Topic: Bitcoin Maximalism - page 2. (Read 548 times)

Also true maximalists don't support centralized platforms that "stake Bitcoin". Anthony Pompliano for example shills Blockfi like crazy and calls himself Bitcoin lover, but tells people it's okay to put their bitcoin into blockfi to earn more. You would never see a true maximalist shilling or even getting paid for any corporates.

There are pros and cons of using bitcoin compared to using altcoin and using fiat.

Free thought is encouraged - the presence of altcoins only confirm that. Now why they exist in the first place was because bitcoin had some downfalls in terms of people using them like fees increase with price, network congestion with craze in the mainstream market. Altcoins try to cover up the market in such situations and I feel that is a complementary process that helps decongest the bitcoin network with time.

It means that the altcoins are not all useless, but also note that most altcoins that have been developed have died out and only the top 100 altcoins in the market have been able to make any impact.

This ecosystem is comparable to a democratic system and not an autocratic one. People are free to use any crypto that they want but will have to bear consequences according to the pros and cons of that currency.

Then it potentially becomes a trade-off.  How much are you willing to compromise to support a feature that may not be compatible with the current implementation?  What are you willing to sacrifice in order to make a gain elsewhere?  The beauty of building something off-chain is that you don't need to compromise the base protocol. 

If you build something on top of Bitcoin, people can opt in if they choose to.  They can decide for themselves what compromises they are willing to make.  There's no requirement to convince everyone to make the same choice.  How do you always see this as some sort of sordid and undesirable course of action? 

by including sidechains..
.. all it does is push people out of bitcoin to then play with those silly tokens on the sidechains and altnets

take banks pushing people to vault up gold in 1900's.. eventually the gold back peg of a bank note disapeared and banknotes were not worth the value printed on them

just watch out when networks like LN only endup working well if you vault up BTC into some companies 'watchtower' and they later want to reimburse you with altcoins should you ever want to actually unlock out of their channel. 'coz cheap fees'

the signs are already there. watchtowers, factory channels, high onchain fees, atomic swaps

deposit gold-> play with bank notes -> swap for nickel coins of digital 'balance on databases
lock BTC -> play with milisat HTLC's ->atomic swap for altcoin or exchange balance

true bitcoin maximalists like bitcoin. not other networks pretending to be
yes have sidechains for daily play/waste funds.
but dont expect bitcoin maximalists to lock-in their entire hoard

I like your style.

I think I wrote it above, but bitcoin is primarily a way to exchange currency. It doesn't have to be fast, or allow small values. It has to be secure. It doesn't have to solve the other problems of the world, but it has to solve one major problem -- being a distributed and secure unit of wealth.

Many of the world's problems are based on wealth. Inflation is a source of the fuddery in politics by enabling money to be grifted to high profile benefactors to secure their position before the common person has access to the inflated values. These benefactors then influence laws to further benefit themselves. The common person has pays these hidden taxes. A distributed ledger provides a more even playing field. It isn't perfect, but it's a step forward.

Bitcoin is the closest cryptocurrency to solving this problem. Altcoins don't have a chance, yet.

If you try to become everything, it is most likely that you end up being nothing.

I'd rather have an asset that does one thing and does it better than anything else instead of having an asset that wants to be everything but can't really accomplish anything.

Is bitcoin the best at doing anything? Not sure. I can't say it is. So far the price has been going up and up and up and since people say that bitcoin is a SoV, as long as the price keeps climbing it is safe to say that bitcoin is good at rising against the dollar. But is it going to last forever? Hopefully yes.

Is bitcoin trying to be everything? No and that's a good thing.

Altcoins promise to do a lot of things, but they don't actually do them. Ethereum is not used to write decentralized applications, it's used to issue scam tokens. Coins with free transactions and "fast" confirmation times are not used as payment method because of their weak security and unstable price. Filecoin, Namecoin and other unique projects - they also aren't used much in real life. IMO the biggest succesful altcoin use-case is privacy, as coins like Monero have popularity on par with Bitcoin, if not greater, on darknet markets.

Bitcoin doesn't need to adopt useless features, it should remain being focused on security.

Indeed.  Between the issues of finding consensus and problems surrounding compatibility with the underlying architecture, it is challenging to add new features to the base protocol.  This is why it's predominantly optimisations which are added there.

The real question becomes how many features are actually worth implementing.  Some of them may only have niche appeal.  If legitimate altcoins are filling all the existing niches in the market (and all the crapcoins merely have decorative baubles), there's likely very little advantage to adding lots of extra features.     

I think it's safe to say that's much more complicated than that ^{[unfortunately]}.

I don't think realistically that's achievable by BTCitcoin, especially for those altcoins that survived that state, upon being introduced for the first time to the crypto-currency world.
^{- From thousands of existing or upcoming altcoins, there will always be some that'll have real use cases where BTCitcoin might not be a solution.}

Taproot ^{[to an extent]}.

Long term? But look at the past 10 years. Altcoins have grown, prospered, and yes 99% die, but if you have 50,000 alts, that still means 50 survive and every cycle of Bitcoin prosperity like now sees 10,000 more alt projects come up. I don't think it'll ever be only Bitcoin. Already we see spaces filled with memecoins privacy coins and smart contract coins. Everyone can and will coexist.

This is not true and it's almost impossible to change code so much to implement everything that other altcoins have, and I think it is not needed at all.
What I would like to se changed and improved in Bitcoin code is working on better privacy and private transactions, but I don't see anything that suggest this is going to happen soon.
I am not counting some sidechains or second layer solutions and wallets with coinjoins and mixers.

Most altcoins are already obsolete, but Bitcoin is never meant to be all-in-one swiss knife solution to fix all the problems in the world.
Bitcoin is simple but complex in same time and that is why it wasn't hacked so far, so making more complex code changes increase possibility of bugs and makes it much less secure than it is now.
Everything that altcoins are doing, and that is not so much as some people, think can be implemented in Bitcoin via sidechains.

The only other coin that has the community and, dare i say, utility apart from Bitcoin is Ethereum.

The strength of Ethereum is that it is widely used and owned like Bitcoin and currently uses PoW, which makes it truly decentralized. Products built on top of Ethereum like DeFi have started supporting transaction and values in tens of billions per day. These aren't use-cases and industries that can simply be ported over to LN when the time comes.

Even if LN and Bitcoin's SC ability becomes sufficient, the industry won't just switch over.

Now, the catch is that this value is still tiny compared to the true off-chain transaction value. There is still huge scope to bring traditional institutions onboard. Bitcoin's decentralization and security (hashrate) ensures that any real institution with real experts making money decisions, quickly grasp that locking value into a centralized PoS coin (or some version of it claiming 10000 TPS), isn't the monetary solution they are looking for.

The space for actual, decentralized smart-contracts is thus, wide open. More so with Ethereum plans to move to PoS. Unfortunately, there isn't much momentum in Bitcoin development in the direction of targeting these use-cases. We are still waiting for that transition to smooth LN transactions for almost 3 years now.

So, quite simply, the most agile PoW coin will come out on tops. For much of the past decade and from what history suggests, it'll continue to be Bitcoin.

Are you saying that all altcoin blockchains are similar to the Bitcoin blockchain?
What about the differences between PoW and PoS?Proof-of-stake is not the same as Proof-of-work.
Ethereum isn't similar to Bitcoin and it will never be.
Most of the shitcoins are already obsolete,but sooner or later,someone will create an altcoin,that is good enough to compete with Bitcoin.It's always good to have competition on the market.If Bitcoin Core was a total monopoly,then the Bitcoin Core Devs wouldn't be motivated to improve the Bitcoin blockchain and make Bitcoin better.

Because alternate cryptocurrencies have copied source code from Bitcoin and edit it for the interests of the teams create those altcoins.

Bitcoin has biggest network, biggest communities, biggest adoption and best developers. I can not find any exchange, merchant, etc. that accept cryptocurrency but does not accept Bitcoin.

Bitcoin Core developers have worked hard to keep updates the blockchain. Bitcoin is different than altcoins because of its decentralization. Any updates for Bitcoin need to have consensus and it can not be completed in 1 second like altcoins.

I disagree with the statement which is why my answer to your question is no.
First we have to distinguish between altcoins and shitcoins. When you see coins that are very similar to bitcoin and have copied bitcoin with all its shortcomings you know that they are "shitcoins" not "altcoins" (aka alternative cryptocurrencies). They are already obsolete because they are useless even though their prices may be high or have a market cap that is closest to bitcoin's.

A real alternative cryptocurrency with real innovations and improvements will never be obsolete. If the developers stop caring about making themselves millionaires in shortest time and start innovating the same way Satoshi did, we will see a cryptocurrency that could actually compete with bitcoin.
But I don't think this is going to happen for at least another decade.

The primary function of these coins is monetary value.  Bitcoin has the largest value.

Bitcoin, despite being the largest, still had a 50% drop over the past month. What chance do the others have when bitcoin can drop by that much? They may have additional functions, but a primary currency shouldn't be tied to additional functions. Bitcoin also remains the coin with best security -- the long proof of work chains from the last twelve years and with every new 5? minute block creates security. Other coins can't compete with this feature (bug?), the one that provides security. Security is the most necessary element for a currency over what these may offer, or even 100% stability in conversion values.

Other blockchains could quickly replace bitcoin if bitcoin were to be compromised by some unforeseeable circumstance. They are a part of the decentralized network. They won't overtake bitcoin without some cataclysmic problem, which is increasingly unlikely with each year.

Recently, I have read about the Avalanche and Ren Protocol network alliance that their goal is to offer users fast transactions and low fees. Thanks to this alliance Ren Protocol will offer users to use the network with BTC and other coins.
Maybe this is one of the solutions we are looking for, the Ren protocol team talks about the beginning of the cross-chain era and offering interoperability for DeFi.

I get that the forks like Litecoin, Dogecoin and Bitcoin Cash obviously copy Bitcoin, but these aren't the only ones in existence. The Ethereum developers seem to have a serious dedication into their unique project. Basically, the cryptocurrencies with potential are the ones that don't copy it like Monero, Cardano, Zcash, Stellar etc. All of these have a serious development, they aren't a bunch of lines changed from Bitcoin Core's source code.

No. It won't. Maybe some of them, those with not many features.

I think that people forget that there is a huge difference in numbers between the number of transactions on bitcoin network and most other altcoins; when those coins will reach to the amount of use Bitcoin has, they may face problems they didn't think of.

Now, Ethereum clearly differs as number of transactions, but that's because of the huge number of tokens. Can Bitcoin handle that now? No. So for now smart contracts are out of discussion.
Monero has pretty small number of transactions, but it has become the standard for anonymous coins. Would Bitcoin go on that path? I highly doubt it.

Indeed, there are plenty of coins (or forks) that only changed the algo, or the block size, or simply have bigger advertising. Those are already known as irrelevant or speculation-only (shit)coins. Yes, those may become obsolete at some point. But the coins/platforms that have come with something indeed new and relevant will most probably have their niche and won't become "obsolete" or replaced.

I think as an investor and not as a cryptocurrency developer. And I always look at bitcoin as a kind of index for all industries. When he is "bad" it will be bad for almost everyone else. I think this will continue for a long time, at least until this world of cryptocurrency expands to new platforms that are completely independent of the original bitcoin. Until that time, no matter how everything went, everyone will still look at bitcoin as a standard and avant-garde.