Topic: WHy the fuck so many alt coins? - page 3. (Read 3074 times)

I think the main reason it hype. Using cryptocurrency for collecting funds is the easiest way to reach capital. All investors are investing in this segment, they believe in blockchain. But some projects don't need blockchain at all for their work.

Because many altcoins do not have a cogent problem they want to solve. A lot of developers of many altcoins projects are scammers. No concrete roadmap, no reasonable product. They just want to defraud people/investors and disappear. Even those that made it to market because of lack of good plan and problem-solving strategy die of market force quickly.  These so many fuck altcoins have created a kind of panic in investors.  I am of the opinion that the activities of ICO be regulated, this will curb or minimise the advent of these useless altcoins.

Because of preference and open source! Any body can  just wake up and decide to make a brand different which give room for choice!

There is a call for new alt forums, altcointalk.org is being born, altcoinforum.org is already active I believe

The more shitcoins there are, the easier it is to ignore them. So I say the more the merrier. Pile on, shitcoin makers!

I don't hate the new alts, but I do feel that this place, the birth of them, needs to be organized. It all depends on the preference of the user like another user referenced cigarette brands. Not all companies can stay alive forever. Since most of these new coins offer little difference to their parent coins(All the new litecoin based) and are valued less, they will fade away and be a mere memory of the time they were alive.  

It's clearly working; some of my Bitcoins this morning wouldn't work because there were too many Chinacoins and Bitbars gumming up the system.


I haven't even started yet.

Another example about first movers failing: the inventor of the transistor, William Shockley. Nobel prize winner, and yet a terrible manager.
He failed miserably in making a commercial product, for being such a nerd he focused on "sexy problems" rather than practicality and commercial success, all his key employees ended up deserting him.
Those desertors (aka. the traitorous 8) ended up working for the competition Fairchild Semiconductors taking advantage of everything they learned through the insufferable Shockley.
Later on they took whatever they learned and researched in Fairchild to create their own company: Intel.

So if we take that as a case study from discovery to actual implementation: bitcoin may have a very long way to go, and the future is quite unpredictable.
The fundamentals of bitcoins might subsist, but the future of cryptocurrencies will not be bitcoins. Probably it will have another face and another name.

The first mover advantage & Bitcoin's much greater network effect.  On many technical points, AOL was a better network than the Internet at large.  The Internet improved.  AOL is not dead though, still used by old people running modems.

infact they should ban all but euro and dollar

Answered your own question. Just don't buy them if you don't support them. People will learn to judge them based on their merit.

Exactly, and from where do these changes come? It's not like someone suddenly discoveres that it would be great to have a faster blockchain and then Bitcoin suddenly knows how to handle it. The idea is tested, evaluated, discarded or not, after having been used in alt-coins extensively.


Again, exactly. First mover is not a competitive advantage in all cases or even most cases, nor is market dominance, or second mover even. A competitor must stand on their own merit, not simply because of time. If Bitcoins main benefit is being first, then the first Bitcoin clone to offer something more than that will win, or be the IE to Bitcoin.


Bitcoin may adapt by copying what makes its competitors successful, but then the argument could be reversed and say that "Well, Bitcoin is only cloning the success of Litecoin's SCrypt, so why would we use Bitcoin instead of Litecoin?"


I don't think we really disagree, but my point is that Bitcoin isn't special because it is Bitcoin. Bitcoin is special right now because it is largest and most widely known, but that and the fact that it (as well as any other coin) can copy-cat other alts cannot be its primary competitive advantage in the long run.

Like I said; we don't really know what the future holds. We're at Netscape Navigator 2.0 now.

.b

Ha ha nice pick.

People have their habits.

Imagine how annoying Litecoin is, its like television commercial-breaks that are just too short to actually let you "relieve yourself" without missing some of the show.

You barely order your coffee to sit down and have a nice relaxing chat with your shopping buddies while your transactions clear before the announcement system is bugging you "number 234, number 234, your order is ready at Walmart checkout lane 6..."

Okay so Walmart might know better, but will all shops allow you your tradtional sit down once litecoin starts edging out bitcoin?



-MarkM-

Agreed. Netscape is not a valid comparison because it was deliberately killed off by Microsoft using their 95+% dominance of the PC market to promote their own IE. You could call that a 51% attack  

Bitcoin's first mover advantage is more analogous to that obtained by the QWERTY keyboard, prevailing over other competing formats in the 100 years since.

It maybe isn't working all that well though. Instead of cutting their teeth, their teeth seem rather to tend to get cut.

I can think of at least two excellent learning opportunities off the top of my head that instead of being taken up were simply tossed aside.

One is I0Coin, why does it die on a boost exception trying to do a host lookup and why does it eat so much RAM?

The other is GeistGeld, if you think I0Coin eats a lot of RAM check out GestGeld! Are they both eating it for the same reason, or do 15 second blocks simply consume a lot more RAM than 10 minute blocks do?

Learning does not really seem to be a popular motive nowadays, "kids nowadays" seem to prefer get rich quick schemes. Learning might not be quick, so doesn't really fit well into that gameplan...

Think though how many people there are out there holding such antique coins, maybe wishing an exchange would re-open or open so they could offer bounties for the expert restoration of such classic antiques...

-MarkM-

Yes, if so desired.  Note, however, that these are not changes that cannot be replicated in Bitcoin itself.  The faster block interval is unlikely to change, but the hashing algo is deliberately modular in Bitcoin.  There is nothing magical about SHA-256.


Indeed.  You do realize that Firefox is a direct code successor to Netscape Navigator, right?  Netscape (the company) did not cease to exist because they failed to compete with IE, they ceased to exist because they were legally destroyed by M$.

In the same way that Firefox is an open source version of Navigator and has successfully incorporated features into the codebase that Windows IE pioneered, there is no innovation that any alt-coin can make that Bitcoin can't just steal, if such an innovation proves to be desired by the public.



Again, evolution.  I have no doubt at all that bitcoin will be something quite different, but it will still be bitcoin.  Keep on mining your litecoins, though.  Bitcoin still needs it's evolutionary failures.  Keep in mind that this is a bitcoin discussion forum; if bitcoin didn't have something to gain from the alt-coin section, would it be here?

You mean like 2) a quicker blockchain or a non-SHA algorithm or more coins, if so desired by society?

You do realize that Netscape was the first mover by a long margin, right?

Bitcoin may lead now, we have no idea about the future. I strongly believe that Bitcoin 10 years from now is either gone or something quite different from what it is today.

.b

Bitcoin has the first mover advantage, and by a long margin.  The only way any alt-coin ever "makes it" is 1) if it serves a niche market Bitcoin was not optimized for (i.e. Namecoin) or 2) manages to make a huge leap in some technical or economic fashion which cannot be replicated in Bitcoin itself (almost impossible) or 3) Bitcoin turns out to have some fatal bug in the protocol itself.

Which of these scenarios is most likely?

You forget that these coins may not survive and by that serve their roles in evolution. Thus, they are perfectly fulfilling their destinies by simply showing what does not work. Science is disproving; not proving.


The coins are not carbon copies. Evolution and mutation isn't always about huge changes; even the slightest change can be the trigger that causes a new mutation to survive. For every coin built, we learn something new, even if it's just that the name actuially matters for the adoption of a new coin.

.b

What strikes me odd about all of these new alts is not so much the coins themselves, but the complete lack of support structure around them aside the usual couple of exchanges and pools, and complete lack of push for actual adoption for something other than something new to mine.

If a coin is actually going to "make it" it will need more than a slightly modified version of Bitcoin or Litecoin. Most of these will likely go away, I don't see any clear innovation in any of these really.

Litecoin and Bitcoin are primes as they actually differ from one another in a core way (SHA vs Scrypt). I think any real contender will need to be this kind of fundamentally different that improves upon or solves a particular problem, with their creators doing more than just dropping it off on here.

Multiple coins are not a bad thing, multiple carbon clones is. Plus most of them will never make it out of the gate with such unmarketable names.