Bitcoin used to be 90%+ of the crypto market
Today, it’s only 56%
Which means that there’s a trillion dollars outside of Bitcoin, in projects that provide features and use cases that people want
The fact that there’s a group of people who claim that this trillion is gambling on shitcoins is baffling
Sure, there are shitcoins. But then you also have chains that never died for 10+ years, survived the bear markets & have developers and communities
You can insult them, you can call them second class citizens or shitcoiners. But what if I tell you that there are cryptos that have been outperforming Bitcoin for many years… a concept which used to be considered unthinkable?
The truth is that the game really isn’t zero sum. And for every limitation that Bitcoin has, the market will find workarounds. This means new altcoins, new forks, new technologies getting deployed on blockchains.
Whether you like it or not, the future is multi-chain and we will never have everything divided by 21 million coins. Maybe it will be 200 million, maybe even more.
But it’s fine as long as the greater mission of maximizing freedom gets accomplished, and everyone gets what they want.
Login to reply
Replies (18)
*As long as everyone has to earn what they want
you seem to be missing the point that if one accepts that it isn't capped to 21 whatever then it isn't scarce and if it isn't scarce then it is worthless
this is why they can't face this reality
the crypto game is really nothing more than telling everybody that it's going to the moon while secretly shitting yourself not being able to sleep at night because you might wake up homeless
Tesla had the same trajectory
it used to be THE electric car - now it's just an electric car
most people who aren't mentally ill or retarded have accepted the new reality where Tesla is just another car but some "true believers" still try to act like Tesla is special
i enjoyed shitting on them so much but Elon banned me from X
Well said. I don't like every altcoin out there, but there are a couple projects that I think are pretty cool. I think that the whole Polkadot ecosystem, for example, is pretty near. And in general, I think that there are a lot of concepts within the Web3 world that are really cool, even if they're not sustainable for a long-term economic holding like BTC. My philosophy on it is that if I want to store my wealth, I'll go for Bitcoin or Monero. If I want to try other projects, I might swap to the appropriate altcoin and test it out, but I won't invest heavily in any of them.
I mean, people made fun of things like NFTs a few years back because the influencers all made it out to be nothing but "own a JPEG". In reality, the concept offers a lot of potential for cool things that I don't think people are truly fulfilling. Plus the whole idea of DeFi and DAOs and similar things are all really neat because they do offer a whole new world of potential ideas and projects. At the same time, I do think it's smart to be cautious with that sort of thing because of how many rugpulls there are.
Again, it comes back around to the philosophy that I have of storing long-term wealth with Bitcoin or Monero and only swap a little bit to the altcoins to try out the projects.
Bitcoin perdió participación, pero la descentralización y diversificación son clave en cryptomarkets.
this is a top post on SN.
16 years after deployment and a decade of LN development
DriveChain is Bitcoins last chance, otherwise it dies

Stacker News
Paying With Bicoin Through Square - I wasn't prepared \ stacker news
Just about every morning I go to my local bagel shop to have a bagel and drink too much coffee. I have joined one of those informal old guy groups ...
The existence of utility coins is exactly why Bitcoin should only be used as money.
There are already block chain data hosting services.
There's no point in what core are trying to do to Bitcoin, Bitcoin will never be good as a utility coin. It can be forked a million times, won't change that the ship has already sailed a long time ago.
> The truth is that the game really isn’t zero sum.
You're right in the wrong direction. The game Core is playing is negative sum. Because if Bitcoin loses dominance there will never be an alternative to fiat. Because any dollar alternative will be subject to the rebuttal of “well, everyone used to say Bitcoin was going to be money, but now it’s an artifact of history. I can’t store value in this new crypto thing because there will always be a newer technology.” It will be the end of the experiment.
Any given shitcoin, longterm, is worth more with Bitcoin ascendant than not. When Bitcoin falls, the speculative value of their shitcoin will fall with it, and all that will remain is fee economies for Tether transfers.
Now, the issue at the core of all this is actually Core itself. They did everything they could to reject sustainably viable fee economies and real world use cases. Tether started as a project on Bitcoin, for example. Luke and Core did everything they could to chase Tether away. Now on almost all days the volume of USDT on TRON alone surpasses the daily volume of Bitcoin. The killer crypto money for payments is the US dollar.
Similarly, Core refuses to make the base layer fungible even though Satoshi himself described an implementation of ring signatures and said making the base layer private, if a solution was possible, would create “a much better, easier, more convenient implementation of Bitcoin”:
So now, similarly, everyone who needs to have reliable money has moved to Monero, because Core prematurely ossified the base layer, spent a decade dictating to the market that they actually wanted Lightning, and refused to implement a feature that Satoshi himself advocated because useless retarded faggots like Saylor said it was dangerous to their business model.
Core then reverses course, flying off the cliff at the last minute, and bends over backwards to implement Taproot, facilitate NFTs in Ordinals and EVM contracts via Citrea, but it is too little too late. These are *settled markets*. The winners and losers are already chosen. It would have been useful to have Ordinals at the height of the NFT craze, and it would have been useful to have Citrea back when people were actually building the products that defined the EVM. But this is a decade late, a Bitcoin short.
The “Bitcoin must solely be money” crowd refuses to make Bitcoin money. Instead of BIP110, what is needed is to implement fungibility in the base layer with Full Chain Membership Proofs and simply depreciate taproot, only allowing taproot transactions to flow out of taproot addresses. Get rid of the witness discount and “spam” stops immediately, because once again every byte is paying its fair share. That’s how you know Luke is a manipulative schemer who simply wants Patreon and Github Sponsors gibs: he advocates nothing that turns Bitcoin into money.
Anyways, Bitcoin is probably doomed. Paul might pull the plane up from its descent, but Bitcoin is probably going to continue to shed users because Core refuses to allow real world uses of blockchains in a timely manner, when there is still a chance to create a sustainably viable fee economy for Bitcoin, and the sole feature that is actually hands down required for Bitcoin to be money, one that was even advocated by Satoshi himself, is off limits because Core is under sway of useful idiots like Saylor and a bunch of scheming glowniggers who don’t want competitors to the dollar.
Regardless, Monero is the one thing that actually fulfills Satoshi’s vision of an alternative, useful, fungible and private currency. If you want to actually fulfill the vision of an alternative currency not under the control of the state, you should stop using Bitcoin and explain to people the above problems. Only a severe, sustained, long lasting bear market with an extremely low price can possibly save Bitcoin from the treasury companies. To save Bitcoin, we need to keep Bitcoin’s price low enough for long enough that Saylor kills himself.
Not a suggestion
Not a suggestion
Bitcoin used to be 100% of the crypto market lol. (90???)
Also, which altcoin has out performed Bitcoin if we do a side by side comparison for more than one cycle?
Tron
The first 4 paragraphs building an argument that shitcoins are worth something because their combined value is trillion dollars is a joke at best. VCs with PR campaigns, Market Makers and Wall Street can run any projects dollar capitalisation to whatever size they want. So shitcoins combined marketcap is not something to go by.
Don’t worry, they do the same with Bitcoin too
Agreed
I would argue that your argument is very flawed, Bitcoin at the protocol level should not and be very slow to change if at all, Bitcoin is a protocol designed to be exactly that. Bitcoin doesn’t change its meant to change you. Nature doesn’t change, it changes us, reality doesn’t change it changes us. Truth doesn’t change it changes us.
Bitcoin core have tried to implement the changes that they can but outside of the main blockchain protocol, yes many of this changes are not decentralised but it’s a choice to use or not to use.
Changing protocol every time the market demands something is lame AS FUCK. The NFT market don’t even exist today bruh.
I would suggest that it is a great thing that the market is suggesting other protocol, the good ones will stand out and flourish. Ethereum with all of its changes is next to dead, outside of propagating the shitcoins stablecoins use case.
Monero is an awesome tool, I love and use Monero and think it’s far more effective than bitcoin from a fungibility point of view, but guess what, if care is not taken changing things at the protocol level everytime the market demands things is a recipe for disaster.
Steel your mind Bruh
#btc #xmr

> I would argue that your argument is very flawed, Bitcoin at the protocol level should not and be very slow to change if at all
plenty of fairly large changes were made to Bitcoin to facilitate enshittification on a schedule that was uselessly untimely. Witness discount was a massive change completely against Satoshi’s vision for Bitcoin, and yet it went through to enable things like Ordinals. Core has effectively ruled by fiat, and whatever changes they have decided to implement we have received. All of the changes they have made to Bitcoin are things that the market did not ask for, did not want, and did not use, while they actively chased away real world applications of blockchains to dictate and lecture to us what Bitcoin should be, in contrast to the stated desires of Satoshi, major historical users of Bitcoin, and actual market realities.
> Changing protocol every time the market demands something is lame AS FUCK
You don’t have the change the base layer. You just have to have reasonable side chain primitives, as actually exist today in Bitcoin Cash, and which could trivially be enabled today with BIP300/BIP301. Of course, this would kill the parasitic lightning economy that is driving Bitcoin into the ground, so the vested interests want to keep Bitcoin infinitely ossified, so they don’t lose their venture capital bonfires.
Changing the protocol to accommodate actual uses of cryptocurrencies would be explainable, but instead we get changes to the protocol to accommodate the financial grifting at startups aligned with Core and their investors. They are selling Bitcoin’s future for 30 pieces of silver.
At the very least, features Satoshi explicitly outlined as desirable, which have been aggressively used in legitimate blockchain monetary systems like Monero for over a decade, should be prioritized over this useless Lightning trash we’ve had shoved down our throats.
> The NFT market don’t even exist today bruh.
Yes, which is why Bitcoin Core facilitating it so late was laughably stupid, as was stated in my post. Why weren’t you saying this in 2023 when Ordinals were launching? Why weren’t you calling out the fraud, graft, and useless lateness to the market then?
> Nature doesn’t change, it changes us, reality doesn’t change it changes us. Truth doesn’t change it changes us.
Put down the spliff man, this is retarded shit. Bitcoin is not natural laws, and if it continues not being functional in any way, it will be replaced, and we will literally all be infinitely poorer because of it.
Bitcoin is not natural law, but code is law, bitcoin is a peer to peer distributed public ledger, there is a significant demarcation between the Monero idea of private distributed network and Bitcoins. No way you are implementing that idea of a private distributed ledger on Bitcoin without severe protocol change.
The market is the answer, some have already figured it out (and starting to edge their bet on other blockchains like Monero etc)and die hards, maximalist and optimists see a relevance for a public distributed ledger in a world where double spending is rampant, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, I hold some bitcoins and strategically mine more to HODL myself, but guess what I also hold some Monero, mine some Monero and swap into Monero for the use case of sending private transactions. Fiat is what I am trying to get away from, simply not interested in the fiat experiment.
Let me ask you this, just a scenario BTW, if the market was to suggest Monero become a public distributed peer to peer network, would you continue to harp on about Monero, my personal answer is a resounding NO and I will like to know what your take on that is
P.S I do not smoke weed, never have
#btc #xmr
The table doesn’t show TRX outperforming BTC across a full market cycle. It only shows TRX having stronger percentage moves inside certain bull years, which is normal for smaller, higher‑beta altcoins.
Cycle performance is measured peak‑to‑peak. BTC has made new macro ATHs in multiple cycles (2017 → 2021 → 2024). TRX hasn’t broken its 2017 high once in nine years.
Year‑to‑year volatility isn’t cycle outperformance — it’s just altcoin beta.
If an asset hasn’t broken its previous cycle high in nine years, it didn’t outperform — it just survived