But I think it's only right to ask people to think before creating another bitcoin clone that adds nothing new whatsoever. We certainly don't need any more cynical get rich quick schemes. We have had quite enough of those already.
Quote from: luke-jr
Bitcoin will already have hurdles to grow adoption. There is no reason to create more by introducing competing crypto-currencies.
...
There are a number of flaws with Bitcoin that cannot be corrected without a "hard fork". Any serious alt chain should at least attempt to address these concerns and issues.
...
There are a number of flaws with Bitcoin that cannot be corrected without a "hard fork". Any serious alt chain should at least attempt to address these concerns and issues.
I really dislike the tone of the quoted text. Obviously there are reasons to compete, otherwise people wouldn't have started alt coins. Submitting patches to Bitcoin isn't a realistic process to test changes (e.g. Proof of Stake), because the change process in the Bitcoin protocol is painfully slow / halted. Some features might never get included, and if the authors think they are positive, an alt chain is the best way to go - not just a testnet alt chain (which is welcome as a precursor step), but an actual live alt coin.
I completely agree with Luke-Jr being completely biased towards Bitcoin. He's implying that Bitcoin must be perfect before anyone attempts to make another chain, but if those problems can't be solved then so be it, let the other's create their new coin. This is just like gay marriage, and Luke-Jr is some extreme conservative. Like really, who gives a fuck whether the gays marry each other(creating other coins), not affecting you in any way... oh wait... you might be afraid that this new coin might be better than your previous shit coin that you couldn't fix. Gaise pls!
I don't like his changes, and find them anti-competitive towards new alt currencies. I prefer to leave the choice up to the creators of the currencies & the market. I tried reverting his edit multiple times, but he is stubborn.
Thoughts?
The text Luke-jr added is entirely reasonable. The Wiki should present all reasonable sides to the story, yet you appear to be trying to bias it to your viewpoint alone.
If you tried to revert his change multiple times, and he added the same edits multiple times then you are both misbehaving. A neutral third party should resolve the situation.
We all know that Luke is being biased towards Bitcoin. What he puts degrades alternate coins, and tries to glamorize Bitcoin like as if it's the best currency in the world with no flaws. Why doesn't he try to fix those problems before he gets more people to use Bitcoin? Because he doesn't know how! A neutral party? No such thing, most of the people here are strict Bitcoin fanatics, or a decent reasonable person from the alternate chains.
all u get "ur lieing" 
