Quote:
Originally Posted by vikthunder
The thing that this misses is the network effect. Eventually, 1 crypto will become THE crypto. Bitcoin had it all locked up, and pissed it away because of a ******ed scaling debate that didn't need to happen for 10 years or more (or ever probably).
That left the door open for anyone else to walk in and lay claim. Eth has the best shot because 1) it can do more than BTC 2) it's the largest (in terms of adoption) smart contract platform. With #2 being way more important than #1.
You mentioned it doesn't have a patent, so it's not securely in the #1 spot for smart contracts, but Facebook isn't a patented idea, yet no one can touch them. Why? Because everyone is on Facebook, so that's how a lot of the world communicates. You can make an exact clone of Facebook and no one will go there. You can make an exact clone of ETH and no one will go there. Hell, someone did make an exact clone of BTC (LTC) and nobody goes there.
With crypto, someday everyone will be on BTC or ETH or $hitcoin, and whatever coin wins will be worth...some ungodly amount.
lol at "******ed scaling debate"; that's a function of decentralized discussions. One person's "******ed" is another person's "cherished belief".
Pretty good points, except I disagree that there will only be "1 crypto" that wins necessarily. A decent case can be made to game developers for having a requirement of "coin agnosticism", to provide access across any/all popular coins. Why try and pick winners and shut out anyone who has some liquid crypto value they want to gamble up.
Secondly, to the extent that any coin's price gets out of line with its value as a tool, that can be adjusted by the nearly infinite degree to which coins are divisible into fractions. Also, a good, functioning blockchain need not run with the most expensive coins as fuel, especially if it supports contracts with value stored or convertible into other coins.
Last edited by Gzesh; 05-25-2017 at 07:04 PM.