No the best coin and king of coins non other that bitcoin no one or other coins can win to bitcoin

Definitely. Coins that move up quickly generally have a smaller market cap and also tries to solve real world problems, and try to form a real world solution instead of being a digitised currency. Coins that solve these sort of problems gain interest from people very quickly, and when there is more supply, coin prices tend to rise very quickly. Another variable that can make coins move faster than Bitcoin is their market cap. Take for example a coin sitting a rank 300 compared to Bitcoin at no1. Bitcoin is already peaked, as in there is not much room for Bitcoin's price to grow as it is already so high. On the other hand, the lower ranked coin can have room to grow and might also be called "undervalued" due to it's low market cap. A lower market cap with public interest will likely move much faster than Bitcoin

The way you explain your questions allows it to be summarized pretty neatly; it seems like you are asking which is preferable:

The ability to move your coins around quicker with a centralized project

Maintain the fundamental decentralized philosophy and develop Bitcoin to move transactions faster (blocksize, etc.).

My vote will be on decentralized Bitcoin every time, otherwise we might as well just stick with Visa and Mastercard. Once Bitcoin makes the changes to move transactions/coins quicker, the other alt-coins that have been developed and garnered attention specifically for this reason will disappear.

I don't know if you're talking about price volatility or the number of transactions processed. If it is either of these two I would say that is irrelevant to the longevity of the currency or mass-adoption.

A currency that is more volatile from a centralized organization/company would only imply that the development team is exclusively developing for the sake of personal financial gain or that they cannot maintain faith from their investors, something like that.

A currency that has processed 10x more transactions than Bitcoin would be rendered obsolete by a simple tweak in the blocksize and maybe a couple other parameters.

Do either of these scenarios sound like something that will stand long-term? Alt-coins that are popular or developed simply because of problems that Bitcoin already has solutions for, whether or not they've been implemented, are coins that are good for pump-and-dumps and that's about it. Unless I've missed one of the possibilities of your point, in which case, please enlighten me.

Correct, we don't need centralized speed. But Bitcoin has been determined as semi-decentralized due to the big miners out there controlling most of the network, and the fact that it hasn't receives rapid development, it might be much harder to update a decentralized protocol than we think.

Bitcoins fees and the transaction time is sure the negative point of bitcoin but even with those drawbacks bitcoin is the real thing.

Bitcoin is doing just fine if you the whole idea in broad sense. It is just that people are misusing the whole thing for their own benefit and there is very less concentration in the development aspects of the bitcoin. We can see that how bitcoin is resisting at different level of market cap despite the thing that it’s not getting much attention at its development core.

Speaking about the decentralised nature of any crypto I’m sure that it is most pivotal thing to make them survive. The slowness doesn’t come from the community but it comes from the decision making process itself. So we need more engagement for the time being to achieve what we are looking after the bitcoin.

At least there's one reasonable, critically thinking individually poking their head up in the thread.

Pro-tip, when you want to post twice in a row like you just did you can easily Edit the first post to include what you would've made the second post. That way things are less messy.


By that logic there can be no true decentralization. The decentralization will become broken down to some extent if you analyze it based on inequality of hash power among miners. At some point, unless everyone is running an equally powered mining rig full-node then the best we can hope for is semi-decentralization without a radical change in the foundation. Even if everyone was running an equally powered rig, we would also have to somehow nullify any influence that someone may have over miner(s), because this could be abused as if the power was the influencers, if the influence is great enough.

I might be going off on a tangent, but my point is this: Even if we agree that Bitcoin is only semi-decentralized, then it would still be a better option than anything centralized. Harder to update, because of the requirement of consensus among the development community in my opinion has kept Bitcoin healthy all these years.

Well for me i think yes some are processing faster move coins because of their connections and some are waiting by moving  faster, but they slow community than centralised in development

based on what do you suppose that bitcoin is too lame to compete with other cripto currencies? so far the bitcoin currency is still the highest priced crypto currency in the market, so I think it is wrong if you mention that bitcoin development is slow