It's full of coins | Hacker News Reader

It's full of coins

bitcointalk.org

41 pointsscotty7916 comments

Oh brother.

Edit, post-downvote: I am a relative "early adopter" of Bitcoin, having used and audited and spoken on it ( http://vimeo.com/27653912 ) for some time now.

I think we all knew that something like this was inevitable, but the sheer volume of idiocy and scale of nonsensical forks seems to be tending toward the rather silly end of the spectrum.

So, to that end: "Oh brother."

Bitcoins weren't backed by real life assets, and since their scarcity wasn't guaranteed by the code (which is open-source and modifiable as we see) but rather by their marketing and brand name, they're now susceptible to reflect any fluctuation that the Bitcoin term will have from a marketability perspective, compared to other coin systems.

Nah, their scarcity is the same as it ever was, and, in fact, it _is_ guaranteed by the bitcoin code. These forks don't affect bitcoin-the-currency one bit - they're simply forks of bitcoin-the-open-source-project.

The open source code out there can be used to power an infinite number of coin universes, each with its own universe-id and slightly different rules about scarcity control. That's why I said Bitcoin scarcity is a result of the marketing power around the term and the specific universe-id it represents, rather than a result of the code.

Moreover, when you talk about scarcity in the context of their economic value, it's not the absolute number that's important but rather the market share that Bitcoins have in the democratic, decentralized, I'm-willing-to-put-money-in-it ecosystem, and that ecosystem's size.

It's just a matter of time until more early adopters realize there can be any number of systems, WebCoins, StuffCoins, FreeCoins, and there's nothing special about Bitcoins that differentiate them from someone else running the same code with a different universe-id (and slightly different rules for scarcity control).

And once people realize that, I think they won't put their money in it any longer.

I'll bet you 100 bitcoins or $1000 (winner chooses) that 12 months from now bitcoins will have at least 75% of their current market value.

The value in a currency is who accepts it. Bitcoin is well-established and valued by many. That can't be said for any of these other schemes.

> Bitcoin is well-established and valued by many. That can't be said for any of these other schemes.

That's true right now and is what I said: currently Bitcoin has a rather good marketing power over the masses, and alternatives failed to appear yet.

However, once other systems start to emerge and people realize there's no value in such coins except their advertisement, there will be no moat to protect Bitcoin from its competitors.

But the question is, will cryptocurrency usage diminish or grow via alternative block-chains?

If it will grow, people will choose the best suitable cryptocurrency for their use. This is ruled by infrastructure (exchanges, software, marketplaces).

I don't see how alternative blockchains would be bad for bitcoins or cryptocurrency in general. The more alternatives, the better. If someone invents technically better cryptocurrency than bitcoin, I will be glad to switch to it.

However, looking at all the current infrastructure around bitcoin (exchanges, mobile clients, libraries, marketplaces, web shops) I don't see why people would switch to these (only slightly) better cryptocurrencies currently. However, it's really easy to switch from a cryptocurrency to another (eg. use the same JSON API, anybody can set up an exchange easily), so we might see some rapid adoption when a better alternative emerges.

...so we might see some rapid adoption when a better alternative emerges.

Isn't that a problem for anyone holding a significant quantity of the previous incumbent?

If you are convinced of this, you can open a bet at http://moonco.in

Congratulations, you've also just described the U.S. dollar. Not backed by real life assets and scarcity not guaranteed by the federal reserve.

Unlike bitcoins, law guarantees the uniqueness of the dollar as a currency in US. The government collects via tax, in USD, a significant percentage each year (15% - 35% ?) of the wealth created by US corporations and residents.

It's backed by the largest military on earth. That's not nothing.

You and I are using different definitions of the word "backed".

See, that's where I disagree. If we look at the definition:

Give financial, material, or moral support to: "go up there and tell them—I'll back you up".

I think the military falls under material support.

Competition is good. I don't see why alternative cryptocurrencies are a bad thing. It just means more freedom to the people.

I like namecoin. It tries to solve the domain name ownership issue without a central authority. The idea being that the FBI and ICE cant seize namecoin domains without shutting down the network.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com