3 ms·

I have to strongly disagree. There have been quite innovative alt coins in this first wave, the most prominent ones being Namecoin, Litecoin, Peercoin, Primecoi

I have to strongly disagree. There have been quite innovative alt coins in this first wave, the most prominent ones being Namecoin, Litecoin, Peercoin, Primecoin, Freicoin and possibly Anoncoin as they have all found niches that they can cater to. Litecoin has the second largest market cap and has the honour of being the first major Scrypt coin Peercoin has the third largest cap, it introduced Proof of Stake as an alternative for Proof of Work and in the latest round of alt coin investment it did the best in terms of market cap increase to coins ratio. Namecoin has a niche as a alt DNS Primecoin allows Proof of Work to be useful rather than selfish to the network as is the case with Bitcoin Anoncoin recently integrated i2p and Zerocoin to provide greater anonymity for users Freicoin had a great idea with demurrage, very capitalist, but it failed because people want a currency that's either going to hold or appreciate in value and also because 80% of the funds were held by the Freicoin foundation rather than the community. There's also a second wave of altcoins coming, ones not based on Satoshi's algorithms. The best example would be eMunie, which from what I hear is very close to release.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
Many of those you listed were covered specifically in the article, and I believe the author cites sound reasons why the supposed differentiation doesn't add the claimed value. I tend to agree with the author for the most part, though I think some of his refutations are as theoretical as the assertions of claimed value he is refuting. Grain of salt though, as I don't claim expertise with these altcoin beyond general familiarity. I would be curious to know what you think of his opinions re: the altcoins you mentioned. Still, I think the overarching point (at least in my view) is that what is overlooked most is that Bitcoin's greatest value at this point is the network effect. By far, it is the closest thing we have to a consensus on an alternative currency. So, it is not enough for a new coin to present some incremental benefit. It most be unquestionably superior in some fundamental ways. Remember, these altcoin aren't just competing with Bitcoin. They are competing with fiat. So, the sheer number of altcoin popping up tends to devalue the lot. BTW, I actually believe that Bitcoin has some fundamental weaknesses that need to be addressed. Some of these may be so foundational to Bitcoin, that it may actually require a new altcoin to fix them. For instance, confirmation time is one such issue. So, it's not that I am swooning over BTC as the perfect currency. I just haven't yet seen anything that offers a compelling alternative when the BTC ecosystem, network effect, and inertia are considered. EDIT: BTW, the idea of having a bunch of different altcoin, each catered to a certain "niche" strikes me as especially odd for a currency. As we've seen with BTC, it is difficult enough to gain widespread adoption for even a single alt currency. It is hard to see multiple niche currencies gaining the necessary critical mass to breakout, nor the desirability of managing such from a user perspective.. I am not being facetious in saying that the idea of assigning some niche value to a particular currency seems an excuse for the lack of true differentiation, and an acknowledgement that the currency represents only some minor or incremental benefit.
PeterisP 13y ago
The general shape for such markets (due to network effect and the value of 'being accepted in many places') is winner-take-all. Bitcoin currently has a strong lead over 'altcoins' in being known&accepted by a number of services and merchants. In order for any of them to succeed it isn't nowhere enough to simply be technically better than bitcoin - they need to be very much better in order to compete with that advantage in compatibility.

unclebucknasty 13y ago

Many of those you listed were covered specifically in the article, and I believe the author cites sound reasons why the supposed differentiation doesn't add the claimed value. I tend to agree with the author for the most part, though I think some of his refutations are as theoretical as the assertions of claimed value he is refuting. Grain of salt though, as I don't claim expertise with these altcoin beyond general familiarity. I would be curious to know what you think of his opinions re: the altcoins you mentioned. Still, I think the overarching point (at least in my view) is that what is overlooked most is that Bitcoin's greatest value at this point is the network effect. By far, it is the closest thing we have to a consensus on an alternative currency. So, it is not enough for a new coin to present some incremental benefit. It most be unquestionably superior in some fundamental ways. Remember, these altcoin aren't just competing with Bitcoin. They are competing with fiat. So, the sheer number of altcoin popping up tends to devalue the lot. BTW, I actually believe that Bitcoin has some fundamental weaknesses that need to be addressed. Some of these may be so foundational to Bitcoin, that it may actually require a new altcoin to fix them. For instance, confirmation time is one such issue. So, it's not that I am swooning over BTC as the perfect currency. I just haven't yet seen anything that offers a compelling alternative when the BTC ecosystem, network effect, and inertia are considered. EDIT: BTW, the idea of having a bunch of different altcoin, each catered to a certain "niche" strikes me as especially odd for a currency. As we've seen with BTC, it is difficult enough to gain widespread adoption for even a single alt currency. It is hard to see multiple niche currencies gaining the necessary critical mass to breakout, nor the desirability of managing such from a user perspective.. I am not being facetious in saying that the idea of assigning some niche value to a particular currency seems an excuse for the lack of true differentiation, and an acknowledgement that the currency represents only some minor or incremental benefit.

PeterisP 13y ago

The general shape for such markets (due to network effect and the value of 'being accepted in many places') is winner-take-all. Bitcoin currently has a strong lead over 'altcoins' in being known&accepted by a number of services and merchants. In order for any of them to succeed it isn't nowhere enough to simply be technically better than bitcoin - they need to be very much better in order to compete with that advantage in compatibility.