Bitcoin's Edge - How will bitcoin fight off competitors?

[Hazir]

Haha. U.S. government shitcoin would be #1 marketing tool for BTC.

This, it will clearly backfire and get the people's attention on BTC because it will be the "cool, non official outsider coin".

I doubt that government will even try to compete with bitcoin openly. If they create their own altcoin people will get suspicious of it pretty fast.
The more likely scenario would be that government would try to quietly take over various bitcoin initiatives and side projects but not the structure of bitcoin itself.

[calme]

Governments of large countries suck. U.S., Russia and China all have shitty governments who try to control too much.

[ebliever]

One thing I haven't seen explained is just what characteristics people think a government-issued altcoin, or clone/fork of bitcoin, would have. Why do people have a concern about a "government generated crypto"? All the cryptos besides Ripple, it doesn't matter whether they were created by satoshi or Mother Theresa or Adolf Hitler, it's decentralized after release. So I'm curious what people have in mind when they voice concern over the concept of a government-linked altcoin.

I mean, if they peg it to their fiat currency, then by definition their alt does not have a fixed supply and is subject to inflation and devaluation. So it seems to me the only way a government could compete with bitcoin would be by delinking their alt from their fiat, in which case it's just another new alt with an interesting backstory.

[Hazir]

One thing I haven't seen explained is just what characteristics people think a government-issued altcoin, or clone/fork of bitcoin, would have. Why do people have a concern about a "government generated crypto"? All the cryptos besides Ripple, it doesn't matter whether they were created by satoshi or Mother Theresa or Adolf Hitler, it's decentralized after release. So I'm curious what people have in mind when they voice concern over the concept of a government-linked altcoin.

I mean, if they peg it to their fiat currency, then by definition their alt does not have a fixed supply and is subject to inflation and devaluation. So it seems to me the only way a government could compete with bitcoin would be by delinking their alt from their fiat, in which case it's just another new alt with an interesting backstory.

If government issued cryptocurrency would be totally transparent with source code available to check I will probably have no issues with it.
I still wouldn't use it at all because I believe in ONE global and dominant cryptocurrency - Bitcoin. At this point it is almost certain that government would
link their cryptos to FIAT, why wouldn't they? That is the only logical choice if they want to appeal to people with it.

[countryfree]

I believe in competition, but since BTC was the first, so it's the natural leader, and it will keep on leading up to someone comes with a better cryptocurrency. Maybe one 100% anonymous, but BTC shouldn't fear big corporations or governments.

Apple already has Apple pay and it could launch some kind of a cryptocurrency but I'll never use it because I hate Apple. Their products are overpriced. Could a government launch a cryptocurrency, and compete with BTC? I'd rather stop drinking for one whole week than to use any national cryptocurrency. BTC will remain the best because it's decentralized, without any fascist ruler behind it.

[futureofbitcoin]

One thing I haven't seen explained is just what characteristics people think a government-issued altcoin, or clone/fork of bitcoin, would have. Why do people have a concern about a "government generated crypto"? All the cryptos besides Ripple, it doesn't matter whether they were created by satoshi or Mother Theresa or Adolf Hitler, it's decentralized after release. So I'm curious what people have in mind when they voice concern over the concept of a government-linked altcoin.

I mean, if they peg it to their fiat currency, then by definition their alt does not have a fixed supply and is subject to inflation and devaluation. So it seems to me the only way a government could compete with bitcoin would be by delinking their alt from their fiat, in which case it's just another new alt with an interesting backstory.

See, most of the people on this forum are running on this assumption that people CARE about decentralization, etc.

That is simply an unfounded assumption. If people happily use fiat now, why would they suddenly become suspicious of it?

My scenario is this: Bitcoin slowly gains ground in terms of becoming a legitimate (in the eyes of people) currency, and grows stronger everyday. The governments of the world begins to view it as a threat rather than a cute toy. They create their own crypto, that is completely centralized, and advertise that it has all the benefits of crypocurrency technology, and none of the negatives.

It's possible they'll even say that being decentralized is a fatal flaw of bitcoin, and that being centralized and monitored by the government makes it more secure and better. I bet most people would believe the government if they did say that.

This, coupled with penalizing bitcoin use by making it extremely hard to obtain bitcoin (or obtain a license to obtain bitcoin) etc.

The central point here, is, I think most people on this forum has become somewhat "delusional", in that they think that decentralization is so obviously this holy grail, and everyone can see the benefits. It's just not true.

[ebliever]

One thing I haven't seen explained is just what characteristics people think a government-issued altcoin, or clone/fork of bitcoin, would have. Why do people have a concern about a "government generated crypto"? All the cryptos besides Ripple, it doesn't matter whether they were created by satoshi or Mother Theresa or Adolf Hitler, it's decentralized after release. So I'm curious what people have in mind when they voice concern over the concept of a government-linked altcoin.

I mean, if they peg it to their fiat currency, then by definition their alt does not have a fixed supply and is subject to inflation and devaluation. So it seems to me the only way a government could compete with bitcoin would be by delinking their alt from their fiat, in which case it's just another new alt with an interesting backstory.

See, most of the people on this forum are running on this assumption that people CARE about decentralization, etc.

That is simply an unfounded assumption. If people happily use fiat now, why would they suddenly become suspicious of it?

My scenario is this: Bitcoin slowly gains ground in terms of becoming a legitimate (in the eyes of people) currency, and grows stronger everyday. The governments of the world begins to view it as a threat rather than a cute toy. They create their own crypto, that is completely centralized, and advertise that it has all the benefits of crypocurrency technology, and none of the negatives.

It's possible they'll even say that being decentralized is a fatal flaw of bitcoin, and that being centralized and monitored by the government makes it more secure and better. I bet most people would believe the government if they did say that.

This, coupled with penalizing bitcoin use by making it extremely hard to obtain bitcoin (or obtain a license to obtain bitcoin) etc.

The central point here, is, I think most people on this forum has become somewhat "delusional", in that they think that decentralization is so obviously this holy grail, and everyone can see the benefits. It's just not true.

But what does it mean to speak of a "centralized cryptocurrency"? What characteristics would it have different from bitcoin? If it is POW mined, for example, then the miners control the coin. I suppose a government could develop its own algorithm and mining hardware and try to keep control of the mining. That would create interesting scenarios of foreign agents and rebels trying to steal or back-engineer the algorithm and hardware for it, to attack a nation's currency.

[asuryan180]

I believe in competition, but since BTC was the first, so it's the natural leader, and it will keep on leading up to someone comes with a better cryptocurrency. Maybe one 100% anonymous, but BTC shouldn't fear big corporations or governments.

Apple already has Apple pay and it could launch some kind of a cryptocurrency but I'll never use it because I hate Apple. Their products are overpriced. Could a government launch a cryptocurrency, and compete with BTC? I'd rather stop drinking for one whole week than to use any national cryptocurrency. BTC will remain the best because it's decentralized, without any fascist ruler behind it.

The thing is even if someone does come up with a better crypto it does not mean it will take the lead, the lead bitcoin has over anything else that is to be released is huge and i doubt that anything is coming close to it now. Look at what it has had to go threw to get to here. The governments will have a big following but they will also in the process bring more users to bitcoin because once they have been brought into the game then they are bound to figure out the daddy of crypto is bitcoin the decentralized coin 

[Soros Shorts]

One thing I haven't seen explained is just what characteristics people think a government-issued altcoin, or clone/fork of bitcoin, would have. Why do people have a concern about a "government generated crypto"? All the cryptos besides Ripple, it doesn't matter whether they were created by satoshi or Mother Theresa or Adolf Hitler, it's decentralized after release. So I'm curious what people have in mind when they voice concern over the concept of a government-linked altcoin.

I mean, if they peg it to their fiat currency, then by definition their alt does not have a fixed supply and is subject to inflation and devaluation. So it seems to me the only way a government could compete with bitcoin would be by delinking their alt from their fiat, in which case it's just another new alt with an interesting backstory.

See, most of the people on this forum are running on this assumption that people CARE about decentralization, etc.

That is simply an unfounded assumption. If people happily use fiat now, why would they suddenly become suspicious of it?

My scenario is this: Bitcoin slowly gains ground in terms of becoming a legitimate (in the eyes of people) currency, and grows stronger everyday. The governments of the world begins to view it as a threat rather than a cute toy. They create their own crypto, that is completely centralized, and advertise that it has all the benefits of crypocurrency technology, and none of the negatives.

It's possible they'll even say that being decentralized is a fatal flaw of bitcoin, and that being centralized and monitored by the government makes it more secure and better. I bet most people would believe the government if they did say that.

This, coupled with penalizing bitcoin use by making it extremely hard to obtain bitcoin (or obtain a license to obtain bitcoin) etc.

The central point here, is, I think most people on this forum has become somewhat "delusional", in that they think that decentralization is so obviously this holy grail, and everyone can see the benefits. It's just not true.

But what does it mean to speak of a "centralized cryptocurrency"? What characteristics would it have different from bitcoin? If it is POW mined, for example, then the miners control the coin. I suppose a government could develop its own algorithm and mining hardware and try to keep control of the mining. That would create interesting scenarios of foreign agents and rebels trying to steal or back-engineer the algorithm and hardware for it, to attack a nation's currency.

A centralized cryptocurrency does not make sense. Why even bother? Just issue the coins with their serial numbers on government run servers, which would then track the changes in ownership as the coins are spent. You don't need a blockchain for that.

[nextgencoin]

One thing I haven't seen explained is just what characteristics people think a government-issued altcoin, or clone/fork of bitcoin, would have. Why do people have a concern about a "government generated crypto"? All the cryptos besides Ripple, it doesn't matter whether they were created by satoshi or Mother Theresa or Adolf Hitler, it's decentralized after release. So I'm curious what people have in mind when they voice concern over the concept of a government-linked altcoin.

I mean, if they peg it to their fiat currency, then by definition their alt does not have a fixed supply and is subject to inflation and devaluation. So it seems to me the only way a government could compete with bitcoin would be by delinking their alt from their fiat, in which case it's just another new alt with an interesting backstory.

See, most of the people on this forum are running on this assumption that people CARE about decentralization, etc.

That is simply an unfounded assumption. If people happily use fiat now, why would they suddenly become suspicious of it?

My scenario is this: Bitcoin slowly gains ground in terms of becoming a legitimate (in the eyes of people) currency, and grows stronger everyday. The governments of the world begins to view it as a threat rather than a cute toy. They create their own crypto, that is completely centralized, and advertise that it has all the benefits of crypocurrency technology, and none of the negatives.

It's possible they'll even say that being decentralized is a fatal flaw of bitcoin, and that being centralized and monitored by the government makes it more secure and better. I bet most people would believe the government if they did say that.

This, coupled with penalizing bitcoin use by making it extremely hard to obtain bitcoin (or obtain a license to obtain bitcoin) etc.

The central point here, is, I think most people on this forum has become somewhat "delusional", in that they think that decentralization is so obviously this holy grail, and everyone can see the benefits. It's just not true.

But what does it mean to speak of a "centralized cryptocurrency"? What characteristics would it have different from bitcoin? If it is POW mined, for example, then the miners control the coin. I suppose a government could develop its own algorithm and mining hardware and try to keep control of the mining. That would create interesting scenarios of foreign agents and rebels trying to steal or back-engineer the algorithm and hardware for it, to attack a nation's currency.

A centralized cryptocurrency does not make sense. Why even bother? Just issue the coins with their serial numbers on government run servers, which would then track the changes in ownership as the coins are spent. You don't need a blockchain for that.

Because they can....Decentralisation and the limited supply IS the actual point of bitcoin in my mind and clearly was on Satoshi's too. But what we understand and perceive as its strengths are actually being demonised in the media and mainstream and I think the masses are very susceptible to being sold a centralised government central bank backed coin based on the dollar that doesn't fluctuate and has an expandable supply. What we think isn't what everyone else thinks......The masses already accept a fiat based reserve currency that is nothing more than monopoly money, does anyone think they will reject a similar digital one?

[vrm86]

The masses already accept a fiat based reserve currency that is nothing more than monopoly money, does anyone think they will reject a similar digital one?

We know there is no difference, but common people have deeply rooted, strong conviction that something strong and durable stands behind their paper notes. Maybe there is a need of educating people not only about what bitcoin, but also fiat money really is?

[nextgencoin]

The masses already accept a fiat based reserve currency that is nothing more than monopoly money, does anyone think they will reject a similar digital one?

We know there is no difference, but common people have deeply rooted, strong conviction that something strong and durable stands behind their paper notes. Maybe there is a need of educating people not only about what bitcoin, but also fiat money really is?

Many have been trying for years...Don't forget Bitcoin is actually a fiat currency, I mean its not backed up by anything tangible. But its the perfect fiat, ie fixed supply which cant be counterfitted.

But yes if and when a government fiat coin is made and i'm convinced it will happen then the next work is to educate people to what makes Bitcoin different to what will probably be a highly controlled and tracked expandable centralised coin with an expandable supply.


Maybe I'm having a negative day but IF bitcoin actualy ends up leading to our money being highly tracked etc then in some ways Bitcoin has actually opened the door to less liberty not more....potentially.

[manselr]

I believe in competition, but since BTC was the first, so it's the natural leader, and it will keep on leading up to someone comes with a better cryptocurrency. Maybe one 100% anonymous, but BTC shouldn't fear big corporations or governments.

Apple already has Apple pay and it could launch some kind of a cryptocurrency but I'll never use it because I hate Apple. Their products are overpriced. Could a government launch a cryptocurrency, and compete with BTC? I'd rather stop drinking for one whole week than to use any national cryptocurrency. BTC will remain the best because it's decentralized, without any fascist ruler behind it.

I don't see BTC ever having competition, everything is going to get compared to Bitcoin, which in effect keeps giving Bitcoin more attention. It's like a feedback effect. There's literally no way Bitcoin will lose it's spotlight.