Topic: Bitcoin 2.0 (Read 4322 times)

Earlier I suggested "second generation".

To me that suggests they are based on the Bitcoin source code. Most of them aren't. If they aren't, then they shouldn't mention Bitcoin at all, in my view. I tend to call them "coins" or "crypto-currencies". Most of them include something like a currency even if they aren't focussed on being money.

This is actually true. It can be interpreted this way.

Why not call them what they are:  enhancements and extentions to Bitcoin.

I like "bolt ons"

If you must have a snazy maketing term then possibly "Next Gen" , "G2", etc.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8500197

Just not "Bitcoin 2.0" since that indicates the next version of the actual Bitcoin protocol - and has been stated many times in this thread we have not even released "Bitcoin 1.0" yet, we are still in the beta phase at "Bitcion 0.9"

What term would those who dislike the term "Bitcoin 2.0" suggest to account for projects which use blockchain technology but us it to facilitate different services than Bitcoin does? Examples for those services would be: Decentralized lottery, decentralized predictions markets etc.

No, this thread belongs to Meta, as I've already reported before my first post here. It's about where to put Bitcoin 2.0 discussion threads. But after a lot of off-topic replies (thread was in Bitcoin Discussion board at that time, I don't blame anybody) it turned to general Bitcoin 2.0 discussion thread. When you look at the OP, it's discussion about the Bitcoin Forum, fits Meta perfect.

You don't need to say what I should do.
We are equal here.

I can only moderate Turkish board and newbie posts.

I'm not a lover of Ethereum. A look at my signature will give you a clue where my interests lie. Both the 2.0 coins in it have developed lots.

I used to think that, too. They could be, but they won't be. Bitcoin will never adopt Proof of Stake, for example: I'll probably get mocked here for even suggesting it. If I were to write a Bitcoin node that supported multiple transaction types, nobody but me would run it. It'd be stuck on a lonely fork. In practice, only the core Bitcoin devs can make changes like that, and they aren't interested. They've not even fixed transaction mutability, despite it being a known problem (with known fixes) for months, if not years. All the interesting work with Bitcoin is being done on top of it, with wallets and the like, not with changes to the core.

Please tell me how much your loved Ethereum has been developed so far? 
If you complain about lack of features, take up coding and go do them yourself. Anything that these alts provide can be added to Bitcoin.

When I first found out about Bitcoin, I was struck by a quote to the effect that "money is merely the first application of Bitcoin". The block-chain concept can do far more. There are more areas that can benefit from de-centralised, trust-free consensus. I had hoped Bitcoin would evolve to address them.

It hasn't. It won't. The Bitcoin community are too conservative, and its development has become moribund. Hence the torch passes to new coins that are designed with a more flexible architecture to address more areas.

Bitcoin 2.0

Ah finally a nice post. Yes, I definitely agree with you on this one.
These coins that want to be 2.0 are just an attempt to get money because they missed out. Why would you want to make something else, Bitcoin is all we need. I wonder how long it will take us to reach 1.0 though.
Indeed Ethereum is nonsense right now.

That is fine with me.  I was only opposed to using "Bitcoin 2.0" to describe any alt that is not Bitcoin.  "Next Generation" is as good a marketing term as any for those coins that believe they are.

I still contend that any "next generation" coin, no mater how cool or how feature rich, that does not include the current Bitcoin user base through Peter's proposal or something similar is destined to failure because it can be duplicated by a coin that does.

Let's take Ethereum as an example.  Assume you have Ethereum which does not include the current Bitcoin users and AEthereum which does and all other features are identical.  As a Bitcoin holder I would be curious to try out AEthereum since I already own them but I have no desire and would have to be sold hard on the idea of even trying Ethereum or even caring enough to find out what it is.

Generally the second generation coins go beyond being merely money. Features include voting, asset exchanges, text messaging, digital shops, escrow and other automated transactions. The idea is for these things to be implemented in a distributed, de-centralised, trust-free yet secure way, using block-chain technology.

Calling them "second generation" is, I think, relatively uncontroversial. Calling them "Bitcoin 2.0" is controversial, because they typically don't have much to do with Bitcoin other than using a block-chain as a means of distributed consensus. Many of them also use "Proof of Stake", which is very different to the Proof of Work that Bitcoin is founded upon. However, that doesn't mean they are scams. Most of them are proud of being their own thing, and don't want to appropriate the "Bitcoin" name, although it can be a convenient short-hand when talking to people who have only heard of Bitcoin.

Some say that to warrant the name "Bitcoin 2.0" they must be a fork of the original Bitcoin block-chain (but not necessarily a fork of the source code). I don't care.

The real question here, in my view, is not over what a new sub-forum should be called, but whether it is worth having separate sub-forums to separate the coins with wholly new source, from ones which are essentially based on the Bitcoin source.

What does 2.0 offers in additional which 1.0 couldn't?

Edit : Ah, its a new coin from new owner..

THIS

your suggestion of kidnapping is just stupid... :/

i said semi-decentralized.. its not centralised because one single entity does not have full control over the private keys of the coins.. its not decentralized because it is only 3 people. so its somewhere in the middle.

can you name one other solution that is even half as good? forgot to even mention there arent even any fees involved. just transaction fees for withdraw and deposit.

learn how the technology works before bashing it... http://multigateway.org/

Allow me to debunk that.

I kidnap all three of these people (or only 2!), hit them with a 5$ wrench until they push the transactions through that I want.

Incredible you can call only 3 points of trust decentralized. Decentralization needs to have the control in the hands of everyone, not simply 3 people. What will these 3 do with pressure from the government or whatever other criminal?

no.. what he is talking about is something like multigateway which is the first semi-decentralised crypto exchange.. meaning no one single person has control over the currency.. it uses multisig on 3 servers controlled by 3 separate people who, in order to run their businesses need to be trust worthy.. 2 of 3 servers need to agree before a withdrawal of coins happens.. so you only need to trust that 2 of the 3 people will not cooperate in a malicious way.. seeing as these people have a very high vested interest in being trust worthy and have invested allot of money in their businesses it makes it far less likely for them to cooperate to commit a theft... hacking it would be fairly damn hard too seeing as it uses multisig. its the first step toward a fully decentralized exchange so far. and by far one of the most exciting things to come out in a long time.

Let me know when Bitcoin 3.0 is announced. lol

I was never heard about bitcoin 2.0. Is it really exist? or such like altcoin..