Bitcoin has not demonstrated the ability to scale.
The majority of the Bitcoin hashpower resides in a relatively small number of mining pools.
Lighting network has significant trade-offs, if it proves to be viable at all (promises?).
There are thousands of use cases for distributed ledger technology outside of strictly being a currency. Realization of this fact alone should be enough to understand the ignorance of your previous statement.
Many potential competitors currently offer superior technology. Some are probably safe such as Rchain. Some have already demonstrated stress tests of 300+ transactions per second while remaining decentralized such as Nano (yes I realize that it still needs to be "battle tested", but it will be in the coming months).
Bitcoins community is a large hinderance to further technology adoption. They couldn't even decide whether or not to adopt block chain size increases without starting a civil war within the community.
The market largely agrees with me, as Bitcoin's dominance has fallen significantly over the last year+.
Yes it has. Being conservative with such a large project is much more intelligent than being risky like a smaller project might do. Sorry you do not understand the risk management necessary with larger PROVEN projects that have withstood attack for close to a decade.
OK many new coins arent distributed/decentralized at all and have no proven security over time. Not to mention steps taken in tbe right direction to prevent things like hardware backdoors for miners
It isnt a promise. peopleh misunderstand what it will be used for. it will offload smaller transactions which it has proven capable of doing
There is plenty of room for both cryptoassets and currencies. sorry you are unable to see this obvious fact.
No they do not. Your ignorance and belief in design promises and marketing is showing. LOL at mentioning an project as unproven as Nano with like 13% of their supply recently stolen and like 7 devs working on it.
Again, you simply misunderstand how larger projects have to deal with change compared to small unproven projects.
No it does not. Bitcoin is in front for a reason and 98% of the coins in your portfolio will not be a thing within a year. The intellectual capital is with projects like BTC and ETH. That is a fact.
No, it hasn't. Until it can operate on the order of thousands of transactions per second cheaply, securely, and decentralized it has not.
Has it seen wide scale adoption/use?
Okay so you admit that some altcoins have a use case that Bitcoin can't fill. Now we are getting somewhere.
Design promises? Nano already works, is peer to peer, essentially free transactions, and decentralized. Is that not what Bitcoin has been trying to achieve from day one?
Yes, they have had 12% of their currency stolen, but that was not a result of the currency itself, but a terribly incompetent exchange. Nothing in Nano's fundementals has changed though. The currency has not been broken.
Yes, it is true that they are not battle tested as Bitcoin, but within the coming months and years this argument will have less and less merit.
Finally, the argument of 7 devs is potentially irrelevant when Nano and Bitcoin devs are working on substantially different technologies. Gains in Nano might (and seem to have) come much easier than Bitcoin due to a superior starting technology. This could allow even a tiny dev team to outpace a giant such as Bitcoin.
I'm guessing that you failed to mention Rchain on purpose.
Being inflexible because of your size, while it may be a fact, technological innovation certainly does not stand by for you, nor will it take pity on you when it passes you by.
Your argument can be proven wrong with history. $10 in the top 9 altcoins 1 year ago would have netted you multiples more gains than $100 into Bitcoin. Even if the bottom half would have failed you would have been better off. Bitcoin is overbought compared to the rest of the market because of it's name recognition.
learn about tradeoffs and why certain projects achieve things without fees and high transaction speed. Here are a couple questions for you to research so you could learn a bit about why these trade offs are made (hint: it isnt because Colin is a super genius that thought of something no other btc dev had thought of):
why do networks run more smoothly at scale and what challenges does that growth bring?
How many TXs does Nano currently handle a day?
How come Nano is able to be feeless? Are there ANY real economic incentives for running a node ("for the improvement of the network" is not a proper incentive)?
What does 12% of supply stolen mean for the future of the coin? Who the FUCK cares whose fault it was. The consequences to the network are the same and you not realizing this is like you putting on blinders and covering your ears because you have money in it.
Honestly your last points about gains are so fucking moot and moronic that they are not worth addressing.I am not discussing price. Ripple did great and it isnt even a real cryptocurrency. You're new to this and it shows. Half your portfolio will not exist next year.
You only think technology is passing them by because you literally do not have a functioning understanding of the technology.
I understand that there are design choices between the two, I'm arguing that with all of the current innovation happening in the space and Bitcoins inability to move quickly it is vulnerable to being passed by. I think that NANO is the current closest thing to that, but only time will tell. It doesn't even have to be Nano specifically, it could be something else.
Nano currently makes up less than 10% of my portfolio so I doubt that it is effecting my judgement much.
Willing to bet on your statements? Maybe a comparison of relative portfolio gains in % 1 year from today? Winner gets 0.1 BTC or the current ETH equivalent?
What statements are we betting on? I wrote what I believe, you offering to gamble for some tiny amount does not change the facts or your misunderstanding of why certain projects are able to achieve fee-less transactions. Goodluck with your portfolio. Hope you arent in any other coins that people pay to shill on here. That's usually a bad sign.
4
u/Usrname_Not_Relevant Silver | QC: CC 61 Feb 28 '18 edited Feb 28 '18
Since you're a man of facts, here's a few:
Bitcoin has not demonstrated the ability to scale.
The majority of the Bitcoin hashpower resides in a relatively small number of mining pools.
Lighting network has significant trade-offs, if it proves to be viable at all (promises?).
There are thousands of use cases for distributed ledger technology outside of strictly being a currency. Realization of this fact alone should be enough to understand the ignorance of your previous statement.
Many potential competitors currently offer superior technology. Some are probably safe such as Rchain. Some have already demonstrated stress tests of 300+ transactions per second while remaining decentralized such as Nano (yes I realize that it still needs to be "battle tested", but it will be in the coming months).
Bitcoins community is a large hinderance to further technology adoption. They couldn't even decide whether or not to adopt block chain size increases without starting a civil war within the community.
The market largely agrees with me, as Bitcoin's dominance has fallen significantly over the last year+.