Topic: Bitcoin's Edge - How will bitcoin fight off competitors? - page 3. (Read 2739 times)
I don't really consider the rest of altcoins in competitors. There is no way a layman who knows about only bitcoin will be too willing to accept a new altcoin. However they have their own different world. They do promise things which are better in respect to bitcoins, but still bitcoin doesn't really have to fight them off.
Bitcoin's biggest edge is the first mover advantage.
It doesn't really have too many features that haven't been imporved upon by alt coins, it isn't the fastest, it isn't the most efficient, etc but it is the most established and will be the make or break of the near furure of Crypto.
If bitcoin fails, Crypton fails for the foreseeable future, if it suceeds, then it can be superceded in the future by better Alts, but it has to succeed first
It doesn't really have too many features that haven't been imporved upon by alt coins, it isn't the fastest, it isn't the most efficient, etc but it is the most established and will be the make or break of the near furure of Crypto.
If bitcoin fails, Crypton fails for the foreseeable future, if it suceeds, then it can be superceded in the future by better Alts, but it has to succeed first
I think the biggest problems, some governments have with Bitcoin is the following :
1. It's decentralized
2. It's too anonymous
3. It cannot be manipulated
4. It's origin is suspect {Satoshi's identity}
absolutely agree about what you say1. It's decentralized
2. It's too anonymous
3. It cannot be manipulated
4. It's origin is suspect {Satoshi's identity}
government can't control, can't manipulate, and can't track who using bitcoin
and the government create their own coin (if this very urgent)
bitcoin being the first crypto holds the advantage just because it is the first coin that people ever know about. Meaning also that the community built around it is strong. And also it is the trust here that I'm talking about. If you browse in google and just typing the keyword, you will see the numerous search results that comes up. Here it is about the "name" and "branding" which it has established over the long period of time.
Again, the problem isn't about governments shutting down bitcoin. It's about them taking over the other 99.999% of the market, stopping bitcoin's growth.
A government coin can allow government backed/favoured companies to take advantage of other advantages offered by crypto, like fast confirmation times, less cost, and stuff like that. Savings normal people care about. If you go out and ask a random person on the street "what is the problem with fiat?" I bet most of them would ask "what is fiat?" So if government move before the world is aware of the problems, they can conveniently cover it up and continue their system while bitcoin stagnates into the background, and the vast majority of crypto becomes centralized.
A government coin can allow government backed/favoured companies to take advantage of other advantages offered by crypto, like fast confirmation times, less cost, and stuff like that. Savings normal people care about. If you go out and ask a random person on the street "what is the problem with fiat?" I bet most of them would ask "what is fiat?" So if government move before the world is aware of the problems, they can conveniently cover it up and continue their system while bitcoin stagnates into the background, and the vast majority of crypto becomes centralized.
Governments cannot shut down bitcoin and that is the most important about bitcoin. Government controled coin is a digital form of their fiat, it suffers from the same flaws of their banking system. Bitcoin has value detached from any country's system, I would prefer bitcoin over local government crypto, but I can own both, or more.
I think the biggest problems, some governments have with Bitcoin is the following :
1. It's decentralized
2. It's too anonymous
3. It cannot be manipulated
4. It's origin is suspect {Satoshi's identity}
Bitcoin cannot address these matters, without losing it's identity / goal ...... so it's inevitable that a Alt coin with features that address these issues, will be developed to suite the governments or private companies purpose.
Sofar Bitcoin had a lot of appeal from a group of people, who understood the need for it's current features....but... if it wants mass adoption, it would have to decide if it wants to change or allow Alt coins with newer features to take it's place.
You cannot have a single coin, with ALL the features that everyone wants.. so Alt coins will always exist.. and the most popular one will survive. {Or the one forced down on the consumer by governments}
1. It's decentralized
2. It's too anonymous
3. It cannot be manipulated
4. It's origin is suspect {Satoshi's identity}
Bitcoin cannot address these matters, without losing it's identity / goal ...... so it's inevitable that a Alt coin with features that address these issues, will be developed to suite the governments or private companies purpose.
Sofar Bitcoin had a lot of appeal from a group of people, who understood the need for it's current features....but... if it wants mass adoption, it would have to decide if it wants to change or allow Alt coins with newer features to take it's place.
You cannot have a single coin, with ALL the features that everyone wants.. so Alt coins will always exist.. and the most popular one will survive. {Or the one forced down on the consumer by governments}
I want to comment on some points you bring up:
1. While it is generally true that bitcoin network is decentralized but various bitcoin projects and services are not and they are susceptible.
2. Bitcoin is semi-anonymous you can be tracked relatively easy.
3. Bitcoin CAN and IS manipulated on daily basis it probably is the biggest bitcoin fault.
4. You think that government agencies do not know 'Satoshi"? I would think otherwise.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
I think the biggest problems, some governments have with Bitcoin is the following :
1. It's decentralized
2. It's too anonymous
3. It cannot be manipulated
4. It's origin is suspect {Satoshi's identity}
Bitcoin cannot address these matters, without losing it's identity / goal ...... so it's inevitable that a Alt coin with features that address these issues, will be developed to suite the governments or private companies purpose.
Sofar Bitcoin had a lot of appeal from a group of people, who understood the need for it's current features....but... if it wants mass adoption, it would have to decide if it wants to change or allow Alt coins with newer features to take it's place.
You cannot have a single coin, with ALL the features that everyone wants.. so Alt coins will always exist.. and the most popular one will survive. {Or the one forced down on the consumer by governments}
1. It's decentralized
2. It's too anonymous
3. It cannot be manipulated
4. It's origin is suspect {Satoshi's identity}
Bitcoin cannot address these matters, without losing it's identity / goal ...... so it's inevitable that a Alt coin with features that address these issues, will be developed to suite the governments or private companies purpose.
Sofar Bitcoin had a lot of appeal from a group of people, who understood the need for it's current features....but... if it wants mass adoption, it would have to decide if it wants to change or allow Alt coins with newer features to take it's place.
You cannot have a single coin, with ALL the features that everyone wants.. so Alt coins will always exist.. and the most popular one will survive. {Or the one forced down on the consumer by governments}
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."
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.
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.
Jump to: