Topic: Bitcoin will one day be superseded by a technically superior NuCoin. What then? - page 2. (Read 7135 times)

I see it more like this... BitCoin is a big "heavy" crypto due to how large the chain will become AND the large value.

I don't see why it cannot be used for BIG transactions and stick around for a long time.

"Lighter" crypto currencies could be used for day-to-day transaction... LiteCoin or any number of other currencies.

Just a thought about a possibility.

I disagree, it may need to evolve slightly but there are only so many fundamental qualities required for a true currency. Bitcoin ticks pretty much all the boxes.

Now that said, there is one issue that it hasn't and cannot address. The world is run entirely by power, privilege and corruption. The big question remains, how on earth will something so incorruptible and democratic like bitcoin ever make its presence felt in such a world. There may be a lot of talk about bitcoin but it is still something of an irrelevance globally though obviously sites like this tend to give a different impression.

the internet analogy seems best here. I also like the craigslist example. Bitcoin is a protocol for exchanging value, just as tcp/ip is for information. It is also fueled by self-interest. The big holders have a vested interest in bitcoin's success, and as the network grows, so will their purchasing/hiring power. They will then utilize this power to protect bitcoins status. Remember all those conspiracy theories about oil companies buying up hydrogen car prototypes and cold fusion reactors and scrapping them to keep the price of oil high? Who knows, soon some of the big bitcoiners could get big enough to manipulate currencies of countries like Zimbabwe and make cheap bitcoin enabled smartphones readily available, thereby inflating further the value of their stash of bitcoin by causing the adoption of an entire country. Take Zimbabwe, for example. With a bitcoin market cap of two trillion $, 1 btc would be worth $200k. The GDP of Zimbabwe is about 10 billion. If Zimbabwe would adopt bitcoin, it would raise the market cap and value by half of a percent. Supposing it costs $200 million to buy/bribe the whole government of Zimbabwe and cause mass bitcoin adoption, it would be worthwhile for any individual or group of individuals with a stake of more than 200,000 btc to go ahead and invest the 1000 btc in the Zimbabwe project. With 300,000 coin, you would invest the equivalent of $200 million, and now that the price would be at $201k, up .5 percent, the coin that were worth $60 billion before the investment would now be worth 60.1 billion, with a tidy profit of $100 million. Now move to Angola and repeat.
    This is the true refutation to the deflationary hypothesis. People will not hold their coins just because they will grow in value because they are smart enough to know that the bitcoin economy grows by spending, and that the value gained through the adoption that comes with spending will outweigh the losses incurred by purchasing items for far more coins than they will be worth in a few months. Luckily, the people who have the most bitcoin are also the smartest... Except maybe the FBI...
      One poster on this forum compared Bitcoin to the printing press. I agree, insofar that it represents a paradigm shift through increased distribution of knowledge. The printing press led to the Reformation and centuries of war. Bitcoin could do the same by redistributing the power not only of private banks, but of central banks. And then something else will come along.

     Since the development of technology is accelerating, the frequency of paradigm shifts may increase, so bit coin may indeed be dethroned very quickly. I don't think a nucoin will do it, I would guess more likely some kind of peer to peer Facebook like credit system after people start getting google glass-esque implants, with your purchasing power being reflected by the color of the aura projected by your neural net through the system. Or maybe there will be a zombie/plague/nuclear Armageddon/alien invasion/mega drought/earthquakes tsunami/mass enlightenment/meteor/contact with alien race with far superior technology/plant rebellion apocalypse and we won't have to worry about bitcoin or driverless cars.... God only knows...

I have my own thread here where any discussion on economical matters and related questions is welcomed. By the way, gold (and why it was finally abandoned as a means of exchange) has been thoroughly debated over in that thread too. If you are interested, you could at least read that part there...

No I am interested in the discussion just thinking perhaps we should move into another thread.

Your example is very interesting. It does not at all sit comfortably that this can be applied to a cryptocurrency but I don't have a real rebuttal and I'd like to think more about it.

Gold ultimately failed as a medium of exchange because it was heavy, cumbersome, easily counterfeited and defaced as well as subject to tear and wear. Since those times it has only gained as a store of value while no longer being a medium of exchange. Though if you think this is going off-topic, then you can just skip my reply...

This is going a bit off thread I think. A medium of exchange that fails as a medium of exchange is definitely not a good store of value.

To supersede Bitcoin new cryptocurrency would have to combine mutually exclusive properties. It should serve as a good store of value (at which Bitcoin is not bad) and at the same time also be a good medium of exchange (at which Bitcoin fails). A good store of value should be appreciating with time while a good medium of exchange should be depreciating...

Will it ever be possible to combine these qualities in just one currency?

There is so much catastrophic thinking here. Bitcoin is far from a perfect medium of exchange. It will eventually be superseded by something that offers much greater utility. This is a good thing and not something to fear.

Any coin that is going to supersede BTC will need to prove itself as a worthy successor. It's initial value will be virtually nothing and will gradually increase as confidence/recognition/infrastructure grows. Their will be ample opportunity to invest into the new coin especially if you can pick the right horse early.

No new coin, no matter how useful, is going to cause BTC to crash overnight.

Anything that would be true superior to bitcoin also should be very different from bitcoin (otherwise bitcoin would already be there), so taking the improvements and just adding them to bitcoin would actually turn it into that new superior currency...

People forget that if anything superior arises to bitcoin, bitcoin will simply just take the improvements and add it to itself. It is open source after all, a dynamic evolving project. If someone creates something even cooler, we will just steal the idea. :-)

"NuCoin" would certainly be an altcoin, not a modified bitcoin because modifications are dangerous even after extensive testing, and bitcoin has too much to lose due to the fact that it has the highest market capitalization. Remember the fork earlier this year? If an altcoin with a small capitalization fails, no big deal, but not so for bitcoin.

There are ethical problems if bitcoin adopts different fundamental parameters associated with "nucoin" which would have bad economic consequences.

Finally, it the vast majority of the bitcoin community would not likely agree to nucoin's changes, while a nucoin community would buy into the changes from the onset, by definition. Even if nucoin were truly an improvement, likely most people wouldn't agree that it was better because they are stuck in an old paradigm.

Oh, and what will happen to the Internet when the technically superior Internet2.0 will come?

Answer: Not everything has to be just replaced. Don't think of Bitcoin as if it was the MySpace of cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin doesn't have to be replaced by incoming innovations, instead it can incorporate them when needed. The protocol is already constantly getting upgrades, for example unlocking the block size cap or the 'm of n' transactions, or the incoming 'flexible fees' update.

Even the underlying encryption can be replaced if at some point in the future the current one becomes weak. It would introduce new kinds of addresses and users would simply transfer their BTC from old 1xxxxx addresses to new 2xxxxx addresses. It would happen on the same blockchain and wouldn't have any negative effect on the value of coins.

If something will replace Bitcoin in the future it won't just be another crypto-coin. It will have to be a completely new and groundbreaking invention.

I believe that the change over would happen just as if we were switching to another altcoin now.  Those who saw the need early would jump ship while BTC price was still high and the NuCoin's price was still low, making the most money in exchange for being early.

If BTC really became unfeasible only because of some limitation on trade volume, for example, its market cap and volume would likely stall, then decline in velocity and therefore value.  If widely accepted, it would likely take some time before it the house of cards fell.

I'm partial to Gnucoin.

Is there a NuCoin? I did not now, sorry, should have picked some other name.

If this magic "NuCoin" (seriously why nu coin, why not say New Coin, you promoting Tee nucoin?) were to replace bitcoin it wouldnt happen overnight and make bitcoin suddenly worthless.
Bitcoin will always have a value. It had one way back when it first started (although it was tiny, ie 10,000 coins being worth around $40 in 2009) and it will continue to do say way into the foreseeable future.

Maybe the fact that bitcoin is NOT legal tender will actually protect it from being destroyed so easily, as it is backed by people from all over the world, no matter their race or (geo-)political ideologies.

Legal tender quickly loses value when the empire that backs them loses their position as the 'supreme world leaders' and vice versa. America is quickly losing their position and the petrodollar is quickly losing value, you can't deny those facts and both of them go hand in hand.

Bitcoin does not back a country or nation and is not backed by one, so there is no empire that will enivatibly fall and take bitcoin with it. Likewise the fall of bitcoin (if and when it will happen) will not bring down any nation. Therefore it's a good thing bitcoin is not legal tender.

There are plenty of entities that allow swapping of one crypto currency with another.  I imagine if in the future a "NuCoin" was judged as far superior to bitcoin it would compete with it on the marketplace and grow while bitcoin shrank as people sold their BTC for NuCoins.  It would be up to each individual to make the decision to use one over another and not be centrally planned like fiat currencies.  I think you're stuck on the idea of something "replacing" bitcoin when in fact they would both exist with one gaining popularity while the other declined.

And of course this would mean that the people that identified this trend the earliest and swapped their BTC for NuCoin would gain more wealth than the bag-holders of BTC that waited until much later.

That is my guess too.

Say, 5 years from now, you own 1 BTC that you bought a week earlier for 100,000 USD.  Then you (and everybody else) learn that NuCoin already accounts for 5% of world cryptocurrency payments, and its share is increasing 1% per week at the expense of Bitcoin's share. Its market price is still only 1000 USD but is rising fast.

Presumably you will want to convert your BTC to NUCs, directly or through USD.  Will you find buyers, and at what price?