"we see threads like Canada trying to make its own cryptocoin pegged to the Canadian dollar"
failed long ago (google "mint chip")
Topic: Bitcoin's Edge - How will bitcoin fight off competitors? - page 2. (Read 2752 times)
I don't think bit coin needs to "fight off" other coins. The market will inevitably choose the best coin. Alt coins also make wonderful laboratories for innovation. The best ideas can always be integrated. Progress is a sloppy business, but eventually a few crypto's will crawl out the digital soup and hopefully compete with fiat in a real way.
So far most (all?) of bitcoin's competitors, i.e 'altcoins' are created by random groups of people who aren't that influential in the grand scheme of things. As such, bitcoin's first mover advantage is huge; it is almost impossible to overcome. Another common argument for bitcoin, is that whatever features altcoins come up with, it can be implemented in bitcoin as well, if it's beneficial enough.
But what if bitcoin's competitors are not random 'altcoins' but cryptocurrencies designed and controlled by large governments or corporations? In the Economics sub-forum, we see threads like Canada trying to make its own cryptocoin pegged to the Canadian dollar, and IBM is possibly going to make their own as well. How will bitcoin fight against these competitors? Though bitcoin already has some infrastructure set up, for many bitcoin companies, they can probably switch to a government controlled crypocurrency easily. Bitcoin's first mover advantage can be easily overshadowed by governments trying to promote their own currencies, while making it harder for bitcoin to succeed.
So how will bitcoin edge out against these competitors? Before you say "well, bitcoin is decentralized so centralized government cryptocurrencies will not succed", are you sure about that? The majority of bitcoin supporters are either huge techies or motivated by their political beliefs, thus they see value in decentralization, getting rid of fiat, and stuff like that. But even for someone like me, who has read a lot about crypto, its benefits and effects, I'm not wholly convinced that decentralization is such a big advantage. Heck, I'm not even convinced it's a good thing. And I believe the majority of the world is like me, and not like you guys. If a government based crypto gets better infrastructure, approval from the government, ease of use, etc, I just don't see how the normal Billy Bob Joe will care for or understand the benefits of decentralization. I think a good example is Ripple. Though it's centralized, it's still bigger than most alt coins. Now imagine what a government backed Ripple can do.
I am bullish on bitcoin, and I hope that bitcoin will succeed versus a government/large corporation controlled coin. But I think we need to critically look at bitcoins strengths and weaknesses, and how exactly bitcoin will edge out all competitors, including huge goliath's like the government. If bitcoin's technology proves to be as innovative and revolutionary as promised/hoped in the next few years, I think we can be sure that governments will seriously try to promote their own crypto instead. If we don't want centralization, if we don't want government controlled money, we have to take steps now to prevent that from happening.
But what if bitcoin's competitors are not random 'altcoins' but cryptocurrencies designed and controlled by large governments or corporations? In the Economics sub-forum, we see threads like Canada trying to make its own cryptocoin pegged to the Canadian dollar, and IBM is possibly going to make their own as well. How will bitcoin fight against these competitors? Though bitcoin already has some infrastructure set up, for many bitcoin companies, they can probably switch to a government controlled crypocurrency easily. Bitcoin's first mover advantage can be easily overshadowed by governments trying to promote their own currencies, while making it harder for bitcoin to succeed.
So how will bitcoin edge out against these competitors? Before you say "well, bitcoin is decentralized so centralized government cryptocurrencies will not succed", are you sure about that? The majority of bitcoin supporters are either huge techies or motivated by their political beliefs, thus they see value in decentralization, getting rid of fiat, and stuff like that. But even for someone like me, who has read a lot about crypto, its benefits and effects, I'm not wholly convinced that decentralization is such a big advantage. Heck, I'm not even convinced it's a good thing. And I believe the majority of the world is like me, and not like you guys. If a government based crypto gets better infrastructure, approval from the government, ease of use, etc, I just don't see how the normal Billy Bob Joe will care for or understand the benefits of decentralization. I think a good example is Ripple. Though it's centralized, it's still bigger than most alt coins. Now imagine what a government backed Ripple can do.
I am bullish on bitcoin, and I hope that bitcoin will succeed versus a government/large corporation controlled coin. But I think we need to critically look at bitcoins strengths and weaknesses, and how exactly bitcoin will edge out all competitors, including huge goliath's like the government. If bitcoin's technology proves to be as innovative and revolutionary as promised/hoped in the next few years, I think we can be sure that governments will seriously try to promote their own crypto instead. If we don't want centralization, if we don't want government controlled money, we have to take steps now to prevent that from happening.
If these competitors happen to come from centralized entities, people will (hopefully) be repelled by it when we have the original, open source, no strings attached, apolitical option (Bitcoin).
In any case, Bitcoin will forever remain the e-Gold, even if another crypto takes off as a replacement for fiat.
Communication protocol seldom have competitors, unless hindered by tradition, the most widely accepted protocol have the tendency to expand and dominate, since that will reduce the friction for any party involved
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?
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?
Bitcoin has no competitors. Bitoin's edge is an event horizon. All non-blockchain financial matter is waiting to be sucked past it and consumed.
I honestly think it would. I believe bitcoin is too strong and popular now and it can not be compromised by other online money.
Furthermore, I believe value of bitcoin will raise in future and now it is good time to invest in it.
Furthermore, I believe value of bitcoin will raise in future and now it is good time to invest in it.
The bolded part is wrong. YOU would expect that they're up to no good. Maybe most bitcoiners would feel the same way. But the fast majority of the world doesn't care, just as they don't care about governments printing more fiat. In fact, they think that's the way it should be and can't imagine any other way.
The problem is not about a governmentcoin taking away the current bitcoin adopters. It's about a governmentcoin taking over the other 99.999% of people who are not bitcoin adopters. Bitcoin will then be relegated to a non-official, anarchist/drug dealing currency that most people avoid. I'd imagine merchants would feel the pressure to not adopt bitcoin, and bitcoin will essentially be either destroyed, or at least completely contained within a very small niche, with no further growth.
Again, the problem is, does the world really care about decentralization? My personal opinion, without any hard statistics to back it up, is No. In fact, I believe that a significant number of people would believe that centralization is a necessity*.
*I say WOULD believe, rather than believe, because I bet that most people don't really care enough to think about these topics, so they'd simply come up with an opinion when someone asks them the question. For now, they have no opinion.
So in the end, this question is about how we can achieve mass adoption with decentralized crypto like bitcoin, rather than a centralized government controlled one taking up 99.999% of the rest of the population.
I meant smarter half of the Bitcoin community and me. Should the average sheep even matter to you? I know that it does not for me.The problem is not about a governmentcoin taking away the current bitcoin adopters. It's about a governmentcoin taking over the other 99.999% of people who are not bitcoin adopters. Bitcoin will then be relegated to a non-official, anarchist/drug dealing currency that most people avoid. I'd imagine merchants would feel the pressure to not adopt bitcoin, and bitcoin will essentially be either destroyed, or at least completely contained within a very small niche, with no further growth.
Again, the problem is, does the world really care about decentralization? My personal opinion, without any hard statistics to back it up, is No. In fact, I believe that a significant number of people would believe that centralization is a necessity*.
*I say WOULD believe, rather than believe, because I bet that most people don't really care enough to think about these topics, so they'd simply come up with an opinion when someone asks them the question. For now, they have no opinion.
So in the end, this question is about how we can achieve mass adoption with decentralized crypto like bitcoin, rather than a centralized government controlled one taking up 99.999% of the rest of the population.
If people want to get fucked over, then let them.
2nd bold: Like I've said, this is not possible. People have 0 computer skills and 0 understanding of technology (the mentioned majority).
well, first, I have to say thank you for being one of the only people who actually understands (or actually read my post) what I was trying to say.
The thing is, those sheep don't matter to me normally, but having them join bitcoin instead of another government controlled program would benefit bitcoiners, because that would necessarily mean more businesses accepting bitcoin, higher bitcoin prices, etc.
The network effect. Same reason no one is going to dethrone Facebook, or LinkedIn anytime soon no matter how good they make the site. After all its fairly trivial to make something better than eg Facebook, but no one is going to use it because... No one uses it.
The bolded part is wrong. YOU would expect that they're up to no good. Maybe most bitcoiners would feel the same way. But the fast majority of the world doesn't care, just as they don't care about governments printing more fiat. In fact, they think that's the way it should be and can't imagine any other way.
The problem is not about a governmentcoin taking away the current bitcoin adopters. It's about a governmentcoin taking over the other 99.999% of people who are not bitcoin adopters. Bitcoin will then be relegated to a non-official, anarchist/drug dealing currency that most people avoid. I'd imagine merchants would feel the pressure to not adopt bitcoin, and bitcoin will essentially be either destroyed, or at least completely contained within a very small niche, with no further growth.
Again, the problem is, does the world really care about decentralization? My personal opinion, without any hard statistics to back it up, is No. In fact, I believe that a significant number of people would believe that centralization is a necessity*.
*I say WOULD believe, rather than believe, because I bet that most people don't really care enough to think about these topics, so they'd simply come up with an opinion when someone asks them the question. For now, they have no opinion.
So in the end, this question is about how we can achieve mass adoption with decentralized crypto like bitcoin, rather than a centralized government controlled one taking up 99.999% of the rest of the population.
I meant smarter half of the Bitcoin community and me. Should the average sheep even matter to you? I know that it does not for me.The problem is not about a governmentcoin taking away the current bitcoin adopters. It's about a governmentcoin taking over the other 99.999% of people who are not bitcoin adopters. Bitcoin will then be relegated to a non-official, anarchist/drug dealing currency that most people avoid. I'd imagine merchants would feel the pressure to not adopt bitcoin, and bitcoin will essentially be either destroyed, or at least completely contained within a very small niche, with no further growth.
Again, the problem is, does the world really care about decentralization? My personal opinion, without any hard statistics to back it up, is No. In fact, I believe that a significant number of people would believe that centralization is a necessity*.
*I say WOULD believe, rather than believe, because I bet that most people don't really care enough to think about these topics, so they'd simply come up with an opinion when someone asks them the question. For now, they have no opinion.
So in the end, this question is about how we can achieve mass adoption with decentralized crypto like bitcoin, rather than a centralized government controlled one taking up 99.999% of the rest of the population.
If people want to get fucked over, then let them.
2nd bold: Like I've said, this is not possible. People have 0 computer skills and 0 understanding of technology (the mentioned majority).
It's already thought/fighting them off pretty well. Bitcoin is pretty much perfect as far as cryptos go and the only reason an alt hasn't come close to stealing its crown is that they've offered nothing truly exceptional. Bitcoin also has the 'brand' name (if you can call it that) and it's in the public eye with many merchants already accepting it and many more to come. I really can't see any alt coins stealing its thunder or gaining merchant adoption like bitcoin has.
At this moment there are not much real challenger for bitcoin perhaps NXT and bitshares but these two are still not very well known outside the altcoin section.
For now, Bitcoin doesn't get the attention of the common internet user(the one that just keeps wasting time on social networks and listening to music), and as for now, it seens that it'll go to nowhere.
The lack os stability of the price and the simplicity of getting stolen all your money in one click is also reasons that Bitcoin cant grow much further, and if another currency does a good solution for that(even if it means mass adoption and good developers) it can pass by Bitcoin.
The lack os stability of the price and the simplicity of getting stolen all your money in one click is also reasons that Bitcoin cant grow much further, and if another currency does a good solution for that(even if it means mass adoption and good developers) it can pass by Bitcoin.
Yes. The security could be the most important concern. If somebody new in bitcoins would take a look at the "Thefts and scams" list he/she could feel frightened a bit.
What competitors are you referring to?
Fiat? Cash? or other Digital Currencies?
Fiat? Cash? or other Digital Currencies?
For now, Bitcoin doesn't get the attention of the common internet user(the one that just keeps wasting time on social networks and listening to music), and as for now, it seens that it'll go to nowhere.
The lack os stability of the price and the simplicity of getting stolen all your money in one click is also reasons that Bitcoin cant grow much further, and if another currency does a good solution for that(even if it means mass adoption and good developers) it can pass by Bitcoin.
The lack os stability of the price and the simplicity of getting stolen all your money in one click is also reasons that Bitcoin cant grow much further, and if another currency does a good solution for that(even if it means mass adoption and good developers) it can pass by Bitcoin.
If a government based crypto gets better infrastructure, approval from the government, ease of use, etc, I just don't see how the normal Billy Bob Joe will care for or understand the benefits of decentralization.
My highest hopes about bitcoin is to be the tender that is out of the sight of goverment, as here in Europe, they are going to legislate a law that will allow fiscal services to investigate your bank account deatils (especially transactions), whenever they want, without specific reason.
Well, to loosely paraphrase Andreas Antonopoulos:
"There are already hundreds of currencies, so what's a few more? There could be multiple successful cryptocurrencies."
"There are already hundreds of currencies, so what's a few more? There could be multiple successful cryptocurrencies."
I can't see Bitcoin being overtaken by any of the current alt-currencies (maybe in the future...who knows). I agree with Andreas there could specific alts for different services, if an anonymous alt became the de facto currency for the dark-markets it would take a lot of heat off bitcoin.
Just look at all the competitors (ie crapcoins) that have been created and one hasn't come close to getting anywhere near bitcoin and most offer absolutely nothing new. If bitcoin was going to be overtaken in would have likely happened by now.
This is also a good point. Most people love bitcoin because it is decentralized and free from manipulation by it's creator. A corporate coin very much probably wouldn't so that's why people will stick with btc.
How do you expect to trust a coin made by 'some' company, or 'some' influential man? One would expect that they're up to no good.
Since Bitcoin was created by satoshi who may or may not be a simple and good man, I'd rather stick with that.
As long as we, the main community standing behind Bitcoin don't start changing the ship, others will be less likely to follow.
Since Bitcoin was created by satoshi who may or may not be a simple and good man, I'd rather stick with that.
As long as we, the main community standing behind Bitcoin don't start changing the ship, others will be less likely to follow.
This is also a good point. Most people love bitcoin because it is decentralized and free from manipulation by it's creator. A corporate coin very much probably wouldn't so that's why people will stick with btc.
This is definitely a good question and I think one of these type of competitors could potentially hurt bitcoin. Though I think most people would not be for a governmental controlled or sponsored coin because one of the major advantages of Bitcoin is the decentralized nature of it. However, if one of these big players does try to put out a competing cryptocurrency it could certainly drive some of the bitcoin users away so it is good to think of how bitcoin would overcome these challenges.
Bitcoin can adapt. If an alt coin did come along that was better or had something unique and interesting bitcoin could very likely implement their code and evolve.
Well, to loosely paraphrase Andreas Antonopoulos:
"There are already hundreds of currencies, so what's a few more? There could be multiple successful cryptocurrencies."
"There are already hundreds of currencies, so what's a few more? There could be multiple successful cryptocurrencies."
Agreed. It's a free market, but I think we only really need bitcoin to be honest.
It doesn't need to fight them off as none of them are a threat. One could come along that is superior but I welcome the challenge as the best coin should win. Even if corporations did try create their own they likely couldn't compete with the hashing power of bitcoin by themselves so I don't think one could overtake bitcoin. It also likely wouldn't be decentralized so many will stay away.
Jump to: