For example: Bitcoin was originally proposed to be a digital system of payments. Don't listen to the "store of value"/"alternative to central banking" idiots. It was really meant to let you buy a pizza or a cup of coffee. As a proof-of-concept, it was (and still is) quite interesting, but it has proven to be mostly non-functional in that role.
Bitcoin's fundamentals are, therefore, quite bad. It doesn't do the thing it was meant to do very well.
Dogecoin, in contrast, was never meant to function at all. You could mine it and send Doge to others, but that was about it. The mining rewards were so insane that it was thought that Dogecoin could never attain any real worth even if people began speculating in it. Oh how wrong they were.
For example: Bitcoin was originally proposed to be a digital system of payments. Don't listen to the "store of value"/"alternative to central banking" idiots. It was really meant to let you buy a pizza or a cup of coffee. As a proof-of-concept, it was (and still is) quite interesting, but it has proven to be mostly non-functional in that role.
Bitcoin's fundamentals are, therefore, quite bad. It doesn't do the thing it was meant to do very well.
There's a reason why economies have a concept of inflation. Too
What Bitcoin should've done is plan for growth and acceptance of the blockchain, plan to fight consolidation of hashpower, and any number of things other blockchains are attempting to do now. None of which is particularly easy.
The deflationary nature of Bitcoin isn't necessarily bad, and there are actually people that are willing to spend it, even today. Though some of them regret doing so later. The problem is in actually getting BTC from point a to b without relying on something as ugly as LN.
Your post is asinine. None of what you say is true. You continue to demonstrate that you don't understand anything about blockchain or the technology behind modern blockchain research.
Gresham's Law lol okay. Keep using that as an excuse so that you can ignore Bitcoin's absurd block sizes and other problems.
Many people write memos to tell you they have nothing to say.
Dogecoint has "no fundamentals" (Score:5, Insightful)
So, Dogecoin has "no fundamentals". What are the "fundamentals" of any other crypto, pray tell? Salty much?
Re:Dogecoint has "no fundamentals" (Score:3)
For example: Bitcoin was originally proposed to be a digital system of payments. Don't listen to the "store of value"/"alternative to central banking" idiots. It was really meant to let you buy a pizza or a cup of coffee. As a proof-of-concept, it was (and still is) quite interesting, but it has proven to be mostly non-functional in that role.
Bitcoin's fundamentals are, therefore, quite bad. It doesn't do the thing it was meant to do very well.
Dogecoin, in contrast, was never meant to function at all. You could mine it and send Doge to others, but that was about it. The mining rewards were so insane that it was thought that Dogecoin could never attain any real worth even if people began speculating in it. Oh how wrong they were.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Bitcoin was a Paypal clone. It's in the whitepaper.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason why economies have a concept of inflation. Too
Re: (Score:2)
What Bitcoin should've done is plan for growth and acceptance of the blockchain, plan to fight consolidation of hashpower, and any number of things other blockchains are attempting to do now. None of which is particularly easy.
The deflationary nature of Bitcoin isn't necessarily bad, and there are actually people that are willing to spend it, even today. Though some of them regret doing so later. The problem is in actually getting BTC from point a to b without relying on something as ugly as LN.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is asinine. None of what you say is true. You continue to demonstrate that you don't understand anything about blockchain or the technology behind modern blockchain research.
Gresham's Law lol okay. Keep using that as an excuse so that you can ignore Bitcoin's absurd block sizes and other problems.