Topic: The Problem With Altcoins - page 6. (Read 16459 times)

There hasn't been any compelling feature that HTTP didn't have that is offered by any other protocol competing for the web pages.

But the analogy falls apart is another more compelling way. The barriers to competitions are centralized in the HTTP case, i.e. we can't as  individuals decide we want a web page to be served to us in another protocol. Client-server is not a decentralized paradigm. This is different from cryptocoins where an individual can decentrally convert between coins.

Standards are much more compelling when they require large inertia, i.e. changing all browsers, all web servers. Yet for coins, we can convert between them individually, no need to change what everyone else is doing.

The network effect is very strong, I agree, but I belive it simply doesn't work on crypto. Diverent flavour in ice cream won't just disapere because of it although it would easyly have the power to do so. A special store on strawberry could be far better and cheaper than a store with diverent flavours.

It does work on the ice cornet or cups though. For it to work alternatives must be very similar and it must be more expensive to use both instead of one. There are no costs in paying in LTC over BTC and often the difference that it is different is enough. (Diversivication in investments)

Disastrous for people that invest their life savings, but anyone with half a brain would not do that.

Did the government force everybody to standardize on HTTP for web sites, or did users freely choose to standardize on the most widely-deployed protocol exactly because the network effect made HTTP more valuable than its alternatives?

But my beautiful tulpes ...

The problem are not the fools that loose some money, they always have and always will. Banning stuff is goverments favourite pastime and an a altcoin bubble could be a good trigger for such. Crypto will survive, that's clear, but what about a gov regulating just btc for trades in crypto.

We a far away from such bubble in altcoins since even btc isn't known yet, but a altcoinbubble would be desatrous. That's at least a real problem on altcoins, although I'd love the money I will make on it.

I remember what happened to Jason Hommel of SilverStockReport.com when he owned a majority of the float in several penny (pinksheet) silver mining stocks and couldn't get out before and during the 2008 implosion.

So we can relate this to the additional risks of investing in penny stocks versus those listed on major exchanges. The golden rule is don't put too great a percent of your networth nor own a significant portion of the float in any one of these (unless you are very sure you know which one is going big).

That's the way I feel about Yacoin at the moment. I woud say one actual problem of altcoins is that you could burn your self hard on them. Especially if when I realize how much these btc could buy me now.


There hasn't been a real altcoin bubble yet, but if too many people lost too much on alts they might stick just to BTC. Bitcoin had a nice crash from 30$, but there wasn't many lives destryed back then and everyone sticking to the plan got out nicely.
Altcoins will be different on that one.

Now I see your logic. And it correlates with my prior post.

Freedom is incongruent with 100% consensus. Duh! (on me not you) Well yeah. Thanks.

So the only way you end up with 100% consensus is by state decree and then printing digits out-of-thin-air to gain the power and trickery to make that unnatural 100% consensus stick (with some percent of that 100% under duress).

Cryptos are based on voluntary systems. You cannot compare it with State imposed fiat just like that. Yes, it will be clumsy to have more coins. Yes, there were all kinds of different papers flying around from several banks when banking was still free. Its called freedom. I would compare it to the various Linux distro's rising and falling.

I agree with this article however as BTC increases in value, people WILL look to alt currencies and that will drive prices.  Already miners (inc myself) have made the switch.

He already agreed with you, because if Bitcoin is forked without the permission of the core devs, then the Bitcoin market will be split.

The only way to maintain consensus with Bitcoin is to not change it, yet the only way to get 100% of market will require changing it.

So by definition of incongruence, there can never be just one cryptocurrency.

I think we've proved it now.

Wrong, but you also have have just black-white thinking there.

What about some people like strawberry and some like choco. There is no point in arguning that there will be just one flavour and with different flavours in crypto we won't eat >95% bitcoin.


I have the feeling we are turning in circles here. What are the poins you agree on?

If it's something that an economic majority of users want, it will be added.

If the current core devs won't add it, then someone else will make a version that does include it and the user base will upgrade to their branch.

That is a strong counter-point. If the weakness was perceived as a buying opportunity, then it is not a pernicious decline. I was actually thinking I should buy my own altcoin if it got too weak, yet I wouldn't want to be the only person buying it.

So really we come back to how many people strongly believe the features of the altcoin are going to make it popular for the masses? Features which Bitcoin can never implement. And whether the masses really adopt it, and don't just mine it then sell it for BTC.

If you can get the masses to mine it via CPU-only, then you've already got their first attention. Normal people hate to change too often, i.e. learn new software, wallet systems, etc..

Agreed, but if the friction is below what the dumb user can recognize, then it effectively doesn't exist. I am not sure if that is possible, but it might be.


Bitcoin will never add strong anonymity. Disagree?

That doesn't make sense at all ...

I don't see why something has to be rising in order to speculate in something. Actually I'd rather like to speculate in something that got far less worth than it used to be than in something that got far more worth than it used to be. My profits depend on the %increase and my investment size, not on the actual value on the price tag.

That doesn't make sense either. Just because better tec replaces good one doesn't suggest we will all use just the better tec and not lets say 2 better ones equally ...

A better example for arguing your way of thinking would be on BluRay vs HD DVD. Here your argumentation would work, but thats wrong either. Just take a look at DVD vs BluRay vs HD DVD and you see the dilemma.

It will never be just BluRay. Even if we wouldn't use DVDs anymore there would be a new format out by then so it will be Blu vs new disk. The networkeffect killed HD, that's true, but it could only do that because it was cheaper to use just one than 2 practical identical tecs. First of all is BTC to f.e. PPC not similiar in that kind of way (POS rewards) and it is actually better to use more than one crypto.

Dream on. It would be impossible to f.e. add at least some POS blocks to Bitcoin although it would be economically better.

Another feature would be to make it much easier for merchants to accept payment in the altcoin.

Because that drives some level of holding, since if merchants are that unsophisticated (as most are), they are not likely to have real-time exchange to Bitcoin programmed.

Friction always imposes costs. No how matter how good you make your exchange, it will always be more expensive than not needing to make an exchange. A line is the shortest distance between two points.

Any feature that is so heavily demanded will be added to Bitcoin, because that is the most economically valuable solution.

I already explained how this can be solved. If there is a liquid exchange between the altcoin and Bitcoin, then the altcoin is just as liquid and usable as Bitcoin in terms of transactions.

But the problem is if everyone wants to sell the altcoin, i.e. no reason to hold it, then there is no such liquid exchange.


It is possible that an altcoin could have strong anonymity that is very important to smaller percentage of the market, and that would be a reason to hold it.

There might be some other features that are important enough that some percentage of the market must hold the coin and can't hold Bitcoin.

Strong anonymity is something that if you need it, you need it, and not having it isn't acceptable.

Can you deny this logically?

Any other such features?

Back in the early 90s, there were probably tens of thousands of individual bulletin board services. Most towns had several, and there were about half a dozen national ones in the US alone.

Each one was its own walled garden, with little to no communication between them.

In the late 90s as flat-rate ISPs began to enter the market, all the walled gardens got steamrollered by the Internet's network effect.

A tiny, statistically-insignificant minority of geeks prefer the walled gardens, while the rest of the population like having a single email address that works everywere.

It will be the same with cryptocurrencies. There will be one winner that achieves mainstream adoption, and a few toys currencies and that are kept alive by the few people who enjoy running them as a hobby and using them as testnets for new features.