Topic: The Dangers and Blessings of Maximalism (Read 291 times)

Maximalism is not my strategy, so I prefer to invest in different assets

My 2 cents.

Its more of a observation of the nature of the universe and where value moves.  It Is bitcoin related and it is something I think needs to be discussed, I haven't seen this(my perceived problem) discussed.  this may deserve its own thread but i will drop it here.


Math specialist will recognize this.  Its called a Pareto distribution.  The tendency of systems to pile up in 1 direction.   This includes Trees, Planets, Stars and, Stores of Value (money) this appears to be a weird natural law of the universe.  You can even find references to it in the bible.

For those that don't know I will give a brief description:  If you have 100 people doing the exact same job getting paid exactly the same.  30% of them will be doing half the work of all of them.  Of that 30 people you can again, split them to 10 of those 30 people will be doing half of the total work of the 30.  And so on and so on.  Not only that what they get paid(in the end) will track right along the curve. 

Money follows the exact same pattern in terms of where it ends up.  it fewer and fewer hands.

I am in No way promoting the idea of evil bad people who screw everyone blah blah blah.  That's a bad story and doesn't fit the facts. Its the story of envy and that of communists/socialists who are always wrong but with a small amount of truth. 

That up there^^^ is my intro to what I see happening with BITCOIN.   

Mining/trading bitcoin follows EXACTLY the same pattern,  The equipment and value is/will falling in to fewer and fewer hands.  So its decentralization will eventually simply Stop being decentralized due to the fact that in the coming years the vast majority of the equipment will simply be owned by a few people thus defeating the ENTIRE point of Bitcoin.  Building more wont help due to the fact that the few people will simply buy that as well. 

So maximalists out there how does bitcoin solve this? Yes that's a challenge, No its not intended to be offensive despite the challenging nature of the question. I actually want Bitcoin or something very like it to win.

It is hard to become a real Bitcoin maximalist,,, I think many of those who claim so are not even actually proper users, judging from the content of their tweets I can see. They just talk a lot but probably do not even spend it much unless it is for show or to produce evidence they have and use Bitcoin.

Nothing wrong with being one I agree but half of them probably are just saying it for the attention!

Not always, or at least not always immediately.
The quick counterpoint on the tech side: internet protocols are not the fastest and most secure, etc. Yet we largely haven't changed to new tech, eg http/https, are ubiquitous. They are stable and agreed upon.

It's the question as old as time.
When do you move on from the old to the new? Any wrong balance will put you at a disadvantage. Too fast and you miss stability; too slow and you miss new ability.
It doesn't matter what you are talking about, this applies to bitcoin as much as it does to viruses, biology, what you invest in, everything.
We do plenty of things that are old tech: eating fruits, veg, and meat after cooking hasn't changed much over a hundred thousand years, but is augmented with the new like our yellow bananas.

I think a balance is what's needed because the world is made up of competing factors. I don't believe in decentralization or centralisation, old nor new, but both. It all has to be considered, but in different circumstances, so you don't miss old stability nor new ability, both of which compete for your energy/attention.

In bitcoin terms, I don't believe in the dollar, bitcoin, or alt coin alone. All have an important interplay that move things forward (hopefully). It's when one system consumes the others that you can often have problems.

Read that argument before. The old technology will be replaced by new and better technology as always.

Bitcoin may not really be replaced to be the top coin actually if decentralization is just the issue. When it comes to price, it's always been the most valuable so far.
Of course, altcoins can also be valuable for there are altcoins that actually solve real problems, like ETH and NFTs tokens, the problem with these altcoins are recreated to hundreds of the same kind of tokens with the same use case.

I don’t see anything wrong with being a Bitcoin maximalist. I’m more of a Bitcoin user, although I wouldn’t say a maximalist because I have tried out other coins, but just a few of them which are Ethereum, Cardano, and Tron.

And as for Ethereum and Tron, I used the two of them because I am always using Bitcoin for transactions almost every week and the fees for transaction got really high, so I had to look for another cryptocurrency to use for transactions, and I moved to Ethereum, but when Ethereum also started getting high transaction fees, I switched to Tron. But my major investment goes to Bitcoin, though my usage of it has kind of reduced, I now mostly HODL with it, but that’s where most of my money goes to, because that’s what I love.

The problem with being a maximalist is that you tend to be close minded to things like user experience that might be secondary to your maximalist attitude.  Other things come along that provide a better user experience, albeit maybe not "better" as far as technology or security, and those rapidly gain popularity.  There are plenty of historical examples of a lesser technology beating out it's superior just because of better business decisions.  Look at cassettes vs 8-tracks in the 70s, or VHS vs Beta in the 80s, or Apple vs PC in the 90s, or DVD vs Blu-Ray in the 00s, or BTC vs alts more recently...  The worse technology won each of these wars and snatched market share due to poor business decisions.  I imagine the developers behind 8-tracks, Beta, Apple (before they changed their business practices), Blu-ray, and Bitcoin all similarly thought they had the better product and will win in the long run.  Apple is the only example of a company that realized their mistake, replaced those responsible, and moved forward with a new attitude.  Bitcoin maximalism will keep BTC from taking this page from Apple's book, and I'm sure over the long term we will continue to see BTC lose market share (dominance) as a result.  I am not smart enough to have all the answers, but I'm observant enough to see the path we've been headed down for the last 5 years and how it is no different than 8-track and beta creators thinking they need only be the best to succeed. 

"Listen to all, follow none" is a great mantra to live by and necessary in my opinion for an optimal society, but maximalism seems to encourage, "listen to none, walk together."  I think that's a mistake that is fueled by ego and easily obtained wealth and we will pay the cost someday.  I don't know if it will be in 8 months or 5 years, but I'm fairly certain it's coming quickly.

there is nothing wrong with people using altcoins.
but there should be a community that concentrate on bitcoin prosperity. and not be self promoting altcoins and altnets while trying to break bitcoin in favour of their altcoin

yes i said it let people play with altcoins if they freely choose. but dont break or stall or destabalise bitcoin into a forced effort to get people to play with altnets and altcoins

its like let there be 200 fiat currencies. but. ofcouse let there be a community that are patriotic/citizens to stabilising and advancing their preferred currency without trying to take down other fiats

bitcoin does not need to kill off all altnets/altcoins to prosper. but it seems many altcoiners think bitcoin needs to break

i have no issues with users using altnets(like sidechains and 'layers' tokens) as long as they are clear and moral about the niche use case and risks associated with non blockchain stuff. and without the utopian promotion that its a 'solution' or 'its bitcoin but better'

if they actually 'sold' their altnet as a proper proposition of its niche utility and gave fair warning of its risks. fine. go play

I think it is rather naive to suggest that Bitcoin is "the one and only" that people should stand by, it is almost as bad as people saying you should stick with fiat currency. The only reason that someone would stick with this idea is greed, driven by the personal holdings of the individual who is not open to improvements. Bitcoin laid some solid foundations that were grounded in the blockchain, however even the pioneer behind it would likely see great new innovations in some of the alternative cryptocurrencies that have materialized since it was created. The big limiting factor of Bitcoin would be the rather small amount of tokens in circulation, which shrink from the fixed cap every day and make it less desirable as a useful trading asset.

agreed that sound like conservatist to me,
you know acting like the perfect state of bitcoin is in the past.. like the 1960's of tech where bitcoin shouldnt move forward but should remain in the hippy happy limbo

those that mainly hoard bitcoin but dont fear using altcoins are moderates at most

those that want to call altnets of no blockchain 'bitcoin' are not maximalists. they are altnet promoters

its these people that will always say bitcoin is broke. and will pretend that any maximalist wanting onchain scaling must want 100mb by midnight. (or 10mb as titular exacerbates on his own stomach vile)
funny part is huge jumps of 10x-100x have never been a request by true onscale growth desiring bitcoiner.
its the pain of no growth above a 7tx/sec(4200tx/block) has even been allowed in 12 years
(the most we got in the last 4 years is 2500tx/block).. which is the headache
the average is about 1660tx/block

Did you take the time to read the post?

It goes into detail explaining why Maximalism was key to the survival of bitcoin. Without Maximalists, we would not have the bitcoin we enjoy today.

With example you mentioned, "Bitcoin conservatist" is more accurate term. Some Bitcoiner support block size increase (within reasonable number).

I personally think Bitcoin maximalism, like all idealogies, will eventually show that it cannot happen in practical life. Too many powers and too many different needs and wants,,, I always say practical because I know the world is made up of too many economic realities and disparities. I like the idea that algorithms work together, like an open and democratic economic system where Bitcoin is the foundation and the highways and everything else is the connector. That foundation may be obsolete but absolutely necessary.

I can say that I am a moderate Bitcoin maximalist.I have nothing against altcoins,if they are legit,like ethereum.I'm totally against shitcoins,centralized tokens and central bank digital currencies,which is quite understandable.
I do think that Bitcoin is better than 99% of the altcoins and definitely better than fiat money,but Bitcoin is far from being "perfect money". Thinking that Bitcoin is "perfect money" is kinda delusional.
Viewing Bitcoin as some sort of cult or religion,that is perfect by default is really cringe.BTC has it's flaws,but there's nothing wrong with having flaws.Nothing in the universe is perfect.

It is worth knowing that the term "bitcoin maximalist" was first created and is used by shitcoin advertisers who never had any arguments against the flaws that the bitcoiners point out in their shitcoins so they have to undermine the whole argument and the person making it by calling them names.

Funny thing is that most bitcoiners believe in alternative cryptocurrencies but they also see the uselessness of the current existing altcoins and how overvalued they are. In other words I don't think we have that many actual "maximalists" (if at all) in bitcoin world.

Well said. We need to see proof of all of the claims that these different altcoins are making.

We hear all of the promises but rarely do we see action.

Maximalists to me are people who would defend Bitcoin no matter what but most people here and using Bitcoin are only using it because its successful and has the potential to make them a lot of money without that we do not see as many people defending Bitcoin. Its easy to say that now when Bitcoin is successful but what would happen and I am not seriously saying that this could happen but a what if scenario what if there was a wealthy corporation that banded together with others to perform a 51% attack and to mess with the network long enough that it starts to show the vulnerability Bitcoin has and as a reaction people start panic selling.  Bitcoin then loses credibility and then Bitcoin crashes. Would there be people who be willing to invest and take a loss to invest in Bitcoin mining devices to try and band together as a community to try and counter the corporation that is performing the attack. Probably not without any guarantee they would earn that money back. That was a hypothetical scenario which has little to no chance of happening but I was trying to get my point across. I think the people who would be willing to defend Bitcoin and invest their own money without any guarantee are the true maximalists. Banding everyone together as one because they have defended Bitcoin against light insults are not unless your definition is completely different to me but I have defended multiple things I dislike in the past and I definitely are not a maximalist for them.

Out of curiosity how many people think they are maximalists for Bitcoin?

im a bitcoin maximalist. in the definition that i want bitcoin network to continue having utility and growth

there are some that stupidly promote that if people are not interested in being pushed onto sidechains and offchains pretending to be bitcoin. then those who want to remain with bitcoin must hate bitcoin because these altnets 'are bitcoin, but better'

its like gold. where bank managers try convincing that gold backed bank notes 'are gold, but better'
but we all know gold is gold, and paper is paper

pegged tokens and tokens of more then 8 decimals are not bitcoin. especially of the sidechain/altnets dont even have a blockchain audit system

yea i know im about to get abuse from the usual crowd how 'bitcoin cannot scale' 'bitcoin is not digital cash'
and yet the rules around transaction capacity per block was ruled in 10+ years ago
back when internet was 0.5mb/s
10 years prior it was dialup(-10x from limit set)
yet now 10 years after the limit set. we are averaging 50mb/s (+100x from limit set)

technology has moved forward alot in 10 years. but seem some want to stagnate bitcoin and make it costly with premium 4x fee's just to promoite sidechains/altnet tokens

if kodak demanded that photos had to remain below 140kb to store 10 photo's per floppy disk in 1999
then the HD revolution of photography would have stalled out for 10+ years.


so excuse me if i bring up my desire for bitcoin progress on the network. and yea please dont rebuttal with some promotion of another network pretending to be as secure and as impressive as bitcoin, while subtly saying how bitcoin is broke/cant work/not fit for purpose

The word "Bitcoin maximalism" makes it sounds like bitcoin maximalists are some sort of extremists, but in fact it's the shitcoin enthusiasts who are extremists, they are believing in empty promises that will never get delivered, just like some religious zealots. It's far more outlandish to say that Bitcoin is obsolete and will disappear than it is to say that alts are useless and will be forgotten soon. Thousands of alts are already dead, and the burden of proof lies on them to show us that they are useful, while Bitcoin has already proved everything it needed.

Well said. Bitcoin begets a phenomenon; a social one. It's not only the maximalists, it's just the way our “blockchain digitalism” started and is being anchored on. The technology works great and there's lots of development behind it. But, besides that, they're so many things that differentiate it from the altcoins such as fair wealth distribution, first mover, its “innocence”.

Everyone wants it and these smart contract geniuses know it, deep down.