Topic: Is Bitcoin good enough; there aren't critically important improvements needed? - page 7. (Read 6056 times)

If this is true (I am not sure), perhaps it is because of:

1.	Starting some new treatments (AHCC, EGCG, L-Lysine, CoQ10, co-enzyme B Healthy VitB complex, carrots, bitter melon to lower blood sugar, no or minimal carbohydrates in any form including sugars from fruits, Vitamin D3 via whole body skin exposure to sun daily and must shower before as D3 is formed at follicles, washes off, requires 24 hours to absorb) for my peripheral neuropathy (likely caused by 2006 HPV infection) which also (in additional to nerve problems at the feet, hands, etc) manifests as headaches and abdominal pain (tumor?) fucking malaise. By "malaise", I mean imagine someone stole 50 of your IQ points. Can't think with that groggy head, chronic fatigue syndrome, welcome to zombie, vegetable-state.
2.	Really wanting to prove to myself I can still code and not talk without a purpose of action. Challenging myself everyday to work on my discipline (gritting my teeth to push myself to exercise to deal with this malaise that seems to cause me to be only capable of talking). "Those who can't build, talk". Grrr. It is humiliating for me to see I have become a wind pipe. Is this what old age will be for me! Hell no I hope not.

In the beginning I expect fiat conversion to be the main source of acquiring bitcoins.  Some people will provide products and services and exchange them directly for bitcoins, but that will remain a niche market.  Eventually, I expect the process of procuring bitcoins to shift to wages paid with bitcoins.  It will be slow at first (there are already some companies that are offering employees the option of having some of their wages paid in bitcoins), but it will snowball and accelerate over time. Perhaps I'm wrong and the transition to bitcoin wages will take a century, but in my opinion it is more likely to occur in a matter of another decade or two.

Danny that is not an unreasonable argument, but note the sentence I added to my post just after you quoted it.

The web browser became installed by default, which is analogous to the users in masse will join Bitcoin via off chain service providers such as Paypal. But the problem is they will never mine.

Whereas, you see those billion people on Facebook all creating effectively via their profile page their own website.

You can't get around the fiat conversion tsuris any other way except through mining, transacting, or paying wages in Bitcoin. Have you considered how slow the latter will scale. And Bitcoin is not purchased for transactions, rather for speculation. The Paypal accounts in Bitcoin will skyrocket on the next bubble run for Bitcoin, not because of needing to use it as a currency.

Bitcoin has a structural asymmetry.

Of course, the same could be said about the internet in the beginning.  It was also too slow, frustrating, filled with technobabble. What? I need to download and install a browser? Then I need to what? What? I need to find a URL, enter it into an address box, hope the user running the web server created a page with information that I want, waste time clicking links to find additional information, etc...

Perhaps the internet was just (at least partially) an ideological façade (delusion)?

How did  a deluded user base create a useful world wide web when there was far too much useless ideology crap and not enough actual "hey, this made my life easier and better" technology discussion?

On the other hand, those involved in the beginning of the internet focused on the protocols (HTTP, FTP, TCP/IP, etc) and made sure that they were robust and reliable.  That way when the market was finally ready to begin building products and services on top of those protocols, they could depend on them to work properly.

P.S. I see a lot of delusion in the Bitcoin user demographics (see also the first link in the OP). I think this is important to note because how can a deluded user base create a useful currency? There is far too much useless ideology crap and not enough actual, "hey this made my life easier and better" technology discussion.

If you actually talk about the technology of Bitcoin, it sucks. It is way too slow, frustating, technobabble (what I need to download a client, then I need to what?), what I need to convert fiat to Bitcoin then the receipient needs to convert back to fiat again losing a lot of money on exchange volatility, etc.. The off chain service providers will introduce non-mining users to the coin, thus no hope of not converting from fiat to get Bitcoin in large scale.

This is a reason why I think Bitcoin is (at least partially) an ideological façade (delusion).

I am surprised by both the vote and the comments. If that is true that 25% of the community (3 of 12 'yes' votes as of writing this post) is still seriously interested in such improvements (and if those are not the supporters I had already had), that is already enough to motivate me or someone else to attempt to implement such improvements. The sample size is a bit small to trust, and I don't know what the 'yes' voters are thinking, expectations, and caveats.

And then even amongst those who voted 'no', a few of the comments appear to be you voted no because you don't believe starting over again can realistically work.

The way to overcome Bitcoin's existing inertia is to create demand for the coin that is much greater than the 1 or 2 million users Bitcoin has now.

I am coding an Android application right now and my competition has 10 million downloads, and I tried the app and it sucks. Btw, figure they are converting 2 - 5% of downloads to sales, so that is $2 - $5 million per year in revenue. You see why it is difficult to be motivated to code a serious altcoin?

I had 1 million users of Cool Page back in 2001 when the internet was 1/10 the population it is now.

The major threat now for anyone who wants to compete with Bitcoin is that for example Paypal will be starting to push Bitcoin out to its millions of users.

But the problem so far remains for Bitcoin, that there isn't a compelling "must have" use for it as a currency where another currency can't be used instead. So if anyone finds a way to make a compelling use case for a crypto-currency and if that use case can't be accommodated by Bitcoin due to some technological reason (e.g. Bitcoin transactions being too slow), then Bitcoin can be defeated in terms of market size.

I think I have identified such a use case in my recent writings which are linked in the OP, but it is up to you to figure it out. I am not going to spell it out. Because what if I decide to make such an altcoin, I don't want to tell everyone my secret too soon. By thinking deeply about what I wrote, it is probably possible to figure out what use case I had in mind.

Note that use case does not target you, bitcointalk.org. It doesn't target investors. It wouldn't even be necessary to announce here, much better at Reddit.

Needless to say, this argument can be easily made against bitcoin in favour of existing fiat money institutions. And yet we still believe that a superior technology can rise and overcome, no?

Is Bitcoin good enough?




It doesn't matter, the game is already over. Bitcoin won, every other crypto lost.




Why? Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect

Personally, I think Bitcoin developers are concentrated to heavily on the protocol itslef at this stage of the game. A simple rule of life is if it ain't broke dont fix it.

I personally believe we need more to bitcoin, with all the coins they have as a development team now, its time they allow just 1 or 2 people to address the protocol and look for new updates, its time they move on to the demand of the coin. They like the ability to sit on thier ass and wait for somene who has a wallet full of coins to spend those coins and create a stronger demand for their project, yet don't feel the need to do so their selves. they want companies to adapt, adopt and use their coin but give no incentive a corporation wants or likes in order to make this adaptation.

Why the developers and the strong lovers of bitcoin feel a wait around with my hand out game is something that works in the 21st century is beyond me. 200 years ago that could work, but today with our technology, if you wait around something better will surely pass you buy. With everyone and their grandma's grandma coming trying to improve the protocol no one is actually concentrating on what is important, a way to increase a coins value. the demand. No matter who it is, what coin they have, and how strong their vision is everyone is one tracked on a protocol that is not problematic right now.

You want adaptation, you want adoption, you want a secure investment, create a way for that to happen. Give your investors a demand that satisfies their need and want for bitcoins.

I voted no. You have yet to convince me of the assertion that lack of complete anonymity necessarily means that mining will be co-opted by 'the government', leading to inevitable blacklisting.

A large part of my resistance to your idea is the notion of 'jumping to' some new, yet-to-be-defined protocol. Bitcoin not only has stood the test of several years of attack, but it also holds the overwhelming majority of actual cryptocurrency wealth of all cryptocurrency enthusiasts. This necessarily imparts significant inertia to any change. In practical marketing terms, you may need to find some bridge to this new system from Bitcoin, which preserves this value.

Using the concept of having the genesis block of such a currency embodying a point-in-time snapshot of the current state of the Bitcoin blockchain[1] might get me and others past this hurdle. While the Bitcoin protocol has some abstract value, the blockchain itself encodes concrete value.

[1] https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/spin-offs-bootstrap-an-altcoin-with-a-btc-blockchain-based-initial-distribution-563972

As a 'wild hair' idea, perhaps some day we may be able to define some sort of meta-coin, whereby the details of the protocol are plastic (yet deterministic), while the blockchain itself remains inviolate. If we were able to do such, TPTB co-opting any group of miners would not endanger the users' value, as the network could drop that protocol, and transfer to another. We would need some sort of meta-protocol which manages the details of the hard fork.

Sure, even if this were to be possible (which may be a stretch), it would be a tremendous disincentive to incumbent miners, as their investment in dedicated single-algorithm transaction validation machines (read that as ASICs) would tank. OTOH, another dimension of your problem statement was the consolidation of mining which was brought on by ASICs, so this may be a net positive.

Now all we need to do is schedule the invention part of the solution

Incidentally, I welcome your new persona/attitude. You 'sound' healthier, if that makes any sense.

Correct.


The specific improvements that you've laid out?  No, not critical.


You are correct in that assumption.


Which is a very unlikely occurrence.


Perhaps some.  I have no such feelings on the matter.  I dislike most altcoins because 99.99% of them are nothing more than someone regretting that they didn't get in on bitcoin early and are now trying to get rich quick by creating a copy with some very minor tweaks.  I'm fully in favor of people creating any altcoin they like, and fully support everyone's right to throw their money towards any scam (or legitimate revolutionary concept) they like.


Seems a bit like a strawman argument to me.  Perhaps "some" people are against altcoins for the reasons you describe, but their feelings on the topic dont really matter, do they?


You're welcome.

So that means no urgency correct? So the improvements are not critical correct?

Because I don't see those improvements coming in Bitcoin any time soon. I think the only way they would come is if an altcoin became popular and Bitcoin was forced to make the changes.

I understand many Bitcoin holders hate the concept of altcoin because they think it dilutes the money supply. This is nonsense, as I explained in the first link in the OP.

Any way, I want your opinions and thanks for sharing your opinion.

I suspect you will confirm my conclusion and vote predominately "no".

Would you jump from Bitcoin to a coin with the following improvements?

No. Bitcoin can be improved, we don't need another alt-coin.

This poll is to help me test this conclusion I formed:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9710552


Improvements needed:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9695533

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9704552


Additional logic:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9703042

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9703376

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9704835

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9705960

Edit: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9716154

Edit#2: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9725612 (why cash != Bitcoin)


Apologies for creating another thread. I wanted to get some feedback with voting and I forgot to put a poll on the linked thread.

Please vote honestly. Don't try to make me happy with your vote choice, but please don't vote 'no' out of dislike for me also. We need an objective poll please.

Anyone who has been my supporter, please do not vote. I want to see what the Bitcoin community thinks.