They can try to clone things but a clone isn't going to do any good if the innovation comes from the main chain and the clone just copies.
The problem is that the innovation is a public good since it is all open source software (I am making the assumption that one will not be able/willing to use state coercion to enforce copyright law to ban clones that do not follow the social consensus). So if the BTC community were to all come to a consensus that the BitShares toolkit is superior, they could clone and immediately get every benefit we have in addition to the very important added benefit of network effect. Further innovation can also be copied, and besides, the likelihood of further innovation being funded by the smaller chain's stakeholders decreases because of the free rider problem.
I agree that if Bitcoin decided to implement some features of Bitshares that it could really hurt the adoption and thus how successful Bitshares will be. However, I think that is unlikely Bitcoin will do this, as I will explain after the next point. If a smaller chain does copy Bitshares innovation, then I don't think there will be any problems as no one has near the network effect of Bitcoin, not even Litecoin which would arguably be the crypto with the 2nd largest network effect.
I think Bitcoin is unlikely to copy off of Bitshares innovations thus far:
1. DPOS - The Bitcoin community largely hates PoS with a passion. I think most of it is ignorance and they read someone they think is smart analyzing older methods of PoS say its bad, and then the rest don't see the issues with ASICs and the centralization it will bring. Don't count on them copying DPOS anytime soon. I think a lot of them don't realize that PoS has had many iterations in recent history, and judge them based on prior implementations.
2. TITAN - This is a no go for Bitcoin, they are trying to play nice with governments everywhere. I think implementing something like TITAN would hinder that.
3. Bitassets - The Bitcoin community pretty much regards any added features to the client as "gimmicks" or "uneeded bells and whistles". I think they are unlikely to implement anything like that as well. IMO- the joke is on them because some people do want added features and bells and whistles. I mean... obviously, this is why the bitcoin 2.0 movement is gaining so much traction and raising so many funds for development. If you don't like a feature or don't want to use it, then just ignore it and don't use it. They don't understand that some people do want these features and in some cases these features will bring in users that wouldn't have otherwise partook.
4. Am I forgetting something? I haven't honestly looked into future DACs past BitsharesX yet..
In summary, I think there is a risk of someone copying features from Bitshares. However, as we can see with Bitcoin's success (as luckybit mentioned) the first mover advantage and the network effect that comes with it is quite powerful.
The value comes from everyone (merchants and consumers) adopting a particular token. BitAssets complicate the network effect a bit. BitUSD can exist on multiple chains and thus be backed by different tokens as collateral. Nevertheless, there is still a tendency for people to keep most BitAssets on a single blockchain for convenience (cross-chain transactions are inconvenient); also, centralizing the BitAssets to one chain increases the market value of that one chain which increases its security (since the cost of a 51% attack goes up). If the blockchain that the world converges on is the one whose tokens are distributed to current BTC holders, then they are the ones who capture all that value. Now why would the world converge on one particular chain versus another? I am really not sure. I think it is very sensitive to how the initial adoption grows. Once the network effect is fully in place though, it becomes very difficult to displace it (unless another new significant innovation comes out on another chain and the incumbent chain's stakeholders are too slow to realize its potential such that the clone's market cap drops drastically due to shareholders dumping).
I would like to see some discussion on what will cause one clone to succeed over another (assuming stake distribution is their only difference). I think if the stake of a chain is more broadly distributed to more consumers willing to spend money, then merchants may elect to go with that chain since it maximizes their potential revenue. And consumers are more willing to buy stake in that chain since those tokens are the ones they are more likely to be able spend on goods/services. This is a positive feedback loop that would cause that chain to grow compared to the alternatives until it reaches clear dominance. But I think this is very sensitive to many other factors. Hence, I think marketing and initial deals made can make or break the future of a particular chain.
At least this is how I see it. Please correct me if there is a flaw in my reasoning. It would most likely be a huge relief.
IMO- merchants will adopt whatever token consumers are using, so it is more important to attract users of the crypto currency than merchants. Once enough people are using a certain token, a merchant would be stupid not to accept it because they would be losing business. That being said, one of the ways to attract users is having places for them to spend the crypto, so they kind of go hand in hand.
Attracting users can be done several ways.. I like the method of making new and innovative features they want to use along with making improvements to old features, and Bitshares is already doing both.
The rest of your post as to worrying about cloning, I am guessing you are worried about someone making something like Aethereum that is planning on cloning Ethereum and distributing it to Bitcoin holders. I have my doubts this is going to work. I actually posted this in the Aethereum thread the other day and I truly believe what I wrote:
No I've not invested in Ether at all actually. I don't like the current business model but I might invest at a later stage depending.
I have looked at airdrops before and it's pretty unanimous so far that it just crushes the price and doesn't create user adoption. So I thought the Ethereum airdrop planned here was fine, just futile. Considering the proportion of miners involved in Bitcoin and the number of POW fanboys, trying to bootstrap an ethereum clone based on DPOS onto Bitcoin seemed even more implausible. I think it would just be free advertising for the real Ethereum. Just my opinion, you're entitled to yours.
I think this is a solid post and makes sense to me. I have always looked at Aethereum as a potential threat to Ethereum, but you have now convinced me I was wrong all along about it.
You are certainly correct that all "air drop" coins have been a huge failure thus far. There is no incentive to hold onto the coins and as soon as the are "air dropped" mass dumping ensues.
Ethereum will not suffer from that problem, as all Ethereum owners will have invested something of value to get their portion of Ether. This will provide a deterrent from all Ethereum owners dumping on the market for anything less than what they invested in it, which will uphold the value 1000x better than getting Aethereum for free will.
Just look at how hard all the air drop coins have failed, and how the free distribution Nxt clones have failed. It doesn't take much logical reasoning to deduce that that is what will happen to Aethereum too.
Did I miss anything? I hope that was helpful.
Show Posts
