Topic: The Problem With Altcoins - page 8. (Read 16459 times)
i dont mind waiting the 30 minutes it takes btc to confirm when i buy something. sites like amazon or ebay dont even ship products out immediately anyways/you still have to wait a day or two for mr. postman to show up. when teleportation is invented, then you slow confirmation folks can complain... or not since you could just teleport the fiat instantly.
Faster confirmations are very much needed in most forms of commerce. I don't want to wait an hour when I want to buy something.
You obviously don't have any experience with commerce.
Faster confirmations are very much needed in most forms of commerce. I don't want to wait an hour when I want to buy something.
You obviously don't have any experience with commerce. 
The strongest argument for altcoins is missing in this article.
Faster confirmations are very much needed in most forms of commerce. I don't want to wait an hour when I want to buy something.
Faster confirmations are very much needed in most forms of commerce. I don't want to wait an hour when I want to buy something.
bitcoin for romantics
bitcoin will always be my main girl. sometimes i'll mess around with litecoin because she's younger and faster, but bitcoin will always be my first love.
There is the fact though, that then you would need ANOTHER altcoin to arbitrate between the leading altcoin price, etc.. but at least there is a feasible niche.
That's not true.Margin trading could be done on bitcoin aswell. That wouldn't be a niche at all since it isn't required.
Similiar, but more important would be the possibility to swich between 2 ~equal cryptos to trade swings without having to leave crypto ever again. The basic up/down on crypto wouldn't matter so you can trade differences in innovating or stagnating cryptos. This would stabilize the whole system and is far more desireable than just one.
Do you care to address any of the criticism presented in the article, or just complain how you are upset about what it says?
I thought the main critisism of the article was that altcoins were useless/scammy/won't make it and that was argumented by network effect/market=bad/... You ment the technical aspects, right? Please give some examples what you mean.I've the feeling we might be talking on different levels here. Some claims by the stupid/scammy part of the altcoin community are simply wrong. Busting wrong belives that some people might have about crypto is no form of critizism on the cryptos for themselves.
That's like saying Obama has a problem since he can't walk over water although some idiot had said that. That's no valid form of critisism if you then suggest that means Obama has a problem.
To make it short, altcoins ARE useless
I used to feel this way. I use to HATE litecoin, for all the reasons people have mentioned here. But then, while on reddit, I read a post that turned my thinking.
An altcoin could be used as a tool to arbitrate between exchanges. Consider the large difference in Bitcoin trading prices between the leading exchanges. People could use the altcoin to arbitrate, and thus wouldn't need to rely on moving slow and cumbersome fiat around. This would actually strengthen the Bitcoin market and promote price stability.
There is the fact though, that then you would need ANOTHER altcoin to arbitrate between the leading altcoin price, etc.. but at least there is a feasible niche.
and just as a fyi, I do not hold anything but bitcoins.
This is a good point about the advantages of having one, but in the arb world, you need to have multiple exchanges that support Bitcoin and Litecoin, and then you need to have similar exchange rates of one but not the other.
You may see something with colored coins where a colored coin could be redeemed for dollars or other fiat at checkpoints that could serve this purpose in the future.
The network effect makes it harder for altcoins to succeed, but not impossible.
There was a USD network before there was a bitcoin network.
The fact is that altcoins are good for all the reasons competition is good: The only way they will succeed is if they can accomplish major innovation relative to bitcoin.
While that chance is small, it exists and is good.
There was a USD network before there was a bitcoin network.
The fact is that altcoins are good for all the reasons competition is good: The only way they will succeed is if they can accomplish major innovation relative to bitcoin.
While that chance is small, it exists and is good.
+1
Gresham's law paraphrased is ""Bad money drives out good". Innovation is a good thing, let's try everything and see what works. Scam coins will eventually go extinct. Those with any real value will survive, or will be absorbed. But they must be first created to do either.
The network effect means that not only does something have to be better, but it has to be a lot better to work.
I'd love to see more innovation and I have no horse in the race. The get-rich-quick clones with terrible reasons why they are "better" are thoroughly debunked in this paper. When one comes around that is innovative, either Bitcoin adapts or it is surpassed. We are yet to see one that has had that happen, though.
The network effect makes it harder for altcoins to succeed, but not impossible.
There was a USD network before there was a bitcoin network.
The fact is that altcoins are good for all the reasons competition is good: The only way they will succeed is if they can accomplish major innovation relative to bitcoin.
While that chance is small, it exists and is good.
There was a USD network before there was a bitcoin network.
The fact is that altcoins are good for all the reasons competition is good: The only way they will succeed is if they can accomplish major innovation relative to bitcoin.
While that chance is small, it exists and is good.
+1
Gresham's law paraphrased is ""Bad money drives out good". Innovation is a good thing, let's try everything and see what works. Scam coins will eventually go extinct. Those with any real value will survive, or will be absorbed. But they must be first created to do either.
Do you care to address any of the criticism presented in the article, or just complain how you are upset about what it says?
I thought the main critisism of the article was that altcoins were useless/scammy/won't make it and that was argumented by network effect/market=bad/... You ment the technical aspects, right? Please give some examples what you mean.I've the feeling we might be talking on different levels here. Some claims by the stupid/scammy part of the altcoin community are simply wrong. Busting wrong belives that some people might have about crypto is no form of critizism on the cryptos for themselves.
That's like saying Obama has a problem since he can't walk over water although some idiot had said that. That's no valid form of critisism if you then suggest that means Obama has a problem.
To make it short, altcoins ARE useless
I used to feel this way. I use to HATE litecoin, for all the reasons people have mentioned here. But then, while on reddit, I read a post that turned my thinking.
An altcoin could be used as a tool to arbitrate between exchanges. Consider the large difference in Bitcoin trading prices between the leading exchanges. People could use the altcoin to arbitrate, and thus wouldn't need to rely on moving slow and cumbersome fiat around. This would actually strengthen the Bitcoin market and promote price stability.
There is the fact though, that then you would need ANOTHER altcoin to arbitrate between the leading altcoin price, etc.. but at least there is a feasible niche.
and just as a fyi, I do not hold anything but bitcoins.
Do you care to address any of the criticism presented in the article, or just complain how you are upset about what it says?
I thought the main critisism of the article was that altcoins were useless/scammy/won't make it and that was argumented by network effect/market=bad/... You ment the technical aspects, right? Please give some examples what you mean.I've the feeling we might be talking on different levels here. Some claims by the stupid/scammy part of the altcoin community are simply wrong. Busting wrong belives that some people might have about crypto is no form of critizism on the cryptos for themselves.
That's like saying Obama has a problem since he can't walk over water although some idiot had said that. That's no valid form of critisism if you then suggest that means Obama has a problem.
To make it short, altcoins ARE useless
Do you care to address any of the criticism presented in the article, or just complain how you are upset about what it says?
I thought the main critisism of the article was that altcoins were useless/scammy/won't make it and that was argumented by network effect/market=bad/... You ment the technical aspects, right? Please give some examples what you mean.I've the feeling we might be talking on different levels here. Some claims by the stupid/scammy part of the altcoin community are simply wrong. Busting wrong belives that some people might have about crypto is no form of critizism on the cryptos for themselves.
That's like saying Obama has a problem since he can't walk over water although some idiot had said that. That's no valid form of critisism if you then suggest that means Obama has a problem.
Oh wait, you didn't even read it because you got butthurt that it badmouthed your beautiful junkcoins.
I have no problems with people having a different opinion than me. I know you won't convince me to sell my junk and I won't change your opinion either, but that article was junk. If it makes you happy I would have written the same thing on an article positive on altcoins.The problem I have with people like you (srry for generalisation) is that you live in your own opinion bubble and just read stuff that support your ego and prejustice.
It is junk, yet you didn't even read it.
Bring on the arguments against it, I am not in a bubble. I am willing to read opposing opinions. It's how I learn from my mistakes.
First of all it is bashing the altcoin community and very hateful towards anything exept bitcoins. If it were just about objective argumentation this wouldn't be in it. Conclusions are always to the max, either it's bitcoin or something else. The current form of coexisting (as it is in every free market today) is seen as an exeption from the norm.
This is due to overexaggerations of the network effect on magnitudes. From there it concludes too far on one sigle sideeffect. I'm not aware of even one free market where such dominance lasted for a longer period of time. On this argumentation everyone would drive the same car or at least brand of car, since networkeffects and the best engineers are working at that company.
It might be rightfull to criticite the greed/scam/intelligence of some members of the altcoin community but it is not fair to suggests everyone in altcoins it that way and generalize. Without even mentioning the greed in Bitcoin and the 2 bubbles it bursted it doesn't agrue anyting pro or con since it doesn't compare. The world ain't perfect either.
The free market and competition is seen as a bad thing or at least not good for it's own sake. It suggests a dominating bitcoin would be innovative without having any competition on the only area it is even able to innovate from it's current point. Bitcoin entrepreneurs aren't innovating only bitcoin in that sense since they are trading crypto currency aswell. That could be done in other coins aswell and will be copied. Innovation is risky and monopolists tend to avoid risk. I don't see why BTC would differ.
I could continue on disagreing his argumentation, but I'm tiered. As you might notice I didn't mention any argumentation pro altcoin. If I was about to write on a topic and spend most of the time on sideeffects without mentioning some of the fundamental effects (Ability to Change,PoS interest and Hedging) it is sure that I have an Agenda. You wouldn't learn anything about communism by reading their manifestos either so my conclusion: both it's political junk.
It was pretty easy to tell from the first few sentences it was going to be nothing but bitcoin-thumping tripe, which is when I made my initial post, then later I read the whole article and was not disappointed at all.
Oh wait, you didn't even read it because you got butthurt that it badmouthed your beautiful junkcoins.
I have no problems with people having a different opinion than me. I know you won't convince me to sell my junk and I won't change your opinion either, but that article was junk. If it makes you happy I would have written the same thing on an article positive on altcoins.The problem I have with people like you (srry for generalisation) is that you live in your own opinion bubble and just read stuff that support your ego and prejustice.
It is junk, yet you didn't even read it.
Bring on the arguments against it, I am not in a bubble. I am willing to read opposing opinions. It's how I learn from my mistakes.
The network effect makes it harder for altcoins to succeed, but not impossible.
There was a USD network before there was a bitcoin network.
The fact is that altcoins are good for all the reasons competition is good: The only way they will succeed is if they can accomplish major innovation relative to bitcoin.
While that chance is small, it exists and is good.
There was a USD network before there was a bitcoin network.
The fact is that altcoins are good for all the reasons competition is good: The only way they will succeed is if they can accomplish major innovation relative to bitcoin.
While that chance is small, it exists and is good.
This article can be summed up by:
The Problem With Altcoins is that they hurt my personal wealth, so they are bad.
The rest is just backward reasoning to justify that Bitcoin is superior to everything.
There is no point in reading an argumentation which is driven by it's agenda. I have to admit that I haven't carefully read thru the whole nonsense, but the fact there isn't even one positive thing about altcoins in it shows it's purpose. Greed is more visible to most bitcoiners when they look down at altcoins, but that is the very same greed that got most of them into bitcoins aswell.
Independet of the topic, it is alwasy a bad idea to read only stuff that supports your oppinion.
The Problem With Altcoins is that they hurt my personal wealth, so they are bad.
The rest is just backward reasoning to justify that Bitcoin is superior to everything.
There is no point in reading an argumentation which is driven by it's agenda. I have to admit that I haven't carefully read thru the whole nonsense, but the fact there isn't even one positive thing about altcoins in it shows it's purpose. Greed is more visible to most bitcoiners when they look down at altcoins, but that is the very same greed that got most of them into bitcoins aswell.
Independet of the topic, it is alwasy a bad idea to read only stuff that supports your oppinion.
LOL, did you even read the same article I did? Oh wait, you didn't even read it because you got butthurt that it badmouthed your beautiful junkcoins. Funny that you mention greed, that is the only thing backing up all the junk out there.
It's a rare gift when somebody tells you straight up out that it's safe to Ignore them. It saves so much time.
Jump to: