Topic: Bitcoin maximalism: is it toxic or a good influence in bitcoin community ? (Read 283 times)

Bitcoin maximalism is thought to be nothing in particular. There is no influence whether be it toxic or good in bitcoin community. Bitcoin thrives because of its popularity and potential.

maybe like a knife it can help but it can also hurt
they help promote bitcoin
but if they are too excessive and assume all altcoins are rubbish
it can create haters

this has nothing to do with bitcoin minimalism but the way of thinking you are mentioning here in green doesn't come out of nowhere and based on nothing. it  comes from the fact that whenever you look at the altcoins the only thing you see is useless projects  created for pump and dumping purposes. when you go to altcoin circles like reddit boards, the altcoin board in this forum,... the only discussions you see are about how you can make more profit on your bitcoins. whenever you go to each of these circles the top posts belong to shitcoins that  get pumped the most not an altcoin that is actually good but has no pumps.
if you don't believe me you are one click away from proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=67.0
none of the coins that are mentioned in these topics on first page are any good. they are all pure pump coins.

saying "all" is obviously wrong but it is not that off the mark when 99% of the altcoins (including creation of Vitalik Buterin) match this description.

Bitcoin maximalism is a made up concept. Bitcoin is the first and the most successful coin in the market till now, for its reliability and value. No one is maximizing and boasting bitcoin's value.

The vast majority of computer scientists don't consider a currency the best use case for blockchain technology.
Currency is (for the moment) considered the only use case.


Uhm, yeah, that probably as well, but it doesn't really matter

And rightly so.
You will probably have heard of "smart contracts" and them being the killer-app for blockchain technology.
That is marketing.

Smart contracts of a wee bit higher complexity than regular Bitcoin transactions may or may not be a valid use case of blockchain technology in the future.
For the moment, there is no empirical evidence for it, though.
It may as well turn out that meaningful smart contracts are too complex for being put to good use "on" a blockchain.

In theory, it all sounds nice and manageable, but there's a whole lot of problems in computer science where theory and empirical evidence clash.
Main reason is probably that we, as humans are, well, stupid.


With the singularity approaching, we'll soon know for sure.

Wait a minute. Does that imply that the best use case of blockchain tech is as a currency, or that most altcoins fail to do what they promised to do? Really curious, since I'm starting to be unsure with the blockchain hype lately.

And I also agree that most of the Altcoins will not find use in real life.

But I am sure that there will be exceptions.

Hm, okay, if that is the accepted, common definition, I am not a Bitcoin Maximalist.

I think it's a rather "quirky" definition, though.
There's a huge difference between someone who "believes that most altcoins do not have real use cases" and some trader who "speculatively trades on exchanges to get more Bitcoins".
I even fail to see any real connection between the two groups.

I, for one "believe" that most altcoins have no real use cases.
I don't really trade, though.
I also don't entertain the idea that there can never be an altcoin with a proper use case.
Which, in my eyes, doesn't support the notion that I'm some kind of "Maximalist" or dogmatic in any way.

The term “Bitcoin-maximalist” was first coined by the developer of Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin.

Maximalist believes that Bitcoin BTC is the only cryptocurrency that matters.

Maximalists believe that most altcoins do not have real use cases and speculatively trade on exchanges to get more BitcoinsBTC.

This is a philosophy that has the right to exist.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you mention "what happened after that".
Who precisely was disrespectful, where, when?

Absolutely. To the best of my knowledge, most developers get along quite well when it comes to mainly "technical" issues.
Quarrels about "politics" aside, qualified developers, at least, do.

There have always been clueless non-techies who bitched about people like Mike, later on about Gavin, etc.
Also, on a more personal level, quite a few developers have had their fair share of bitching.
Nothing about that really matters.
People are people.

I stand by my claim that there is, in fact, no such thing as "Bitcoin Maximalism" (at least among intelligent, educated people).

I would pick one recent episode, the CVE-2018-17144, the latest found Bitcoin vulnerability that could have crashed the network. It was reported by awemany, one developer of Bitcoin Unlimited (Bitcoin Cash).
As far as I know, awemany while testing BCH found one error and decided to test it with BTC which he found that it had the same error. Well, he took the initiative to test BTC, he lost his time and he reported the issue.
What happen after that, the disrespect, the opinions that came up concerning the quality and competence of Bitcoin Cash developers, it contains much of this "Bitcoin maximalism" spirit underneath.
Cooperation should be appreciated, any altcoin developer who contributes and do a good job should treated professionally and with respect. People should be motivated to contribute more.

Not all people supporting the most favored coin should be called maximalist. Also, is it bitcoin's fault to be supported by the majority of people within the crypto ecosystem? As always, these same people have the capacity to discern what they want and state why they want it. Me bjying bitcoin and using bitcoin over any other cryptocurrency doesn't make me a maximalist: I love the idea of ETH and Komodo but prefer to use bitcoin since it's way more convenient and recognizable for merchants and normal people.

If a project is legitimate and promising, people would support it sans bitcoin's influence over the market. Most of the time, projects/ICOs don't bring enough value to the table making people look for other things or stay with bitcoin. No one is to blame or is to be labelled except the developers and their poor performance as to why their projects aren't successful.

So, if I understand you correctly, the wording of my argument leads to the conclusion that I'm a Bitcoin Maximalist?
I'd like to call myself one, but I'm actually quite sympathetic to a (select) few Altcoin projects, and always have been, starting with namecoin.

I do have a lot of contempt and even pity for the vast majority of Altcoin projects, though.
Not because I favor Bitcoin (which I don't), but simply because they are failed projects from the start, mainly because of fraudulent developers (if one can even call them developers), and in a few cases, simply ignorant, arrogant, idiot "developers".


Yeah, broad generalizations are usually (generally?) useless.
OTOH, how else would you cut through the undergrowth of thousands upon thousands of Shitcoins?


I for my part won't reject the possibility of a competitive Altcoin that might someday overpower Bitcoin, though I have a hard time believing that even a really good project could be able to overcame the head start of Bitcoin's network effect.
If push comes to shove, I'm a "Crypto-Darwinist" who will support the "stronger", more "adaptable" coin.


I personally couldn't care less if those Altcoins die or live on.
What I'd love to happen were for them to shut up on the Bitcointalk forum.


Not sure if that's right. Altcoiners seem to ridicule Bitcoiners most when they dream of "the Flippening"


Okay, now I see the confusion.
True Bitcoiners want the Bitcoin price to be lower, so they can buy more
(of course, they're happy about a rise after they've bought).


Again, a common misunderstanding.
I'm angry when people lose their money by "investing" into Altcoins, because they tend to blame Bitcoin for it.


No, read again, that's not what I wrote.
So-called "Bitcoin Maximalists" are usually simply conservative in that they prefer a decentralized, stable, well-developed blockchain as the basis for a digital currency over some random, premined or ICOed copycat with feature-bloat.
Nowhere did I mention that
a) Bitcoin is the only such blockchain
b) Altcoins are limited to not being such a blockchain

In fact, there are blockchains "out in the wild" that fulfill those requirements almost as well as Bitcoin or maybe even better (sometimes hard to tell). Unfortunately, none of them are highly successful, which lowers their network effect and renders them uncompetitive.


As much as I'd love to do that, there's no way I can.
BTW, I'm pretty sure, if anyone ever could, he/she''d certainly be eligible for a noble prize.

The opposite probably holds true: whoever claims to be able to offer a competitive Altcoin should provide a rundown of the reasons why, how and where his or her respective Altcoin is better than Bitcoin.
Not because Bitcoin has some special quality, but simply because as the oldest and also "major" coin in existence it's as good a benchmark as anything.


No, it can't and it shan't.
Bitcoin should implement those features that are useful to a currency.
No more, no less.
Any competitor of Bitcoin who has all the same features of a currency as Bitcoin has, but has at the same time just one tiny little extra piece of complexity which is not useful to a currency must be considered less useful as a currency and thereby inferior to Bitcoin.
If that's Bitcoin Maximalism, I'm the King of Bitcoin Maximalists.

I agree with the comment above. The distinction of bitcoin and altcoins makes it looks like all the other coins have the same use case and are bound to succeed or fail together. This is false and each coin is unique, some are of course poor replicas and rehashed projects. Buy you owe it to each to research and judge without prejudice.

That's a false dichotomy that reflects the attitude of typical "maximalists." These kinds of broad generalizations are completely useless and they just appear vitriolic and often envious. To me, maximalists are constantly fighting the market. They want so badly for altcoins to die but it will never happen.

The vitriol from maximalists is always strongest when altcoins are in a bull market and the gains are far surpassing Bitcoin. That's no surprise -- as you point out, altcoiners are the same way with their derision of maximalists when altcoins are in a death spiral. This is what happens when speculative technology meets native currency: Greed. Over the years, I've seen countless bitcoiners complain about how much higher the price BTC should be -- if it weren't for those dastardly altcoins stealing the show! It just makes them so angry that there is demand for all these scammy altcoins!

You say that Bitcoin is (or will be) the only "decentralized, stable, well-developed blockchain" and altcoins are limited to "random, premined or ICOed copycat with feature-bloat." On what basis could you prove that? Perhaps you could establish standards for "decentralized, stable, well-developed" and then provide a rundown of the 2000 or so altcoins in existence explaining why each and every one can't fit those definitions?

It's fair enough to criticize a specific altcoin's design flaws -- I've done my share of that. But it looks clueless when you write off every altcoin project in existence (including those that haven't been invented yet) with one fell swoop. That's what people like Saifedean Ammous and Giacomo Zucco do. It's quite ignorant. This sort of dogmatic approach really supports the attitude that Bitcoin is a cult, too.

Most altcoins may be garbage, but this position where maximalists completely write off all non-Bitcoin development -- with little more as evidence than one-off opinions -- is uncompelling to say the least. They should stop being so bitter and accept how markets work. Bitcoin can't possibly implement every worthy change or feature -- not within this century anyway --  and why would we want it to? That's what altcoins are for.

There's also nothing fundamentally wrong with ICOs. They are actually a good thing. Bitcoiners get so upset about government regulation, but then they deride ICOs even though they make fundraising, investment and securities trading more accessible! Do they realize that ICOs leverage the underlying blockchain to allow investors and traders to avoid regulated markets?

I agree that qwk is right about who usually talks about bitcoin maximalists, but I also think that this topic is not that easy. Sure, bitcoin is #1. But isn't it supposed to contribute to decentralization as much as possible? We could look at this giant altcoin market as another field where decentralization can express itself. Simply because there are many coins to choose from and which address various issues and try to make the most out of cryptocurrencies. I think Satoshi could approve of this view, that bitcoin should not be the dominant power in the market, but is better seen as a part of it along with other parts. I recall the book should get published, perhaps we'll find the answers there.

Because people don't want it. If there was enough support somebody would start to develop a solution but it's not happening because we don't need it. Altcoin markets are chaotic and premined tokens are usually scams or shitcoins like ripple. I wouldn't want bitcoin to turn into this.

Why bitcoin should not support pre-mined tokens or ICO use cases, better than other coins. If projects are legit then what would be the problem ?
Take a look to Komodo solution for example...

There is no such thing as "Bitcoin Maximalism".
People who use that expression are usually just looking for a sorry excuse why their beloved Altcoin fails.

So-called "Bitcoin Maximalists" are usually simply conservative in that they prefer a decentralized, stable, well-developed blockchain as the basis for a digital currency over some random, premined or ICOed copycat with feature-bloat.

If Satoshi Nakamoto was alive, do you think that he would be a Bitcoin maximalism?

Is Bitcoin maximalism closing bridges that could be established with other projects and development teams ?
Is Bitcoin maximalism reducing the ability of bitcoin rethinking itself, and consequently reducing innovation or to renew the development practices or members.

Should bitcoin community take Bitcoin maximalism as a kind of "religious" cult or, political agenda that has nothing to do with bitcoin?