Is it possible for a second Bitcoin to appear? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

Is it possible for a second Bitcoin to appear?

501 sats \ 20 comments \ @DmitriiLunin 22 Jan bitcoin_beginners

I'm still just a bitcoin theorist (I like to study the subject before participating) and this question came up: Is it possible for a second Bitcoin to appear?

The same one that is now both an investment and reserve (in place of gold) and an instrument of speculation and conservation, in general one to one like what we have now with all its characteristics: MoE, UoA, and SoV.

What do you think?

view all related items

192 sats \ 0 replies \ @DiedOnTitan 22 Jan

Bitcoin is a protocol, not a product. Look at other Internet protocols that have achieved mass adoption: TCP/IP, DNS, SMTP, HTTPS, BGP, etc. Do we need another DNS protocol? It does what it is designed to do: map hostnames to IP addresses and vice versa and it does it so well, we don't really think about it. Does the world need another DNS hierarchy? You can create another one, sure, but it will not be used because DNS has all the users. Bitcoin allows for the transfer of value in a purely digital way. It works, it scales (side chain), and all the weak links have been strengthened because of merciless yet unsuccessful attacks. It has achieved mass adoption and the network effect. From a technical standpoint, you can create a second Bitcoin, but the world only needs one blockchain.

15 sats \ 1 reply \ @OriginalSize 22 Jan

It's a great question and comes up a lot since it's such a natural thought. The answer is no and the main reason is network effects. In other words, first-mover advantage. From the network effect we obtain value and therefore security. If a new coin appeared with some killer feature which was actually sound, it would be added into, or implemented on top of Bitcoin. That being said we're always wise to be cautious and stay aware of what's going on out there in the realm of fundamental and proven advances. Over time you tend to curate a collection of experts on the various pieces to help evaluate new developments.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DmitriiLunin OP 22 Jan

It's a great question and comes up a lot since it's such a natural thought. The answer is no and the main reason is network effects. In other words, first-mover advantage. From the network effect we obtain value and therefore security. If a new coin appeared with some killer feature which was actually sound, it would be added into, or implemented on top of Bitcoin. That being said we're always wise to be cautious and stay aware of what's going on out there in the realm of fundamental and proven advances. Over time you tend to curate a collection of experts on the various pieces to help evaluate new developments.

I agree with you both in terms of the influence of network effects and the fact that bitcoin has set a good example for all of us and has motivated many to develop and simply study it. At least I have an answer - network effect. What else? Or maybe, as with all the startups that have become unicorns, where the key factor is: Great product and technology, big market (waiting for change), great team (was Satoshi alone?), huh?

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln 23 Jan

Two words: "Network Effect".

Impossible to reproduce at this point. We were lucky that Satoshi left after bootstrapping the network with his early mining. Even then, the distribution curve towards early adopters is still rather skewed.

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @fm 22 Jan freebie

Is it possible for a second Bitcoin to appear?

There is not only a second Bitcoin but many more.. Goolag says there are 105 forks now..

https://forkdrop.io/list-of-bitcoin-forks#:~:text=This%20is%20an%20alphabetized%20list,and%20historic%20Bitcoin%20fork%20projects.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @DmitriiLunin OP 22 Jan

Great, interesting! But I'm not talking so much about forks, but about a blockchain with bitcoin-like success!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @02b9a95168 22 Jan

How could we measure this? Bitcoiners may dispute it, but many people see Ethereum as a SoV, UoA, MoE. So many in fact that the market cap is on the same order of magnitude as Bitcoin. If we believe the market, which as free market enthusiasts we probably should, Ethereum has Bitcoin-like success. Is there an alternative method of measurement?

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @badabing 22 Jan

There's an endless list of shitcoins and their whitepapers..

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @02b9a95168 22 Jan

Can there exist a second Chess, in which all the pieces move in the same way as the first and yet is still distinct? I suppose it is possible that a group of people could have a club where they play "chess2", yet it would be very difficult for this club to legitimize itself among the global population.

This may seem a silly metaphor but actually both Chess and Bitcoin exist as a concept through social consensus; they are what we believe them to be. So yes, technically a "second Bitcoin" can appear. But it's rather doubtful it would be taken seriously. More likely would be /modified/ versions where the rules are slightly different. These can actually claim to exist as distinct and exist under new names, like "Bitcoin Cash", but I'd still not call this "a second Bitcoin" but rather something new that competes.

0 sats \ 8 replies \ @DmitriiLunin OP 22 Jan

My answer is no rather than yes. But I can't find any arguments why "the emergence of a second bitcoin is not possible"?

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @jgbtc 22 Jan

Maybe possible but I think highly improbable. Bitcoin had a singular opportunity to emerge in a world with no competition. Any new rival now needs to compete with an entrenched, well established, widely adopted opponent. It would take either a significant improvement , or some top-down coercive dictate (i.e. CBDC) to get significant numbers of users to switch to a new alternative. Evidence of this is despite an abundance of shitcoins, all claiming to be superior in some way, after 15 years nothing has come close to dethroning the king.

Similarly, despite the possibility of a new protocol emerging to replace TCP/IP, I think this is also highly improbable, and am willing to take the risk and go all in on a variety of devices (computers, routers, phones) and services (Internet, VoIP) that rely on it. I'm taking a chance since these may all become instantly obsolete if some superior protocol comes out of nowhere.

How about you? Are there any technologies you use regularly, that could possibly be replaced but you feel this is improbable enough to devote your scarce economic energy towards anyway?

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @Longtermwizard 22 Jan

deleted by author

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @DmitriiLunin OP 22 Jan

How many cryptos had say that they are the new Bitcoin? How many keep Alive now? Everything is as you say, there is no replacement and is not expected, but why? That's the question

1 sat \ 4 replies \ @Longtermwizard 22 Jan

deleted by author

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @DmitriiLunin OP 22 Jan

Because satoshi did his work, and dissapeared. So there IS no CEO tha can be fucked Up and there IS no one than can rug pull this. Like a snowball that grows itself.

Decentralisation - yes! I agree that this is a multiplier for a good product, but still a multiplier/technology, there must be something else (for example "network effects" as they replied to me in one of the comments above).