[repomies69]

Bitcoin has worked for me all right for 10+ years. What is exactly wrong with it? At times fees have been a bit higher, but overall I would see the protocol as "good enough". For smaller transactions I have been using Lightning Network and it seems to work all right. The fact that Bitcoin hasn't hard forked for whatever reasons is a positive feature, that outweighs the negatives.

You can consider for example Ethereum, which has hard forked numerous times and changed the monetary policy as well multiple times. It just feels quite centralized and controlled by Vitalik. Harder to trust that crap.

[ErikBjare]

Vitalik is basically only a thought leader these days, he has taken many steps back (as you can read about on his blog). He doesn't "control" anything.

The guiding principle for the monetary policy of Ethereum has not changed: minimum viable issuance. Thanks to the economic efficiency of PoS + fee burn, it enabled what amounts to frontrunning every "halving" and having ~net zero issuance, it's simply good for holders.

If Bitcoin had a way to be secure without further issuance (huge can of worms, halvings are slowly ticking time bombs in the long-run, unless fees rise significantly), it'd be good for holders to fork and scrap it too. There'd be no need to pay billions for security through issuance.

Calling Ethereum centralized at this point is ridiculous. The fact that core devs from multiple client teams can manage to agree on and implement forks to keep developing the protocol (unlike Bitcoin) is a major accomplishment, not a failure.

[hggh]

> I have been using Lightning Network and it seems to work all right

That won't last. As stated in the Lightning Network whitepaper [0], it will need much bigger blocks (it mentions up to 133MB) to scale.

[0] https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

[npoc]

Nah, channel factories solve that problem.

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/67158/what-are-c...

[yardstick]

> Bitcoin has worked for me all right for 10+ years. What is exactly wrong with it?

How much of your Bitcoin usage is associated with crypto investments, vs a replacement for traditional bank transfers and expense payments?

I think it has worked well for a lot of people as an investment. Not so much as a replacement to normal money.

[earnesti]

> I think it has worked well for a lot of people as an investment. Not so much as a replacement to normal money.

Replacing normal money altogether would anyway be an huge goal. Personally I believe, long-term Bitcoin is getting there. I've been using it for payments, now and then, for about 10 years. Mostly as an experiment, but sometimes it also is more convenient to pay with BTC. In general there has been slow, but increasing acceptance of BTC as a payment method. For some things it makes more sense than others. The biggest issue was the early misconception of it being good for microtransactions. I would say that it is more for macropayments.

[tromp]

Bitcoin was designed as an investment vehicle by its choice of capped supply. Use as a currency would have vastly benefitted from a fixed block subsidy, which also would have avoided much of its current wealth concentration [1].

[1] https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-su...

[lawn]

> At times fees have been a bit higher

Fees at $50 per traction is "a bit" higher to you?

[TarasBob]

Ethereum is not controlled by Vitalik. Have you actually looked in to how decisions in Ethereum are made?