early on, Altcoins would have failed as well.

[Mummy OS]

No, there is not altcoin "better" than Bitcoin.  Yes, some may have new or improved features but lack the history and store of value that Bitcoin has.  Besides, without Bitcoin, there would be no Altcoins and if Bitcoin failed early on, Altcoins would have failed as well.

Yes there was no altcoin that is better than Bitcoin. Namecoin tried but could not even last close to the half of duration Bitcoin has stayed in the market. Namecoin team tried to copy Bitcoin and how it uses blockchain to store information but they still failed to make it survive.
The Namecoin team claimed that their project would be better than Bitcoin but they could not succeed the endurance level Bitcoin has gained through several years and still standing.

Namecoin even use the same consensus with Bitcoin, and also have the same supply with Bitcoin which is 21 million. Everything was copied but the project died like a smoke that is exposed to the wind.  Bitcoin remains the best cryptocurrency in the world.

[philipma1957]

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.

I think scrypt dual mining ltc+doge is better.

But it came later and btc was adapted  by many this cancelled out the value of ltc.


But if ltc+doge had come first it would have won.

Basically ltc and btc are mathematical equals

And doge is better than btc or ltc for p2p .


But with all the money invested in btc it will not make the switch to the better system.

[d5000]

Namecoin tried but could not even last close to the half of duration Bitcoin has stayed in the market.

Well, Namecoin is still alive, although it has lost a lot of value. I don't remember exactly how it started, but I think I had read that the "BitDNS" project first was meant to be implemented in Bitcoin, but the developers rejected it. So they started an alternative chain.

I think scrypt dual mining ltc+doge is better.

For sure this is an unpopular opinion here

I think the merge mining "symbiosis" between both coins is indeed interesting as they boost each other's security budget. But Bitcoin in theory could have the same advantage with Namecoin ... only that Namecoin is so far away in terms of value and market cap that the "symbiosis" is very one-sided.

If LTC had surpassed Bitcoin for whatever reason (most likely in the early stages, i.e. 2012-15 or so), I think Doge would not have been able to follow its market cap.

And doge is better than btc or ltc for p2p .

Why? Due to the block time? If you want please clarify.

[nutildah]

Some altcoins are better as acting as "cash", in that their transactions are faster, cheaper, or both. That doesn't mean they are as good for holding, of course -- just for fulfilling one purpose (which is an important purpose).

I would measure the success of any altcoin by how much brainpower it managed to draw away from Bitcoin. Ethereum & Bitcoin Cash come to mind. Other than that, there aren't many contenders.

It wasn't meant to compete with BTC from the beginning, but Namecoin coulda been a whole lot more than what it currently is. Litecoin will always have a place as the testing grounds for BTC development, and Dogecoin will always be the original memecoin.

[jwinterm]

Some altcoins are better as acting as "cash", in that their transactions are faster, cheaper, or both. That doesn't mean they are as good for holding, of course -- just for fulfilling one purpose (which is an important purpose).

I would measure the success of any altcoin by how much brainpower it managed to draw away from Bitcoin. Ethereum & Bitcoin Cash come to mind. Other than that, there aren't many contenders.

It wasn't meant to compete with BTC from the beginning, but Namecoin coulda been a whole lot more than what it currently is. Litecoin will always have a place as the testing grounds for BTC development, and Dogecoin will always be the original memecoin.

You have got to be joking or brainwashed putting bitcoin cash "brainpower" ahead of Monero, or even tho I loathe to say it, Ztrash or Soylana. I guess over last three years BCH actually does do slightly more txs/day than ZEC: https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-zec-eth-xmr-bch.html#log&3y

But still, ZEC tech is used in a lot of other places - who is using BCH or where is their tech being used by other people?

[Alonso_]

Bitcoin is still king and I don't see any Altcoin coming close to it. Avalanche is a good coin from a technical side and it is also a scarce coin but it can compete for Bitcoin.

Yeah bitcoin is still king of cryptocurrency, and I don’t see any other cryptocurrency coming close to Bitcoin, most altcoins are just good for a short term gain, but if I’m thinking about altcoins I would personally be considering ETH, however majority of the altcoins depends on bitcoin to thrive, whenever you see bitcoin price making movements and fluctuating  then expect other coins to move in price.

You just mentioned Avalanche as something that could potentially get to bitcoin, honestly speaking I’m in awe concerning your trust in Avalanche to meet up with Bitcoin, so my questions is that can I hold this Avalanche for a long term investment, do you think I have a chance ?. 

Do you really think any altcoin was made to Compete Bitcoin.

[bangjoe]

No, there is not altcoin "better" than Bitcoin.  Yes, some may have new or improved features but lack the history and store of value that Bitcoin has.  Besides, without Bitcoin, there would be no Altcoins and if Bitcoin failed early on, Altcoins would have failed as well.

In my opinion, the most important point in the value of bitcoin that altcoins will not be able to afford is, it has been cursed and despised dead but still alive and so far developed and continues to be adopted ranging from retail to the state, a strong and intelligent community, whenever there is a threat the community has many proposals for Bitcoin Improvement until now even quantum threats have begun to be anticipated, therefore bitcoin's resilience is not necessarily only in the form of one or two nights, but it's been shaped by the dedication of a large community for more than a decade.

In fact Bitcoin has failed in both technical and market terms if you remember that, but improvements are always being made so that it can survive and always be number one and be the best.

[Munshi Prem Chand]

It depends what you mean by better. There is no altcoin that is better than bitcoin, as cryptos exist on multi dimensional axis, rather than one.

For example, Monero which you mention is interesting idea. However, to acheive eature of fungability (ie being able to guarantee no ones able to point and finger particular XMR as being involved in shady deals, as what happens with a 'tainted' bitcoin through exchanges blacklisting coins that have been through a coin mixer or part of an exchange hacked etc), it gives up on being able to audit its total supply. With BTC you can look through UTXO set, with XMR you have to trust the RingCT. XMR has made trade off in its level of trust minimisation to acheive another feature.

Generally speaking if you want faster blocks/more features out of a blockchain, you will be giving up on trust minimisation. I think this is the main innovation BTC introduced ie showing that it was possible to acheive consensus without a trusted 3rd party and this is something that is very hard to retrofit on to a chain that has not been focused on. Which is why there is no altcoin that is better, they have all made different trade offs, not just poorly executed ones either, trade offs are a fundamental feature of a system like BTC.

[tygeade]

Yes, some of these altcoins did publish themselves as better than bitcoins but after these many years, we can still see the leader board. Bitcoins have always been on the top and there was struggle from these altcoins to achieve following positions after bitcoins. None of these altcoins really even tried to surpass bitcoins because of the huge market cap. I don't think it is any more possible to surpass bitcoin or I don't even think there can be any better coin challenging bitcoin.

Yes, as technology advances, there would be some really worth-watching altcoins but they can still hardly challenge bitcoins. Bitcoins will never lose the dominance over the market is what I think.

[M47AK16]

Bitcoin is still king and I don't see any Altcoin coming close to it. Avalanche is a good coin from a technical side and it is also a scarce coin but it can compete for Bitcoin.

Yeah bitcoin is still king of cryptocurrency, and I don’t see any other cryptocurrency coming close to Bitcoin, most altcoins are just good for a short term gain, but if I’m thinking about altcoins I would personally be considering ETH, however majority of the altcoins depends on bitcoin to thrive, whenever you see bitcoin price making movements and fluctuating  then expect other coins to move in price.

You just mentioned Avalanche as something that could potentially get to bitcoin, honestly speaking I’m in awe concerning your trust in Avalanche to meet up with Bitcoin, so my questions is that can I hold this Avalanche for a long term investment, do you think I have a chance ?. 

Do you really think any altcoin was made to Compete Bitcoin.

If you are ready to hold Avalanche for a long term, you can definitely make some profit but by no chance, Avalanche is going to be a competition for bitcoins. Bitcoins are considered as the mother coin and all other altcoins would eventually be following bitcoins or repent them. Both bitcoins and avalanche can make you earn profits for long run but I would still consider my investment in bitcoins to be much safer than avalanche. I have been with bitcoins for quite a sometime now and that gives me a reason to trust bitcoins over any other altcoins.

ETH has been the second favourite for a lot of people but for me, ETH somehow lost it's importance after shifting from PoW to PoS algorithm. I used to mine ETH and this transition to PoS was a deal-breaker for me because I already had a few GPUs set to mine ETH.

[d5000]

Monero [...] it gives up on being able to audit its total supply. With BTC you can look through UTXO set, with XMR you have to trust the RingCT.

Yes, in Monero you have to "trust the cryptography" to be able to trust the supply. The risk an inflation bug happens is however extremely low.

See this article: https://www.getmonero.org/2020/01/17/auditability.html

Generally speaking if you want faster blocks/more features out of a blockchain, you will be giving up on trust minimisation.

A slightly lower block time (like in the case of Litecoin with 2.5 minutes) has slight measurable centralization disadvantages but the advantage of the 10 minute time is almost negligible.

For example, Google's Gemini mentions the following "advantages":
- Selfish mining is possible with 32.9 % of mining power (2.5 minutes) instead of 33.3 % (10 minutes)
- The "wasted network power" due to orphan blocks is 0.13 % (2.5 minutes) instead of 0.03 % (10 minutes), which means the edge for large pools is ~0.1 percentage points and thus very low

Thus I think if Bitcoin was created today, with compact blocks and other modern mechanisms, they could have chosen a slightly lower block time. While of course a single 2.5 minute confirmation is not the same than a 10 minute one, it provides slightly more security than a no-confirmation tx (above all due to RBF).