3 ms·

This is only because crypto is still a curiosity. Once a coin gains enough mass adoption to actually function as digital cash by normal people, it will leave Bi

This is only because crypto is still a curiosity. Once a coin gains enough mass adoption to actually function as digital cash by normal people, it will leave Bitcoin in the dust. My bet is on Monero for that, but whether I am right or not, I'm 100% certain that coin won't be Bitcoin.

cryptica 5y ago
I think this conclusion is correct. I can think of two reasons why no other token has been able to surpass Bitcoin: - Network effects arising as a result of having many crypto markets which use BTC as the base currency. This gives BTC a lot of exposure on trading platforms. BTC is therefore a gateway to the crypto ecosystem; kind of like a reserve currency. - Most big mainstream investors don't have any interest in advancing the field. Their main concern is preventing crypto from disrupting their existing corporate interests. They will buy a majority stake in a crypto and then encourage founders to waste time and resources... They want to create jobs to keep developers busy on useless activities; that way these developers are not competing with corporate interests. Also, because all these wasteful crypto projects occupy all the top rankings on coinmarketcap and occupy most investors' trading screens, it prevents smaller, more promising projects from getting any attention so it prevents the crypto industry from becoming disruptive. (Though at best this will probably only delay things by a decade or so until new exchanges start launching and start listing different non-mainstream tokens).
- bombcar 5y ago
  Much of the BTC as base currency isn’t actually BTC on the blockchain - but “BTC” held by the exchange and transferred between customers via a database and NOT on chain.
  - cryptica 5y ago
    I'm a blockchain developer and I wrote a DEX from scratch so I know exactly how that works :) It doesn't change the fundamentals.
redisman 5y ago
Bitcoin is like the digital gold. We can all agree on that. I don’t understand why the maxis can’t be happy with that and have to sully any other competitor in the space that are actually trying to be a currency or dozens of other potentially useful things. Bitcoin is obviously not good for small and fast transactions for example. Designing a new blockchain that is good at that is innovation. Not a “shitcoin”.
- atweiden 5y ago
  Unfortunately, there’s really no way for anyone to ever accuse any cryptocurrency of being superfluous without its investors feeling personally attacked on some level. This frequently causes them to lash out. Also unfortunate is the fact many internet users take silence as evidence of consent, and so just doing the obvious thing here — not having this conversation at all — would actively promote ignorance (see: “Bitcoin is obviously not good for small and fast transactions”). > Designing a new blockchain that is good at that is innovation. Not a “shitcoin”. Blockchains don’t create efficiencies: if not for decentralization and censorship resistance, which inherently come at a higher cost than centralization, there would be little point in the technology at all. A plain immutable database with cryptographic proofs of inclusion — e.g. ImmuDB — hosted by a trusted org would perform orders of magnitude better than a blockchain at the very same tasks. As most people can plainly see, what passes for “innovation” in the blockchain space is often a solution in search of a problem, launched first and foremost as a courtship display to HNWIs, socially signaling for them to invest in the cryptocurrency at hand under the guise of it being “innovative”. Ethereum 2.0’s newly introduced “RocketPool” (RPL) token [1] is an unwitting quintessential example of this: So if insurance isn't the real reason, then why do node operators need to buy an additional 10% in RPL ($5,600 at current prices)? The only logical answer is to force buying pressure and pump the token. Adding a token means the protocol is now more likely to contain bugs, audits are more difficult, users are confused, and taxes become a nightmare. I hope greed isn't the real driving force behind the RPL token, but that's the only conclusion I can draw. They increased smart contract risk for a payday, and it's possible the entire Ethereum ecosystem will pay for it. “Gee, do we really need this new token and blockchain?” “Couldn’t there be other ways of doing this which aren’t obviously designed to enrich the founders?” Put simply, launching a superfluous blockchain and token is just poor etiquette, and the people who point out this dynamic don’t deserve to be dismissed with endearing terms. Bitcoiners have nothing against defi, it’s just a question of whether a new token or blockchain is needed to do the things these people purportedly want to do for the world, or whether the new token/blockchain is really just a pretense for self-enrichment. HTH See also: Nomic [2], SmartBCH, or Stacks [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethstaker/comments/ncqqu2/rocketpool_reminds_me_of_the_dao/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ethstaker/comments/ncqqu2/rocketpoo... [2]: https://nomic.io/ https://nomic.io/

cryptica 5y ago

I think this conclusion is correct. I can think of two reasons why no other token has been able to surpass Bitcoin: - Network effects arising as a result of having many crypto markets which use BTC as the base currency. This gives BTC a lot of exposure on trading platforms. BTC is therefore a gateway to the crypto ecosystem; kind of like a reserve currency. - Most big mainstream investors don't have any interest in advancing the field. Their main concern is preventing crypto from disrupting their existing corporate interests. They will buy a majority stake in a crypto and then encourage founders to waste time and resources... They want to create jobs to keep developers busy on useless activities; that way these developers are not competing with corporate interests. Also, because all these wasteful crypto projects occupy all the top rankings on coinmarketcap and occupy most investors' trading screens, it prevents smaller, more promising projects from getting any attention so it prevents the crypto industry from becoming disruptive. (Though at best this will probably only delay things by a decade or so until new exchanges start launching and start listing different non-mainstream tokens).

bombcar 5y ago
Much of the BTC as base currency isn’t actually BTC on the blockchain - but “BTC” held by the exchange and transferred between customers via a database and NOT on chain.
- cryptica 5y ago
  I'm a blockchain developer and I wrote a DEX from scratch so I know exactly how that works :) It doesn't change the fundamentals.

redisman 5y ago

Bitcoin is like the digital gold. We can all agree on that. I don’t understand why the maxis can’t be happy with that and have to sully any other competitor in the space that are actually trying to be a currency or dozens of other potentially useful things. Bitcoin is obviously not good for small and fast transactions for example. Designing a new blockchain that is good at that is innovation. Not a “shitcoin”.

atweiden 5y ago
Unfortunately, there’s really no way for anyone to ever accuse any cryptocurrency of being superfluous without its investors feeling personally attacked on some level. This frequently causes them to lash out. Also unfortunate is the fact many internet users take silence as evidence of consent, and so just doing the obvious thing here — not having this conversation at all — would actively promote ignorance (see: “Bitcoin is obviously not good for small and fast transactions”). > Designing a new blockchain that is good at that is innovation. Not a “shitcoin”. Blockchains don’t create efficiencies: if not for decentralization and censorship resistance, which inherently come at a higher cost than centralization, there would be little point in the technology at all. A plain immutable database with cryptographic proofs of inclusion — e.g. ImmuDB — hosted by a trusted org would perform orders of magnitude better than a blockchain at the very same tasks. As most people can plainly see, what passes for “innovation” in the blockchain space is often a solution in search of a problem, launched first and foremost as a courtship display to HNWIs, socially signaling for them to invest in the cryptocurrency at hand under the guise of it being “innovative”. Ethereum 2.0’s newly introduced “RocketPool” (RPL) token [1] is an unwitting quintessential example of this: So if insurance isn't the real reason, then why do node operators need to buy an additional 10% in RPL ($5,600 at current prices)? The only logical answer is to force buying pressure and pump the token. Adding a token means the protocol is now more likely to contain bugs, audits are more difficult, users are confused, and taxes become a nightmare. I hope greed isn't the real driving force behind the RPL token, but that's the only conclusion I can draw. They increased smart contract risk for a payday, and it's possible the entire Ethereum ecosystem will pay for it. “Gee, do we really need this new token and blockchain?” “Couldn’t there be other ways of doing this which aren’t obviously designed to enrich the founders?” Put simply, launching a superfluous blockchain and token is just poor etiquette, and the people who point out this dynamic don’t deserve to be dismissed with endearing terms. Bitcoiners have nothing against defi, it’s just a question of whether a new token or blockchain is needed to do the things these people purportedly want to do for the world, or whether the new token/blockchain is really just a pretense for self-enrichment. HTH See also: Nomic [2], SmartBCH, or Stacks [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethstaker/comments/ncqqu2/rocketpool_reminds_me_of_the_dao/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ethstaker/comments/ncqqu2/rocketpoo... [2]: https://nomic.io/ https://nomic.io/