4 ms·

You're missing the idea of network effects. Yes, you an easily make a clone of Bitcoin (or other cryptos), but you cannot easily clone the network effect it has

by _9omd 5y ago

You're missing the idea of network effects. Yes, you an easily make a clone of Bitcoin (or other cryptos), but you cannot easily clone the network effect it has. The value of a crypto is in the network, not the code, and this value grows exponentially with the number of the people using the network (Metcalf's Law[0]). Despite the increase in total number of cryptocurrencies, the number of people using the big networks (Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc.) is growing, and thus their network values are growing. This really shouldn't be surprising to anyone familiar with the growth of the web. Just like cloning a crypo, it'd be trivial to make a new Twitter, but extremely difficult to gain the same level of network effect. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law

jqpabc123 5y ago
Just like cloning a crypo, it'd be trivial to make a new Twitter, but extremely difficult to gain the same level of network effect. If Elon Musk wanted to make "MuskCoin", he could and instantly have a huge number of people jump on board. He has already proven this just by meddling in the current crypto market for his own amusement. Lots of other companies/individuals with clout and name recognition could easily do the same. The only reason they don't --- they recognize the ultimate futility of it. Musk has even poked fun at the absurdity of it all. https://futurism.com/elon-musk-mocks-dogecoin-crypto-scams https://futurism.com/elon-musk-mocks-dogecoin-crypto-scams
- _9omd 5y ago
  And likewise, if Elon Musk wanted to make a Twitter clone with better free speech he could get a lot of users. What's your point, that's literally the opposite of low barrier to entry. Being Elon Musk is NOT a low barrier to entry. Anything you say can be re-framed to the web, so if your point is valid then how can websites like Twitter be so valueable?
  - jqpabc123 5y ago
    What's your point, that's literally the opposite of low barrier to entry. It's just one example of how your "network effect" could be overcome very quickly. Any individual or company with market presence and name recognition could do this if they were so inclined. You could easily have ChaseCoin, FordCoin, FidelityCoin, NFLCoin and 10,000 more if they thought it was practical and profitable and would be successful over the long term. But allowing anyone to "mint" their own money is really an argument *against* the basic concept of a "currency". The world has already been there, seen that and done that. And most "smart people" (and companies) recognize that this is not in the best long term interests of themselves or the overall economy.

by _9omd 5y ago

jqpabc123 5y ago

Just like cloning a crypo, it'd be trivial to make a new Twitter, but extremely difficult to gain the same level of network effect. If Elon Musk wanted to make "MuskCoin", he could and instantly have a huge number of people jump on board. He has already proven this just by meddling in the current crypto market for his own amusement. Lots of other companies/individuals with clout and name recognition could easily do the same. The only reason they don't --- they recognize the ultimate futility of it. Musk has even poked fun at the absurdity of it all. https://futurism.com/elon-musk-mocks-dogecoin-crypto-scams https://futurism.com/elon-musk-mocks-dogecoin-crypto-scams

_9omd 5y ago
And likewise, if Elon Musk wanted to make a Twitter clone with better free speech he could get a lot of users. What's your point, that's literally the opposite of low barrier to entry. Being Elon Musk is NOT a low barrier to entry. Anything you say can be re-framed to the web, so if your point is valid then how can websites like Twitter be so valueable?
- jqpabc123 5y ago
  What's your point, that's literally the opposite of low barrier to entry. It's just one example of how your "network effect" could be overcome very quickly. Any individual or company with market presence and name recognition could do this if they were so inclined. You could easily have ChaseCoin, FordCoin, FidelityCoin, NFLCoin and 10,000 more if they thought it was practical and profitable and would be successful over the long term. But allowing anyone to "mint" their own money is really an argument *against* the basic concept of a "currency". The world has already been there, seen that and done that. And most "smart people" (and companies) recognize that this is not in the best long term interests of themselves or the overall economy.