Bitcoin's Edge - How will bitcoin fight off competitors?

manselr

legendary

Activity: 868

Merit: 1006

Quote from: countryfree on March 13, 2015, 02:42:32 PM

I believe in competition, but since BTC was the first, so it's the natural leader, and it will keep on leading up to someone comes with a better cryptocurrency. Maybe one 100% anonymous, but BTC shouldn't fear big corporations or governments.

Apple already has Apple pay and it could launch some kind of a cryptocurrency but I'll never use it because I hate Apple. Their products are overpriced. Could a government launch a cryptocurrency, and compete with BTC? I'd rather stop drinking for one whole week than to use any national cryptocurrency. BTC will remain the best because it's decentralized, without any fascist ruler behind it.

I don't see BTC ever having competition, everything is going to get compared to Bitcoin, which in effect keeps giving Bitcoin more attention. It's like a feedback effect. There's literally no way Bitcoin will lose it's spotlight.

nextgencoin

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1000

Quote from: vrm86 on March 14, 2015, 12:20:33 PM

Quote from: nextgencoin on March 14, 2015, 11:58:58 AM

The masses already accept a fiat based reserve currency that is nothing more than monopoly money, does anyone think they will reject a similar digital one?

We know there is no difference, but common people have deeply rooted, strong conviction that something strong and durable stands behind their paper notes. Maybe there is a need of educating people not only about what bitcoin, but also fiat money really is?

Many have been trying for years...Don't forget Bitcoin is actually a fiat currency, I mean its not backed up by anything tangible. But its the perfect fiat, ie fixed supply which cant be counterfitted.

But yes if and when a government fiat coin is made and i'm convinced it will happen then the next work is to educate people to what makes Bitcoin different to what will probably be a highly controlled and tracked expandable centralised coin with an expandable supply.

Maybe I'm having a negative day but IF bitcoin actualy ends up leading to our money being highly tracked etc then in some ways Bitcoin has actually opened the door to less liberty not more....potentially.

vrm86

hero member

Activity: 676

Merit: 500

Quote from: nextgencoin on March 14, 2015, 11:58:58 AM

The masses already accept a fiat based reserve currency that is nothing more than monopoly money, does anyone think they will reject a similar digital one?

We know there is no difference, but common people have deeply rooted, strong conviction that something strong and durable stands behind their paper notes. Maybe there is a need of educating people not only about what bitcoin, but also fiat money really is?

nextgencoin

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Soros Shorts on March 14, 2015, 09:07:04 AM

Quote from: ebliever on March 14, 2015, 08:35:40 AM

Quote from: futureofbitcoin on March 14, 2015, 06:18:36 AM

Quote from: ebliever on March 13, 2015, 01:55:41 PM

One thing I haven't seen explained is just what characteristics people think a government-issued altcoin, or clone/fork of bitcoin, would have. Why do people have a concern about a "government generated crypto"? All the cryptos besides Ripple, it doesn't matter whether they were created by satoshi or Mother Theresa or Adolf Hitler, it's decentralized after release. So I'm curious what people have in mind when they voice concern over the concept of a government-linked altcoin.

I mean, if they peg it to their fiat currency, then by definition their alt does not have a fixed supply and is subject to inflation and devaluation. So it seems to me the only way a government could compete with bitcoin would be by delinking their alt from their fiat, in which case it's just another new alt with an interesting backstory.

See, most of the people on this forum are running on this assumption that people CARE about decentralization, etc.

That is simply an unfounded assumption. If people happily use fiat now, why would they suddenly become suspicious of it?

My scenario is this: Bitcoin slowly gains ground in terms of becoming a legitimate (in the eyes of people) currency, and grows stronger everyday. The governments of the world begins to view it as a threat rather than a cute toy. They create their own crypto, that is completely centralized, and advertise that it has all the benefits of crypocurrency technology, and none of the negatives.

It's possible they'll even say that being decentralized is a fatal flaw of bitcoin, and that being centralized and monitored by the government makes it more secure and better. I bet most people would believe the government if they did say that.

This, coupled with penalizing bitcoin use by making it extremely hard to obtain bitcoin (or obtain a license to obtain bitcoin) etc.

The central point here, is, I think most people on this forum has become somewhat "delusional", in that they think that decentralization is so obviously this holy grail, and everyone can see the benefits. It's just not true.

But what does it mean to speak of a "centralized cryptocurrency"? What characteristics would it have different from bitcoin? If it is POW mined, for example, then the miners control the coin. I suppose a government could develop its own algorithm and mining hardware and try to keep control of the mining. That would create interesting scenarios of foreign agents and rebels trying to steal or back-engineer the algorithm and hardware for it, to attack a nation's currency.

A centralized cryptocurrency does not make sense. Why even bother? Just issue the coins with their serial numbers on government run servers, which would then track the changes in ownership as the coins are spent. You don't need a blockchain for that.

Because they can....Decentralisation and the limited supply IS the actual point of bitcoin in my mind and clearly was on Satoshi's too. But what we understand and perceive as its strengths are actually being demonised in the media and mainstream and I think the masses are very susceptible to being sold a centralised government central bank backed coin based on the dollar that doesn't fluctuate and has an expandable supply. What we think isn't what everyone else thinks......The masses already accept a fiat based reserve currency that is nothing more than monopoly money, does anyone think they will reject a similar digital one?

Soros Shorts

donator

Activity: 1617

Merit: 1012

Quote from: ebliever on March 14, 2015, 08:35:40 AM

Quote from: futureofbitcoin on March 14, 2015, 06:18:36 AM

Quote from: ebliever on March 13, 2015, 01:55:41 PM

One thing I haven't seen explained is just what characteristics people think a government-issued altcoin, or clone/fork of bitcoin, would have. Why do people have a concern about a "government generated crypto"? All the cryptos besides Ripple, it doesn't matter whether they were created by satoshi or Mother Theresa or Adolf Hitler, it's decentralized after release. So I'm curious what people have in mind when they voice concern over the concept of a government-linked altcoin.

I mean, if they peg it to their fiat currency, then by definition their alt does not have a fixed supply and is subject to inflation and devaluation. So it seems to me the only way a government could compete with bitcoin would be by delinking their alt from their fiat, in which case it's just another new alt with an interesting backstory.

See, most of the people on this forum are running on this assumption that people CARE about decentralization, etc.

That is simply an unfounded assumption. If people happily use fiat now, why would they suddenly become suspicious of it?

My scenario is this: Bitcoin slowly gains ground in terms of becoming a legitimate (in the eyes of people) currency, and grows stronger everyday. The governments of the world begins to view it as a threat rather than a cute toy. They create their own crypto, that is completely centralized, and advertise that it has all the benefits of crypocurrency technology, and none of the negatives.

It's possible they'll even say that being decentralized is a fatal flaw of bitcoin, and that being centralized and monitored by the government makes it more secure and better. I bet most people would believe the government if they did say that.

This, coupled with penalizing bitcoin use by making it extremely hard to obtain bitcoin (or obtain a license to obtain bitcoin) etc.

The central point here, is, I think most people on this forum has become somewhat "delusional", in that they think that decentralization is so obviously this holy grail, and everyone can see the benefits. It's just not true.

But what does it mean to speak of a "centralized cryptocurrency"? What characteristics would it have different from bitcoin? If it is POW mined, for example, then the miners control the coin. I suppose a government could develop its own algorithm and mining hardware and try to keep control of the mining. That would create interesting scenarios of foreign agents and rebels trying to steal or back-engineer the algorithm and hardware for it, to attack a nation's currency.

A centralized cryptocurrency does not make sense. Why even bother? Just issue the coins with their serial numbers on government run servers, which would then track the changes in ownership as the coins are spent. You don't need a blockchain for that.

asuryan180

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

Quote from: countryfree on March 13, 2015, 02:42:32 PM

I believe in competition, but since BTC was the first, so it's the natural leader, and it will keep on leading up to someone comes with a better cryptocurrency. Maybe one 100% anonymous, but BTC shouldn't fear big corporations or governments.

Apple already has Apple pay and it could launch some kind of a cryptocurrency but I'll never use it because I hate Apple. Their products are overpriced. Could a government launch a cryptocurrency, and compete with BTC? I'd rather stop drinking for one whole week than to use any national cryptocurrency. BTC will remain the best because it's decentralized, without any fascist ruler behind it.

The thing is even if someone does come up with a better crypto it does not mean it will take the lead, the lead bitcoin has over anything else that is to be released is huge and i doubt that anything is coming close to it now. Look at what it has had to go threw to get to here. The governments will have a big following but they will also in the process bring more users to bitcoin because once they have been brought into the game then they are bound to figure out the daddy of crypto is bitcoin the decentralized coin

ebliever

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1036

Quote from: futureofbitcoin on March 14, 2015, 06:18:36 AM

Quote from: ebliever on March 13, 2015, 01:55:41 PM

One thing I haven't seen explained is just what characteristics people think a government-issued altcoin, or clone/fork of bitcoin, would have. Why do people have a concern about a "government generated crypto"? All the cryptos besides Ripple, it doesn't matter whether they were created by satoshi or Mother Theresa or Adolf Hitler, it's decentralized after release. So I'm curious what people have in mind when they voice concern over the concept of a government-linked altcoin.

I mean, if they peg it to their fiat currency, then by definition their alt does not have a fixed supply and is subject to inflation and devaluation. So it seems to me the only way a government could compete with bitcoin would be by delinking their alt from their fiat, in which case it's just another new alt with an interesting backstory.

See, most of the people on this forum are running on this assumption that people CARE about decentralization, etc.

That is simply an unfounded assumption. If people happily use fiat now, why would they suddenly become suspicious of it?

My scenario is this: Bitcoin slowly gains ground in terms of becoming a legitimate (in the eyes of people) currency, and grows stronger everyday. The governments of the world begins to view it as a threat rather than a cute toy. They create their own crypto, that is completely centralized, and advertise that it has all the benefits of crypocurrency technology, and none of the negatives.

It's possible they'll even say that being decentralized is a fatal flaw of bitcoin, and that being centralized and monitored by the government makes it more secure and better. I bet most people would believe the government if they did say that.

This, coupled with penalizing bitcoin use by making it extremely hard to obtain bitcoin (or obtain a license to obtain bitcoin) etc.

The central point here, is, I think most people on this forum has become somewhat "delusional", in that they think that decentralization is so obviously this holy grail, and everyone can see the benefits. It's just not true.

But what does it mean to speak of a "centralized cryptocurrency"? What characteristics would it have different from bitcoin? If it is POW mined, for example, then the miners control the coin. I suppose a government could develop its own algorithm and mining hardware and try to keep control of the mining. That would create interesting scenarios of foreign agents and rebels trying to steal or back-engineer the algorithm and hardware for it, to attack a nation's currency.

futureofbitcoin

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: ebliever on March 13, 2015, 01:55:41 PM

One thing I haven't seen explained is just what characteristics people think a government-issued altcoin, or clone/fork of bitcoin, would have. Why do people have a concern about a "government generated crypto"? All the cryptos besides Ripple, it doesn't matter whether they were created by satoshi or Mother Theresa or Adolf Hitler, it's decentralized after release. So I'm curious what people have in mind when they voice concern over the concept of a government-linked altcoin.

I mean, if they peg it to their fiat currency, then by definition their alt does not have a fixed supply and is subject to inflation and devaluation. So it seems to me the only way a government could compete with bitcoin would be by delinking their alt from their fiat, in which case it's just another new alt with an interesting backstory.

See, most of the people on this forum are running on this assumption that people CARE about decentralization, etc.

That is simply an unfounded assumption. If people happily use fiat now, why would they suddenly become suspicious of it?

My scenario is this: Bitcoin slowly gains ground in terms of becoming a legitimate (in the eyes of people) currency, and grows stronger everyday. The governments of the world begins to view it as a threat rather than a cute toy. They create their own crypto, that is completely centralized, and advertise that it has all the benefits of crypocurrency technology, and none of the negatives.

It's possible they'll even say that being decentralized is a fatal flaw of bitcoin, and that being centralized and monitored by the government makes it more secure and better. I bet most people would believe the government if they did say that.

This, coupled with penalizing bitcoin use by making it extremely hard to obtain bitcoin (or obtain a license to obtain bitcoin) etc.

The central point here, is, I think most people on this forum has become somewhat "delusional", in that they think that decentralization is so obviously this holy grail, and everyone can see the benefits. It's just not true.

countryfree

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1047

Your country may be your worst enemy

I believe in competition, but since BTC was the first, so it's the natural leader, and it will keep on leading up to someone comes with a better cryptocurrency. Maybe one 100% anonymous, but BTC shouldn't fear big corporations or governments.

Apple already has Apple pay and it could launch some kind of a cryptocurrency but I'll never use it because I hate Apple. Their products are overpriced. Could a government launch a cryptocurrency, and compete with BTC? I'd rather stop drinking for one whole week than to use any national cryptocurrency. BTC will remain the best because it's decentralized, without any fascist ruler behind it.

Hazir

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1005

★Nitrogensports.eu★

Quote from: ebliever on March 13, 2015, 01:55:41 PM

One thing I haven't seen explained is just what characteristics people think a government-issued altcoin, or clone/fork of bitcoin, would have. Why do people have a concern about a "government generated crypto"? All the cryptos besides Ripple, it doesn't matter whether they were created by satoshi or Mother Theresa or Adolf Hitler, it's decentralized after release. So I'm curious what people have in mind when they voice concern over the concept of a government-linked altcoin.

I mean, if they peg it to their fiat currency, then by definition their alt does not have a fixed supply and is subject to inflation and devaluation. So it seems to me the only way a government could compete with bitcoin would be by delinking their alt from their fiat, in which case it's just another new alt with an interesting backstory.

If government issued cryptocurrency would be totally transparent with source code available to check I will probably have no issues with it.
I still wouldn't use it at all because I believe in ONE global and dominant cryptocurrency - Bitcoin. At this point it is almost certain that government would
link their cryptos to FIAT, why wouldn't they? That is the only logical choice if they want to appeal to people with it.

ebliever

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1036

One thing I haven't seen explained is just what characteristics people think a government-issued altcoin, or clone/fork of bitcoin, would have. Why do people have a concern about a "government generated crypto"? All the cryptos besides Ripple, it doesn't matter whether they were created by satoshi or Mother Theresa or Adolf Hitler, it's decentralized after release. So I'm curious what people have in mind when they voice concern over the concept of a government-linked altcoin.

I mean, if they peg it to their fiat currency, then by definition their alt does not have a fixed supply and is subject to inflation and devaluation. So it seems to me the only way a government could compete with bitcoin would be by delinking their alt from their fiat, in which case it's just another new alt with an interesting backstory.

calme

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Governments of large countries suck. U.S., Russia and China all have shitty governments who try to control too much.

Hazir

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1005

★Nitrogensports.eu★

Quote from: manselr on March 13, 2015, 01:11:03 PM

Quote from: calme on March 13, 2015, 12:43:03 PM

Haha. U.S. government shitcoin would be #1 marketing tool for BTC.

This, it will clearly backfire and get the people's attention on BTC because it will be the "cool, non official outsider coin".

I doubt that government will even try to compete with bitcoin openly. If they create their own altcoin people will get suspicious of it pretty fast.
The more likely scenario would be that government would try to quietly take over various bitcoin initiatives and side projects but not the structure of bitcoin itself.

manselr

legendary

Activity: 868

Merit: 1006

Quote from: calme on March 13, 2015, 12:43:03 PM

Haha. U.S. government shitcoin would be #1 marketing tool for BTC.

This, it will clearly backfire and get the people's attention on BTC because it will be the "cool, non official outsider coin".

calme

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

I doubt they'd force businesses to accept it, since it's still the same currency that they can manipulate/steal/etc., but in electronic form. Most 1st world nations already have the majority of their fiat supply in electronic form anyway.

futureofbitcoin

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

See, that's what I've been trying to say. Bitcoin's "first mover" advantage is pretty much useless against a government backed crypto. All of the current infrastructure could possibly be easily modified to work with the government coin, and it might be made mandatory.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: Ron~Popeil on March 13, 2015, 12:32:30 PM

Quote from: Lauda on March 13, 2015, 12:21:17 PM

How is this an advantage for Bitcoin since the government could fork it, upgrade it as they wish. Wouldn't that coin easily be compatible with existing Bitcoin infrastructure?

The "govcoin" would also pretty much artificially go mainstream overnight since the government could require businesses and banks to accept it.

There is no level playing field for privately created crypto currencies. Of course it could also have the unintended consequences of creating the illusion that government endorses crypto currency in general and a fast infrastructure build up that bit coin could piggy back on.

Actually, when I think about it, you're right. The government could make it mandatory, just like you have to accept $ in the US.
Well that wouldn't surprise me. It's well known that the government is manipulating people. First they are against crypto, then they endorse it.

calme

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Haha. U.S. government shitcoin would be #1 marketing tool for BTC.

Ron~Popeil

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: Lauda on March 13, 2015, 12:21:17 PM

Quote from: ebliever on March 13, 2015, 10:28:32 AM

One BIG advantage Bitcoin has is several years of intense software development and support, producing hundreds of aps that work with bitcoin from simple android stuff up to commercial systems like the bitcoin processors. No company or government will be able to replicate that without a tremendous amount of work and a budget to match. But without that it becomes much harder to deploy their bitcoin-competitor and get people using it.

As others have pointed out there is also the trust factor. Governments today are routinely selling future generations of their citizens into debt slavery, to pay off the welfare class and maintain the status quo for the ruling class. This involves devaluation of their currency over time. Why should we trust a cryptocurrency generated by a government functioning on this basis any more than we trust fiat currency from that same government?

How is this an advantage for Bitcoin since the government could fork it, upgrade it as they wish. Wouldn't that coin easily be compatible with existing Bitcoin infrastructure?

The "govcoin" would also pretty much artificially go mainstream overnight since the government could require businesses and banks to accept it.

There is no level playing field for privately created crypto currencies. Of course it could also have the unintended consequences of creating the illusion that government endorses crypto currency in general and a fast infrastructure build up that bit coin could piggy back on.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: ebliever on March 13, 2015, 10:28:32 AM

One BIG advantage Bitcoin has is several years of intense software development and support, producing hundreds of aps that work with bitcoin from simple android stuff up to commercial systems like the bitcoin processors. No company or government will be able to replicate that without a tremendous amount of work and a budget to match. But without that it becomes much harder to deploy their bitcoin-competitor and get people using it.

As others have pointed out there is also the trust factor. Governments today are routinely selling future generations of their citizens into debt slavery, to pay off the welfare class and maintain the status quo for the ruling class. This involves devaluation of their currency over time. Why should we trust a cryptocurrency generated by a government functioning on this basis any more than we trust fiat currency from that same government?

How is this an advantage for Bitcoin since the government could fork it, upgrade it as they wish. Wouldn't that coin easily be compatible with existing Bitcoin infrastructure?

Topic: Bitcoin's Edge - How will bitcoin fight off competitors? (Read 2752 times)