5 ms·
> There will be millions of crypto-coins in the future This doesn't make sense. If everyone had their own altcoin, even if they all used Scrypt, nobody would
by nly 13y ago
> There will be millions of crypto-coins in the future
This doesn't make sense. If everyone had their own altcoin, even if they all used Scrypt, nobody would be secure because a 50% attack on your personal blockchain would be trivial. Bitcoins security relies solely on it being one of few significant coins of its kind.
In any case, Bitcoin is huge because its decentralised and nobody has to make decisions. If everyone had to decide what chains to trust then you may as well switch to a superior cryptographic protocol that allows you to mint your own coin without a blockchain. These exist, there's just no incentive for them inside the traditional banking system (too anonymous), or indeed on the inter-personal micro scale (too inconvenient).
Coloured coins make sense, but that's not really the same thing.
- exelius 13y agoSo a form of arbitrage against Bitcoin may be to create your own cryptocurrency, mint a few million of them for yourself, hype it on HN, then cash out and profit? Sounds like a classic pump-and-dump junk bond scam, to me.
- zevyoura 13y agoThis is called premining and it's a common accusation towards new altcoins.
- waterlesscloud 13y agoThe alt-coin mini-bubble of November '13 started a flood of precisely this activity. It existed before, but it really took off then. I'm reasonably sure dogecoin started out that way, but somehow took on a life of its own. I'm also pretty sure the November bubble was just a taste of an altcoin bubble explosion to come.
- ds0dsf0df0fsd 13y agoI agree, it's a stupid idea to create millions of altcoins. However, it's possible to do the same idea within Bitcoin itself. See Mastercoin, and in the future 'colored coins'. Currencies within currencies, a bit like how the Fed is the world reserve.
- penguindev 13y ago> Bitcoins security relies solely on it being one of few significant coins of its kind. So there's no technical security at all then, just the hope that hash power won't switch away to a new currency (which they have incentive to do - get in on the ground floor and cash out, as another poster said) It's all 'trust'. And a guaranteed cartel structure - the rich / powerful control 50% of the hashing power anyway. Pump and dump dreams indeed.
- icebraining 13y agowhich they have incentive to do - get in on the ground floor and cash out So they have savings in Bitcoin, plus an income in the form of mining fees, and they have an incentive to destroy those savings and income because they can invest instead in a completely new coin, of which 99%+ fail without ever getting anywhere? That makes no sense.
- penguindev 13y agoWhy is hash power required to have 'savings in bitcoin'? I can see mining fees. Regardless, you haven't refuted the 'no technical security' assertion. It's just a question of incentives, dealing, and collusion, which comes down to human nature. Not very appealing - I'll stick with hard assets, thanks.
- icebraining 13y agoWhy is hash power required to have 'savings in bitcoin'? Because without hash power the currency can be manipulated (e.g. double spent), which means that people won't accept Bitcoins, which means their savings would be worth their weight in Zimbabwe dollars. Everyone holding BTC has an incentive to keep the hash power high. Regardless, you haven't refuted the 'no technical security' assertion. It's just a question of incentives, dealing, and collusion, which comes down to human nature. Which is the same thing preventing another Executive Order 6102. You can't escape human nature.
- penguindev 13y ago
- andreypopp 13y agoIt's not about using separate block chains, it's about making cryptocoins non-fungible.