Topic: Bitcoin vs. Altcoins – projected Marketcap - page 2. (Read 966 times)

Not really!
In PoS you are generally receiving a "reward" for having a balance that is printed out of thin air. In LN you receive a fee for processing the transaction that is paid by the sender not out of thin air. Not to mention that the amount of fees are too small that it is negligible.

It most likely won't do much, because the system must already be dependent on transaction fees by 2052.

Not at all. Proof-of-Work is a necessity for lightning to work. On-chain activity is also necessary, otherwise people will just utilize it due to empty mempools. For lightning to have effect, there have to be lots of on-chain transactions.

But over all, if you zoom out, you can see that it does benefit miners, because it benefits the users, and therefore the miners due to rise in demand.

819k USD by 2052 seems easy-peasy. We will hit 7 digits later this decade.

The dollar won't even exist by then though...

None of us will understand what the ½ ing will do by 2052 until we make it to 2052.

but in order for mining to work in 2052 we need 819,000 a btc price unless we can figure out how to balance LN fees and standard block fees.

If we move towards LN fees staying with LN and not going somewhat towards standard block fees we push BTC closer and closer to POS

as it is BTC is now a POW / POS hybrid since LN has pulled some small change fees away from the miners.

I meant inflation in general, not currency inflation schedule.

If there's no guarantee for that, at the same time there's guarantee that bitcoin won't change monetary policy, then it is a flawed comparison.

Great, so moral of the story: don't use altcoins.

Which doesn't necessarily mean it'll continue ad infinitum. It's more complicated than it seems, linking to: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary-a-post-by-peter-todd-5405755

If anyone want to have more information, check Controlled supply and How is the 21 Million Bitcoin Cap Defined and Enforced?

The question was answered by satoshi years ago. satoshi predicted that there are two possible scenarios for Bitcoin and it seems we have a positive one because the Bitcoin network has become bigger (in total hashrate) and more decentralized (after the Great Hash Migration from China) as well as it has gotten more adoption (more use cases and higher trading volume).

People say this in every cycle and they even named it "downward spiral" at some point claiming that because the reward was cut half from 50 to 25 then bitcoin must die because miners no longer make any profit. Today the reward is 6.25 and miners are still making a lot of profit and the hashrate is unbelievably high compared to when they were making 8 times more bitcoins for each block.

Dudes and dudettes.

Not one word about Pow vs pos.

shameful.

all pos = piece of shit.

some pow may be good.

if you don’t believe this you are missing the entire basis of why btc was made pow.

hint pow can be decentralized and trustless.

pos can not be decentralized and trustless.

as to future value of btc because it shrinks maybe it works.

but look at doge in 2113

it is 100 years old.

and x coins were printed each and every years.

so 100 x coins
next year

101x which is a mere 1% inflation rate.  so there will always be an identical reward every year that does not vanish

but inflation  rate shrinks every year.

and btc in 2100 reward will almost have vanished with all the ½ ings

2024  = 3.125
2028 = 1.5625
2032 = 0.78125
2036 = 0.390625
2040 = 0.1953125
2044 = 0.09765625
2048 = 0.048828125
2052 = 0.0244140625. if it cost 20000 to mine a btc we need 819000 price  btc
2056 = 0.0122070313
2060 = 0.00610351565
2064 = 0.00305175783
2068 = 0.00152587892
2072 = 0.00076293946
2076 = 0.00038146973
2080 = 0.000190734865
2084 = 0.0000953674325
2088 = 0.0000476837163
2092 = 0.0000238418581
2096 = 0.000011920929
2100 = 0.0000059604645

when you see these numbers btc may be in very serious trouble unless LN works and feeds enough fees back to the main chain.

no mining = no security or low security.

look at btc and the 2100 lookout vs doge and the 2100 look out.

87x mintings by 2100 then 88x mintings seems to me that doges 2100 outlook is more stable and predictable than btcs 2100 outlook.

I don't seem to see the logic. In this case, being a copy or original doesn't have anything to do with scarcity. A copy could be as scarce as the original as the case of BCH and BSV shows. They all have 21 million in total supply. Please note that I'm just referring to the supply here, not their respective demand.

But this so because these coins we call copies aren't really literal copies. They're not literally counterfeit. They're different coins, as you've pointed out, hence BCH and BSV and not anymore BTC.

So, strictly speaking, they aren't inflation. We could have a million forks of BTC which are as scarce as BTC but they're not BTC anymore.

Technically, it's not affecting Bitcoin because it's a different coin.
So indeed, the bold part is important, leading us to:

---

Yearly inflation is the most important part from damaging inflation. The more inflation, the more dangerous. That's what I've explained above.
We just need to look at Polkadot and the fact that in 2050, 12 times of Polkadot's current supply will exist. In 2050 roughly the same number of coins will be minted yearly as Polkadot's marketcap is today. It's like if there would be 20 million BTC printed in 2050 in a single year - every year! - and that number would even be increasing every year = exponential growth!
Maybe I can create a graph of it to visualize it somewhen later but numbers should be clear.
It's like Turkish Lira etc. where inflation is getting through the roof and nobody want to hold such an asset. Same for Altcoins and the yearly inflation is key here. Some inflationary DeFi Shitcoins have already collapsed.


Of course, governance could change metrics like inflation if things are getting bad but there's no guarantee for that.


But instead it's even worse to rely on a few guys "managing" the Altcoins and especially in PoS coins, developers are owners of a large chunk of the premined coins as a "foundation" and it's giving them much power.
I don't know if you have heard about IOTA but one of the reasons, IOTA has so many problems is because developers didn't agree how to proceed and they had some infights instead. This problem will be likely to catch most centralized Altcoins when big promises (from marketing) can't be kept.

Ethereum and Ethereum Classic are not tokens. They are native currencies of Ethereum network and Ethereum Classic network.

Most of them are not good for investment because many of them will die in one bear market and mostly don't have their lifespan more than 4 year or a full market cycle.

If you say about Ethereum, BNB, Litecoin and Dogecoin, they are good to invest in but you should choose a good entry to join.

Are you sure about it?

If no upgrade, how do we have Bitcoin Segwit, Taproot (another type of Segwit) ?

• Segregated Witness - Segwit
• Taproot softfork and its adoption

I don't see how the inflation per year is relevant with this comparison.

I doubt you can get an even slight picture of a centralized-governed cryptocurrency in 25 years from now. Especially with a history full of centralized-governed cryptocurrencies that reached the bottom after a few hyped years, which brings me to my point again: a hyped, recently appreciated cryptocurrency doesn't mean it'll keep it going in the long run.

That's why I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be elections at all in the way a cryptocurrency works. Running your own node, writing code, mining the chain, using this forum etc., don't require democracy; and that's why bitcoin has not stopped working properly for over a decade now, against all odds.

Technically no. Imagine you want to purchase something from a vendor that accepts bitcoin payments. You have no way of paying them using bsv simply because bsv is not bitcoin, ergo creating the copy did not cause inflation. They are just cheap useless ripoffs.

Stocks and Altcoins are very difficult to compare in my opinion. Stocks are fundamentally different from Altcoins and most "guidelines" for stocks / traditional markets are difficult to apply for Altcoins. I've written about it previously: Is diversification into different coins really a good advice for Newbies?
Maybe it's because Altcoins are very different from Stocks because Stocks are backed by a company producing a real product, (most) Altcoins aren't. Altcoins are just offering the Altcoin itself. The Altcoin is their product.
But you are right, inflation is only one issue to rewiew. A good Altcoin needs much more than just being scarce. Of course, scarcity is a very important metric and even if all the other metrics are fine, deflation can make a coin very unattractive.


Isn't a fork some sort of "inflation" as well? 
Bitcoin can be forked as often as some self-proclaimed Satoshis want to.
That's why a Shitfork can't be scarce in my opinion. It's just a copy from the original. Only the Original can be scarce.

---

I'm not giving any investment advice, just some input for people to apply when reviewing a coin but most (all?) Altcoins have much more risks compared to Bitcoin. Outlining all the risks would be too much here but inflation is one of the downsides of Altcoins. So, yes, I would say investing in Altcoins is risky (compared to Bitcoin).

Buying Altcoins might also give you high profits, no doubt. But it can also go the other way down and you'll end up with some useless Shitcoins.
We just need to compare some top 20 Altcoins from 2017 / 2018 and where they are now: some aren't even relevant anymore = huge loss.
You can be lucky or not. 

There are also differences between Altcoins. Some can outperform Bitcoin, some will be outperformed by Bitcoin.
But after all Bitcoin has been Coin number 1 since Bitcoin was invented.

---

Sure, it's depending on which Altcoin we want to analyze. And there's also not only black and white because after all the amount of inflation per year matters.
But my calculations are making a difference between Altcoins suffering from 10% inflation per year (insanely high inflation) and less inflationary ones like Ethereum ("sane" inflation). Altcoins suffering from less inflation will be rated better. 
By looking 25 years ahead, we can try to get a picture of it.

Yes, electing Ethereum developers where 1 ETH = one vote wouldn't work of course because it would lead to rich stakers abusing it. Rich stakers will get a big issue for (a decentralized) Ethereum in my opinion. A fair election process for Ethereum developers wouldn't be possible unter these conditions. That's why I'm in favor of giving not too much power to Altcoin developers.
Fair elections where 1 person = 1 vote is extremely difficult to implement for Altcoin governance, at least currently. But such a fair vote would bring decentralisation to Ethereum.
That's why I'm in favor of less inflationary Altcoins, it's better for decentralisation.
As you've pointed out, forks wouldn't end well, too.

This is precisely my point. If monetary policy is up to someone, it's flawed comparison. The key aspect of cryptocurrency is to replace trusted third parties, not endorse them. It is to eliminate unreliable factors, not include them. A more proper analogy would be between EUR and ETH, both of which have a pro-feudalistic policy.

First of all, they weren't elected. Second, election for having the responsibility of a monetary phenomenon is again precisely the kind of flaw I'm arguing; that is, it brings centralization, and introduces unreliable factors whose decisions can screw the economy up. Third, judging by the Ethereum user base, and the funding of its development from gigantic commercial banks, do you see any user dared to question the decisions, and request a fork? How's ETC doing?

Sorry to say does it mean investing in altcoin presently dangerous?
What I saw from your analogy seems anyone investing in altcoin is at a very big risk, then secondly I know we learn everyday and all time so I can't say I knew it all. If it happens that I found an altcoin to invest, how do I determines the following processes which you have outlined?
Lastly was thinking investing in an altcoin solely depends on project team, use-case and effectiveness of the project because
what actually made me lost interest in altcoin was the effect of 2017 thereabout which few altcoin that tends to have lots of feature couldn't survived the bear which I then drastically change my mind to bitcoin.

it also reminds me of Ethereum Classic. ethereum developers create new tokens for reasons of stronger security. altcoins are not very suitable for investment, especially long term, we will find a lot of drama going on there and it has happened over and over again in many projects. Bitcoin has never been changed or modified since it first appeared and that is what makes bitcoin so unique and special.[/list]

It is a good idea to analyze market capitalization better and try to come up with more realistic values but I'd argue that it is still data not information. In order to process that data to then make a decision you have to look at other factors. At the end of the day only utility is defining whether something is worth investing in and can be a store of value or not.

Imagine you want to buy a stock (or better yet penny stock since they are more similar to altcoins). You don't really look at the market capitalization! Instead you check whether the company has anything valuable to offer. For example if you buy Apple's share you know they are producing a product that is used by many customers but someone working out of their garage and calling that a "company" doesn't make it a valuable purchase.

It's the same with cryptocurrencies. In this existing market we have at least 2 exact copies of bitcoin (bcash and bsv) that have the exact same market capitalization (circulating supply, etc.) as bitcoin. Nobody can call them "store of value" simply because they are useless.
And that uselessness is why Polkadot dumps (86% in the past year) or bcash dumps (97% since 2017) not because of their market cap.

I have to disagree here because issuing more coins constantly can really kill an (Alt)coin. Not today, not tomorrow, not in 2 weeks but maybe in 2 oder 4 years.
In fact, denying that inflation for Altcoins is a big problem and this talking point was first brought up by Shitcoin marketing. It is stupid Shitcoin propaganda, which is pushed constantly by leading centralized Shitcoins such like Polkadot to get more gullible bagholders.  
Bitcoin is designed as a store of value for a reason.
And it's extremely hard to change that, which is very positive.
Of course, Shitcoins want us to believe that issuing more coins is something good. There's a whole bunch of Shitcoin propaganda circulating around that bringing new coins into circulation is somehow beneficial for the coin itself. Most of it is misleading. I would say, yes it is beneficial for centralized PoS Altcoin developers and rich stakers. And for everyone else, it's negative.
So yes, it's positive for probably 10% of the coinholders and not beneficial for probably 90%.

By calculating the numbers from Polkadot, it's pointing out how insane such an inflation will devalue some inflationary PoS-Shitcoins:


That's why I wouldn't touch inflationary Shitcoins.

I’m not talking about Ethereum here because Ethereum is different from my analysis. If we apply my analysis on Ethereum, yes, we will see some red flags. But we will also see that for the current situation, inflation isn’t a problem for Ethereum currently. But it can change, which is a red flag in my opinion. It’s not predictable.
Or take Avalanche, it’s also capped. But it could be changed quite easily which is also a red flag.
And Ethereum + Avalanche are already one of the best Altcoins.

---

Yes, monetary policy can be helpful but it's up to the Altcoin developers which need to be honest. It's not necessarily bad if the Ethereum devs were elected because by electing we could remove them if we don't agree with their actions.

---

I can agree here, Ethereum is quite different from Bitcoin and it's legit to try out new ideas. I can support that.
But the issue is when an Altcoin is flawed from the beginning. Not just technically flawed, like Solana but also fundamentally flawed. And PoS Coins tend to be fundamentally flawed. It's legit to try to solve these problems. But the problem is fraudulent marketing to get more bagholders. Shitcoins are good at fraudulent marketing.
There are various examples for misleading marketing like miscalculating tx/second or downplaying inflationary tokenomics where rich stakers are profiteers or calling dPoS nPoS etc etc. Shitcoin marketing can be very misleading.
Ethereum isn't a coin, which is coming to my mind when bringing up fraudulent Altcoins, but for example, Polkdot is (inflation) or Solana (flawed tech), too.
It's already possible to see the disaster coming. That's what my topic is about: calculating ourself if there will be issues in the future, for specific coins.

---

You are right, Ethereum is only deflationaryif enough fees are burned.
There's a a statistics site about it: https://ultrasound.money/

---

+1
Very important point.

Besides market cap being a misleading measure, isn't the entire topic flawed? Being a store of value, and being a highly appreciated asset doesn't seem to have any direct relation. There's one parameter, among others, that you don't take into consideration, and it's very important: monetary policy. Inflationary or not, infinite supply or not, it doesn't matter if you don't look at the monetary policy.

Take Ethereum as an example. Bitcoin's and Ethereum's monetary policies aren't the same. Bitcoin's is consisted of inflexibility. We know that there will be 21 million coins, and they'll come into circulation according to the given schedule. We've accepted this rule, and we're building on top of it. There's no going back. Bitcoin's monetary policy is non-negotiatable, and it is in fact the single most significant feature we all admire. It is characterized by stability, and censorship resistance.

Ethereum, on the other hand, is characterized by flexibility. The developers have said it themselves that they haven't programmed the proper policy yet. It isn't set in stone yet, and it'll most likely never be. Vitalik, as a highly influencive leader, might as well decide to censor certain transactions (it has happened more than once), or mess with the supply. Therefore, they're apples and oranges in the end. I wouldn't put my money to such subjectively driven project in the long run, even if it's highly appreciated.