Bitcoin is Coke. All other cryptos are diet Faygo Cola.
Nothing wrong with that, I simply prefer The Real Thing!
Topic: What is still driving the enthusiasm of bitcoins over other currencies? - page 2. (Read 3188 times)
July 05, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
July 05, 2013, 06:06:00 PM
I've found out about Bitcoin in summer 2011. At once I undestood huge price growth potential of bitcoin. At the same time I was expecting something significantly better to emerge. I was even supporting some altcoins such as SC and LTC when they came out. But gradually I was learning more and more about how bitcoin works and what is difference between e.g. BTC and LTC. Several months after LTC release it was already clear for me, that all present alts offer nearly nothing new. And spread of their adoption can lead only to collapse of crypocurrencies in general.
One exception is PPC, they brought a new way of securing blockchain. So, for me it's the only credible altcoin.
Another new promising thing is zerocoin (it's even not an altcoin). IMO it incarnates what an alt should be. Although it doesn't look ready for widespread use, it shows the way. And makes today alts laughable.
One exception is PPC, they brought a new way of securing blockchain. So, for me it's the only credible altcoin.
Another new promising thing is zerocoin (it's even not an altcoin). IMO it incarnates what an alt should be. Although it doesn't look ready for widespread use, it shows the way. And makes today alts laughable.
July 05, 2013, 05:57:53 PM
When you consider the reduced security due to increased orphans and smaller overall network what exactly is the innovation.
I addressed latency and orphans here:
Now multi-minute propagation is interesting, and something I hadn't considered for Bitcoin or Litecoin, so I can see your point. Invalid blocks do result currently with Bitcoin from latency of miners learning of found blocks elsewhere due to the network effect.
This problem should worsen as Bitcoin adoption grows and the network expands. So this could conceivably be a problem for Bitcoin, Litecoin, or any cryptocurrency with a block creation around 10 minutes or less on average. Mining invalid blocks is a waste of resources for miners, which would be a disincentive where there is supposed to be incentive. Frequently occurring invalid blocks also complicates trust in confirmations.
However, I think there is a simple solution. It's in everyone's best interest to know of a valid found block as soon as possible. This way work can start on the next block with minimal wasted resources for no reward. While it's not called for in the protocol I think there can be developed what I'd call mining block references or MBRs. This is simply one or more online resources (nodes or sites) where miners can report and check for found blocks. Since all miners (or a significant number anyway) would reference only a few nodes, polling say every few seconds, communication of found blocks could be near instantaneous regardless of network size.
The network effect exists now because Bitcoin is designed to be decentralized. However, smart centralization of some aspects, especially non-critical functions like this can be beneficial. Note this doesn't change the protocol. It's just a reference on top of how things already work. Satoshi's white paper says "When a node finds a proof-of-work, it broadcasts the block to all nodes." It doesn't say how to broadcast that information to all nodes. I think optimization of that is easily accomplished with MBRs.
This problem should worsen as Bitcoin adoption grows and the network expands. So this could conceivably be a problem for Bitcoin, Litecoin, or any cryptocurrency with a block creation around 10 minutes or less on average. Mining invalid blocks is a waste of resources for miners, which would be a disincentive where there is supposed to be incentive. Frequently occurring invalid blocks also complicates trust in confirmations.
However, I think there is a simple solution. It's in everyone's best interest to know of a valid found block as soon as possible. This way work can start on the next block with minimal wasted resources for no reward. While it's not called for in the protocol I think there can be developed what I'd call mining block references or MBRs. This is simply one or more online resources (nodes or sites) where miners can report and check for found blocks. Since all miners (or a significant number anyway) would reference only a few nodes, polling say every few seconds, communication of found blocks could be near instantaneous regardless of network size.
The network effect exists now because Bitcoin is designed to be decentralized. However, smart centralization of some aspects, especially non-critical functions like this can be beneficial. Note this doesn't change the protocol. It's just a reference on top of how things already work. Satoshi's white paper says "When a node finds a proof-of-work, it broadcasts the block to all nodes." It doesn't say how to broadcast that information to all nodes. I think optimization of that is easily accomplished with MBRs.
Now you may be right something "significantly" superior to Bitcoin may replace it but that significantly superior solution isn't LTC
Litecoin was never meant to replace Bitcoin. It was meant to be the silver to Bitcoin's gold.
... and the horde of copy cat pump and dump scamcoins don't even have enough momentum to break out of a paper bag.
LOL now that I agree with (note I don't consider some coins like NVC pd/scam).
July 05, 2013, 04:38:19 PM
According to http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Litecoin "Besides a faster first confirmation, Litecoin does not provide any other features over what Bitcoin provides".
A faster first confirmation is an enormous benefit if we want alternative currencies to be used in brick and mortar stores and restaurants. You can't have each person in line waiting 10 minutes or more.
You aren't going to have them wait 2.5 minutes (which may be up to 5x as long due to random nature block solutions) either.
So either payments will be prepaid, will be off blockchain. or the merchant will accept the low but non zero risk of double spend fraud.
When you consider the reduced security due to increased orphans and smaller overall network what exactly is the innovation. Now you may be right something "significantly" superior to Bitcoin may replace it but that significantly superior solution isn't LTC and the horde of copy cat pump and dump scamcoins don't even have enough momentum to break out of a paper bag.
July 05, 2013, 04:28:27 PM
A faster first confirmation is an enormous benefit if we want alternative currencies to be used in brick and mortar stores and restaurants. You can't have each person in line waiting 10 minutes or more.
Not really. Brick and mortar stores do most of their volume using 0-conf credit and debit card payments that take weeks or months to become irreversible.Handling that situation is called "risk management", and there's a lot more to it than people who are hung up on block creation time realize.
There is effectively no difference at all between a 2 minute block time and a 10 minute block time for a brick and mortar merchant. Both of those times represent an unacceptable delay at the cash register so no POS cryptcoin payment system is going to wait for blockchain confirmations. They'll operate on a zero conf basis, using systems that make the risk of reversal predictable and therefore something they can accurately price.
July 05, 2013, 04:24:23 PM
According to http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Litecoin "Besides a faster first confirmation, Litecoin does not provide any other features over what Bitcoin provides".
A faster first confirmation is an enormous benefit if we want alternative currencies to be used in brick and mortar stores and restaurants. You can't have each person in line waiting 10 minutes or more.
July 05, 2013, 03:06:57 PM
There's a lot to be said about first mover advantage. Also, I can't see any advantage or difference most altcoins can offer. The only things I can think of are the use of scrypt for Litecoin and the DNS registration for Namecoin. Which is why it doesn't surprise me that MtGox has stuff in the works for Litecoin and Namecoin.
July 05, 2013, 02:58:44 PM
It's certainly not price stability, I can tell you that much.
July 05, 2013, 02:22:34 PM
According to http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Litecoin "Besides a faster first confirmation, Litecoin does not provide any other features over what Bitcoin provides".
July 05, 2013, 01:39:18 PM
There are many alternative virtual currencies to bitcoin, such as litecoin, novacoin, etc., that have significant advantages to bitcoin, and there are probably many more currencies that will be even better yet to come. Given that, I've felt for a while that bitcoins are valuable now, but they've got an expiration date, because in the end, even if it takes decades, people will choose the best, most advanced, and most effective currency. So it surprises me when I read things like "I expect the price to hit four-digit numbers by the end of 2013 or in 2014, with further exponential growth continuing in coming years." from notable people in this field. What is driving this enthusiasm for bitcoins in particular? I've always thought the ability to change the properties of a currency is very limited. Am I wrong in this assumption and am I missing something? Do people assume that bitcoin is going to be the one to go in the thousands simply because it's the first? It seems to me that people in the end will choose the best option, but maybe I'm wrong.
Jump to: