@BTCKitty Only reason not to would be if they’re not feasible for some reason. I do hope this is the answer. But if for some reason other networks get there first, I can see seamless liquidity and interoperability as working roughly as well. And I don’t think this would threaten btc’s status as sound money.
@nvk I’m thinking of tokens as an organizing principle. If tokens serve as an incentive to contribute to a network, people can get paid for doing what they like to do anyway. Whether it’s file storage or curating a certain neighborhood or category of information, if I can get “curator tokens” for performing my service and these are freely convertible to money (btc) then maybe tokens will thrive even if not explicitly based on or derived from btc.
"A successful exploit of this vulnerability could have been so disruptive that transacting Bitcoin Cash safely would no longer be possible, completely undermining the utility (and thus the value) of the currency itself. Instead, the vulnerability was fixed without incident, and publicly disclosed on May 7, 2018."
@lawyercrypto I firmly believe bitcoin carries the day as money. My question is meant to determine whether other crypto currencies will exist at all. I can see lots of use cases for DAOs. If bitcoin can serve as the currency for all of them, I’m an unreserved maximalist! But if there is some technical limitation on bitcoins ability to fill these roles, I’d have to allow that at least one other network could thrive.
Hi everyone. I'm new to bitcoin maximalism and I'm not a programmer so please be kind. My main question for now is whether the functionality of networks with more flexible scripting (such as ETH) will eventually be available on bitcoin through sidechains or some other form of interoperability. Bitcoin-based CryptoKitties is a frivolous but telling example. If this and everything else envisioned for other networks could be enabled on Bitcoin, this seems like a powerful case for maximalism.
Bitcoin Maston Instance