Topic: Realistically does bitcoin have any competition ? - page 4. (Read 6314 times)

the only problem is what lawyers think / do when they know that you was in control of said outputs.

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.

First let us examine the term we are debating and its etymology so that there is no ambiguity:
"New Latin fungibilis, from Latin fungi to perform"

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.

In fact, I would suggest an individual would be hard pressed to himself distinguish one satoshi from another. Consider this thought experiment:

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 satoshis are "tainted" and which are not?

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.

 
  
All I have to do is point to the time when the community agreed not to accept stolen coins from an exchange to totally destroy that argument.  
  
Bitcoins are not fungible because they have unique histories.  All swords start off identical as well, but if *this* sword has been wielded by the King of England in battle and *that* sword was taken off a dead thief after it was cursed by the local witch doctor...  Which sword do you think will be more valuable?  
  
Similarly, if *this* bitcoin is one of the original bitcoins Satoshi held, and *that* bitcoin was stolen from an exchange after being transferred there from the Silk Road, which coin will be more valuable?  
  
This chasm will only increase as time goes on...  Eventually we may see nations ban entire swathes of 'tainted' bitcoins.  
  
True fungibility is needed for a worldwide currency, and unfortunately bitcoin doesn't have it.  
  
Bitcoin was amazing, and world changing - no one is taking that away from it.  It may also carry value for a long time to come.  But Monero is the first true digital money and you are extremely lucky to be hearing it about it now - and not in 2017.

It's so easy so I have not possibility to explain. The technology which invented bitcoin will support its invention and not the other coins which are the clones of it.

Apparently you fucked up your quotes but either way I fail to understand what Bitcoin technology has to do with its fungibility ?

I think this is a big wrong. Bitcoin may be fungible as a coin because all the other coins after him are almost the same so one or another may be almost the same. But you forget something very important and that make bitcoin unique. The technology behind it. This disruptive technology which will support always only bitcoin make it irreplaceable. It will be always so.

I guess that is an interesting analysis but unfortunately not one I can agree with for the simple reason that bitcoins are absolutely and unequivocally fungible.

May I suggest: http://trilema.com/2014/guidance-there-is-no-such-thing-as-bitcoin-taint/ or http://www.contravex.com/2014/06/21/tell-the-grand-inquisitor-theres-no-fucking-bitcoin-taint/

In short, all bitcoins are obviously created equal and perception of value spawned from traceability concerns is not an indictment on Bitcoin itself.

 
  
"In times of change learners inherit the earth; while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists."
- Eric Hoffer  

"Fuck mainstream investors."  
- americanpegasus  
  
You want to see mainstream investors?  Look here: https://www.reddit.com/r/investing  
The most respected in that community are a bunch of sad and brainwashed schmucks who think the path to prosperity is following all the rules and working within the confines of the system.  To this day they think bitcoin and crypto are fringe nerd toys.  For them safety is more important than innovation.  That is the path of the sheep!  And yes, some sheep are richer than others, and some sheep can even grow to be the king of all sheep.
  
But at the end of the day they're still a fucking sheep  
  
 
  
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.

 
  
Just for you, I made this special report to help you understand why Bitcoin was a significant invention in the history of money but Monero is actually the next true evolution of it.  
  
It's not just about privacy.  Every bitcoin has a unique history associated with it; it is a digital collectible.  It is not digital gold.  
  
Monero is the first digital gold.    
  
This is a very big graphic; if you reply to me, please do not quote it with the reply.  Thank you.
  

Why would Satoshi be the one hindering investors to look into bitcoin? Because of having tons of bitcoins in his wallet? Well that's what most investors think: getting their big slice of the pie to gain more profits and if that doesn't fit into their 'standards' of what a good investment is, they wouldn't investigate thoroughly. They should thank Satoshi because of the potentially decreased 1 million coins in circulation and the creation of the coin itself.

I didn't learn anything new here...

So you're saying they don't take Bitcoin seriously because what? Satoshi owns a shitload of them?

From my experience a majority of "mainstream investors" have little knowledge of monetary economics. They have very closed minded toward anything that doesn't fit into their box and within the boundaries of what they've learned at whatever Ivy school they went to.

I'm not pretending this is necessarily the case in regard to the "people you converse with" but you have not articulated their opinion particularly well if I may say...

in the real world i'm a daytrader, also run a company that helps companies to raise funds for listing on the stockmarket, so on our books we have alot of what you call seed investors, which we continually converse with.

god if you read the forum around here bitcoin is the future of money, bitcoin is so overrated here, but in mainstream investor circles bitcoin's almost considered a joke.

i hear Winklevoss' often sayin 'you got to wonder why the smartest people in the room always are pro bitcoin', well i say 'you got to wonder why the richest person in the room never is'

and i know.

biggest killer for investors, and joe public alike is Satoshi

I think it is safe to assume that bitcoin has many competition. but which of these altcoins that everybody is enthusiastically talking about can even come close to bitcoin in terms of popularity and usages , I think that is the more important question.

I'm very curious to hear that.

anything more complex then bitcoin has zero chance.


seems alot think if it came after bitcoin and is 'original' ish code then it must be better  


but bitcoin does have some competition in its own shadow......litecoin. (many may laugh that off but i could list a ton of real world reasons but then again all the blinkered crytpos pseudo techie types wouldn't really listen, luckily though its not upto them).

Interesting. Thank you.

 
  
It's true, the first speculators of Monero are transferring public assets into the Monero system (unless they are the lucky ones mining pure Monero).  But as the economy grows, goods and services will begin to be traded for Monero and these will be truly anonymous.  
  
As far as your initial point, let's first go back a *scant* four years to 2011:  
http://www.digitaltrends.com/android/iphone-overtakes-blackberry-to-become-top-phone-for-business-users/  
  
Secondly, let me take you back to the year 2008.  Something amazing happened that no one expected.  No, it wasn't bitcoin:  
  
http://www.zdnet.com/article/facebook-overtakes-myspace-globally/  
  
Let's go back a decade before that:  
  
http://www.wired.com/2009/09/0928ie-beats-netscape/  
  
Now let's step back a century:  
  
http://www.somdnews.com/article/20140108/NEWS/140109402/a-century-ago-autos-began-overtaking-horses&template=southernMaryland  
  
All these things required a superior replacement to disrupt an established competitor.  In some cases the original asset paved the way while the successor inherited the fruits of that labor with a refined version.  
  

---

 
  
Now again, I don't think Monero will completely replace Bitcoin (assuming it gets its shit together with blocksize issues) because a public ledger is valuable too.  But if you're only argument for why bitcoin is better is because "more people use it" in the face of overwhelming technological superiority... well, that's not an argument that stands up to the test of time.

Please do not fall into this mistake of inferring Bitcoin's superiority on the basis of its userbase.

The headstart is much more than a simple number of users. It is a complex history where time, trust and capital growth are much more important than a simple assessment of its userbase. A very organic process which can scarcely be reproduced.

Have you contemplated the idea that by purchasing Monero through either fiat or Bitcoin you are also "starting" from a public asset?