Talk:Alt-chain release RFC

From Bitcoin Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Reverting 'why compete' again

The 'why compete' section is anti-competitive. It assumes "there should be only one".

Alt chains are interesting economical and technical experiments. Some are scams, some are just meangingless ... but some might offer some technical or economical innovation Namecoin and possibly PPCoin. Hell, even Litecoin has some properties that could be more secure than Bitcoin - its 2.5 minutes between confirmations might be inherently safer than Bitcoin.

Luke, please do not revert again without discussing.

Ripper234 (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2012 (GMT)

You are the one reverting/vandalizing here. --Luke-jr (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2012 (GMT)
We disagree on this point. I opened a thread to discuss this Ripper234 (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2012 (GMT).
Your thread has been hijacked by trolls, so I'll respond here:
The "choice" is already left up to the creators of the systems and market. Hiding the information I added, in fact, harms the ability to make such an informed decision. If you don't like how it's worded, feel free to adjust it within reason, but merely deleting content like this is vandalism. --Luke-jr (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2012 (GMT)
You can reply here instead of on bitcointalk, problem is that I don't get email notifications here (do you? not sure if there's a setting I'm missing), so it's much harder to keep track of conversation.
Please open a thread on bitcointalk to discuss, the wiki sucks at discussions.
The statement "There is no reason to create more by introducing competing crypto-currencies." is a personal opinion of yours. Why do you recon it belongs in the article? A lot of people do believe there is ample reason to create competing crypto-currencies ... the reasons for their creation are varied.
"To date, the only established legitimate reason to start an alt chain, is if you wish to use it for a new purpose - that is, not as a currency."
So you claim all the creators of all alts except Namecoin "didn't have a legitimate reason to do it"? What constitues as "legitimate reason"?
This part is meaningless (there is no authority to determine what "legitimate" means, and no proof that many alts were not started for legitimate reasons).
So, to sum up - you are taking your view of what's legitimate and embedding it into the article. Do you have any supporting evidence for your opinions about alts, or people backing up these opinions?
Ripper234 (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2013 (GMT)
I've rephrased, elaborated, and updated the section you refer to. Does it sound better to you now? --Luke-jr (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2013 (GMT)
I guess it's more ok, I don't have energy to debate it right now. In any case, it does not make sense to have this section as the first thing in the article. The article is not "The Altcoin Article", it's a specific RFC that is designed to be useful for altcoin authors that want to create fair coins. Having the Why Compete as the first section in the article is counter-productive. Can you live with it being in the place where I put it? Ripper234 (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2013 (GMT)
It makes plenty of sense. It's chronological order. The decision whether to improve Bitcoin, implement the altcoin using the same blockchain, etc comes long before the launch. --Luke-jr (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2013 (GMT)