Topic: What would happen if there was only one cryptocurrency, which is Bitcoin? (Read 1089 times)

If Bitcoin were to be the only coin in existence without competition, the price would have been very high and many people would have been left out, bitcoin was built to fit any kind of investor, the people that want to accumulate gradually and the people that have more fund to buy in large amount.
I want to categorically state here that there is no way alternative coin wouldn't have been in circulation but the thing is that whether those alternative crypto are in circulation or not they can never compete with bitcoin, this currency has perfected payment process in several ways, the price can never be compared or measured with any crypto, so with or without any alternative cryptocurrency bitcoin will still boom and boom again.

Well, it is a very interesting topic, and giving my thoughts on it will be amazing. You tell us both the condition that what would happen if there is no competition and what if there is competition I think you are right in both but my opinion is that if there is no competition the price of Bitcoin will increases. How? Let me explain. There is a large market of cryptocurrency and people are investing in all these coins because they have huge options In this way, the whole money and investor is distributed among these coins and there are few persons who left for Bitcoin but if there is only Bitcoin then people have not any option for investment other then Bitcoin and all the money that is distributed in the alt and other coins will automatically come to Bitcoin and in this way, the price will be high.

Not all of them, but in the market everyone is free to choose as they wish, but regarding price potential, it all depends on demand, when demand is high the price will rise and that is no exception for BTC. All items. I don't think it's a competition but rather an objective thought about BTC. Someone who already knows the potential of BTC in the future will not easily be shaken by seeing the pumps from altcoins, for example today and in terms of price, no one has surpassed BTC yet. So why do you have to notarize it like that?

I also agree with you, because usually in competition there is something called comparison, the same is true with Bitcoin and altcoins. With this, it will definitely cross investors' minds to choose which asset to buy. Therefore, bitcoin and altcoins have become rivals, which in essence indirectly makes bitcoin's name even better. Because for example altcoins don't exist and only bitcoin exists. I don't think the crypto world will be as popular as it is now. Therefore, altcoins also have an important role in the development of the crypto world and the development of bitcoin. Because altcoins become a benchmark and comparison against Bitcoin, the quality of Bitcoin is increasingly visible.

Altcoins also have a role in helping the concept of blockchain and cryptocurrency development, but this does not mean that altcoins are helping Bitcoin grow. Bitcoin has its own strength in its journey, which is why until now Bitcoin has been able to survive, but not many altcoins have been able to survive because their fundamental level is questionable.

Then who can guarantee that if altcoins didn't exist, Bitcoin would rise faster because there was no competition. Competition is clearly a force that makes Bitcoin one of the best and it is certain that when Bitcoin has no competitors, its development will slow down a bit. Both bitcoin and altcoins have their respective roles in cryptocurrency and both play their respective roles in determining the level of development.

I agree, if there was only bitcoin in the market, bitcoin would not be as famous and achieve as many achievements as it is today. Although altcoins are creating more bad reputation than good in the market, we cannot deny their important role in this cryptocurrency industry. I admit that there is no altcoin better than bitcoin, but there are also some altcoins that are seriously building their projects, not all of them are scams. Moreover, if there is no altcoin to compare then how can we know how good bitcoin is.

Furthermore, I prefer a diverse market rather than a monopoly, because each person's needs are different, each person will have the most suitable choices for themselves.

I think if bitcoin stood alone without altcoins, bitcoin would not be as famous as it is today. because there are more and more altcoins, the value of BTC will continue to rise, where Bitcoin is the support for all existing altcoins, and because there are many altcoins, there will be lots of reviews from public opinion for cryptocurrency itself.

       -  As far as I know and understand, even if there were no other cryptocurrencies outside Bitcoin, the market value of bitcoin would still rise. As a result, we cannot assert that its pricing is the same as it is now. It is possible that its worth is lower than the one it now possesses.

Then, first and foremost, Bitcoin is not actually competing; it is the other cryptocurrencies or altcoins that have emerged that are competing with Bitcoin. Do you understand? Isn't there a long history of new cryptos claiming to outperform Bitcoin in terms of price, such as BCH, but failing to do so? These are, in fact, bitcoin's competitors.

Are you sure it will happen this way? Because as far as I know, many people participating in this market don't even know about bitcoin, they joined market because of the shitcoin hype. Especially during the bull season, many shitcoins have a growth rate of thousands of times, creating the attention and attraction of many people. But after participating in the Bump and Dump game, they realized that most of them were scams, so they turned to bitcoin as a lifeline. Therefore, I think if only bitcoin existed on the market, we would not have a developed and popular market like today.

If this was the case, Bitcoin  current price would have been 10 times higher. Because all the money would have flown only to Bitcoin and thus the market cap would have been higher.

Note that the first thing people wanted, was to build Ethereum directly on Bitcoin. They released their own altcoin, only because the development was not decentralized enough, to make it an optional feature. Imagine what would happen if you could decide, if you want to activate Turing-complete Script on your coins or not. For each individual coin, you could decide "Yes, I want that feature", or "No, I will stick to the existing Script".

If there would be no altcoins, that does not mean, there would be no competition. It could be the opposite as well: very high competition for deploying new features, and convincing users "Please activate my feature X on your coins". Also note that for example sidechains are proposed to be activated through some kind of signalling. Which means, in a scenario of no altcoins, every activation attempt would be successful, or would require no signalling at all. Which also means, Bitcoin would have all features you can think of (and maybe even more, that would be a pure consequence of some other features), and then, it would be up to the user to decide, which feature will be enabled or disabled. Because the bare minimum for such decision, is just making a signature. Not even the transaction: the bare minimum is just a signature, and then the act of moving coins on-chain, without signing those features again, could be marked as an act of disabling them for those particular coins.

It would only clog the features queue. But if two-way-peg would be popular, that would mean, you could unclog it quite easily. You could decide, to move your coins to a separate chain, which could have for example bigger maximum block size, the whole traffic could happen there, and then could be batched, and posted on the main chain.

Because no altcoins does not mean there would be no other chains. The only reason why the chain is needed, is to solve the double-spending problem, and to order transactions. Which means, you can create a new chain, move some traffic there, put things in order, and then commit to all of that on the main chain.

So, if you think that for example 32 MiB block size is better, then you could say: "I signed my coins X, and I want the maximum block size feature, with size Y". If there would be no altcoins, then, consequently, that kind of things would be possible, without creating an altcoin.

if bitcoin was the only cryptocurrency you can invest in, its scarcity might be highlighted more
a lot of investors resort to altcoins because bitcoin is too expensive now, basically altcoins gives people choices but without other choices bitcoin might stand as unique and rare

everyone would flock into bitcoin which probably clog the system making confirmation times longer

If bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency then the growth wouldn't be this high. We could've got its usage all around, and the acceptance level to be same as now as it had got value. In terms of growth we will at the days of 2015, because it is the altcoins that gave the competence and the growth shoot high. At some point Ethereum gave the hard competence, further the competence was found between Ethereum and Binance coin. Further it happened with XRP, so the competence keeps the market progressive and moving on the right track.

in every market, competition is important to know the difference of their role. however, if there is no competition, i guess, people won't appreciate much about its existence.
and how people look at the demand factor may be different. so i guess, we won't really know the scenario for this.
or maybe, we will have a different competition, not among with cryptocurrencies but when it comes to holding various assets.

Yes, of course.

Bitcoin has a lot of competitors, including altcoins, but also fiat currencies, and other monetary systems. If you have 1 BTC, then you don't have 1 ALT at the same time. You can have BTC or ALT. If you have both, then those coins are different. You cannot move both in a single transaction, unless those coins are compatible, which is often not the case, because of replay protection (that would simply not exist, if there would be no competition).

How? Maybe by being mined in a different way, and lowering potential hashrate? Imagine that instead of Scrypt or Ethash, all altcoiners could mine SHA-256. They could do so with Merged Mining, so they could mine both Bitcoin and their altcoin, with the same computing power. And for some reason, some SHA-256-based altcoins, like BCH, decided not to activate Merged Mining, and not to follow the heaviest chain, even if they could do so, to protect their own chain.

Edit: Not to mention Proof of Stake and signing things. Any federation could run on Bitcoin today, without any code changes. You have 20 validators? Go on, create a Bitcoin address with 20-of-20 multisig, make a single Taproot address, and you are good to go. You can even change your validators by moving your coins to a different output.

Does Bitcoin compete with other crypto coins?
I think Bitcoin has no competitor. Altcoins aren't the same with Bitcoin, they are different types. The existence of altcoins aren't intended to compete with Bitcoin, they are supporting the Bitcoin.

The price of Bitcoin will always depend on the demand from the investors. When we have Bitcoin only, it can have a higher price if the investors think Bitcoin is like a digital gold that has a unique value. But if the investors think Bitcoin will have a doubtful future because it has no support from other things, surely the price of Bitcoin will be lower due to the low demands from investors.

Whether we have altcoins or not, people will always have that mind. They will always ask themselves whether they need to buy Bitcoin or not. It doesn't depend on altcoins but it depends on the potential of the profits.

You can sum the whole cryptocurrency market capitalization, and calculate the prize of a single Bitcoin, based on that. But of course, the final result could be higher or lower than today's price, because then, the whole history of Bitcoin development could be different.

There will always be some competition. For example, fiat currencies could still exist in such scenario. But of course, in that case, it would be harder to create any new currency (crypto or not), and have it fully disconnected with Bitcoin. Because it will be extremely easy to create a peg between any coin you want.

The question could be different than you can think of. It could be, for example: "Should I buy Bitcoin, and activate feature X on my coins or not?". If there are no altcoins, it means there was no reason to create them. Which means, you would have decentralized development, and (consequently) you could pick any feature X, and have it enabled or disabled specifically on the coins you own.

For example, one of the first altcoins, was NameCoin. Which means, if BitDNS or NameCoin would exist only on Bitcoin, then you would have that question: "Do you want to enable processing domain names in your fully decentralized node?". And also: "Do you want to register a name XYZ with your ABC coins, by making a signature, and broadcasting it to NameCoin?". All coins could have full two-way-peg. Which means, you could tell the world: "here is my 1 BTC". And if some nodes would enable "decentralized names", then that nodes would also know: "Hey, that address registered a name XYZ!". But it would be fully optional, and you would just pick features you want to have, and turn them on and off, without any restrictions, according to the rules of each optional subnetwork (note that "subnetwork" in that context would mean "a group of Bitcoin nodes, with activated feature X on relay-level").

NameCoin or BitDNS is easy, because it can work fine on signature-level-only. You don't have to move any coins at all, you can just say "name X is attached to coin Y, as long as coin Y is not moved", and it will be fine (also, in this case, you can decide with each on-chain transaction, if you want to keep that name, or release it). And if you want to pay for domain registration, then you can do that in your transaction fee, and attach a commitment, to any address type you want (it works even on P2PK), and kill two birds with one stone: send some payment, and register a new name, within a single transaction, that would take the same on-chain size, even if you won't register any new name at all. Also, it would be possible, to re-assign your name, without touching your coins, because "the network of decentralized naming nodes" would dictate their "name-based consensus", that could be fully independent from "coin-based consensus" if needed.

Going further, there would be no "new-mining-algo-based altcoins", just to make mining easier. People could stay on SHA-256, and focus fully on that, and just receive a different amount of coins in a fully decentralized way (and also mine Bitcoin at the same time, because Satoshi invented Merged Mining). However, if there would be any need to use a different hash function, then still, it is possible to do so, without creating any new altcoin. It is possible to create a market, where some people would sell their SHA-3-based shares to some Bitcoiners. It is the same case as with selling names in NameCoin or BitDNS. The product is different, but the marketplace could be done in the same way. And it is possible to create some P2P-based marketplace. Even Satoshi wanted to do so, when he created market.h and market.cpp files in the source code, but then he removed it, and nobody brought it back since then.

By the way, the main reason to switch into Scrypt or other hash functions, was because altcoins were attacked, when they didn't implement Merged Mining properly. Which means, if no altcoins would ever be created, they would use Merged Mining (or any other protection) from the very beginning, so there could be no need to ever switch from SHA-256 to anything else. Everything could be handled by commitments, and consequently, any new feature would require no additional Genesis Block at all. New features would be just enabled from block number N, and some miner could just include a commitment into any regular transaction, and activate any feature since then, or even leave it activated as "always was possible", and then the Genesis Block (of a feature X) would always point at 3rd January, 2009.

Another interesting consequence is that some people would like to change the amount of coins in circulation. For example, Litecoin made 4x increase. If there would be no altcoins, then there would be no need to do so. But assuming that some people would want it anyway, the whole thing could be achieved just by going below a single satoshi. Which means, it could be possible to own 0.25 satoshi in a Litecoin commitment network. It could be expressed on-chain, for example by 4-of-4 multisig, where a single satoshi could require four signatures, and each individual would own 0.25 satoshi separately. Of course, on-chain fees would still apply, which means, going below a single satoshi could be not worth it at times, where the standard fee was 0.01 BTC.

Of course, there are more altcoins and features to discuss, including Monero, Pedersen Commitments, cut-through, different elliptic curves, Turing-complete Script on Bitcoin, and so on. But I hope those paragraphs above are a good start to raise more questions. And also remember, that all of it is just "what if", and the "if" condition is already false, because altcoins are already there. But well, what stops us, humans, from dreaming?

I am rather "upset or sad", because I can imagine, what could happen, when sidechains could be active. Especially no-fork sidechains, where you could just release a new client, without asking anyone, and have a fully-working two-way-peg between Bitcoin, and your network. Or if you could enable new features through commitments, and disable them just by moving coins on-chain, and not committing to those features again in your new transaction.

You can read some articles by Paul Sztorc to know more about it, for example: https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/one-chain/

As you can see, the title "One Chain to Rule Them All" means it is compatible with your question.

Even now I have not seen any coin that is competing with bitcoin instead they are the coins altcoins trying to meet up with bitcoin. If there was no any other cryptocurrency and it was only bitcoin then the price of bitcoin has gone far to the level $100k

Because at that time since competition everybody would focus only bitcoin but the irony of it is that there is no way a good project is launched in the world that there will no imitation. Therefore all the altcoins are just the imitation of bitcoin in different form.

Bitcoin will perform better in the market if there is an existing competition, without any, the people might find bitcoin boring and less valuable in the future. If there won't be altcoins, the market can never offer varieties of coins anymore that will make the competition more healthy. With regards to its price, most likely we will only see less growth in the market which will eventually push the investors to find others investments that will consistently grow and has no options of falling into zero value.

Bitcoin is a profitable and  a highly trusted investment, but without competition, the performance is not that solid and it won't be suitable enough to become a long term investment.

The price will only increase if there is demand. I think the existence of a single coin does not affect the price much. According to the simple rule of economics, the more buyers of a good, the more its price increases. Therefore, whether Bitcoin stands alone or not, it can proceed in a similar way.

There are many cryptocurrencies, but which one can you trust as much as Bitcoin? Your answer to this question will be similar to the answer you would give to the question asked in the topic.