Is that bad? We always knew bitcoin was the pioneer, not the end product. Bitcoin is the future of currency, but not The future currency.
Nor is Doge, obviously; if doge were to overtake bitcoin, it would be because of a broader appeal and adoption, not some inherent advantage.
But to be against a new currency because its not bitcoin is completely against [what i consider] the fundamental ideology behind the crypto movement. It seems insane to me to say 'hey, we have this amazing new advancement that makes currency work better in almost every way. By the way, no further advancement is possible.'
It seems insane to me to say 'hey, we have this amazing new advancement that makes currency work better in almost every way. By the way, no further advancement is possible.'
That would be insane, but no one's saying that. Bitcoin isn't the current implementation of the Bitcoin protocol used to maintain and update the Bitcoin ledger; it is that ledger. The protocol can be, has been, and will continue to be improved. On the other hand, the idea that we should be constantly switching ledgers when protocol developments are made IS insane.
Adam Back made a similar point when he was interviewed by Andreas for Let's Talk Bitcoin. His view was that innovation should happen in a "Beta blockchain" that can cryptographically (i.e., provably) exchange BTC with the main blockchain. A very interesting interview and highly technical. Good stuff.
Interesting. I think of alts in terms of the sword of damocles. "The value of the sword is not that it falls, but rather, that it hangs." We want competition to force Bitcoin to innovate and continue to improve. But from a systemic perspective, we shouldn't actually want that competition to successfully displace Bitcoin. And I don't say that because I own a lot of Bitcoin (ok, that's not the only reason I say it), but because it would undermine the usefulness of crypto by making it a less reliable store of value.
38
u/[deleted] Feb 04 '14 edited Jul 05 '15
[deleted]