well than good sir,what is it,is it a ponzi scheme or money of drug traffickers?
I used "and" upthread.
It can't be both.
Topic: Why Bitcoin and Not a better improved crypto? (Read 4709 times)
I used "and" upthread.
It can't be both.
well than good sir,what is it,is it a ponzi scheme or money of drug traffickers?
I used "and" upthread.
Alt coins are the real scams here.
I like your conclusion. It sounds so sarcastic when you recall that Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme and money of drug traffickers.
well than good sir,what is it,is it a ponzi scheme or money of drug traffickers?
Alt coins are the real scams here.
I like your conclusion. It sounds so sarcastic when you recall that Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme and money of drug traffickers.
I laugh at this,every time I read another post about an alt coin being better than bitcoin I say.
"How could an alt coin succeed when bitcoin fails?What would a alt coin be without bitcoin when alt coins would seize to exist if it wasn't for bitcoin?"
Alt coins are the real scams here.
"How could an alt coin succeed when bitcoin fails?What would a alt coin be without bitcoin when alt coins would seize to exist if it wasn't for bitcoin?"
Alt coins are the real scams here.
Before quantum computers will come even close to breaking (as in, feasibly brute forcing) Bitcoin's cryprography, pretty much all other financial protocols on the planet will have been broken long before.
In fact, quantum computers breaking cryptography will be a bliss for Bitcoin. It will break other financial systems' cryprography MUCH sooner, thus fiat / credit card / paypal / other centralized types of money users will be inclined to flee to safer, quantum computing resistant alternatives, like Bitcoin.
In fact, quantum computers breaking cryptography will be a bliss for Bitcoin. It will break other financial systems' cryprography MUCH sooner, thus fiat / credit card / paypal / other centralized types of money users will be inclined to flee to safer, quantum computing resistant alternatives, like Bitcoin.
Quantum computers are for solving certain kinds of calculations faster, but that doesn't mean they will automatically break all cryptography in the world.
News sites have been screaming about quantum computers for months. I'm taking these articles with a pinch of salt, but still there will come a day when SHA256 will no longer be secure.
SHA256 is immune to quantu computers.
An improved version with anonymous untraceable transactions. It doesn't have to happen in 2 or 3 years, but eventually SHA256 will become obsolete and we'll be forced to upgrade.
As I said, what makes people think SHA256 will become obsolete? Seriously, I don't know.
Bitcoin has most the features that alts do , they just fall outside of Bitcoin core by design and we should keep it that way.
Keep bitcoin simple, modular, and dumb like TCP/IP. All these alts that keep scaffolding features within their core code instead of keeping the development on the edges will fall behind.
An apropos example is how sophisticated Telephony switch operators which kept the endpoints (telephone receivers) dumb and focused on upgrading their network are now being overtaken by VOIP and cellular networks with smart endpoints and simpler networks.
If Bitcoin remains simple it will offer greater agility, security, and flexibility.
Keep bitcoin simple, modular, and dumb like TCP/IP. All these alts that keep scaffolding features within their core code instead of keeping the development on the edges will fall behind.
An apropos example is how sophisticated Telephony switch operators which kept the endpoints (telephone receivers) dumb and focused on upgrading their network are now being overtaken by VOIP and cellular networks with smart endpoints and simpler networks.
If Bitcoin remains simple it will offer greater agility, security, and flexibility.
Maybe Bitcoin 2.0 then?
We still have a long way before Bitcoin 1.0.
An improved version with anonymous untraceable transactions. It doesn't have to happen in 2 or 3 years, but eventually SHA256 will become obsolete and we'll be forced to upgrade.
As I said, what makes people think SHA256 will become obsolete? Seriously, I don't know.
What will the new bitcoin based on another algorithm be called? Somebody could say that Internet was upgraded and the name remained the same, but the new internet surely isn't the same one people used in 1980.
It's important to note that the Internet evolved progressively. Yes, it's not the same today than it was in the 80s, but the changes didn't happen overnight. So, Bitcoin will be Bitcoin, even if they change the hash algorithm.
I think the changes will come but they will be introduced smoothly and won't require users to sell their coins and buy something new.
I totally agree.
When SHA256 becomes obsolete due to a faster than brute force break
You seem pretty confident on that statement. Do you know anything we don't know about the SHA256 algorithm?
Show me Bitcoin decentralized asset exchange then.
You are a bit behind the times. You should probably spend more time researching than all the effort invested into trolling.Bitcoin has these:
http://www.secureae.com
https://blockscan.com/order_book?asset1=XCP&asset2=SWARM
https://www.masterxchange.com/market.php?currency=maid
https://bitsquare.io/
http://www.coinffeine.com/
http://www.coinsigner.com/
Decentralized asset exchanges for in person-
https://localbitcoins.com/
https://mycelium.com/lt/help.html
Will you apologize for spreading ignorant FUD?
Bitcoin 2.0 would not be the same as Bitcoin 1.0.
When SHA256 becomes obsolete due to a faster than brute force break, the rest of the world will have bigger problems to deal with first.
When SHA256 becomes obsolete due to a faster than brute force break, the rest of the world will have bigger problems to deal with first.
Bitcoin should not be replaced by an altcoin. I admit it could happen, but it shouldn't.
I'm surprised to see that nobody has pointed out the fact that having a new crypto replace the old crypto every couple of years could completely destroy trust in cryptos forever. This sort of "revolving door" model where the new shit replaces the old shit might work well for car models or Windows versions but one of the qualities of money is that it should be safe, consistent, and keep its value over time.
Would you trust or keep the bulk of your savings in a currency if you knew that it will be worthless in two or three years time when "the next big thing" comes with more features and innovations under the hood and kicks it off the #1 position? Even worse, would you trust a currency if you had no clue what will actually replace it because there were dozens of possible candidates each vying to be its successor?
And even if you did the research, picked the winner, and transferred your wealth from the dying coin to the new coin before the former became completely worthless, what about those who might not have the skills to adapt in time? What about all the grandmas, housewives, little kids, and the computer illiterate who might have their savings locked up in a now-worthless coin?
I'm surprised to see that nobody has pointed out the fact that having a new crypto replace the old crypto every couple of years could completely destroy trust in cryptos forever. This sort of "revolving door" model where the new shit replaces the old shit might work well for car models or Windows versions but one of the qualities of money is that it should be safe, consistent, and keep its value over time.
Would you trust or keep the bulk of your savings in a currency if you knew that it will be worthless in two or three years time when "the next big thing" comes with more features and innovations under the hood and kicks it off the #1 position? Even worse, would you trust a currency if you had no clue what will actually replace it because there were dozens of possible candidates each vying to be its successor?
And even if you did the research, picked the winner, and transferred your wealth from the dying coin to the new coin before the former became completely worthless, what about those who might not have the skills to adapt in time? What about all the grandmas, housewives, little kids, and the computer illiterate who might have their savings locked up in a now-worthless coin?
What you say has a point. Even though a new crypto has the potential to replace bitcoin in case it has new technologies, far better and I mean in every aspect of the blockchain, then it is likely to happen. However, what we have seen thus far, proves otherwise, given the time of at least 5 years since litecoin appear and I mean not even single one has managed to do that shows, bitcoin is still the choice. And the main reason is the community, infrastructure and the continued support that it is getting. As years go by, it will only become stronger and stronger, and it will take mass exodus of people to actually make it happen (leaving to altcoins). As long as the community agree on one direction, bitcoin will still be there.
Bitcoin should not be replaced by an altcoin. I admit it could happen, but it shouldn't.
I'm surprised to see that nobody has pointed out the fact that having a new crypto replace the old crypto every couple of years could completely destroy trust in cryptos forever. This sort of "revolving door" model where the new shit replaces the old shit might work well for car models or Windows versions but one of the qualities of money is that it should be safe, consistent, and keep its value over time.
Would you trust or keep the bulk of your savings in a currency if you knew that it will be worthless in two or three years time when "the next big thing" comes with more features and innovations under the hood and kicks it off the #1 position? Even worse, would you trust a currency if you had no clue what will actually replace it because there were dozens of possible candidates each vying to be its successor?
And even if you did the research, picked the winner, and transferred your wealth from the dying coin to the new coin before the former became completely worthless, what about those who might not have the skills to adapt in time? What about all the grandmas, housewives, little kids, and the computer illiterate who might have their savings locked up in a now-worthless coin?
Maybe Bitcoin 2.0 then? An improved version with anonymous untraceable transactions. It doesn't have to happen in 2 or 3 years, but eventually SHA256 will become obsolete and we'll be forced to upgrade. What will the new bitcoin based on another algorithm be called? Somebody could say that Internet was upgraded and the name remained the same, but the new internet surely isn't the same one people used in 1980.I'm surprised to see that nobody has pointed out the fact that having a new crypto replace the old crypto every couple of years could completely destroy trust in cryptos forever. This sort of "revolving door" model where the new shit replaces the old shit might work well for car models or Windows versions but one of the qualities of money is that it should be safe, consistent, and keep its value over time.
Would you trust or keep the bulk of your savings in a currency if you knew that it will be worthless in two or three years time when "the next big thing" comes with more features and innovations under the hood and kicks it off the #1 position? Even worse, would you trust a currency if you had no clue what will actually replace it because there were dozens of possible candidates each vying to be its successor?
And even if you did the research, picked the winner, and transferred your wealth from the dying coin to the new coin before the former became completely worthless, what about those who might not have the skills to adapt in time? What about all the grandmas, housewives, little kids, and the computer illiterate who might have their savings locked up in a now-worthless coin?
I think the changes will come but they will be introduced smoothly and won't require users to sell their coins and buy something new.
I think that a new crypto will be developed and people will use it rather than bitcoin.
So far though.. Altcoins have been complete failures.
So far though.. Altcoins have been complete failures.
Bitcoin the protocol is programmable money. If you're looking at Bitcoin as a digital currency, you're seeing a tiny fraction of the potential.
The reason why no altcoin has taken hold is that virtually everything they can do, Bitcoin can also do. But if you have specific ideas, give it a go and get rich.
Bitcoin should not be replaced by an altcoin. I admit it could happen, but it shouldn't.
I'm surprised to see that nobody has pointed out the fact that having a new crypto replace the old crypto every couple of years could completely destroy trust in cryptos forever. This sort of "revolving door" model where the new shit replaces the old shit might work well for car models or Windows versions but one of the qualities of money is that it should be safe, consistent, and keep its value over time.
Would you trust or keep the bulk of your savings in a currency if you knew that it will be worthless in two or three years time when "the next big thing" comes with more features and innovations under the hood and kicks it off the #1 position? Even worse, would you trust a currency if you had no clue what will actually replace it because there were dozens of possible candidates each vying to be its successor?
And even if you did the research, picked the winner, and transferred your wealth from the dying coin to the new coin before the former became completely worthless, what about those who might not have the skills to adapt in time? What about all the grandmas, housewives, little kids, and the computer illiterate who might have their savings locked up in a now-worthless coin?
I'm surprised to see that nobody has pointed out the fact that having a new crypto replace the old crypto every couple of years could completely destroy trust in cryptos forever. This sort of "revolving door" model where the new shit replaces the old shit might work well for car models or Windows versions but one of the qualities of money is that it should be safe, consistent, and keep its value over time.
Would you trust or keep the bulk of your savings in a currency if you knew that it will be worthless in two or three years time when "the next big thing" comes with more features and innovations under the hood and kicks it off the #1 position? Even worse, would you trust a currency if you had no clue what will actually replace it because there were dozens of possible candidates each vying to be its successor?
And even if you did the research, picked the winner, and transferred your wealth from the dying coin to the new coin before the former became completely worthless, what about those who might not have the skills to adapt in time? What about all the grandmas, housewives, little kids, and the computer illiterate who might have their savings locked up in a now-worthless coin?
Unless someone come with a total new idea like Satoshi did , any Alternative coin will be a total failure .
They are basically all cheap copies and Bitcoin is unique and original . that simple
They are basically all cheap copies and Bitcoin is unique and original . that simple
Cheap coins with much lower processing power and hence lower network society.
No wonder that the combined market cap of alts is lower than Bitcoin's market cap.
But no one likes the big stakeholder %, the way its innitially distributed and so on. I dont know, i dont see any other coin out doing BTC at this point.
I don't see a coin outdoing bitcoin at this point either (only in the future), but I see some coins coexist beside bitcoin right now. It's not necessarily an either/or choice.
Hmm, so this is still the negative picture that people have of Nxt. I won't be able to change that, but would like to show three small points:
1. Distribution depends on community size. Bitcoin has a lot more users, therefore a "better" relative distribution. (what is a good distribution btw?)
Largest Nxt whale account has 5% of total supply, largest bitcoin account has 1,25%. Kind of logical if you consider that bitcoin userbase is a few magnitudes larger.
2. The IPO was open for almost two months, yet only very few were interested. Yes, BCNxt could have communicated better on the closing date of the IPO, but apart from that, I don't see anything wrong with it. Why does it matter?
3. The points you mentioned are socio-economical, but don't say anything about the protocol (the most important part)
Please compare these 2 charts:
http://nxtportal.org/forgers/
https://blockchain.info/de/pools
Which block generating process would you say is more decentralized?
Jump to: