Topic: Why do you all ignore alternative tech on Bitcoin? - page 2. (Read 600 times)

I hold this to be true for 99% of altcoins. I have never made any secret of the fact that Monero is the only altcoin I use, exactly because it achieves a solution to a real world problem which bitcoin does not, that being completely private transactions. If anyone can show me a token which achieves a solution to a real world problem, then there is a discussion there to be had about whether or not that would be a viable or useful addition to bitcoin. I am not aware of any such token.

Conversely, we can look through the history of this forum, of Reddit, of Twitter, and see literally thousands of different altcoins and tokens which have been launched or promoted for various reasons, which have all either faded away in to complete obscurity over the span of a couple of years, or exit scammed/been hacked and resulted in all the regular users/foolish greedy people losing everything.

Because that's where the foolish greedy people are. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. These token creators don't want to launch their no-real-world-use trash on bitcoin because launching on some useless altcoin means there are more gullible people to scam. And anyone who is actually using bitcoin as intended is quite happy for all this scam activity to take place elsewhere.

As above, what useful things are you envisaging which should be conducted on bitcoin instead of some shitcoin?

It is entirely possible and has been for like 8 years.. It is absolutely functional..
The point is that most run to some other shitcoin to do these things instead of using Bitcoin..


You don’t want all this thriving economy to be flowing on Bitcoin rather than its competitors?
You don’t want Bitcoin miners making all this profit off of TX fees rather than the competitors?
You’d rather all this volume be on Bitcoin competitors because you simply dislike them?

Like it or not, OpenSea has done over $30 billion in volume.. On the competitors blockchains..

You know what they are even doing? They are even taking MY stuff, that I created on Bitcoin, wrapping it into Etherium, and selling it to be traded on the Etherium blockchain!

I have even caught these f***s claiming to be the creators of MY stuff after having wrapped it onto ETH, and even some straight up plagiarizing MY stuff..

OpenSea lists things on 3 shitcoin blockchains, but won’t list things on the Bitcoin blockchain..


“I would be curious to hear if other people are regularly using other such projects?”
I use the crap out of Counterparty on Bitcoin.. It’s worth less than 1/3 of the Bitcoin that had to be burned to create it now, and is only listed on one obscure exchange..

Everyone on this forum: “We don’t want that on Bitcoin! Ick! Let the shitcoins have all that economy..”
Ok guys..

Well I like to use Bitcoin because I think USING Bitcoin is good.. I think pretty much ANY use of Bitcoin is good, and would rather give my business to Bitcoin than those centralized shitcoins (as loyse correctly points out)..

But just because they are centralized doesn’t mean they aren’t competitors, taking economy away from Bitcoin..
Exactly what TPTB want..

Most “crypto” users don’t know or care much about the principles of decentralization, and are happy to just use some centralized competitor..
“Let them” I guess eh? Don’t compete?

“Those Japanese cars will never be able to compete with the American big 3” they said..
“They aren’t really competitors because they aren’t exactly the same”…

Bitcoin maximalists? I would prefere the label crypto maximalist and enthusiast. What I do see value in more than being as simp for BTC just because BTC is that itger avenues could take crypto into other interesting and worthwile avenues. Could those avenues be explored with BTC? Maybe if the tech is up to the task, but that dosen't mean it needs to nor does it mean that we are creating comoetition with other coins, just that ideas that might get overlooked or dissregarded can find a home somewhere else. Your assumption that people who do work in BTC dev are all knowing and without fault, and you sir would be wrong.

In general, all derivatives of Dogecoin as well as anything that runs on their chain is useless for all practical purposes. It's full of greedy vultures who want to make a profit of $10 or $100* shorting their preferred DOGE shitcoin.

*I call them foolish greedy people aka. cheapstakes, instead of intelligent greedy people.

Because the vast majority of these things have no real world use. Bitcoin has a very clear and defined real world use - as a currency - with millions of people using it for this exact reason. What's the point of 99% NFTs other than to make profits for their creators? What's the point of 99% of tokens other than to make profits for their creators? I don't want them anywhere near bitcoin.

Leaving out stablecoins, then the token with the largest marketcap is Shiba Inu. Knowing absolutely nothing about this token, I decided to read the text about it on Coinmarketcap:
Yeah, I don't want my global peer to peer currency, which is securing and transferring billions of dollars worth of value every day for people around the world, encumbered with this sort of trash, thanks.

Over 100 clones of a completely pointless memecoin. I'm more than happy for Ethereum to bog down their whole project by catering to this sort of nonsense.

Tell me what problem Shiba Inu is addressing? What question can be asked in which Shiba Inu is a solution (other than how do we part fools from their money)?

Next up is wrapped bitcoin, which would obviously be pointless on the bitcoin network.

Next up is UNUS SED LEO. The only reason it exists is to bail out Bitfinex after they lost a whole bunch of users' funds.

If you can present a token which actually solves a real world issue, and isn't either some part of a get rich quick scam or otherwise built simply to make the creators profit, then it could be a potential addition to bitcoin. Otherwise, I'm more than happy that 99% of tokens, NFTs, and so on are issued on altcoins.

The only bitcoin "token" I use is BSQ colored bitcoins. I would be curious to hear if other people are regularly using other such projects?

development in bitcoin has become stifled by its central point (core) where any idea's or innovation or growth has to go through them.. as omitted by people previously denying it.. so a nice change to see them admit it now*

these side and subnets of bitcoin(LN/LIQUID aka DCG product) again were majority made and paid by the same group that is paying core(blockstream aka DCG)
whereby they have flaws and not finished so people are reluctant to use them..
even coinbase and circle aka a DCG company are resistant to using LN and liquid for multiple reasons (buggy code, value liquidity flaw, regulatory problems/ headaches)

meaning those sub/side networks endorsed, developed and funded by DCG.. then function even less.. due to the reluctance/flaws.. which because of the lack of liquidity needed just to make them somewhat workable(another flaw that creates a flaw)..
yea its a failed system if the snowball effect doesnt run uphill(liquidity growth), like they expect

other subnets and systems can bridge to bitcoin and yes a BTC backed NFT is possible.. but, of course not pushed due to the "seek core permission" mindset devs have which gets hit by hostility and opposition if those idea's dont fit the DCG roadmap.. which is why devs with idea's outside the DCG roadmap end up doing things for different cryptocurrencies instead, because other cryptos have more freedom / no hierarchy / no core control / no core permissions required
 
it is funded and certain people are now omitting to the command structure of the DCG which then uses subsidiaries of its company blockckstream, whos sister with chaincode labs and brink.. the main "sponsors" of all the main devs with merge and maintainer privilege and also the moderators of development in the forums, and irc, and mailing lists

*and now the certain people have learned and ommited about the core/central point of control/permission and funding, they can relax their defences of pretending the opposite.. and instead try to actually help bitcoin become less central controlled which even the lead maintainer admits is a problem of bitcoin

https://laanwj.github.io/2021/01/21/decentralize.html


PS:
due to backhatcoiner and his chummy clubhouse of 12 buddies now learning, accepting and omitting things they spent years fighting to deny previously.. ill give him merit (my usual satire large amount because merit to me is meaningless, because i dont care about merit.. but they do).

I'm not a Bitcoin maximalist, but I do not ignore the whole coins.

Currently only both Monero and DAI that I think deserved to appeared on the top 3 coins since they have a real use cases than the rest copy cat project. Monero is a privacy coin, so if you're really concern about your privacy you can use it and trade on Bisq. DAI is a decentralized stable coin from DAO community, it's used to convert your coins to stablecoin in order to prevent from dump market and can't be frozen.

Market share, price, capitalization, crowdfunding etc is just a number and doesn't make the project become successful.

I thought it's because of the promise of getting rich quick. All those people who missed out on cheap Bitcoin and then created their own hype hoping to still get rich, meanwhile scamming billions of dollars from gullible "investors".

It's going to be fun if CBDCs are added to CMC

So, how do you suggest... we stop people from making their own choices?

Everyone is free to create their own coins and also to decide what coins they want to buy. We are interested in the success of Bitcoin and crypto currencies...

A lot of us believe the development of Alt coins can be beneficial to Bitcoin, because it is the breeding ground for innovation. Bitcoin can cannibalize any technology it wants to... so if something groundbreaking are developed by someone else... then Bitcoin can use that too.  

Bitcoin is a currency and is not created to be traded for us to care about how much "market share" it has. Specially if by market share you mean market cap ratio which is meaningless anyway.

Most of what? Scamming people by creating tokens and selling a useless digital thing to them?
That is not possible on bitcoin and will never be.

Give us one actual use case of tokens in real world then we talk about whether bitcoin should add this useless feature or not.

Because bitcoin is a currency. You don't see me trading on Forex market either. I earn bitcoin, get paid in bitcoin, pay others in bitcoin. Just like I do with fiat currencies.

So it all comes down to you not understanding the difference between dominance and market cap ratio

Yes, you can say we "gave up" on that market segment, but you're missing the point. Bitcoin is no longer an experimental sandbox where you can just introduce any feature without testing it first. It is a mission-critical program now, so if even the slightest error is introduced, it has the potential wreak unimagineable havoc on people's life savings...

This testing requires almost-scientific observation of the feature's behavior in real-world conditions. Altcoins volunteered to be test beds so we are watching how its behaving.

Let's take smart contracts for example (NFTs and tokens are just specific types of smart contracts so the same reasoning that will follow also applies to these technologies).

This is a technology that replaces the script interpreter with a programming language. It also means that its just as possible to accidentially introduce bugs in the smart contracts which can't be recitified without possible fund loss.

History way before bitcoin has shown us that programmers can be quite sloppy, even on mission-critical systems, and Solidity and other smart contract langs are no exception. People will still make bugs by accident because its human nature.

Even worse, because of the very nature of the applications that use it, all bugs are now upgraded to security vulnerability status because even the smallest bug can allow for theft. Take nation states like North Korea for example, who think that anything inside a smart contract is their personal treasury.

Years ago, people observed exactly this on Ethereum, and then thought: Is it really worth the risk to implement it just for market share? Accordingly, the answer they arrived to was: No.

Observing new features getting trialed in altcoins is a common way for people do discern how well this would work out for Bitcoin. In a majority of these trails, the results are very poor and indicate failure, because no design is fool-proof, not even the ones in Bitcoin.

Like I said, it's not foolproof, but this scientific method allows us to immediately throw out the ideas that will never work on Bitcoin.

I should remind you, that Bitcoin has reached the $20K - $60K range not because of innovation, but increased faith in the existing tech.

The vast majority of NFTs, tolken issuances, and smart contracts are being done on altcoins, 90% of which can already be done on Bitcoin, and meanwhile Counterparty (the cost to do this on Bitcoin) is only on one obscure exchange with almost no volume..
And development is very slow because interest is very low..

The only good points I’ve seen in this thread so far is about get rich quick scheme hype and fake market cap..

Still the vast majority of this action is being done on ETH while it can be done even cheaper on BTC..

Look at all these exchanges listing ETH tolkens and none listing ones on Bitcoin..

It seems to me that Bitcoin maximalists have just given up on this market segment..

Even we do hate it then there's nothing we can do because thats how the community or the market do behaves and making up decisions to be that on this way.
Yes, Bitcoin does have it all but we know its flaws and this is where other developers creating something which cant really be seen on Bitcoin just like for example on smart contracts.
We cant really deny that it does really have that utility which is really that useful and since people does have different mindsets and seeing on things
then we cant blame that they do trust up other projects aside from Bitcoin.

Why do you think bitcoin stands a unique digital currency amidst other cryptocurrencies, the reason is what you see below here as the fact, take a look.

https://twitter.com/tradingview/status/1563167271987515393?t=q3lvg9uHcjz39SS0Lk-zFg&s=19]


This is the real explanation between bitcoin and altcoins, you can see the difference clear enough, the first queue is the one with green which is the bitcoin lane, while the other is the red indicating altcoins lane respectively, you can judge with the end result all by yourself to choose where to belong.

The thing is, 20% of innovations on altcoins are related to doomed enterprises such as:
- Proof of Stake (aka. sell the network to the largest whale)
- DeFi, which is just lending without a govt. bailout net (!!!)
- NFTs (abused to make money and many are on the brink of being auctioned off at fire-sale prices)
- Smart contracts (always getting hacked especially by NK, because nobody can cover all edge cases properly)
... some slightly more sensible things like:
- Increased blocksize (== centralization, more illegal content on blockchains)
- Ring signatures (makes transactions 100% anonymous BUT at the price of being cross-haired by all governments around the world)
- Tail emmission (very difficult to get right, has net result of either introducing inflation in the coins or drastically underscaling the network's security)
- Stablecoins on layer 2 (central entity managing the coins = corruption)
and that is ignoring consensus-disrupting features like difficulty bombs, forced hardforks, and "development funds" and "founders rewards" taken away from miners to enrich devs.

70% more of the innovations are just weak copycats of the 20%, so the altcoin teams who implemented this stuff have security headaches way more frequently than Bitcoin although they do get patched eventually. But the vast majority of shitcoins never get a patch... they are literally unsafe to use for day-to-day commerce.

The rest of the 10% is innovations which have proven themselves to be sustainable, like merged mining (it even has a BIP or two), lightning network, and MimbleWimble (sorry, I don't see regulators like Australia going after Litecoin) for example.

The last section is the only stuff that's even going to be considered going into BTC. I know that because I've wrote BIPs, proposed some, commented on others so I'm well aware that it's difficult to arrive at a majority consensus about all the parts related to an issue.

I'm not concerned about the market: The market mostly consists of people who want to get rich quick. You'd think they'd go sign up for Andrew Tate's Hustler University scam instead of bothering us here, but they actually directly them to exchanges to long&short (especially short) crypto so yeah. When the bear season comes in, the current crop of long&short traders get torched by the price body slams, and get replaced by even more but equally dumb long&short traders.

The number of newbie traders (the primary userbase of crypto), is only going to increase assuming there is no government regulation related to that. That's one thing we know. What we can't estimate is what the proportion of Bitcoin users in proportion to transient long&short traders is going to be after 20-30 years, let alone at 2147.

---

It was never about being the most innovative, it's about being the most secure and stable form of money ever. We've got people attacking us left and right, saying "bitcoin's a bubble", "bitcoin mining pollutes the environment", "bitcoin enables crime and terrorism" and so on, so forth. All because we collectively chose to liberate the financial system from aggressively-lending banks who have more solvency crises than earnings calls (which people seem to be OK with until they lose their life savings!). This is territory which altcoins haven't even mapped yet - the market caps say it all.

Most of these so-called "crypto"-currencies are actually centralized or have a strong capability of being influenced by a central entity (e.g. a government or a very rich person or corporation). So they are not truly decentralized. Most do not have significant, real transaction activity in the first place.

Bitcoin's the only cryptocurrency that can be advertised truthfully as decentralized, vulnerability-free, and having real-world levels of transacion activity. People criticize it as "ancient" because it only does on average 7 transactions per second, but they're not even giving us a chance to figure out a totally-decentralized solution to that [Lightning network is still experimental alpha]; they are being impatient and are expecting Rome to be built in one day.

I repeat: Bitcoin dominance is at 40% because the other 60% are just looking to make a quick buck. Bitcoin was never meant for those kind of people, it's meant for real users who want to buy and sell stuff with it.

Most investors are always after profit and due to the 4 years cycle of the market after some correction, there will be altcoin season, correction, and halving market. I believe in preparation for the altcoin season is the reason why the market share moves to the altcoin market.

Countless time.

The last time I checked some crypto entrepreneurs are always ready to fund an innovative concept that follows the right channel. An example is Sovyrn when it

Yes, there's and it's called hype.

Investments that go to shitcoins were very unlikely to go into Bitcoin, if those shitcoins didn't exists.
Trends are fancy and attractive, and give huge returns to some, fast; sort of like a get rich quick scheme, if you can identify it early.

Bitcoin is very different from a trend, and is not built on hype. Those who follow hype, would not be interested in an appreciating asset, which one has to hodl long term.

In crypto marketcap is not as meaningful as in stock market. Tokens get printed out of thin air, then the volumes are pumped by fake trades on unregulated exchanges, and it creates an illusion that a coin is doing well, that it's the next big thing and a potential Bitcoin killer. All while it has no actual uses and users, its code is not properly reviewed and developers are just chasing hype with their new features. That's how we end up with coins like Terra Luna that inevitably collapse and defraud investors.

Bitcoin does not need smart contracts and tokens because the world does not need them.

What is the difference, in the end the market is decentralized and over time people will learn that Bitcoin is the best.

As for 40% and others, it is a misleading criterion, because if a token is created and there are 300 million in the circulation supply and this token succeeds in selling ten thousand at a price of 1K USD, this will create 3 billion dollars out of nothing and it will be deducted from the Bitcoin percentage while the real number is 100K USD.

Therefore, over time, most altcoins will collapse, and two or three projects will survive.

You don't really buy this, do you?

There is work done. If you have a proposal, feel free: [email protected]

I have only used DEX on bitcoin.

Yes.

Bitcoin Core development is funded: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60728623

Market cap is a meaningless measure.