Topic: Bitcoin maximalists are doing more harm to the crypto space than good ? - page 2. (Read 541 times)

+1. it's all noise. the only thing that matters in the end is what the market decides. my money is on bitcoin continuing to dominate the market for the foreseeable future, but i also think the maximalist hope that altcoins will die off is a pipe dream. altcoins aren't going anywhere, and they are gonna seriously piss off bitcoin maximalists during the next bull market.

Totally agree. Bitcoin maximalists aren't different from gold maximalists. Both of them dwell on the past.

there are only altcoin maximalists and what they have been doing has been harming the crypto space a lot. have you ever wondered why the term "bitcoin maximalist" is a newly appeared term and is also started by altcoin creators?

when was the last time we saw an actually good project be on top of the lists named "top altcoins" instead of some garbage pump and dump coin with a huge premine be there? you can't blame that on bitcoin or bitcoin users. it is because of what "atlcion maximalists" do. they kill every other altcoin that has any innovation but lacks a pumping group because a legit developer doesn't care about these things so his altcoin gets pushed to the bottom of the list and is buried under a lot of shitcoins.

there is also "better than bitcoin", "next big thing", "flippening",... which are all coming from altcoin maximalists all with the purpose to pump their shitcoin which in turn kills the possible good project that will go unnoticed due to the sheer amount of shit that is poured on top of them.

Isn't the term Bitcoin maximalist, or maximalist used for those that are just heavy headed people that don't really contribute anything but still preach whatever they're rooting for? Not that I'm saying that some maximalists out there are bad, there may be some out there that don't really fit in there but call themselves on though. I'd rather stay in the middle camp tbh, since I know of Bitcoin, and I also know what's good and what's bad with it. Acknowledging them (disadvantages) seems the best way to adopt it after all. Not that I've ever used much coins, I've only used BTC, ETH and Doge after all.

Still, I suppose that maximalist just want Bitcoin to be the only one to exist since they're on that camp. It's like me vs the world, with no compromise needed or available for that matter. Let them exist on their own space though tbh, there's still space for most people to use and acknowledge other useful coins out here.

Don't pay attention to the way people call you, I'm a holder, does that make me a maximalist? Idk, idc, I'm just doing my thing

The more time passes the more convincing Bitcoin appears compared to everything else to me at least. It's like a fully grown adult striding through a field of squealing babies. Maximalism feels like a logical outcome after some careful consideration.

But I see nowt wrong with experimenting with other stuff and they are often exploring avenues Bitcoin itself will never touch. However it's disingenuous to scream 'oppression' when someone casts doubt on your latest 'partnership'. As ever actions speak louder than words and the actions of most shitcoins condemn themselves effortlessly.

A lot of maximalists are boring, derisory and irritating and so is the opposition. Neither camp is going to shut up so you may as well leave them to it and cast your own vote.

TBH most of the Bitcoin maximalists I've encountered do refer to themselves as Bitcoin Maximalists or Maxis.

Others go as far as defining themselves as Bitcoin 'Toxic' Maximalists!  

...

BCH is not Bitcoin.

BSV is not Bitcoin. It's even a fork of BCH. It's in the license agreement ...

- https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/blob/master/LICENSE

"The Bitcoin SV blockchains are defined,
for purposes of this license, as the Bitcoin blockchain containing block height #556767
with the hash "000000000000000001d956714215d96ffc00e0afda4cd0a96c96f8d802b1662b" ..."

It's a total nullity based on a sham.



XRP ... no comment ... ROTFLSHMSFOAIDMT

It's an insult because people who act like maximalists rarely call themselves that. It's other people that do it like it's something bad.

I'm probably a maximalist because I see Bitcoin as something superior to existing altcoins. Maybe one day Bitcoin will have to be upgraded and we'll move to a newer version but for now there's barely anything comparable. Look at top altcoins. XRP? BCH, BSV?

I guess people can take it too far, sometimes.  But I suspect such comments are merely made in reaction to having spent years listening to those who push far too hard to promote the "next big thing" which invariably turns out to be a whole load of nothing in practice.  Sure, the "maximalists" could probably phrase it more politely, but everything they've experienced in their time looking at this stuff tells them that the vast majority of coins are going to fail pretty spectacularly.  I'd say in many cases it's quite natural (perhaps even healthy) to become skeptical and dismissive of other coins.  There comes a stage where you just can't bring yourself to continue to give all of them the benefit of the doubt just for the sake of being polite.

It's almost as though people use the phrase "first mover advantage" like it's the only reason Bitcoin achieved dominance.  But the simple fact is, network effects are a huge factor.  If Bitcoin had been poorly designed, simply being the first of its kind would not have been sufficient to sustain it.  An objectively better coin would have come along.  It's clear, however, that Bitcoin is very well designed.  It has tangible benefits and people can see the advantage of using Bitcoin over what other networks can offer.  

And it really is a question of what's on offer.

For example, some coins have filled a niche that Bitcoin simply doesn't cater to, so these types of networks can be successful in their own right.  These are mainly legitimate altcoins.  They have a real purpose and people find them useful.  They have something to offer.
 
Some chains serve as a useful testbed for experimental features.  It's not always a good idea to speculate on such coins, though, because features alone are not necessarily enough for the coin itself to be useful and actually serve a purpose in the real world.  On rare occasion, these coins can be legitimate, but there are also plenty of occasions where they can turn out to be shameless speculative devices by hyping up a feature beyond its true potential.  Beware the buzzwords and gimmickry brigades.

But, for the most part, since many coins are effectively copycat clones that can only manage minor tweaks to the basic formula, or perhaps add some novelty bells and whistles that aren't really worth the compromises they often entail, they have little to offer.  As such, they can't compete.  Network effects will clearly never sway in their favour because people will never use them.  If people won't use them, these coins become useless.  So why waste time on them?  It's survival of the fittest.  Sugar-coating it isn't going to make it any easier.

The example tweets listed in the second post are definitely crude, blunt and generally disrespectful.  But, blatant trolling aside, some of them aren't necessarily wrong.  If they hadn't been phrased in such a clearly provocative fashion, I doubt anyone would take exception to it.  As for whether they're harming the space?  Difficult to say.  Clearly some people will take affront, but then, people being offended by things on the internet just seems to be a part of everyday life now.  I'm not worried, personally.  Hopefully people just see it as the modern equivalent of "banter" and don't take it too seriously.  

I'm not sure if I should agree that being a maximalist as per the official definition of the term is that bad unless the said BTC maximalist strongly opposes necessary upgrades. Now let's wonder: is higher speed really needed in the Bitcoin network? Would a higher speed truly make BTC better in any way besides looking better on a "BTC vs " comparison?

Regarding privacy, I honestly think BTC would have not been here anymore if everything went through Tor or was just obfuscated the way Monero does it. We have already seen enough resistance against BTC from authorities - imagine what would've happened if Monero was to be the first crypto out there.

I honestly thought that being a BTC maximalist means just that you would never give up BTC for anything or admit there are better coins out there than it. Anyway, as long as speed, fees etc do not bother us, I think we don't need tweaks. You could go back to the "what happens if a satoshi becomes a dollar" debate - why bother changing the denomination now if it's not a problem yet, right?

Indeed I would agree that privacy is one of the main advantages with various altcoins currently over BTC.

...

An interesting perspective on confirmation times. If I'm being completely honest I would say that Bitcoins target block time of 10 mins is slightly to slow in regards to some aspects of being a modern digital cash.

Satoshi had to play it safe in this regard and of course changing this variable is now not possible as it would alter the entire distribution of coins over time, thus changing the economic model.

Arguably, it is actually the block time that leads to increased transaction backlogs and/or higher network fees.

A better block time is most certainly around the 2.5 min mark IMHO. Hash rate and chain security considered.

EDIT: Additional: Hal Finney knew it ... December 30, 2010 ...


Imagine all those BSV folks thinking that unlimited data storage in addition to transactions is going to work out well long-term.  

Imagine trying to store the entire internet in every Bitcoin block. Anyone involved with BSV is an absolute complete and utter total plank.

...

In terms of Useful PoW, at least three Prime number based altcoins exist (based on bitcoins proof-of-work with some additional functions), which actually store the results on chain and have broken various mathematical records. Whilst this sounds impossible, its perfectly true. See my signature.

...

I have also never been a fan of Smart Contracts either (or tokenization), however, perhaps some genuine use cases are now coming to fruition !?

Still, tokens are most certainly not coins.

for starters the term "Bitcoin maximalists" is both created and used by altcoin pumpers who have been trying to scam people into buying their premined coin so that they could make money by selling the created out of thin air coins to them and make millions.

you might have misunderstood what most people say.
there is a difference between saying there can never be anything better than bitcoin or saying there hasn't been anything better than bitcoin. the former is just stupid and the later is a reality.

i strongly disagree.
innovation dies when developers start wanting to make the most amount of money instead of wanting to improve on what bitcoin innovation introduced.
that is why there has been so many tokens (ie. the easiest way to make money by doing nothing).

advantages should be measured as a whole not individually. for example there are altcoins that have "bigger" blocks than bitcoin and individually this seems like an advantage but it is not an advantage as a whole, instead it is a severe flaw.
or the most popular better privacy coins (that are actually privacy coins not just pretending) have serious scaling issues that are caused by that privacy feature.

Crypto space is full of "developers" who just make millions off their pet shitcoin with no intention to actually improving anything. So, it's a no-brainer to be a Bitcoin maximalist, when the whole field is so bad.


Privacy is one of a few things that are indeed improved by alts. Still, many privacycoins have problems of their own.

Faster confirmations? There's no such things, 1 Bitcoin confirmation is not the same as 1 shitcoin confirmation. 1 Bitcoin confirmation is already extremely unlikely to be reversed. Meanwhile alts get successfully 51% attacked on a regular basis.

Useful PoW? If it's useful, it's centralized, and you can't have a reliable financial peer-to-peer system that has trusted third parties in its protocol.

Smart contracts - still not used in real world.

Completely agree to this point! I believe ETH or even Ripple is much better and faster if I want to transact in cryptocurrency on a regular basis. Transactions are cheaper as well compared to bitcoin!


That's true as well! Bitcoin is indeed a market mover and being the first cryptocurrency, it enjoys maximum attention from the non-crypto population. I have seen a lot of people never heard of the word "cryptocurrency" but at least heard the name "bitcoin"!

Maximalism is somewhat harmful in any context because maximalism stops the ideas of improvement flowing into the system.

But we also should not forget that maximalists are the most rooted supporters of a system! Without their constant support, bitcoin wouldn't have reached to this stage where we are standing today! So I would not necessarily say that Maximalists are doing more harm than doing good! As a community, it's always good to have a balanced mix of maximalists and progressive minds to grow and innovative!

I don't like the word maximalist as it has a negative meaning of being short-sighted. It is not that someone just wants to pump their Bitcoin bags, but mostly that after careful research and consideration the result is that altcoins are nonsense. Somehow this is what happens with altcoin shills instead that infest the social media with each hyped coin they find. One time it was XRP that was going to end Bitcoin, next time Verge that was shilled to the roof, now it is Chainlink.

I'm sorry but I don't see any future for any of the current top altcoins. I haven't found a decent usecase for any altcoin so far besides trading them to add to my Bitcoin balance.

Ethereum went Ponzi style with DeFi and the rest are not even worth mentioning. Some random Chinese nonsense as vechain that are controlled by the Chinese government are hyped as serious projects. Seriously?

Altcoins are all shitcoins and DeFi won't bring any solution to real world problems.

I agree.

When people started using the word "a*tcoin" in 2010-11, it was just a quick way to refer to other cryptocurrencies as a group

When people started using that word perjoratively, I stopped using it


Bitcoin doesn't need playground bullying to be better than the other cryptocurrencies, either it is or it isn't. People using this kind of language are displaying tribal instincts that may in fact hide their lack of confidence in Bitcoin

The chalenge with bitcoin maximalist is that they do not see beyond bitcoin, they believe every other coin is worthless or a shitcoin. The truth of the matter is that bitcoin has almost the transaction per second rating in the etire blockchain framework and that is a major challenge but beyond this bitcoin is most secure. Maximalists don't actually believe it is true and they end up focusing on other features and it does not please those who see beyond analysis.

I have always been open to altcoins,but unfortunately 90% of them turned out to be  "pump and dump" shitcoins.
There's nothing wrong with the competition between Bitcoin and various altcoin projects.Competition is always good for the market.It forces developers to constantly improve the code,in order to stay ahead.
I can't call myself a "Bitcoin maximalist",even though I wish there's was a way to just remove all the shitcoins (and altcoins like Ripple and all the Bitcoin forks)from the crypto sphere.
Since when sharing your opinions can "do harm" to a community?This is a communist way of thinking.
"How dare you have an opinion that's different than mine!"
Bitcoin maximalists have their opinions and they are free to share them whenever and wherever they want.
 

After more than a year of being called that, I honestly still don't know if I should take it as a compliment or an insult. Mostly just me scratching my head in confusion.

Bitcoin 'Maximalist' HODLer, confirmed!  

*Just joking*