
Ask HN: Why haven't people moved on from Bitcoin? - sr_banksy
I keep reading about how energy inefficient it is, both transacting &amp; mining. Numerous banks and firms have labeled it a scam, yet they devote resources to trade in it.
Out of naive curiosity:<p>1) Why has Bitcoin captured mainstream attention and not other viable alternatives that have been touted to be better (say ETH, LTC etc)? Is it simply first mover advantage?<p>2) What would it take to replace it as the de facto cryptocurrency standard?
======
mrb
Most of what you read about Bitcoin (or most advanced topics in the press) is
wrong or misleading. Eg. I read articles saying a transaction consumes x kWh
or energy, but in reality a transaction does not consume energy. Transaction
rate and energy consumption are independent. It would be like saying each bit
on a CD-ROM "consumes fuel" when it's shipped on a mail truck.

Only _some_ high-profile individuals have labelled it a "scam", but the
majority do recognize for what it truly is: a revolutionary technology and
social phenomenon.

~~~
sr_banksy
Fully agree that blockchain is revolutionary technology. But why has Bitcoin
captured mainstream attention and not others (say Ethereum, Litecoin etc)?

Understood about energy. I will read deeper.

~~~
mrb
Bitcoin has captured mainstream attention solely because it was the first
mover.

It doesn't help that one of the most prominent energy consumption estimate is
flawed: [http://blog.zorinaq.com/serious-faults-in-
beci/](http://blog.zorinaq.com/serious-faults-in-beci/)

