0 sats \ 26 replies \ @momboteq OP 21 Aug 2023 \ parent \ on: Which sub should I choose? meta
There are more cryptocurrencies that are better than Bitcoin when it comes to p2p transactions. Bitcoin has a long waiting time for transactions and the fees are so high that I won't send $1. As for the Lightning Network, it is a good solution, but it is centralized, which goes beyond Satoshi Nakamoto's assumptions.
Bitcoin can also lose its value if you buy it at the end of a bull market and the market goes into a bear market.
Lightning is decentralized and anyone can run and operate a node & channels or use a self custodied lightning service like Breez, Phoenix, Bitkit etc. There are also centralized hosted options but those are optional.
Bitcoin's value is stable & fixed, 1 sat is 1/21 trillion of Bitcoin and 1 btc is 1/21 million of Bitcoin, etc. The tokens that you're trying to compare to Bitcoin are not comparable, they cannot have a fixed supply with the same level of certainty because they cannot have the same level of decentralization as Bitcoin. The accumulated proof of work and the fair distribution of Bitcoin aren't able to be competed with, it's already too far ahead for anything to catch up. Bitcoin has already happened. The tokens you refer to all have centralizing forces that lead to them being more centralized over time, it means their monetary policies can change and their supply can be expanded, which dilutes and devalues your holdings. In those circumstances you are trusting the creator or majority owners of the tokens to not create more and you're also trusting them to deliver on a product or service that generates returns for your token, hence they are financial promises/securities and not scarce commodity internet cash like Bitcoin.
reply
I am not talking about tokens but cryptocurrencies that have their own blockchain and a fixed amount of cryptocurrencies. E.g. Nano. It is quite an interesting project but not valuable. It has its own unique blockchain and has a fixed amount of cryptocurrencies in circulation. It is also fully distributed and is not centralized
As for the value, I mean such to fiat. If I buy BTC for $100 in a bull market, I can have much less in a bull market. BTC is not cash that is widely available, so if I want to buy something with it I will have to exchange it for fiat, which means I will lose. Of course, if I hold it, it won't "physically" lose value because there is no inflation on the BTC market, nor do they take cryptocurrencies from our wallets.
reply
There are 10,000+ of these tokens so I'm not an expert on the one you mention but a quick glance suggests that the development is centralized around a foundation. Doesn't that mean a hard fork is possible that could change fundamental consensus rules like the maximum supply? E.g. like the completely centralized Ethereum that has frequently changed its monetary policy. Also if there's no proof of work then there's nothing of value backing the token.
reply
You're talking about tokens and I'm talking about cryptocurrencies NOT TOKENS.
PoW is not environmentally friendly, which is why it is being abandoned in favor of something greener. E.g. Nano has PoW, but it is so undemanding that it can send thousands of transactions using the power that 1 Bitcoin transaction needs.
reply
deleted by author
reply
Of course, I am talking about PoW such as in Bitcoin. There are cryptocurrencies that have a lighter and less energy-intensive PoW.
reply
deleted by author
reply
Okay, I also understand your opinion. I, however, prefer something less energy-intensive because currently most of the world's energy is from burning coal, which is not environmentally friendly. Currently our planet is already destroyed by the development of technology. Just so you know, I'm not some eco freak or something😅.