pull down to refresh

As I (poorly) understand it, the maximalist position is that "divided we fall, united we stand", therefore crypto, in the fight against the british empire (central banks in our case) requires a one true cryptocurrency. Fair, I believe.
But many cryptocurrencies share MANY traits with bitcoin (eg monero), should people not work on those? The solutions they find makes bitcoin stronger. Even shitcoin (non-PoW) like ethereum have shared challanges with that of bitcoin. What is the bitcoin maximalist long term strategy?
I'm not looking to start a fight, I should mention, since maximalism is so contentious. But please feel free to be mean to me, that makes no difference (well, it'll make me cry in the shower for a few hours). Any answer is welcome.
Bitcoin is not perfect but it's the only decentralized cryptocurrency system in existence, which is the whole point of such a system, and it's not clear that this can be achieved again. Simple as.
reply
This is not true. There are around 20,000 cryptocurrencies around right now, if you exclude the bad ones (PoS for instance, and all that are not open source) there are still many many alternatives.
Simple example (that isn't as controversial as Monero) is Litecoin. Litecoin is almost exactly like bitcoin, as it was forked from it. But it makes some improvements, has some changes.
It competes with bitcoin, and what does it matter if it becomes the winner?
reply
I'd echo Knut Svanholm here - Bitcoin is a one shot principle.
It is the discovery of resistance to replicability. You can't replicate resistance to replicability!
So you either believe this discovery embodies a scarcity which is valuable or you don't - that's up to you.
But if you think something else has done it instead, it hasn't by that very definition, since Bitcoin has been replicated.
In this way nocoiners have a more logical position than lots of altcoiners do, in my view. Albeit I think differently and that Bitcoin does have significant value.
reply
Never heard of him, sounds like a swedish guy. But Robert Breedlove is a total maximalist and he says "bitcoin was first, nothing else can be first" all the time, but i never understand it.
I understand your point even less, honestly. Sorry if im frustrating.
So bitcoin is the discovery of resistance to replicability (i'm guessing you mean it is trustlessly non-inflationary/non-replicating, immutable ledger which is designed to be uncrackable even by its creators, and designed to not have a central failing point?)
For sure I agree with that. Do you think price of commodities comes from scarcity? Price is much more than that. There is no such thing as objevtive value which determines price. Everyone values all things differently. Price comes from unregulated buying and selling and haggling in markets. Nothing else! If I took a gold nugget to a remote south pacific island where they hated shiny stuff, the price of my gold would be ZERO dollars. I obviously would try to find a better market..
So no, the scarcity of being "the first" is not interesting as a predictor of price in the long run. In ten years, if there exists a coin just like bitcoin, except it's accepted everywhere and is way faster and cheaper to transact, do you think people will invest in bitcoin? How about in 20 years?
I also think bitcoin has significant value. Not as much for me to buy it at the current market price, though, but I don't care about money enough to speculate in either anyway, I don't speculate on any coin. I love Breedlove, but sometimes I get an uneasy feeling that he has "invested" a lot into bitcoin and that forces him to maintain this totally uncritical perspective.
reply
I appreciate your reply - I think you should check out Knut in some podcasts maybe.
I'm not going to convince on this thread and others will better explain - but I'd say ignore price when thinking about it.
The concept is more whether digital scarcity can even exist and have any value at all? It's whether we have solved the double spend problem. Up to Bitcoin there was no meaningful digital scarcity - for example if I send you an email, it's just a copy of it and I still have the email. Bitcoin solved this - but if litecoin is also the answer, then I think you're saying it didn't.
reply
Id love to, can you recommend a good one for me to listen to? Was about to go on a walk anyway so perfect timing.
Alright, that's reasonable. Digital currency can exist, i think they call it bitcoin! Do you mean that litecoin is the same as bitcoin and therefore inflates bitcoin? That would explain a lot
PS. You probably already know this but bitcoin was based in huge part by the email problen you are describing: It was solved by attaching a header (timestamped) to your email, with some extra random bits, and then doing PoW until you found a digest low enough, and attaching all that to the header of the email. Thus proving youre the one who sent it, that youre not a bot, and when you sent it. I dont think it had any central service keeping track of used hashes, so double email would still be a problem. But obviously bitcoin solved way more
reply
I can't remember which was the best one I heard. Maybe check out Natalie Brunell when she interviewed him? -
reply
It doesn't, and it won't.
You need to understand these simple facts first to understand where bitcoin maximalism comes from.
reply
I'm trying :) I know that's hard to believe. Such is the curse of dogmatic belief.
Here's a chart of PoW coins sorted by their trade volume in the past month.
Why wouldn't it beat bitcoin? I'm not implying that I care if it does or doesn't. Why are you so sure it can't?
reply
You can start by running a Bitcoin node, it may help you understand things.
Then pick this list and try to run a node for each one of these shitcoins, see if you notice any subtle differences.
reply
I have run bitcoin and lightning nodes, and I have written Script to interact with the network. I'm well aware of the technical details, though I can always know more. Since litecoin is a fork of btc, and doge is a fork of litecoin, I presume to know a bit about them as well.
I've run a Monero node as well. There is no "Script" equivalent there, but I've interacted with the network.
What are the subtle details you speak of?
reply
Lol. You don't need to look too hard into the transaction script, they aren't there. But keep looking, you'll eventually figure it out.
reply
If you don't know the answer, be a man and admit it. I'm not trying to convince you about anything, I'm honest about my intentions.
I'm also a scientist. The idea of starting with the preconception that bitcoin transactions are better but i dont know why, and THEN analyzing data, is only going to lead to biased understanding. Humans are incredible at finding patterns.
reply
I read it (impressive how many languages you speak), but it is a guide for those who "want to become a bitcoin maximalist"? Why would anyone want that, unless they want to be accepted into some cool social circle, like how jihadists want to become devout.
I followed your link to Don’t do shitcoining, it's a sin., but that lead to sources that are too many for me to go through. I looked at one of them, Gigi's "Why shitcoins are a waste of your time." but he makes false assumptions about several of his points. All money competes for liquidity? This is nonsense. If you want 10 Kg gold for your product, but I only have 10000 Kg of silver to give you, does that mean I'm undermining "the liquidity of gold" somehow?
In your article you also state
Do not try to adapt Bitcoin to existing financial system. You will fail. Change the existing system according to Bitcoin.
This is what I'm getting at in this post. Bitcoin is not perfect. I understand you mean "try to understand why bitcoin is superior to the financial system you are used to, instead of trying to adapt bitcoin to it". Is that true? I think that would be reasonable advice. Advocating for Not Improving Bitcoin, that's advocating for destroying bitcoin.
reply
reply
Thanks for the attempt anyway! If you think of anything more i'd love to hear it.
reply
I never debate with shitcoiners. Is totally useless and wasting time. More sats for me.
reply
Indeed, I will give you sats for "debating" with me. I'm actually trying to understand you, not disprove you.
Again, by not debating / engaging with shitcoiners and fools like me, you are left learning nothing but what you already believe you know. I am often wrong. Engaging with those I believe to be idiots (or, just wrong) is not useless, it is the only way I become less wrong.
reply
It's almost like it's impossible to tell apart DarthCoin from someone with no arguments whatsoever 🤔
You know what they say. If it quacks like a duck...
reply
I know you don't talk to "shitcoiners" (people that may expose your lack of knowledge, authority as a "bitcoiner", and reputaton), and I do not expect a reply. But I'm writing this because I was wrong, in the part of my post where I said "this is nonsense".
I asked a friend of mine to explain liquidity, I asked him if my sentence "This is nonsense" was actually true. It isn't. My example with gold and silver, for instance: If I have a huge amount of silver and use it to buy all the gold in town, which I then hoard forever, then I've destroyed the liquidity of gold. In this way, my example can be an example of money competing for liquidity. So I was not correct in regarding it as gibberish. If e.g. litecoin becomes more liquid than bitcoin, then it is easier to trade. If more transactions are made with litecoin (as was the case briefly in june of this year), that means it might be adopted instead of bitcoin, giving it even more liquidity. My position is that litecoin is a better version of bitcoin, so I don't care (i just want strong crypto, so we can make the world a better place). But if you believe that bitcoin is better, and even if you believe that every coin is worse than bitcoin, you are not dishonest here. You want crypto adoption. That's fair.
reply
deleted by author
reply
Lolled that the Fight Club “First rule” meme is actually rule #2
reply
Bitcoin maximalists are, for the most part, libertarians who believe in the free market and thus, competition. That is not the issue here. The issue is that some other "projects" are misleading in their marketing strategies and use Bitcoin to advertise their shoddy operations and get-rich-quick schemes.
Furthermore, as just mentioned, maxis are pro-free market individuals in a battle with nation-states, aiming to create a free world without overlords, and where private property is the default. They are not here to experiment with science projects or to "try things." They aim to fix the world. While mainstream normies may mock these idealists, the fact remains that they are deeply passionate, and they can be quite blunt when confronted by those with differing ideals.
Consequently, they are often interested in Austrian economics, which presents a compelling view of what good money should be – and what it shouldn't be. This high level of conviction, perhaps also rooted in a more robust understanding of sound economic principles, makes maxis somewhat irritated when people repeatedly present a "better Bitcoin." The primary use case for all of this is simple: storing and sending an immutable and scarce digital asset without needing permission. And this goal is far from being fully realized.
In essence, anything outside of this core objective is, at best, a distraction (like Monero) and, at worst, a marketed attack on Bitcoin (like Ethereum). But of course, Bitcoiners value competition, which seems obvious to me.
reply
How is Monero a distraction?
It is providing something not only that Bitcoin can't, but also refuses to. Strong default privacy, real world fungibility, and very cheap tx fees.
All without sacrificing custody, permissionlessness, final settlement, and p2p on some L2/3 and all the unique tradeoffs that comes with
It's like getting mad that people need a hammer for something and you think they should be able to use a screwdriver for everything.
reply
I agree that Ethereum, Proof of Stake, is garbage. I am libertarian (though leaning lately towards seeing some benefits of state in my country, sweden, which do not apply elsewhere). In what way are other PoW open source coins get rich quick scams? Why discard them all by principle? Who benefits from this? The people who are the thought leaders that made you think like this. They benefit nicely. Your benefit is blindness: because, really, how inclined are you to read the documentation of monero or litecoin or anything else? That knowledge would be beneficial for bitcoin, wouldn't it.
They are not here to experiment with science projects or to "try things." They aim to fix the world.
You have described a totalitarian mindset. Not libertarian. Fix the world? Great. Not allowing anyone else to fix the world? Totalitarian. Thomas sowell calls this mindset "the intelligencia". The people who are kind enough to use their great intelligence to help to foolish commoners/shitcoiners. Never seen intelligencia in rightwing people before, but it's extremely common on the left.
I have read Human Action, so I'm at least in part probably aware of what you mean by your statement about Austrian economics. The price or "value" of a thing is determined only by what the market you are in, is willing to pay for it. Bitcoin is valuable because it is expensive.
Bitcoiners value competition
Agreed. Bitcoin maximalists, however, value bitcoin. They don't want competition. Again, how much do you care about the fascinating workings of Monero? Or even more advanced coins? Maximalists don't want competition, they want to sit on a hill together and be good friends. Every other coin will compete, so which coin will become better in the long run?
reply
Ethereum had issues long before switching to PoS, if that answers part of your question. Thus, PoS is not the only problem in this specific case.
In principle, any compromises regarding the core value of Bitcoin (as perceived mostly by Austrians) are a waste of time. There's no "I'm libertarian BUT I like the violence of the State sometimes" here. And there is nothing totalitarian in the "If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry" mindset. Everyone is welcome to try to fix the world, but please allow people the freedom to disagree on the best approach, will you?
More advanced meaning ? You are totally wrong maxis don't care about competitors (even if it's not totally true as Monero's ethos is appreciated I believe), which is really different of not wanting it. Again, maximalists are truly pro free market. There is absolutely no problem with Monero surpassing Bitcoin in the future. Maximalists are focused on addressing the money issue and don't want distractions while doing so. If you want to explore a "better" or "more advanced" option, good for you, but that's not the vision of those you label as maximalists, that's all.
Honestly, it seems to me that you are the intelligencia who'd like that everybody sit on a hill to be good friends. Just let people disagree, why do you care so much ?
reply
why do you care so much
I care because the maximalist ideology is a cult in the exact same sense that jihadism is a cult. If you saw your compatriots start joining ISIS, would you not try to understand why? And if you found that a shared trait of many of those who joined, was a single person, someone who riles them up and makes money off it? Yeah I care.
Again, maximalists are truly pro free market. There is absolutely no problem with Monero surpassing Bitcoin in the future.
Your friend group, which kicks you out if you don't value and speculate on the same commodity as them, these are people you would classify as being of an Austrian mindset? A group which not only discourages the free market of ideas internally (do they not discuss monero because they "don't care", or is it because they fear being outcasts?), but also actively use trolling, "toxicity", and confidence tricks, in order to discourage other bitcoiners to stop talking or thinking about the value of other things?
You believe/propound that you know the price of all crypto that is not bitcoin. Maximalists believe the "objective value" of any shitcoin is zero. This is not Austrian. It is literally marxist.
I understand that you want a world without overlord regulators (as I do), and you believe the ends justify the means. But, as an Austrian like you must understand, more perspective means more vision. Your movement hurts crypto.
They [maximalists] are not here to experiment with science projects or to "try things." They aim to fix the world.
Again, if your cult kicks you out for experimenting, dismisses you as a "fly eating shit", because they know the truth already. This you describe as libertarian? Your argument that I'm imposing on you for questioning your group- is fundamentally different from your group discouraging questions in you. You are not free to find new perspectives, you must all share the same valuation of bitcoin and of all other currency, therefore your collective intelligence is exactly equal to the thought leader that has most influence among you. I'm sure there's no incentives for that person to act maliciously..
In principle, any compromises regarding the core value of Bitcoin (as perceived mostly by Austrians) are a waste of time.
I agree. Blockchains with "less environmentally wasteful" algorithms, or "smart contracts", that's not interesting to me either. They're bullshit. But litecoin is exactly like bitcoin except it is more resistant to centralization. Disregarding litecoin, encouraging others to disregard it, is therefore compromising the core value of bitcoin: A decentralized, trustless, peer to peer ledger.
There's no "I'm libertarian BUT I like the violence of the State sometimes"
I agree with this as well, it's certainly a great cognitive dissonance for me to have such feelings, as a lifelong anarchist. But, to give some context, Sweden (Scandinavia) is not like other places. Are you libertarian in dealing with your family? E.g. if your little brother is retarded, do you let him die because you father forces you to pay "taxes" and help him survive? No. But not because of refusal to subordinate to an authority, only because you like your brother, and trust your father. Scandinavia has the most tightly coupled social cohesion of any place I've been to (lived 2 years in the US, a few months in south america, a while in china). In a real sense, Scandinavians are siblings, whereas the greater country (imo) called USA, the people are more like cousins. So if I ever get to move to America, I will again be full libertarian.
I've had my house raided by police, and I know it can happen any time, I can't defend myself (no right to bear arms here!). I'm not happy about that. But I've stopped considering myself anarchist. End of political rant that is maybe not so interesting to you :)
Honestly, it seems to me that you are the intelligencia who'd like that everybody sit on a hill to be good friends
Of course I want that, I want every single bitcoin enthusiast to hang out and talk and solve shit. When I said "hill" though, I meant it as an analogy to not wanting to interact with other crypto enthusiasts. I want to hear their perspectives as well. Because more perspective, is more vision. And the central bankers, our common enemy, are not weak.
reply
Bitcoin’s primary function as a p2p decentralized digital money, is to be money for all, anyone, anywhere at anytime. Everyone is equally important. No rulers, no slaves. So it may not offer the same range of features and capabilities as the shitcoins, which intentionally compromise elements of security, privacy, freedom, inclusiveness etc.
I quote, "The wastes no time trying to convince the fly, that honey is better that shit". End of quote.
reply
How does Monero compromise privacy?
Pretty ironic. Bitcoin is public by default and only relatively weaker "privacy" (everything is still visible) via obfuscation even when you opt-in.
reply
Alright, so if I understand you correctly, you're saying "Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency that does not compromise security, privacy, freedom, inclusiveness".
It is of course, certainly not. Bitcoin has a less secure mining algorithm than litecoin, for instance (SHA-256 vs scrypt), in the sense that scrypt makes it far more difficult for the network to be dominated by ASICs. It is therefore also more decentralized inherently, than bitcoin. More inclusive. Bitcoin as stated by Satoshi is governed by "1 cpu = 1 vote", but since its cheap to make specialized hardware, your computer cpu is not equal to theirs. Litecoin mitigates this. Therefore it is more inclusive.
Did you know that in June of this year, litecoin briefly overtook bitcoin as the dominant use of crypto transactions? https://bitpay.com/stats/#apexchartscryptoLineChart

Saying bitcoin or any of its forks compare in "security, privacy, freedom, inclusiveness" compared with Monero is absurd. Bitcoin is not anonymous (lightning is better, it is routed through the TOR network), and calling it pseudonymous is true but misleads about how anonymous you really are. The only way to make an anonymous, private, transaction through bitcoin is to make a new account, send the BTC to it, memorize the account private key, then meet in real life the person you wish to transact with, giving them the private key. Do you do this?
Node-traversals algorithms and metadata analysis make bitcoin barely pseudonymous.
Monero is anonymous. It is not designed to compete with bitcoin, the whitepaper it is based on specifically says it would be good if there were more options to bitcoin. It is anonymous, in short, because if I (Jonas) want to send you (Luke) a XMR, I generate a random personal key, (your public address is known to me of course), attach the intended receiver (your address) and the amount, and then that transaction is combined with many other XMR transactions, and the resulting "block" is hashed to create a public address. If you (Luke) want to know that someone has sent you money, you just use the public address and your private key, and then you can find transactions in "the ring" that go to you. Nobody without a private key of one of the receivers in the public address, nobody but the receivers, can learn anything about either YOU or ME.
Monero is also even more ASIC resistant than litecoin. Litecoin is resistant because it forces miners to use a lot of memory and not just processing power (memory is expensive for ASICs). Monero is exponentially harder to centralize by ASICS.
Yes, I'm a fly eating shit. I'm trying to learn what honey tastes like. So far, it tastes a little bit like cool-aid.. You should be aware that people like @DarthCoin have great incentive to fool you into a mentality of "US VS THEM". But is it something you benefit from? No. It makes you blind.
I'm understanding the mindset of your group better, so thank you.
reply
Edit:
I quote, "The bee wastes no time trying to convince the fly, that honey is better that shit". End of quote.
reply
Don't worry, I understood what you meant. I'm never going to nitpick or strawman you. I'm trying to understand you, and now that I believe understand @DarthCoin, I'm intending to warn the community about the malevolent tactics used by demagogues, and intend to be fair because a tight-knit group (like maximalists) have many benefits. They're often more creative. But blindness is never a long term survival strategy.
reply
Here's the deal. If we had real competition instead of the state distorting the market for money we'd see a very different outcome. We'd have a LOT more people getting burned by scams but people would be forced to learn. The state has created generations of people that are encouraged to be ignorant and outsource their thinking. So yes we should have real competition because if we did we'd see quicker adoption of the best money ever.
reply
Totally agree. Libertarians unite! I'm not sure why there needs to be a best money, like i've said in other places in this thread, does it matter if I pay for bananas using gold or silver? If I pay with silver, does that mean that gold loses market value?
By this I mean, I don't care if bitcoin isn't the best (i.e. most private, most decentralized, incorruptible) but remains most valued. Alternatives are always good.
reply
reply
Nice, me too. So should I experiment with altcoins? To make sure they haven't developed tanks while I'm still using muskets?
reply
I don't call myself a bitcoin maxi mostly because I hate labels like this. They are usually just shortcuts used to avoid thinking. I do believe bitcoin is not only the best but the only money we should be using. There are many self proclaimed maxis that make dumb statements of course. The main issue I have with "altcoins" is that they are almost certainly scams. Those that aren't will be easily censored or destroyed by state actors. They simply do not have the ability to compete. There are only two values I can see in them. Demonstrating the mistakes they make and providing an easy target for state actors to attack before they go after bitcoin. I say the only value I can see realizing I can't foresee the future. If bitcoin is a threat to state / bank control we will see many attacks on bitcoin and bitcoiners. From what I've seen most "atlcoin" projects are very naive OR they aren't and they are just scamming people.
reply
For sure agreed, shortcuts to avoid thinking are to be very wary of. These people who label / pigeonhole foolishly, I label them "labelers".
Jokes aside, sometimes I find labels (used on myself) sort of brave. E.g. I'm an atheist. I hated thinking about myself like that before (when i was younger than 29ish) because it's a factual statement that I do not have know the truth of. So, it's unscientific, it's a lie. But I am an atheist. A "God" is just too simple an explanation. Nature is way more interesting than that. Who knows? My self-labeling is a way to be honest about what I feel, rather than prioritizing never being incorrect.
Definitely agree that most altcoins are scams and get-rich-quick bullshit. Do you certainly believe that all altcoins are either scams or worse (technologically) than bitcoin?
For instance, PoW. Is that optimal? Trustlessness by way of requiring so much energy in order to cheat that it's mostly unfeasible. Obviously PoS is bullshit. But there are others. What about proof of space? Instead of using computing power as your limited resource, they use storage space. You fill a harddrive with random stuff based on some public hash of the chain, then to mine a block of transactions, you search your harddrive (quick, due to merkle tree partitions) for a row that has, like bitcoin, a digest lower than the current block difficulty. Submit your block plus that row plus the key, baby you got a PoW alternative!
Most interesting is Monero. There's a reason it's loved by developers and mathematicians. It's truly incredible. Are you interested in learning about why it is fascinating? Maximalism will force you to ignore good solutions, in the same way that the church suppressed astrophysics for so many years. And there are people who gain a lot by acting maximalist. People who use fake confidence, fake domain-knowledge, in order to get customers to buy into them as a thought leader. And on this site specifically, in order to get you to buy subscriptions to their blogs.. Once you have a thought leader like that, you are a slave.
If you're interested in knowing a bit about Monero, I can recommend this page. It has the original whitepaper, an extended whitepaper with a ton of criticism and addendums, and a third party review of the whitepaper from a real mathematician (it's aimed at semi-laymen). This review is hilarious, and it is very negative to a LOT of aspects of the original monero whitepaper. How often do you see bitcoiners link to critiques of their own protocol? Your maximalist thought leaders certainly will never. This social manipulation strategy is well known, easy to recognize. Here's what I'm talking about, and below it is the monero research page with the papers.
reply
Monero is at least trying to solve a real issue. IMO bitcoin's biggest weakness is privacy. However, this is NOT the biggest problem bitcoin is seeking to solve. I cannot see Monero becoming the worlds money. At best, it could be a commonly used tool. It is entirely possible that Monero or other privacy projects will test and show methods that can be adopted by bitcoin in the future. That's my two sats.
reply
Yeah, bitcoin is not private or even pseudonymous really. Not even if you use a new address for every payment.
I can mention as well that Monero is only optionally anonymous. You CAN choose to set your ambiguity low and have public transactions like bitcoin, you can also prove you sent a transaction, received one, etc, all without revealing anything about anyone else.
Bitcoin and Monero are both solving the same problem: Creating trustless distributed ledgers. There are no smart contracts in monero. There's nothing but improvement to the outdated technology of Bitcoin, mainly anonymity, but also the inflexibility of bitcoin. Monero is designed around the idea that adapting to your environment quickly makes you more resilient. They use blockchain tech in order to prevent malicious protocol updates.
I feel like I'm shilling monero here. But what I'm trying to do is demonstrate that blinding yourself to competition leaves you in the dust. I label it Bitcoin Luddites. :) I own no cryptocurrency myself. I don't care enough about money to make the investment. So I'm not trying to "get people to buy into monero". There are many flaws, as linked above.
I can also disclose that I have good reason to prefer xmr over btc, anecdotally. I was the subject of a criminal investigation because they were able to trace me through bitcoin network analysis, and link me to my real identity. This is not possible with XMR. So I'm biased. Thanks for engaging!
reply
Honest and fair enough
reply
HA! You should do whatever you think is a good investment of your time. Don't ask me. I'm for freedom. I'm also bitcoin only because I believe it is a waste of my time to look at shitcoins. Believe me, I've looked. I've wasted a lot of time on it. But you be you. In the end, the best money will win.
reply
In the end, both silver and gold can be used to buy bananas.
reply
True, I don't think bitcoin will ever be the only choice. But as of today I think it is the best hope for the future.
reply
Hey, as long as we can get get rid of these authoritarian unaccountable central bankers, I don't care either. That's my strongest steelman of maximalism, "united we stand". But as I've by now said ad nauseum, it's also potentially a weakness. Them bankers gotta go
reply
No I didn't believe in that saying.
reply
I missed this, sorry for replying so late: You don't believe competition creates quality?
It was honestly a rhetorical question because I assumed everyone agreed, so your answer is interesting.
Do you believe you get better at playing tennis if you exclusively play against 5 year old girls? Or don't play at all? I mean of course competing makes you stronger, right
reply
Literally competing makes someone stronger, that's when we are talking of sporting events but when it comes to business or products, it gets uglier at times. That's why I said I didn't believe in that saying.
reply
So, to take the opinion to it's end point, you believe soviet russia had greater quality than america? (States are of course just companies with monopolies on violence). Its cool if you do, ive never met a communist here, I dont judge. Just curious
reply
113 sats \ 1 reply \ @Ge 27 Oct 2023
They face many same problems because shitcoins want to bunch bitcoin with them to be able to be classified as truly decentralized in hopes to avoid regulation the problem is they have a head to cut off and are ran by man...once uve been through the shitcoin forest your able to navigate and know bitcoin is the only hope and is truth...sucks because shitcoiners almost get it but fall into shitcoins due to greed...and the message is there for them but slightly skewed...they just have to get rekt to be able to see the light...
reply
once uve been through the shitcoin forest
buddy I was the senior blockchain developer on an NFT project last year, I've worked with Ethereum for years (before realizing early this year that it is just a scam, the NFTs are a scam). I know that forest well.
sucks because shitcoiners almost get it but fall into shitcoins due to greed
Exactly. A quick buck, made off some fool down the line. I quit my job when I realized they wanted to scam people into buying these NFTs (basically rows in a database) for hundreds of dollars.
Thanks for sharing your view. I've written a few times in this thread about the two other crypto that I use that aren't scams, monero and litecoin, they are both better versions of bitcoin. More decentralized even. I'm not here to advocate but since those are the only two (except Lightning) that I use on a daily basis, they're the ones I know most about.
reply
let altcoins compete.
the useful stuff will get built on bitcoin over time - like Lightning which was tested on LiteCoin 😊
reply
deleted by author
reply
Yes, these are examples of how competition improves bitcoin internally. But why would people want to get their hands on bitcoin, if a superior cryptocurrency arrived? For instance, one that was also open source, but faster, more quantum-cryptographically resistant by design?
I'm asking not why people should be bitcoin maximalists. I'm asking why bitcoin maximalists want not to compete with other alternatives. In my view, removing yourself from competition, that kills your species.
reply
deleted by author
reply
Indeed, what else?
I'm not advocating for any specific coin. I do like monero, if that's relevant to you, but I'm sure they have issues as well.
What I am saying is, since we don't know "What else?" exists or can exist, taking the position that "nothing else should exist" is a certain death sentence. Evolution, you know. Without natural selection, you suddenly realize that you are not the gods of the earth, but the indigenous tribes of south africa. You realize it when the spanish come.
reply
XMR is also FOSS. And it isn't a fork of Bitcoin.
Can XMR devs stop users from selling? swapping? forking? If you can opt-out that barely matters.
What about other forms of centralization like ASIC mining mostly being produced by two manufacturers and concentrated on large coporate mining farms?
How about Bitcoin Core being ~99% of node software? https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html
Foundry and Antpool produce almost 60% of blocks. Their mining pools also require KYC.
Tail Emission and Dynamic Blocksize is a better choice for something trying to be an MoE p2p digital cash. Bitcoin will be unuseable by 90% of the world and only sparingly by the rest with it's growing tx fees and limited blockspace. The more you use it the poorer you get. https://monero-bitcoin-fees.vercel.app/
Almost 15 years and Bitcoin is still not private and not fungible in the real world (not only on a protocol level). Far cry from Eric Hughes Cypherpunk Manifesto.
You can claim the properties of Bitcoin make it a better SoV than Monero. But ultimately, any future price prediction is speculation. You can only control supply, but have no control over the other side if the equation. The fickle winds of demand.
reply
Wonderful to see some sense after this deluge of speculators (who refuse to look at their speculated winners competition, no less). Thanks mate
reply