[size=0.75][url=][url=] [/url] [/url]

[size=1.125] [BCH] [SIZE =1.125] [BCH] [SIZE =1.125] [BCH] For example the eth? Is it better to lay out a few currencies more now?

This question can be broken down into two questions: why only one wins, and why the winner must be Bitcoin (BCH).

First, let’s explain the first question. We can see from the network effects of currencies that in the future only one currency is bound to gain an overwhelming market share of, say, at least 80%. The reason is simple: if multiple currencies coexist, their constantly changing exchange rates make it very difficult for merchants who support multiple currencies to set prices. You only need one intermediary because it’s the most efficient and the least costly.

Therefore, we can draw the first conclusion: only one currency must have the absolute market share, because of the lowest cost (commonly known as network effects).

But network effects guarantee only one win, not bitcoin. So we need to keep analyzing it.

iiiiiiiiii

The second question is why only Bitcoin (BCH) will win, while all other cryptocurrencies will inevitably fail. This can be answered from several angles:

1. From a technical perspective

Cryptography is by nature open-source software, which means that any practical innovations by other upstarts are bound to be absorbed by the preceding currencies. In the end, it’s easy to see that these currencies are pretty much the same. When these currencies converge, of course, whoever is first, who has the most influence, the most famous brand, the most audience will win. Bitcoin clearly is, so it will win.

One might argue: eth now has more transactions than BTC + BCH, why can’t it succeed?

The reason is very simple, bitcoin (BCH) will only absorb the advantages of cryptocurrency, not the advantages of cryptocurrency that is not designed to be a currency at all, because if you absorb such advantages, you will give up the potential of being a dominant currency.

From the beginning, the underlying design of ETH was not a cryptocurrency, but a globally shared virtual machine. This underlying design, in the early stage, when Bitcoin was emasculated by the Core development group and lost its position in the competition, made ETH rise like a new force. However, success is nothing but failure. It is this design that makes ETH unable to expand when the number of users increases sharply in the future, and will eventually be eliminated from the market.

Eth also has some other features, such as 15s to a block, are in essence to trade some short-term advantages and convenience, at the expense of long-term development prospects. Therefore, ETH eventually wins the sprint but loses the long-distance race because it rushes too fast and lacks the comprehensive consideration of technology and development potential. This is why some people say that V god is too young and knows technology but not economy.

In short, if you are designed and positioned as a currency, as long as it has good features (it has to be valid), bitcoin will absorb. If you are not a currency, bitcoin may not be able to attract even good features, because the gains are not worth the losses, and because those features make it impossible for you to be the currency of the future.

There could also be a retort: if this currency later captured a majority of the market, wouldn’t it be able to beat Bitcoin instead of being beaten by other currencies based on network effects?

Nakamoto: This is not the understanding, network effect has a premise, that is, it must be correct, then can talk about network effect. For example, the us dollar, the network effect is much stronger than bitcoin, why bitcoin is still rising, because bitcoin is better and more correct than the US dollar. Therefore, as long as bitcoin can absorb the advantages of the latecomer, the latecomer cannot be better or more correct than Bitcoin, even if it has stronger network effects in the short term (such as ETH), it does not matter.

It was “better” that made Bitcoin king, not “network effects”; But the cross-learning nature of open-source software makes it unlikely that any copycat will be better than Bitcoin in the long run, so only Bitcoin will prevail. Unless bitcoin is artificially controlled and intentionally killed, which is fine.

2. From a logical point of view

Only Bitcoin will succeed and all other currencies will fail. Because, if there is a new currency X can beat bitcoin, then there must be a new currency Y beat X, and there must be a new currency Z beat Y….. So whoever this currency is, if it can’t beat Bitcoin, it’s not worth investing in the long term; If it can beat Bitcoin, that means someone else will, so it’s still not worth investing in for the long term.

This is why I never hoard any shanzhai coins, because any latecomers, any shanzhai coins win, there is a logical paradox inside. That’s why I strongly support BCH’s fight for bitcoin orthodoxy, because otherwise BCH’s victory would be a potentially unexplainable conflict that could have endless consequences.

In addition, the name is not right, established the orthodox status of BCH, the subsequent publicity and promotion, twice the result with half the effort. It’s hard in the early days, it doesn’t seem to work, and people will target it, but after you stick to it, the rewards will get bigger and bigger. The “slow king” strategy doesn’t work for BCH, because the regime can be changed, not with cryptocurrencies of the same generation, and here’s why it can’t.

3. From the perspective of currency storage value

(This one is controversial, but I’m fine with it, and it’s even more reliable to me than the above two analyses, provided there’s enough background and awareness.) One of the most important attributes of money is that it must store wealth, which is one of the essential attributes of money. The mistake of the Core camp, of course, is to think that bitcoin only needs to store value, that is, to treat the value as the only property, which is not true.

If encryption between digital currency, is ultimately after steady wave patterns, the global users of encrypted digital currency, was forced to the constantly changing must be round round new kind to preserve wealth, and in the process, and is very easy to misjudge and lost wealth, this is and money can be “stored wealth” conflict.

In short, if the encrypted digital currency can really become a world currency, is worth us long-term investment, so it necessary to the security and stability of stored value (stable here does not mean that currency price, but the currency status), then it is only the first encrypt digital currency, because you bought at the beginning, you should don’t have to worry about the problem of storing wealth; If the first encryption digital currency can be overcome by the latter X COINS, subversive and eliminated, then the inevitable cause we cannot safely store of wealth, that means, including COINS, the entire digital encryption money is not money, then it is conflict and the original intention of the currency, so investment logic is the basis of the currency, so shouldn’t investment.

So either bitcoin is not a currency at all and can’t be invested in. Either that or bitcoin will succeed. I personally think bitcoin is a currency, so only Bitcoin can succeed.

I know it sounds convoluted, and it’s a bit of a reverse cause-and-effect logic, but if you think about it, it works.

There may be a retort: BCH can’t turn around when you say that.

In fact, Both Bitcoin Core(BTC/BCE) and Bitcoin Cash(BCH) were born at the same time on January 3, 2009. They are brothers rather than father and son. If you see someone calling BCH the son of BCE who doesn’t even understand this basic principle, you can tell that this person doesn’t really understand Bitcoin.

So, from a blockchain perspective, BCH, like BCE, is the first cryptocurrency. However, according to the standard “signature chain” defined in the white paper, BCH was the bitcoin born on January 3, 2009, while BCE was an alienated fork from BCH on August 1, 2017.

I said right, you can go to the white paper, you can go to see what the principle of bifurcation is, welcome all questions.

Another netizen 1 refuted that it is not 100% certain that cryptocurrency can store value. Only when cryptocurrency wins the competition with fiat currency and becomes the mainstream consensus can it finally have the by-product of “stored value”.

Net friend 2 refuted: “money can store value” this function is actually a “false function”, all the money in the world is not naturally “store value” function just like the newly discovered gold, oil is not this function, the value storage function is given by the market competition. Bitcoin, too, does not have the function of storing value at first. It only has the function of storing value when more people give it the function.

Nakamoto: The value storage function of currency is realized through exchange. That is to say, as long as a few people acknowledge and exchange with each other, bitcoin can start to store value, but this ability is very weak. It grows slowly, and as long as it gets bigger, it should be able to store more value, not less, which would violate one of the properties of money.

In fact, from the perspective of bitcoin as a whole, the wealth of those who hold bitcoin before the fork and ignore the fork will not be affected, so the value storage function is still not broken. But if ETH or LTC wins, then the whole logic breaks down, because from now on, no one knows how to keep wealth, only people who know how to speculate can keep wealth. This goes against the definition of money.

Even if ETH or LTC had 80% of the world’s currencies, there is no guarantee that a new one won’t one day kill them.

Netizen refuted: this world is such originally, capitalism is such, want to lie down forever carefree how is possible. There is no guarantee that any currency can store value forever and not be replaced.

Zhongben garlic: at first glance, it is indeed this truth, complacent incredibly still want to become the king of money once and for all, obviously unreasonable. But that’s not the case. It’s back to the fact that Bitcoin is open source software, so if it decides to rest on its laurels, it will soon branch off into a new branch and regain its vitality. That’s the power of open source software: if you slack off, someone will fork you and take your place.

In fact, this actually happened. Bitcoin Core went the other way, locking the block at 1M, driving up fees to hundreds or even thousands of yuan, forcing out users, and even saying that poor people all over the world don’t deserve to use Bitcoin. As a result, Bitcoin split in two, and the new dynamic offshoot is Bitcoin Cash, which both originated from the same tree but have since diverged.

That’s why I put a “tie” in the title. If ONE day BCH does what BCE does, it will split into BCH1 and BCH2, which will compete with each other.

The great thing about fork competition is that no matter how they compete, if you own bitcoin early on, you automatically own all of the forks. Remember what I said above about the essential property of “storing wealth”, only bifurcation competition can have both competition and safe and stable storage of wealth; And currency competition (ETH, LTC, XRP, Dash….) , cannot store wealth.

So, if cryptocurrency is going to be the world’s currency, then the right competition is going to have to be a bifurcation; The correct currency must be bitcoin. At present, I think BCH is the only correct currency.

Money has been replaced numerous times in different forms in history, which does not prevent people from continuing to use it. It’s simple: if a currency loses value and the market no longer holds its value, change it. I believe that in the future the mainstream should be some kind of optimal currency. But the currency is not necessarily permanent.

It can be replaced in form, such as bitcoin to replace gold and paper money, no problem. However, it cannot be the same form of inter-currency substitution, such as ETH or LTC replacing Bitcoin, because this is determined by the nature of cryptocurrencies. That is, it can be a next-generation currency situation like cryptocurrency replacing a next-generation currency situation like paper money, not a next-generation currency situation like LTC replacing a next-generation currency situation like BTC.

It’s not impossible to replace Bitcoin, but not in the form of cryptocurrency, but in a more advanced form that is not currently imagined or invented by the current generation of cryptocurrencies, perhaps decades or even centuries from now.

Netizens refuted: BTC in the final analysis or continue to PoW irreversible ledger, you can not guarantee that the future is not better realization. Fiat money based on government debt is never guaranteed to be replaced.

Pow essentially contains a basic philosophical concept: no pain, no gain. I personally think this is a universal principle, a fundamental law of the universe. So the POW that conforms to this principle is the most reasonable and will go to the end. Other POS and DPOS I don’t think will go far and will fail or at least shrink dramatically.

For a more detailed explanation, see my Weibo: https://weibo.com/1682192950/Fuq1yDHQy?type=comment https://weibo.com/1682192950/FpnZag4bT?type=comment

The above explanation is why 97% of my assets are in BCH. In the end, this global redistribution of wealth will be a bust for you if you are long and heavy in other currencies.