Topic: Why is BITCOIN more expensive than other cryptocurrency? - page 4. (Read 3848 times)

Agreed looks like everyone is using alts to make more bitcoins thats why people switch from altcoin to altcoin .. to increase their bitcoin position.



http://blog.oleganza.com/post/54121516413/the-universe-wants-one-money

http://themisescircle.org/blog/2014/03/14/the-coming-demise-of-the-altcoins/

NXT and Proof of Stake cannot be decentralized. If you base the longest chain on most stake chain past owners (who sold) can create parallel chain and reverse the entire chain. Even exchanges which had at some point in the past huge amount of coins can create a chain with big stake in it.

As for Darkcoin I dont see the point of it since bitcoin has darkwallet  and the infrastructure.

I am mining monero with my small end CPU. And BTC is the only cryptocurrency I love. And I personally use BTC only. Monero is just for time pass.

Bitcoin is far superior to Nxt because their is 1000x more developers writing code for it and creating innovative solutions.
Darkcoin doesn't solve anything that BTC solved long ago with stealth and coinjoin.

Myspace is not designed to be used as a currency though. Its users can migrate to another social networking site like Facebook without feeling an ounce of regret. Bitcoin users can't do that without incurring a potential financial loss. You see, Bitcoin's advantage is not that of "first mover," but rather being the core around which all currently existing cryptocurrencies revolve around.

It is about infrastructure. Bitcoin has a strong infrastructure and thus more value. Thats why many bitcoin advocates/services support bitcoin only. They understand that adding more coins to the service dilutes the value. It is something many users expect as well since they have interest in bitcoin only.

Also other coins dont offer additional utility to the users so users prefer the most liquid coin. Pair that with the fact that procols have strong network effects, money has strong network effects, ecosystems have strong network effects (i.e. android ecosystem has so many devs building for it and making more users to adopt it making more devs to develop) merchants adoption has strong network effects (copies of paypal were not that successful because of that) .

Bitcoin combines all the above network effects together and people expect bitcoin to become even stronger and thus has higher value.

IPv4 to IPv6 is mostly a software issue where computers can be upgraded and some switches/routers have their firmware upgraded. Why is it so difficult to switch when IPv6 is superior and in many cases a very needed upgrade?

The reason why is because while it is easier to upgrade user wallets(coin) or OS(IPv6) there are these additional problems :
1) IPv4 is still in many computers where users don't upgrade right away , ISP's and sites need to have a very long transitionary phase where they support both protocols.

Bitcoin has the greatest user adoption and in the most cell phones, computers, and most people are familiar with Bitcoin's companies /hot wallets. There would also need to be a very long transition because merchants aren't going to alienate clients.

2) IPv4 has tons of services and codebase dependent upon this protocol. IPv6 requires adding or modifying a lot of code not just in one company but across the whole economy. This is very expensive.

Bitcoin has thousands of developers writing apps, sites, and API's that interact with the bitcoin blockchain. Changing this is very expensive.

3) IPv4 is sometimes hardcoded in certain very expensive switches at datacenters and/or firmware coded switches that no longer have support from the companies to upgrade to IPv6.

Bitcoin has many companies coming out with Point of sale  and hardware wallets that either cannot be adapted to another alt or won't.

A individual company can come and go but Bitcoin isn't a website or company but a whole ecosystem of hundreds of thousands of companies that are integrated with it.



ASIC miners can only mine Bitcoin or very similar SHA256 alts. Most Cyrpto-currencies cannot be mined now or ever with the existing Billions of dollars in hardware.

Finally, Bitcoin is Open source and evolving and can swallow many alt features in the future directly or indirectly through sidechains/tree chains. Alts in general that aren't tied to Bitcoin like namecoin are in serious jeopardy in the near future because of this.

I believe there will always be hundreds of alts but besides a few of the 3-4 top ones most will radically shrink in proportional value to bitcoin as Bitcoin takes over and becomes more robust.

IMHO, all these other *coins are a distraction.  Bitcoin still isn't widespread enough.  Even though there are thousands of merchants who accept Bitcoin, that is still a TINY, TINY percentage of merchants. The far majority of the population would say no to replacing their fiat currency with Bitcoin, at this time.  Instead of competing with Bitcoin and taking away any marketshare from Bitcoin, even if it is small marketshare, the resources spent on the other *coins should be spent on Bitcoin, as Bitcoin still needs help to become established.

Its also the most expensive because people are needing to buy BTC to get hold of other alts like NXT, Darkcoin, etc.

I think there will be some tough competition for BTC in the not too distant future however.

NXT has the most advanced technology behind it, and if people want privacy, well theres a few options in altcoins...

That's a good point, but still I think it's inexact, because it would be very impractical to simultaneously use different web protocol, while it's really easy to set up more than one wallet and/or trade between different currencies. Cryptocurrencies are not really in competion like the different protocols used to be, which means that fluctuation in the crypto-marketshare of Bitcoin and other alts can vary greatly in the future and there's no reason one will stay high on top.

Also, the infrastructures built around Bitcoin are easily cross-compatible with other currencies.

I don't think I've ever seen or heard anyone ask that question. 

Bitcoin is much more secure than any alt because of billions of dollars of mining hardware and hundreds of active developers.

Tree chains and/or sidechain technology can leverage the strengths of bitcoin and feature sets of alts and further solidify Bitcoins future.

Even if you prefer other alts over bitcoin the survival of your coin is interlinked with the fate of bitcoin because if the first, most widespread, most secure, and most accepted crypto-currency fails than that puts into doubt the viability of every other cryptocurrency whether it be for justified reasons or not. Some cryptocurrency users realize this and some do not but it is a very important principle and one reason why we should stand behind bitcoin and help it evolve if needed while staying true to the foundational principles.

Bitcoin isn't a company but a protocol that is embedded in physical Point of Sale devices, Mining hardware , and where thousands of companies have spent resources to integrate Bitcoin into their business model. Comparing Bitcoin to a private company isn't appropriate and a better analogy would be comparing Bitcoin to IPv4 (why have we taken 26 years to switchover to IPv6 and only 3% there?) or HTML (Why is this still foundational to the Internet and other scripting languages scaffold-ed upon it?)

That proves my point: Myspace used to be worth way more than Facebook, this shows that the "first mover" advantage is not absolute.

4500 physical shops accept bitcoin and many websites as well

hundreds of thousands of users use bitcoin

in other words bitcoin has much more support, and there's the value.

Why is facebook worth billions and myspace worthless? Same reason.

Yes for working people that are new to bitcoin, its hard for them to get in.
If they hear they cant mine it anymore, and the price to buy it is to high for them.
How and why should they get interested, maybe a few look further to altcoins.
But most of them will get on with their lifes.

What are the incencitives to join Bitcoin rather than other coins? It's indeed a safer investment, and it's accepted in more places. However, the "niche" aspect of other cryptos (each has a unique community that can be more attractive to some than Bitcoin's more disparate community), and the fact that there are more profit potentials, seems to be better incencitives for new users.

Because: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law

And once that gets going, the incentive for every new entrant, on average, is strongest to join the already-largest network...which only strengthens said network even more.

i'm thinking it can only happen if bitcoin suffered a catastrophic collapse.. otherwise, there's way too much infrastructure and support that comes with bitcoin. i don't think there's a way for another coin to catch up to bitcoin while it is the main cryptocurrency.

Of course it is possible, just like how gmail surpassed hotmail a few years ago.
I think Bitcoin becoming #2 is quite unlikely, but the crypto-economy will be distributed with more power to some altcoins in the future; there's no reason that only Bitcoin should succeed.

Yes Bitcoin was obviously the first and it got the most exposure, so its the highest
But my question is, Is there any other coin that can reach or pass bitcoin's marketcap?
Some young coin, they have a few years to ripe like bitcoin.
Can we see so much grow in other coins to?