5 ms·

Where would you like me to start? It was unclear whether you were criticism bitcoin as a criticism to all cryptocurrencies, or bitcoin by itself. Fortunately

Where would you like me to start? It was unclear whether you were criticism bitcoin as a criticism to all cryptocurrencies, or bitcoin by itself. Fortunately it looks like it is just bitcoin by itself. > which application is best conducted on the bitcoin ledger than every other alternative? Bitcoin has to compete on its own. I'm all for other cryptocurrencies unseating it. In a world where 90% drops are not uncommon or controversial, and in a world where blockchains don't die, in a world where the code is open source, I don't think it is worth entertaining the bitcoin failed idea as it will always be a political mess that can have utility added any time. > Bitcoin was not designed to have side chains and tokens pegged all over it and there is a reason why the ICO fad universally chose ETH. This comment and your next comment go hand in hand. Bitcoin had ICOs on it several years before Ethereum was ready or existed. When its network got full it lost its innovative edge as it took over two years to upgrade. In the meantime more fully featured competitors have focused on specific use cases. An upgraded bitcoin may have irreparably lost some of its network effect advantage, and thats okay. It will have robust scripting for the next wave of ICOs and other organizations, decreasing the point of most altcoins. The top 10 may have differentiating qualities and markets already. Play it by ear, it isn't controversial to notice.

Laforet 9y ago
>Fortunately it looks like it is just bitcoin by itself. Yes, my comment is mainly about BTC, although its many flaws are hardly unique so the same criticism will inevitably apply elsewhere. >When its network got full it lost its innovative edge as it took over two years to upgrade. In the meantime more fully featured competitors have focused on specific use cases. I think we are actually in agreement here. Bitcoin was innovative and exciting for a while but has gradually become stale and boring without good leadership. And the competition is catching up fast. >An upgraded bitcoin may have irreparably lost some of its network effect advantage, and thats okay. It will have robust scripting for the next wave of ICOs and other organizations, decreasing the point of most altcoins. The top 10 may have differentiating qualities and markets already. Play it by ear, it isn't controversial to notice. Good point, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. For starters, malleability was identified as a problem as early as 2011 and it took six years to be fixed. Other proposed additions are either minor tweaks (Schnorr signature, MAST) or vaporware (Lightening network anyone?).

Laforet 9y ago

>Fortunately it looks like it is just bitcoin by itself. Yes, my comment is mainly about BTC, although its many flaws are hardly unique so the same criticism will inevitably apply elsewhere. >When its network got full it lost its innovative edge as it took over two years to upgrade. In the meantime more fully featured competitors have focused on specific use cases. I think we are actually in agreement here. Bitcoin was innovative and exciting for a while but has gradually become stale and boring without good leadership. And the competition is catching up fast. >An upgraded bitcoin may have irreparably lost some of its network effect advantage, and thats okay. It will have robust scripting for the next wave of ICOs and other organizations, decreasing the point of most altcoins. The top 10 may have differentiating qualities and markets already. Play it by ear, it isn't controversial to notice. Good point, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. For starters, malleability was identified as a problem as early as 2011 and it took six years to be fixed. Other proposed additions are either minor tweaks (Schnorr signature, MAST) or vaporware (Lightening network anyone?).