This is a good write-up. There is an insane amount of FUD surrounding Bitcoin, and not all of it is unfounded. I certainly hope that Bitcoin gets its act together, because the volatility makes driving adoption significantly harder than it would otherwise be.
It has been very interesting to see how he Ethereum has handled many of these same problems. I would be interested in seeing analysis about the impact to alternative crypto currencies such as Ethereum and Litecoin, if Bitcoin ends up blowing up over this.
I may not be as technical as the author but I truly believe Litecoin is the future. Charlie Lee is about the best face of a digital currency as possible. He's and ex-googler, MIT grad, with a clear vision and an outstanding team. Like VC's bet on people and not always ideas, he is the one to take us to the next step.
to be fair, part of the reason why there's so much drama with bitcoin is because it's biggest by market cap. when there's more at stake, people show their true intentions.
Very true, people often point out that Litecoin will suffer the same growing pains as Bitcoin as volume increases, and there is definitely an element of true to this. I trusted Gavin to help guide Bitcoin and since his departure I have not felt reassured of anyones true intentions in the Bitcoin community. With Litecoin, Charlie wanted it to be as fair as possible from the beginning. He refused to pre-mine the coin and repeatedly encourage critical thinking of coins in general and even advocated for Bitcoin above the coin he created!!! With the recent events in the Bitcoin community you can understand why people have flocked to Litecoin. His leadership is direct and highly visible.
Bitcoin was having drama like this well before it reached the market cap that Ethereum has now. So far Ethereum is remarkably drama-free. There was the DAO controversy last year, but the chain split seems to have resolved that nicely.
Ultimately a cryptocurrency needs a functional governance model to survive - it has to be possible to update the code, and so people have to decide somehow on which version is valid, and this creates the opportunity for a power structure to exist, and where there is such an opportunity, someone will fill it. Having a "hero" in charge is not the best way but Bitcoin is a fucking mess right now.
The implementation is guided by Charlie. Litecoin had SegWit months before bitcoin because the team doesn't have competing factions. He isn't a "leader" in the tradition since, he is the worker, hands on keyboard writing the code.
Sure, but that sidesteps the question: why does that matter?
The answer isn't inherently obvious. Bitcoin seems to be doing just fine without a leader and with competing factions. The November issue will probably resolve itself just like all the issues that came before.
And there are a lot of advantages to Bitcoin's model. Having a face means tying the fate of the currency to that face, one way or another. Their word starts to matter much more.
I agree with your general sentiment for sure, why should any of this matter?
On a personal basis I feel much more secure knowing a respected member of the community has enough faith in their product to tie their identity to it. Litecoin also has features that bitcoin doesn't. Faster block generation time, different hashing algorithms, larger supply. Charlie gives me confidence that the leadership of Bitcoin has not.
The other question is, if LTC ever becomes as relevant as BTC is in the marketplace (BTC has 30x marketcap), could Charlie still retain enough power to continue to be the guiding hand?
Gavin Andresen was that force in Bitcoin for years, as lead developer and chief evangelist, but now he plays a minor role; recently with big $$ in play and the big community split, not to mention the insane personal attacks, it is much harder to maintain influence.
I guess only time will tell. The thing I respect about Charlie is that he seems completely aware of the difference between being a guiding hand vs. totalitarian ruler with absolute power. He's mentioned numerous times that Litecoin is not "his" although people are free to ask him directly of his intention. Even in the little ways he articulates himself as the "benevolent dictator," as well as publicly speaking to the negatives that come with that is something that is refreshing. Not only does he have the right individual background to lead LTC to great things (whatever that actually ends up being), he has the right relations with people/stakeholders in different communities to make it happen as well.
It has been very interesting to see how he Ethereum has handled many of these same problems. I would be interested in seeing analysis about the impact to alternative crypto currencies such as Ethereum and Litecoin, if Bitcoin ends up blowing up over this.