But no one likes the big stakeholder %, the way its innitially distributed and so on.
Right, losers who lost one in a lifetime chance don't like it.
Topic: Why Bitcoin and Not a better improved crypto? - page 2. (Read 4712 times)
Right, losers who lost one in a lifetime chance don't like it.
The point is that decentralized asset exchanges already exist in some altcoins. This is at least one feature where Bitcoin sux.
Can you elaborate? I'd say the idea of an asset exchange is to trade different kinds of assets (currencies, contracts, whatever) with strangers in a trustless way. What altcoin offers this possibility...Nxt does.
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.
The point is that decentralized asset exchanges already exist in some altcoins. This is at least one feature where Bitcoin sux.
Can you elaborate? I'd say the idea of an asset exchange is to trade different kinds of assets (currencies, contracts, whatever) with strangers in a trustless way. What altcoin offers this possibility...Nxt does.
It's impossible to have a decentralized exchange that deals with dollars and euros, unless dollars and euros were implemented with a Bitcoin-style protocol. But if we got there, then I think exchanging them would be pointless.
Isn't that essentially what BitShares are trying to do?
Then it's a wasted effort. How can my physical banknotes be represented by a digital token without a central authority regulating it?
I would have to read their whitepaper to understand it, so I can't really answer you (right now) but at least they seem to claim they have managed it (in a decentralised way). By the way I'm not saying that this is necessarily the solution, like I said I don't really understand it enough to make a judgement, I just wanted to point out that there are efforts towards that exact goal.
It's impossible to have a decentralized exchange that deals with dollars and euros, unless dollars and euros were implemented with a Bitcoin-style protocol. But if we got there, then I think exchanging them would be pointless.
Isn't that essentially what BitShares are trying to do?
Then it's a wasted effort. How can my physical banknotes be represented by a digital token without a central authority regulating it?
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 has serious challenges to overcome, but the early lead is a Huge advantage. The next few years will be really exciting...
It's impossible to have a decentralized exchange that deals with dollars and euros, unless dollars and euros were implemented with a Bitcoin-style protocol. But if we got there, then I think exchanging them would be pointless.
Isn't that essentially what BitShares are trying to do?
It's impossible to have a decentralized exchange that deals with dollars and euros, unless dollars and euros were implemented with a Bitcoin-style protocol.
Why?
It's impossible to have a decentralized exchange that deals with dollars and euros, unless dollars and euros were implemented with a Bitcoin-style protocol. But if we got there, then I think exchanging them would be pointless.
Can you elaborate? I'd say the idea of an asset exchange is to trade different kinds of assets (currencies, contracts, whatever) with strangers in a trustless way. What altcoin offers this possibility, and how does it facilititate, for example, trading Bitcoins for Euros?
Ripple. With help of magic.
The point is that decentralized asset exchanges already exist in some altcoins. This is at least one feature where Bitcoin sux.
Can you elaborate? I'd say the idea of an asset exchange is to trade different kinds of assets (currencies, contracts, whatever) with strangers in a trustless way. What altcoin offers this possibility, and how does it facilititate, for example, trading Bitcoins for Euros? We don't have that yet, because nobody created one yet. But this has nothing to with any supposed shortcoming of Bitcoin or any other altcoin, it's just something that can (and will) be created independently. So I kinda miss the point here?
The point is that decentralized asset exchanges already exist in some altcoins. This is at least one feature where Bitcoin sux.
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
~ Madness
They are basically all cheap copies and Bitcoin is unique and original . that simple
~ Madness
Unless the new coin could retain all bitcoins good points and introduces something really new that solve all the current problem like volatility. There has been an altcoin called Nubits which aim to achieve just that but I don't see it making an impact for now. Eventually it will all still go back to bitcoin no matter how, just the fate like all the rest of altcoins.
Good, so we don't have Bitcoin decentralized asset exchange simply because noone needs it?
We don't have that yet, because nobody created one yet. But this has nothing to with any supposed shortcoming of Bitcoin or any other altcoin, it's just something that can (and will) be created independently. So I kinda miss the point here?Coinbase's CEO disagrees with your first statement : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=966084.new#new
And Coinbase's CEO opinion matters because ...Because what?
Why would you (personally) say it's true?
We all agree that Brian Armstrong has a huge conflict of interest and the statement per se is worthless.
Why not start our own list, right?
I'll start with a minus and a plus for Bitcoin:
- no decentralized asset exchange
+ wide adoption
Good, so we don't have Bitcoin decentralized asset exchange simply because noone needs it?
We don't have that yet, because nobody created one yet. But this has nothing to with any supposed shortcoming of Bitcoin or any other altcoin, it's just something that can (and will) be created independently. So I kinda miss the point here?Coinbase's CEO disagrees with your first statement : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=966084.new#new
And Coinbase's CEO opinion matters because ...Because what?
There is quite a lot of alts that differ significantly from bitcoin and do have something interesting behind.
Such as? I've seen a few interesting modifications from the original Bitcoin (things that can also be integrated into Bitcoin, by the way) but absolutely nothing spectacular that I would consider a technological breakthrough or "the next big thing" (like Bitcoin is to fiat).The only development in this direction is Ethereum, and it isn't even live yet.
Bitcoin is not perfect.
We can expect better cryptocurrence.
Actually, we can expect Bitcoin to become better. It's not finished yet. We can expect better cryptocurrence.
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
~ Madness
They are basically all cheap copies and Bitcoin is unique and original . that simple
~ Madness
The problem is there are hundreds of other alts, yet none of them offer anything different to bitcoin. Sure some can be staked, some offer POS only but there is no innovation. Its just bitcoin, with a different algo more often than not.
There is quite a lot of alts that differ significantly from bitcoin and do have something interesting behind. The main problem is that Bitcoin was first, and thus, there were no expectations about proving whether various concept work or make sense. Just an experiment that ended successfully. Now however, all altcoins are required (from the user-side) to pass numerous tests (some of them being utterly unnecessary), before they can distinguish themselves from a pure PnD clone. And some of them do indeed pass them. Too early to call, whether Bitcoin 2.0 is already among them, but I am sure sooner or later it will appear. Each one we have seen with better technologies have so far failed
Failed at replacing bitcoin? This process takes quite some time. Let's wait 20 years and we'll see.
Either bitcoin tech advances faster (which I hope, but doubt), or it will be replaced.
Imagine you wouldn't know cryptos and someone asked you for a choice. Would you use coin A with slow confirmaton times, bloated blockchain and controlled by big mining companies, or would you use a fast, slick, fully decentralized coin B with a lot more features.
Yes, the network effect is in favour of bitcoin, but if we assume that most crypto users are rational (may be too much to assume?), there will be a shift sooner or later.
If everyone chose coin B, then coin B would be bloated and controlled by big mining companies. As simple as that.
not if coin B is proof of stake and allows for blockchain pruning
Blockchain pruning doesn't magically disappear transactions. They still have to be stored somewhere. And Bitcoin is implementing it already.
Proof of Stake... still needs a computation to be done, right? There would be server farms doing that computation, whether you like it or not.
Coinbase's CEO disagrees with your first statement : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=966084.new#new
And Coinbase's CEO opinion matters because ...
Because what?
Jump to: