Is Change Really What Bitcoin Needs? (UASF, Txn Fees)

Words
604
Reading
3 min
Listen
Play
9y

I love Bitcoin and I am forever grateful to Satoshi Nakamoto (Whom I posit is actually an/group of extra-terrestrial entity(s) who gave us "Blockchain technology" which I define as a living, breathing entity that we are barely scratching the surface of adapting to our culture, or rather our culture to it, but that is a discussion for another time...) because Bitcoin revolutionized our world, introducing it to Blockchain technology and the possibilities of a decentralized form of currency. Bitcoin has successfully developed the most brand recognition and, despite being declared "dead" by mainstream media 160+ times, responds by climbing even higher in value. It's obviously doing something right.

However, take an objective look at the technology platforms of Bitcoin blockchain, compared to many of the more infant altcoins such as Dash, Litecoin, Monero, Ripple, Factom, NXT/NEM and you will see that they are all light years ahead technologically to perform as an every day currency superior to Bitcoin, with high numbers of transactions including micro-transactions with low fees, anonymous transactions and all the particulars that everyone in the deeply rooted Bitcoin industry are desperately trying to keep up with through various theoretical modifications such as the upcoming UASF August 1st.

Bitcoin is prospering and functioning well as it is, so why are we (users, miners and the industry as a whole) trying to force a round peg into a square hole by continuing to modify it in ways that force it to be used as a day to day currency, when there are altcoins that already exist that don't have to be modified and already function 100x superior to Bitcoin as a day to day currency? Does that mean Bitcoin gets flushed down the toilet? Far from it.

Personally I envision Bitcoin as the crypto equivalent to physical gold, or even decentralized CDs ("Certificate of Deposit"). Both analogies are similar in that gold and CDs are awful to use as a currency, but they are still valuable investment to buy and hold for long term gains. Gold is heavy, difficult to break up into smaller pieces, difficult to transport long distances and it can be stolen from you relatively easily. CDs penalize you for withdrawing your investment early. You simply have to let it sit there and accumulate interest until the term is completed.

I hypothesize that if we leave Bitcoin the way it is and allow it to continue on the current track, the txn fees and delays will organically force the market into treating Bitcoin in a similar way -- as a long term holding investment vehicle. At the same time, the market will move into other technologies that operate superior to Bitcoin as a daily currency, like Dash, LTC, Ripple, Monero, or any others that make a name for themselves for that specific purpose.

In my view, forking Bitcoin is simply continuing to attempt to force a round peg into a square hole, and it's risking damage to the Bitcoin platform as a stable long term investment vehicle. Leave it the way it is, and let the txn fees and delays force the free market into using it how its design best functions, and let one of the other altcoins that already functions superior to Bitcoin in that role take the place of day to day currency.

Cryptocurrency is not Bitcoin VS. Altcoins. This isn't a competition. We are all a team working together trying to change our societies and world for the better. I believe we can only accomplish it together, not pitted against each other as Bitcoin supporters or Whatever supporters as some try to purport it to be.

Is Change Really What Bitcoin Needs? (UASF, Txn Fees) | Ecency