Topic: Do you agree that a future where a clone-coin over-takes Bitcoin is not good? (Read 647 times)

I don’t mind a future where a clone coin takes over Bitcoin. It may be good. It may be bad. It depends on the coin. Most probably it would a better coin when you think about it, because who would switch all their money in Bitcoin to another currency if they are worse off with that altcoin. This statement makes sense when you are talking about Bitcoin’s store of value and coin scarcity. However, it doesn’t really affect the other crypto world. For example, when Bitcoin forked to create Bitcoin cash, it did not have an adverse affect on Bitcoin price. Rather it increased Bitcoin price. The same thing with Ethereum. So this statement works for the coin being cloned, but not for any other coin.

somewhat if a clone coin will overtake bitcoin it means that clone is better than bitcoin. That will miners switch to the clone. but scarcity is in a different phase.  bitcoin have a large system of services and as of now it getting improve and expand further.

Well, looking at this from a selfish point of view... YES! Why, because I'd lose money. If another coin takes over, Bitcoins true potential would never be realized and could even possibly go down.

I really like the concept of Bitcoin, but I'm beginning to think that Ripple might be the one that lasts. This may shock some people, because it doesn't seem to get a lot of buzz on here. Ripple is centralized and backed by banks. Also, Ripple's transactions are super quick while Bitcoins are much longer and far more expensive.

Bitcoin has a lot of shady press about it being tied with the black market. Ripple doesn't have that same reputation. Ripple is more boring and reliable. Most of the world likes boring and reliable rather than new and unexpected. Ripple might end up winning in the end.  


That being said, I own Bitcoin and not any Ripple. I'm debating on getting Ripple, but meh.

I agree...if ever Bitcoin can be surpassed by a clone one then that must be something really better and the market has to agree with that fact. We already have coins proclaiming themselves to be an improvement or better than Bitcoin but they will just remain to be claims because the market is not awarding them the throne occupied by Bitcoin. It is not just what the coin is and what it can do but also how the market is accepting the coin. You can be the best and very unique but if the market does not agree with you then it would be a different story...this is a reality we have to contend with. Bitcoin is occupying a very special place and space partly because it is the first and so far we have not seen another cryptocurrency that can replace it amid the noise other cryptos are trying to build up.

I am not too worried about that, because Bitcoin is a piece of code. We can cannibalize good features from other coins, if we can reach consensus to do that. The same can be done with Bitcoin, hence : Clone-coins. This is how Alt coins started. The flock will follow the most beneficial coin and if Bitcoin fail to deliver and people start to leave, consensus will be much easier to accept a coin with new features added.

Clone coins will make Bitcoin stronger in my opinion, because they force it to adapt and change to the changing needs of the public/users. ^smile^

I agree in part. The problem is that "when it becomes clear one is the weaker",
it should be abandoned or crippled by neglect, since the hash should be used to
strengthen the single strong chain where the "incentives" are, in theory, better.
The fact, that BCH is still around and above 500 USD means that there is more
occurring with this "clone coin". Thus, it is an attacking device and not an actual
token for transaction or speculation, since it is being manipulated through the
human markets.

Peercoin and Namecoin do both use SHA256, but their purposes are not as attacks
on Bitcoin, but are for new theories and ideas. Peercoin attempted to solve PoW
centralization by adding PoS and having and infinite coin supply, and Namecoin is
used for website domain registration. So though they are SHA256, I consider them
regular altcoins since no one will realistically use those tokens as payment in the
future, especially when majority of higher level development is occurring on Bitcoin,
when it come to the SHA256 coins.




Again, I agree in part. ETC was created in protest that block work could be undone
if the ignorant or incentivized majority wished it. IMO this negates the purpose of
blockchains and was a direct insult to our field. It was a revision of definitions and
purposes. Though I can understand it (lawsuits, bugs, and etc) and we all learned
much from it, I disagree with their choice of action.

The reasons why I see ETH/ETC different from BTC/BCH is that with ETH, it was
assumed that they would be going fully (or last I heard a hybrid) PoS system, as
was originally intended before the token offering. When ETC stated they would
maintain the "old chain", they stated that they would likely not go and follow
the PoS change, but keep PoW. So because of this, ETC's block consensus
system of PoW would be different than ETH's future PoS, so in a sense they will
be like regular altcoin competitors, when PoS comes about, as opposed to truly
parasitic mining like BCH.

When ETH and ETC "split" there was not much chain hopping occurring, that I
recall. When majority miners followed ETH, they were consistent and stuck with
their choice. When this is compared to BTC and BCH, over 40% of Bitcoin's hash
went to and bounced around between the two chains. That is very risky, directly
parasitic, and in theory shouldn't have happened under normal game theory
circumstances. But, you may be correct in that both chains will survive like
with ETH/ETC, though I think the situation is not really similar.




It is not so much a fear as much as an inevitability for me. One day, the time
will come, and then what was done today, will determine our possibilities later.
I do not think that "techno-anarchists" can exist within the system that I think
is inevitable and I do not think we should help move Bitcoin into positions in
which it will be easier to be captured. I believe BCH only exists as a response
to the miners not being able to force a change on BTC.

I expect that if a government cryptocurrency is created and mandated as the
legal tender of a country, Bitcoin and all altcoins will be deemed to be illegal
in that area. That government will then use their resources that were used for
physical currency development, creation, and expenses, and turn that toward
enforcement of their new totalitarian token and system.

Your belief is basically correct, with the assumption that the future is not
totalitarian and restrictive of human rights. If the future is better than today,
with more freedoms and rights, even for in China, than you may be correct
and decentralized Bitcoin can still exist and function in light of government
tokens. But I do not project the future going in this direction, when you add
in elements such as resource depletion, population growth, and financial,
societal, and political failures. There will be a failure point that is so
insurmountable that the only form of appropriate action by human
governments will be martial law and restrictions of human rights.




Yes, I agree. Though I think BCH fork was very bad because over 40% of hash
actually entertained it, the November fork has the possibility of being worse
because a high percentage of exchanges and services could entertain it. Though
I think at the last minute, there will be no hardfork since it is too risky and places
the corporations in liabilities that they have not understood yet.

Ultimately, I do not believe in multiple chains, even in disputes of future courses
of action for the network. Everything is possible in time, and when certain people
want to make changes now that inflict harm, it is attributed to other participants
in the system. It seems some parties are fine disenfranchising other parties, which
was what Satoshi was attempting to prevent with the Bitcoin system. But they
instead ignore this aspect and feel they have been victimized by Consensus.

Anyway, back to the Back quote, I think that if the future is many BTC chains or
"clean forks" and some of them are even mined or controlled by governments or
banks, that it will directly harm the "scarcity" and "store of value" argument of
BTC. BTC miners should be incentivized to protect the single chain and thus
ensure the future of the network and its token. Allowing multiple clone coins
or clone chains to exist, IMO, is a form of exploit on the PoW algo that is only
feasible when some outside network incentive is in play, and IMO likely a
government attack and testing.

Not sure what they mean by clone coin, but for an altcoin to overtake bitcoin...

In the short term, it's likely it hurts cryptocurrency.  A huge portion of the population only has a vague idea of what Bitcoin, while knowing nothing about altcoins.  The fact Bitcoin is even still the highest market cap coin is due to its network effect.  I don't think any could argue that there aren't altcoins that are more practical in their current form than Bitcoin.

Long term, it could be beneficial for crypto as a whole to have a coin with superior features take over.  The public is more likely to adopt cryptocurrency if it's practical for every day use.

With all that said, cryptocurrency is likely just too brilliant to not succeed, whether it be bitcoin or an altcoin.  It's important to remember just how early of stage we're still at.

I don't agree with him because it is not possible for a clone coin to over take bitcoin or any cryptocurrency because all the users of the cryptocurrencies are informed for which is clone and which is original so i think that the clone coin is just for trading purposes and it will not over take the current coins in the market.

Depends on your definition of clone coin 

Yes, I think also Back was referring to these "clone coins". But my point is that from the moment of the fork, once it's clear that the coin is weaker than the original, they're comparable with "regular altcoins". They have different branding and use cases. Only very stubborn "big blockers" refer to BCH as "the Bitcoin". But also they're not unique with respect of sharing SHA256 mining (see Peercoin, Namecoin and others).


I don't agree. There is already a precedent for the medium-term evolution of a hard fork: Ethereum Classic. It has diverged rapidly from the original Ethereum, and is doing fairly well, but never really competed with the original (although, in this case, the "original" in the sense of "consensus" is ETC, not ETH that forked away from it). I expect Bitcoin Cash to evolve in a similar way, into a different cryptocurrency.

I don't share your fears with respect to governments and bankers. Even inside the ecosystem of a state- or banker-created clone coin, "techno-anarchists" can achieve dominance because the technical system continues to be decentralized. It's however possible that these people do not even want to participate in it, staying with the original, and thus a heavily unbalanced and possibly hierarchic community would evolve, like in the case of many altcoins (and possibly already within Bitcoin Cash).

A much more dangerous situation than a "clean fork" like Bitcoin Cash, at least for the short term acceptance of Bitcoin, is a contentious fork like that who will be probably taking place in November. If there is no clear dominance of one chain over the other one, e.g. if 70% of the miners join Segwit2x and 70% of the users stay with "Bitcoin Core", then both ecosystems could be damaged.

If Adam Back meant "fork" by saying "clone-coin", than the only situation when it over-takes Bitcoin is because there's a good reason for it - i.e. Bitcoin's security get compromised, or new coin has much better features without any drawbacks. It's wrong to say that it's bad, because it's the best course of action, but it's also unrealistic, because it's more likely that Bitcoin will be the first to get new features since it has the most competent developers. As for users, they will have both coins, so their wealth shouldn't be dramatically affected.

not afraid at all clone coins always die soon when dev team collect profit read the history  .

The possibility of a bitcoin clone overtaking bitcoin is very much possible and this will be able to happen if the investors see that they will be able to make more money with the clone than the actual bitcoins. It's all about money and the cryptocurrency that makes people more money wins.

I don't think a bitcoin's clone would ever overtake bitcoin. As, bitcoin is steadily improving.
But there are chances of new coin with differences from bitcoin like ethereum or more improved version of them over take bitcoin.

I think one of the best things about bitcoin is that we know it's fair within its parameters. A coin started by a corporation or some other entity might not be free from some sort of backdoor manipulation. So in that sense it might be a bad thing if an alt surpassed BTC. I like ETH and XMR as other legit coins, everything else--I'm sure I'll find others and my opinions will shift-- is just profit to me tbh.

In my belief, the current ecosystem that has arisen around bitcoin, such as
merchants, exchanges, and payment processor are not important as to this
"clone coin" theory/question. The only issue that is of importance is what is
a real "clone coin"?

The ecosystems that surrounds Bitcoin has no consequence to the larger
plans since they are all regulated and controlled by the jurisdictions in which
they reside, and because of this, are expendable to the real Bitcoin. They can
be made to only sell the clone coin and prevent the real coin being traded,
by law. Majority are not independent entities who have free will. They are
subject to law, which real Bitcoin is not. Thus they are not important to
determine the question asked, but should be regarded as a potential future
attack type, upon the real Bitcoin.

Anyway, IMO there are two types of "clone coins". The first type, are altcoins
that are clones of Bitcoin in a superficial termonology sense, such as Litecoin
or etc. These coins are not true clone coins, because they do not usually share
the Bitcoin PoW algorithm. These clone coins are designed to actually compete
with Bitcoin by either new ideas, new PoWs or PoSs or etc, new theories, or
by testing different similar parameters, such as faster block times or etc.
The ecosystem may accept some of these coins for payment here and
there, but over long time periods can not overtake Bitcoin/bitcoin, accept in
a fatal flaw situation that is not salvageable for some unconceivable reason.
The "scarcity or store of value" issue does apply since these "clone altcoins"
are actually "new concept altcoins", and so they are different entities. When
you talk about "clone coins" it seems you are comparing them to this
terminology.

The second type of "clone coin" is the one I assume that Adam Back's statement
was about. In this context, the "clone coin" is an almost literal copy of Bitcoin
including the PoW algorithm. This type of coin does not attempt to compete as
other altcoins have done before, but this type is a literal attack upon the game
theory aspect of SHA256 mining. It was specifically designed to siphon away
hash power from the "real" chain into the "clone" chain by having centralized
controlled miners contradicting their previous interests or perceptions. They
have chosen to cut off there noses with the new feature of "lower fees" which
is a lie determinable over time. In this situation both the real coin and the clone
can not survive long term, one will be consumed by the other like blackholes
circling each other.

So, because they share the PoW AND a majority of hash which violates their
economic interests, the ecosystem becomes heavily damaged over time for
different reasons. This is the destruction of "scarcity and store of value" I
believe Back was addressing. Because this situation is possible today, by
the disincentized and thus attacking miners, it could in theory be possible for
different governments and countries to not be forced to compete for the single
bitcoin chain, but to create many SHA256 clone chains with subsidized profits
to attack the real chain and weaken the position of its security and "scarcity
and store of value".

The miners who have chosen to join this rouge chain and those in the
ecosystem that have decided to join as well, have ironically shown why the
"big blocker argument", "multiple chain theory", and other beliefs are incorrect.
Their acts to violate Consensus and do what they want, and have the market
determine who the winner is, has shown who the "dishonest nodes" are. Since
they have publicly shown their hands as destructive and divisive forces, and
what they are willing to do, and how far they will go, Bitcoin can now adapt
and change in ways that others would not do, since it was "premature" or
"unwarranted". These miners and certain ecosystem parties have fallen
into a trap of their own making.

Of course it doesn't really matter though, all that matters now is who will
be the first person to solve this new puzzle and outmaneuver their attempt
of exploitation. The markets do not really determine the "better one" or
"legitimate leader", when governments and bankers exist. The legitimate
Bitcoin is always the one that moves within Consensus. Anything else is
always an attack vector type, including the markets.

The human markets should follow Bitcoin, not vice versa.
Consensus and Single Chain Unity is the real power of Bitcoin.

It depends which bitcoin you're talking about. Are you talking about a hypothetical bitcoin that could actually be used as a currency on a large scale, or the real bitcoin that has no realistic application as a currency yet and is merely a vehicle for speculation? If you're talking about the real bitcoin, it could collapse and be replaced by another speculative cryptocurrency with little to no change in public perception. Cryptocurrency is already seen as a fringe, alternative investment and likely will be for a few years to come; institutional investors are starting to get interested in it due to the large increases in value, but that depends on government regulation among other things, and of course institutional investors will be happy to move along to the next big thing regardless of what it's called or what it's replacing, as long as it has a reasonable chance of making money. If, on the other hand, bitcoin ever gets established as a real, large-scale, worldwide payment system and then somehow a competitor manages to take over, then a lot of ordinary people with no interest in the underlying technology would lose everything, and would be very unlikely to accept another digital currency regardless of how great its technological properties are.

Yes its basically a solid quote in the respects it damages the digital scarcity. Maybe the words "not good" are a stretch though.  Lets assume in this future the world now uses digital currnecy (crypto) as standard vs government money well then we the people aren't so desperate for fiat to die.  Maybe a new crypto can come along that has better distribution and replace bitcoin at that point.  Maybe the "store of value" which society needs at some point could change.

I've thought about Bitcoin's "scarcity" concept some time ago and that's why I have a slightly different view than you, @AgentofCoin.

On a first glance, cryptocurrencies are not scarce at all, because every person with only a bit of technical knowledge can start one. However, the altcoin market has shown us that although there are over 1000 altcoins now, the "scarcity" of Bitcoin (=the conception that they are limited and thus a valid store of value) has not been affected.

That is because of two (inter-connected) factors:
1) Bitcoin has a much larger ecosystem of services (like Bitcoin-accepting merchants, exchanges, payment processors, miners that provide security, and so on) than other cryptocurrencies, so it covers much more "use cases" than them.
2) Humans can only remember fastly about 5-10 things of the same kind. Most cryptocurrency users that are not "altcoin traders" or other altcoin specialists, if they know more than Bitcoin, only know about at most 10 altcoins.

"Clone chains" like BCH have exactly the same limitations than regular altcoins, the only difference is that there is some incentive for the holders of the "mother chain" to follow them because they're "airdropped" to them. Bitcoin Cash already is an exceptional case because it's supported by the fraction of Bitcoin users we commonly call "Big blockers" and so it has more support than a clone that appears "out of thin air" (like Bitcore, for example).

Now what happens if a clone chain "overtakes" Bitcoin? That would mean that for some reason, most of the ecosystem is thinking that it is a better option than the original. There must be some pretty strong reasons for it - I don't think ignorance can be the only one. For example, a payment processor may switch to Bitcoin Cash because of the lower expected transaction fees. Some others may switch to a hypothetical "Bitcoin Smart Contract" clone.

But the essence of "cryptocurrency scarcity" as I outlined it above still applies: the real scarcity lies in the ecosystem and in the capacity to be remembered. I think Bitcoin has already clear advantages in both sections, that may be impossible to achieve for other cryptocurrencies (clone or not). If a clone takes over, then I expect it to simple be "the better one", and thus a legitimate new leader.

Yes.

In theory, if a "clone-coin" could surpass Bitcoin, whether by manipulation
or not, it would by its existence make "store of value" and "digital scarcity"
become an illusion, and destroy the argument type as to why cryptocurrencies
are an advancement in human financial systems. It could potentially prove
that cryptocurrencies that are not backed and controlled by human governments
are not viable, since only a government could realistically prevent their citizens
from using a rival "clone-coin" by their laws and their strict enforcement of them.

Thus, in this theorized future, by the miners supporting similar coins or
supporting multiple "clone chains" for short term profit, they are in fact erasing
their future. The miners have many important jobs that are not fully known and
by participating in things like "clone coins" or "clone chains", they would only be
accelerating their demise and proving their inability to look past their noses.

"Clone coins" are a type of attack vector on Bitcoin and certain altcoins in long
term thinking. If a knock off copy could surpass the legit version (mostly due to
ignorance or coercion) it is a sign of human ignorance and not a fault in the
system. Unfortunately, humans currently can not be universally synced with
data to prevent their own incorrect actions, due to their incomplete knowledge.

So, "scarcity" and "store of value" is only observed or maintained by the
human's current perception. They could be destroyed since those aspects of the
system assumes a common perception, before economic game theory begins.

If you can pervert the human perception, you can pervert their future.
If you can pervert the miners perception, they can destroy themselves.
If you can pervert the users perception, they can enslave themselves.
If you can get a "clone coin" to replace Bitcoin, they will negate the experiment.