3 ms·

1. BTC has been increasingly acting unstably: transactions cost a lot and take a long time to confirm. The BTC core development team has proven itself incompet

1. BTC has been increasingly acting unstably: transactions cost a lot and take a long time to confirm. The BTC core development team has proven itself incompetent and unable to handle the situation properly. 2. In Litecoin's case: its activation of Segwit may attract BTC core and other BTC enthusiasts. 3. Ethereum's recovery from DAO hack. I personally think the swift hard fork in this scenario was a great call, and it really convinced me of the leadership at the Ethereum Foundation. 4. Second generation proof-of-stake systems are increasingly looking like they'll work. A movement away from proof-of-work as a consensus algorithm I find crucial to the long term success of any cryptocurrency. 5. BTC ETF (and Ethereum ETF certainly also going to be denied by the SEC) application and the Winklevii garnered cryptocurrencies a lot of attention. Overall, I think people are finally metaphorically grasping the concepts around cryptocurrencies. As a result of this, several currencies are coming out that are rapidly outpacing BTC in innovation, especially Ethereum.

sayurichick 9y ago
regarding #1, Core isn't incompetent; This is currently the exact situation they want to hold (preventing a hard fork and block size limit increase). They have nefariously manipulated media communications for years to fool people into only accepting a soft fork because they've convinced people a soft fork is somehow safer and any hard fork is automatically contentious. As long as a hard fork is never initiated, they retain write access to the github repo and therefore maintain control of the "default" Bitcoin client. And as long as Greg Maxwell is in charge, he can continue to receive funding for his startup (blockstream). But yea, crippling layer 1 intentionally and misleading people for their own benefit is incredibly fucked up.

sayurichick 9y ago

regarding #1, Core isn't incompetent; This is currently the exact situation they want to hold (preventing a hard fork and block size limit increase). They have nefariously manipulated media communications for years to fool people into only accepting a soft fork because they've convinced people a soft fork is somehow safer and any hard fork is automatically contentious. As long as a hard fork is never initiated, they retain write access to the github repo and therefore maintain control of the "default" Bitcoin client. And as long as Greg Maxwell is in charge, he can continue to receive funding for his startup (blockstream). But yea, crippling layer 1 intentionally and misleading people for their own benefit is incredibly fucked up.