You probably can't create a coin that is superior to Bitcoin.
You can create an identical coin and attempt to recreate the network effect.
Discussion
That's what Vitalik did with ether
No, his coin has different software.
It would have to be the same exact software, or a previous version of the software.
You would have to fork and then freeze the fork. No changes.
What stops anyone from forking the Bitcoin software?
đ¤
Nothing stops anyone. But itâs stupid to do so, really thereâs no upside to it. It also means youâre either dishonest or extremely confused about the uses of Bitcoin.
There's no upside to it... yet.
This could change, depending upon future sw releases, extreme price manipulation, rent-seeking through heavy concentration, etc.
If they stick to backwards compatibility, it wonât happen.
If some devs break backwards compatibility, and convince some miners to follow them, itâll be them forking Bitcoin, not me.
And thereâs no upside to do so. Look at all the previous forks.
This is technically true, that they would be the ones forking, but it's also true that you could end up on the smaller branch.
Also technically true. But miners arenât gonna switch to a new fork willy nilly. Theyâve invested huge amounts of money and energy in Bitcoin.
Why would they waste that away for an âexciting new forkâ ?
Itâs like cutting the tree branch youâre sitting on.
You are asking me if a large group of intelligent people would ever do something colossally stupid.
They hardly do anything else.
Itâs not a group. Each of them deciding individually. If a miner wants to a back a fork with a shit ton of KWh, then theyâre free to do it. But since theyâre producing that energy themselves, they know it doesnât grow on trees, and theyâll count to 10 before spending it on the newest fork.
Up to each miner to do economic calculations for the upside of supporting a fork. And looking at all precedents, there isnât any.
Miners are increasingly organizing and outsourcing. As the cost of mining increases, economies of scale, political influence, and geographical placement become more important, which is leading to centralization.
Validation is still a thing. If they break backwards compatibility with the rest of us, theyâll be on their own.
đđđđclassic and spot on
Previous forks all tried to change the functionality, as far as I know.
True, and they all failed.
My point.
(Devil's Advocate here, but #monero is very much alive and has "real economy" adoption to rival bitcoin. Just not in things that can have main street shop fronts. It sucks as a SoV, though, because inflation-by-design.)
Money is a *brand* first and foremost. You want the brand most people recognize. The Yen, Euro, Aussie all have brands and have plenty of adoption. The dollar is a brand that is the largest, so everyone wants dollars.
Bitcoin is THE brand.
Truth
Yes, that's my argument. You can burn a brand.
True, but thereâs no benefit to burn an established brand and start a whole new one from scratch.
It is technically possible, but I canât imagine anyone would do this.
If you don't change the functionality, then you just create a new client which is compatible with the existing network, like Bitcoin Knots for example.
I concur, but do i sense you feel the second one is a serious risk? đ§