I understand there are 600 other coins and that banks might be involved in trying to put in place there own mechanisms based on the blockchain but now that bitcoin has become as big as it has is there even a 10% chance that anything could replace bitcoin in the next few years.
If you talk about future if any government issues their own crypto,bitcoin will face some serious competition but that is not possible to happen in this decade so I dont see any competition for btc for next 10-15 years 
Topic: Realistically does bitcoin have any competition ? - page 3. (Read 6344 times)
Any platform that is a clone of Bitcoin with only a few small tweaks, can't ever really take a serious market share away from Bitcoin.
I understand there are 600 other coins and that banks might be involved in trying to put in place there own mechanisms based on the blockchain but now that bitcoin has become as big as it has is there even a 10% chance that anything could replace bitcoin in the next few years.
I think Mintcoin will give Bitcoin a run for its money one day.
from past time,it has not competitor when bitcoin have a high price,but for now,bitcoin potentially have competitor.. lets see LTC or DASH
Cash! 
None of the altcoins out there are real competitors for Bitcoin. Bitcoin was the first, most used and most known digital coin. The others can try but I don't think they ever will catch up.
I agree with you for the short term, but there are new projects arrising that seem to have solved all the problems with Bitcoin.
as far as a storage of wealth goes, it will take a long time for any competitors to inherit bitcoins reign, unless of course bitcoiners decide to draw the wealth of bitcoin and put it into another project. This is something that has been happenning slowly for the past year or so, but because bitcoin has the infrastucture to get fiat in and out it hasnt been removed from the equation.
The main problems that need to be solved.
1) speed of use: I will never again buy dinner, coffee or many other things with Bitcoins. it takes way to long , or it takes you removing the best and only reason to use bitcoin, its decentralized nature
2)reduction in Nodes due to resource requirements: I am not sure why this has become a problem, probably because in general the community is full of people who just dont care. there needs to be greater incentives to keep a node open
3)poor distribution of new coins and the centralization of mining. all the coins are going to large bitcoin farms.
There is at least one coin that has dealt with all these problems, instant transfers, collateral based incentive paying peers, new mining algos.
probably more than 1.
In my opinion one of these will take over every role bitcoin has, besides maybe its ability to be a storage of wealth.
But as one of these coins begins to take over Bitcoins infrastructure, or starts having infrastructure that doesnt require bitcoin, it will quickly draw the wealth with it.
for now though, Bitcoin is King.
None of the altcoins out there are real competitors for Bitcoin. Bitcoin was the first, most used and most known digital coin. The others can try but I don't think they ever will catch up.
Agree with you, monero's fungibility is better than Bitcoin's. And fungibility is a very important property.
Fungibility aside, Monero seems to have significant drawbacks which you forgot to mention : no multisig, no SPV, no GUI, poor scalability (double size keys,...) as well as dubious security decisions (block time, difficulty retargetting, curve ...).
Fungibility aside, Monero seems to have significant drawbacks which you forgot to mention : no multisig, no SPV, no GUI, poor scalability (double size keys,...) as well as dubious security decisions (block time, difficulty retargetting, curve ...).
I understand where you are coming from but, again, it appears to me that you are conflating subjective perception of value (or user preference) with fungibility.
Not at all. I don't think you fully understand money. Subjective perception of value is all there is. Money only exists in the mind of those who value it. If people don't believe that two satoshis are equal, then they are not equal.
Therefore what we are concerned with is whether or not one satoshi performs the same function as any others. It seems to me that for all practical purpose they do and that Bitcoin makes no distinction between any of them.
Bitcoin does make a distinction between them by way of a public and browsable blockchain that shows you the history of any bitcoin since inception.
One bitcoin does not equal one bitcoin.
In fact, I would suggest an individual would be hard pressed to himself distinguish one satoshi from another. Consider this thought experiment:
....
I'm sorry but I seemingly cannot wrap my head around this "chasm" you speak of for the simple fact that as Bitcoin adoption grows it is inevitable that satoshis will cross paths with what you call "tainted" coin, so much that at one point one could probably suggest that a majority of bitcoins in circulation have come in contact with "tainted" coins.
....
I'm sorry but I seemingly cannot wrap my head around this "chasm" you speak of for the simple fact that as Bitcoin adoption grows it is inevitable that satoshis will cross paths with what you call "tainted" coin, so much that at one point one could probably suggest that a majority of bitcoins in circulation have come in contact with "tainted" coins.
http://sabr.io/
Blockchain analysis is already pretty good and only going to get better. A plea to the ignorance of the users is not a good argument.
The final nail in the coffin of bitcoin's fungibility *is* Satoshi's coins. If all bitcoins were equal and fungible, then it shouldn't matter that Satoshi began spending his coins. Upon receiving one you shouldn't panic that bitcoin users might start losing faith. But when dealing with *collectibles* (which bitcoin is) then that becomes an issue.
If you like fine art, and suddenly lots of famous paintings start winding up on your doorstep, you would reasonably assume that the popularity and faith in fine art is plummeting.
In Monero we don't have a Satoshi. Every user is free to transact, hold, and spend however they choose. The currency exists independent from the history of each unit. Gold and the dollar can be traced (with great effort as well) but they still pass the test for fungibility because without expending a massive amount of resources you can't effectively trace their history (especially with gold). With bitcoin tracing the history of a unit is trivial, and with Monero it's impossible.
You've basically strengthened my point:
Monero isn't just true digital gold. It's the equivalent of if gold automatically (and magically) went to a smelting facility every time it was spent and was melted down and mixed with other gold before coming back to the new owner.
It's the best form of money that civilization has ever seen.
I still hold on to my belief that if someday bitcoin fails for that matter, it will bring down the trust people are having towards cryptocurrencies. That includes all the other altcoins.
It all depends on the reason for failure. If it is one generically applicable to all crypto that would be true. But if it is for a special cause unique to bitcoin's circumstances then it might have little effect on cryptocurrency in general. The block size debate (and how it ends) could be a case in point, since many other alts have different setups for block size as well as governance (for better or worse).
Absolutely, but at the same time I can see if Bitcoin doesn't completely fall flat and holds this relative price point of $230, I can see it being even possible for another crypto to come in the scene that improves one flaw of Bitcoin to become a complimentive currency. So as most of this thread has been saying about monero holding a better security/anonymity feature, then that currency can be a reputable compliment currency that holds value to that purpose. Or maybe if something comes to play that offers more security than monero then that currency will become the compliment currency.
Or for example, another currency came along that offers a rediculously faster confirmation time for quick and easy transactions, then that will be another compliment... I don't necessarily think Bitcoin will fall flat, it might just share its purchasing power to these complimentive cryptos that allows a user to decide what needs need to be met for the types of transaction he'll be doing.
I still hold on to my belief that if someday bitcoin fails for that matter, it will bring down the trust people are having towards cryptocurrencies. That includes all the other altcoins.
It all depends on the reason for failure. If it is one generically applicable to all crypto that would be true. But if it is for a special cause unique to bitcoin's circumstances then it might have little effect on cryptocurrency in general. The block size debate (and how it ends) could be a case in point, since many other alts have different setups for block size as well as governance (for better or worse).
the greater fool theory states that the price of an object is determined not by its intrinsic value, but rather by irrational beliefs and expectations of market participants. a price can be justified by a rational buyer under the belief that another party is willing to pay an even higher price. in other words, one may pay a price that seems "foolishly" high because one may rationally have the expectation that the item can be resold to a "greater fool" later.
Or sold at a loss to the next buyer to prevent even bigger loss when the trend turns
This theory applies to many things, like fiat money, stocks, bonds, options, swaps, funds etc... In a word, anything that is an abstraction of value can be simply regarded as a thing that you can only dump it to the next people who accept it as payment
And when majority of the people accept it, the loop will be closed and the ecosystem will be self-sustainable like fiat money
To get rich? (I mean, really rich) To change the world? You have to think outside the box. You think Buffet got so rich by following the rules? No! He invented modern value investing; he was doing it when no one else was, and that's why he had his advantage. You think Bill Gates got where he is by avoiding breaking eggs and giving a fuck what mainstream investors thought?
People who are heavy into crypto now are eschewing all the rules, and either the greatest technological innovation since the internet just *goes away somehow* or we will be the new financial elite eventually, same as those who got in on the ground floor of the dot-com boom and made good decisions (yes, if you go all in on Pets.com or BBQCoin you are going to lose your shirt).
The future is not a safe place. It is a wild and crazy place, full of unexpected turns and twists.
It will not belong to the safe.
It will belong to the bold.
the idea of crypto is an alt currency to fiat, its not about getting rich.
for any crypto to be successful its about adoption, you can think outside the box (though i am yet to see anything it crypto thinking outside the box) go the road less travelled, be bold, be uniquely innovative; but you'll be using this amazing innovative currency alone and therefore its next to completely useless.
0 to 3.5B$ market cap in 5 years is not too bad adoption is it?
Americanpegasus' point is that if your "trader" buddies wait until Bitcoin is at 1T$ market cap chances are they might just miss the boat
hows marketcap correspond to adoption as a currency
as a currency bitcoin is not being used thats a fact, marketcap eludes to it being used as a fake fiat trading token, and in no way indicates anything of value.
my trader buddies know bitcoin marketcap could vaporiser or goto the moon, same as anyone.
what they know above the bitcoin crowd here is the real mechanism for bitcoin's 'price'. ie the greater fool theory;
the greater fool theory states that the price of an object is determined not by its intrinsic value, but rather by irrational beliefs and expectations of market participants. a price can be justified by a rational buyer under the belief that another party is willing to pay an even higher price. in other words, one may pay a price that seems "foolishly" high because one may rationally have the expectation that the item can be resold to a "greater fool" later.
but in reality btc can fall in an instant tomorrow and then everyone will lose.
I don't think it can. So much money is invested in Bitcoin and Bitcoin companies, it's too big to fail.
certainly nopt tomorrow, but it can happen in the long term if nothing new will come and bitcoin remain where it is right now, huge stagnation will kill it eventually
To get rich? (I mean, really rich) To change the world? You have to think outside the box. You think Buffet got so rich by following the rules? No! He invented modern value investing; he was doing it when no one else was, and that's why he had his advantage. You think Bill Gates got where he is by avoiding breaking eggs and giving a fuck what mainstream investors thought?
People who are heavy into crypto now are eschewing all the rules, and either the greatest technological innovation since the internet just *goes away somehow* or we will be the new financial elite eventually, same as those who got in on the ground floor of the dot-com boom and made good decisions (yes, if you go all in on Pets.com or BBQCoin you are going to lose your shirt).
The future is not a safe place. It is a wild and crazy place, full of unexpected turns and twists.
It will not belong to the safe.
It will belong to the bold.
the idea of crypto is an alt currency to fiat, its not about getting rich.
for any crypto to be successful its about adoption, you can think outside the box (though i am yet to see anything it crypto thinking outside the box) go the road less travelled, be bold, be uniquely innovative; but you'll be using this amazing innovative currency alone and therefore its next to completely useless.
0 to 3.5B$ market cap in 5 years is not too bad adoption is it?
Americanpegasus' point is that if your "trader" buddies wait until Bitcoin is at 1T$ market cap chances are they might just miss the boat
To get rich? (I mean, really rich) To change the world? You have to think outside the box. You think Buffet got so rich by following the rules? No! He invented modern value investing; he was doing it when no one else was, and that's why he had his advantage. You think Bill Gates got where he is by avoiding breaking eggs and giving a fuck what mainstream investors thought?
People who are heavy into crypto now are eschewing all the rules, and either the greatest technological innovation since the internet just *goes away somehow* or we will be the new financial elite eventually, same as those who got in on the ground floor of the dot-com boom and made good decisions (yes, if you go all in on Pets.com or BBQCoin you are going to lose your shirt).
The future is not a safe place. It is a wild and crazy place, full of unexpected turns and twists.
It will not belong to the safe.
It will belong to the bold.
the idea of crypto is an alt currency to fiat, its not about getting rich.
for any crypto to be successful its about adoption, you can think outside the box (though i am yet to see anything it crypto thinking outside the box) go the road less travelled, be bold, be uniquely innovative; but you'll be using this amazing innovative currency alone and therefore its next to completely useless.
but in reality btc can fall in an instant tomorrow and then everyone will lose.
I don't think it can. So much money is invested in Bitcoin and Bitcoin companies, it's too big to fail.
Let us pretend I am in control of a wallet which holds a certain number of coins, using your example, stolen from said exchange. I also happen to own a couple of what you would consider "clean" bitcoins. To illustrate my point I choose two spend two outputs, one "clean" and one "tainted", to the same input.
Looking at said input, can you tell which satoshi is "tainted" and which is not?
the only problem is what lawyers think / do when they know that you was in control of said outputs.
Seems to me then we are deriving into the anonymity/privacy problem, are we not?
I frankly fail to see how this is an indictment on Bitcoin's fungibility.
you are right: technically bitcoin is fungible.
but i live in the real world and dont want lawyers to contact me or exchanges to block me because of social problems.
I'm not here to argue whether or not Monero or other private coins facilitate, by way of technology, more private transactions but only cared to clear the air about Bitcoin's fungibility.
My point being mostly that provided we use americanpegasus criteria, cash and gold could equally be traceable to some extent and therefore that would undermine their fungibility.
Let us pretend I am in control of a wallet which holds a certain number of coins, using your example, stolen from said exchange. I also happen to own a couple of what you would consider "clean" bitcoins. To illustrate my point I choose two spend two outputs, one "clean" and one "tainted", to the same input.
Looking at said input, can you tell which satoshi is "tainted" and which is not?
the only problem is what lawyers think / do when they know that you was in control of said outputs.
Seems to me then we are deriving into the anonymity/privacy problem, are we not?
I frankly fail to see how this is an indictment on Bitcoin's fungibility.
you are right: technically bitcoin is fungible.
but i live in the real world and dont want lawyers to contact me or exchanges to block me because of social problems.
Let us pretend I am in control of a wallet which holds a certain number of coins, using your example, stolen from said exchange. I also happen to own a couple of what you would consider "clean" bitcoins. To illustrate my point I choose two spend two outputs, one "clean" and one "tainted", to the same input.
Looking at said input, can you tell which satoshi is "tainted" and which is not?
the only problem is what lawyers think / do when they know that you was in control of said outputs.
Seems to me then we are deriving into the anonymity/privacy problem, are we not?
I frankly fail to see how this is an indictment on Bitcoin's fungibility.
Jump to: