No, that's definitely a false statement. Bitcoin has the most advanced and developed protocol. Most of the shitcoins haven't even patched up the security exploits up until the latest versions.
I find this statement rather amusing, I hope you do realize that a clone of Bitcoin is considered not be innovative at all within the altcoin world, that should tell you something, any altcoin that is worth anything improves on Bitcoin in some way.
Pure strawman. I was talking about security exploits, not specific features that some altcoins may or may not have.
Not a strawman, you where not that specific in your statement, furthermore such a hand waving statement that most "shitcoins" have lots of security exploits does not carry much weight.
You can joke all you want, but Bitcoin is still losing market share to the alternative cryptocurrencies and that is a fact.
I was not joking when I said mister V was behind it.
Bitcoin market share is now at 79% a historic low.
I am familiar with the history of Dash, I do not consider it to fundementally undermine the currency of Dash today. I can agree that the history is "shady" but whether that effects the viability of the currency today is again an opinion.
It's not an opinion, it's a fact. We know the definition of the word 'shady' and it perfectly aligns with what happened with DRK in the first few days.
It is not a fact, the word shady is highly subjective, and even though I do agree with you in using that term, it still stands that whether this should effect the viability of the currency today is again an opinion, and not a fact.
This statement is just not true, at least not in the way that I suspect you mean it. I supported the ETH hard fork, and I am actually more bullish now then I was before on ETH. First of all in terms of its "immutability" and censorship resistance it is no different to Bitcoin in terms of normal blockchain transactions, it is equally immutable and censorship resistant, it is equally difficult to roll back transactions on Bitcoin compared to Ethereum, a state change to the contract layer is different to actually rolling back transactions on the blockchain.
No. The chain is not immutable, as was demonstrated with a rollback. As soon as you do this once, it sets a dangerous precedence. Please let me know if my DAO fails miserably why you won't roll back and bail me out like the Fed? Oh wait, "The DAO" was too big too fail. I wonder where we've heard that before.
Blockchains are not protected by precedent or social convention like you might think but hard cryptography and game theory mechanics. In regards to the transactional immutability Bitcoin and Ethereum are mostly identical, it is practically impossible to roll back blocks and therefore also transactions. This is not what happened with the Ethereum hard fork, it involved a state change on the smart contract layer through the "consensus" mechanism. I consider any change to the rules of the protocol legitimate if it is brought about in such a way.
I understand that this is a major difference in our theories on how the governance of these blockchain systems function, I perceive it to be much more of a social construct, a tool for human beings to govern themselves and each other in a better way. It is a good thing that the code can change through this governance mechanisms, "immutability" in the literal sense of the word is not something we should aim for, if something goes wrong the majority of people should be able change the rules of the system, ideas and people also evolve, these blockchain networks need to evolve with our civilizations.
It is wrong to describe the DOA fork as a bail out, since there are no extra taxes, inflation or "haircuts" like there would be in a bailout like we understand it today. Rather I think the analogy of a bank robbery is much better, we are simply intervening, preventing the bank robbery from taking place. I think this is perfectly justifiable. Before you say "code is law" and smart contracts have no value if they are not "immutable". The opposite is actually true, there is a good reason why all law systems today are non-deterministic, it is the intent of the law here that counts, not the letter of the law.
At the same time even though I do not agree with the reosons for Ethereums Classics existence, I do absolutely respect their right to self determination and at the same time they have given Bitcoin a perfectly viable option that we could follow, splitting the chain, resolving this ideological debate.
ETH is neither a immutable, censorship resistant nor decentralized.
Arguably Ethereum is presently more decentralized then Bitcoin because it uses an ASIC resistant mining algorithm.
Straw man.
Again not a straw man, you can clearly see that I am directly responding to what you have said, furthermore it is impossible for this statement to even be a straw man argument because I am not even implying or inferring your position here whatsoever.
Maybe it is best not to get into a full discussion of the pros and cons of these events and of the design of Ethereum and Bitcoin, but as proof of work blockchains their governance, and transaction immutability are actually identical on a technical level at least. So my point is that your opinion on these altcoins are an opinion and not a fact.
No. Stop defending mutable shitcoins.
Not an argument.
Monero will become illegal if it picks up, and you know this as a fact?
Yes. I can't tell you how though, since that's confidential.
You can not expect a rational person to believe you when you say such a thing, you might have insider knowledge of some sort but I am not in a position to know that, it would be gullible of me to believe you, surely you would agree. Furthermore you claim to have knowledge that Monero is going to be banned in all jurisdictions. What kind of a person are you then? Can we deduct based on this information that you have ties to government? Whatever I am not going to speculate, but this is a rather peculiar statement.
