Why do you think it "costs nothing" to create a successful crypto-token?
I can create a business with a hundred dollars and a trip to the local government building, but that doesn't mean i'll be successful, or that i'm a competitor to facebook. Just like how anyone can fork a cryptocurrency, that doesn't make them successful or a competitor to bitcoin.
And I disagree about how creating a business can cost the creator everything, isn't limiting liability one of the biggest reasons to start a company? So that you don't lose everything if it doesn't work.
But I think you need to really look at what it takes to build a cryptocurrency, let alone a successful one. You seem to be ignoring my point that a currency isn't just the code, but the network, the users, the trust, the amount of hardware and software written for it, the number of implementations, the amount of acceptance at vendors, the number of reputable exchanges, and the amount of decentralization. Replicating all of that isn't going to be any easier than getting everyone to switch from facebook to "klathmonbook" would be.
The fact that there are hundreds of cryptocurrencies created all the damn time that aren't overtaking bitcoin proves my point. If you replace the word "business" with "cryptocurrency" in your last paragraph, it still holds true. A good cryptocurrency needs to provide a benefit, and in bitcoin's case (at least to me) that benefit is decentralization, "push based" payments, the ability to be your own bank, a network of users and vendors that trust and use it, and not needing to trust anyone to transact with them using it.
> Why do you think it "costs nothing" to create a successful crypto-token?
Because "success" for a crypto-token requires near zero effort from the entity deploying the ledger, all that is necessary is to rebrand forked code and pump enough hype into it so that people start buying it. The billion dollar ICO phenomenon is a concrete example of exactly what I'm referring to and that's just one blockchain with a second layer of abstraction on top. If Donald Trump forked litecoin tomorrow and told all his followers to buy the best cryptocurrency ever and that bitcoin was a fake-news token supported by the Obamas, Trump-Coin would be within the top 5 crypto-tokens literally over night.
> I can create a business with a hundred dollars and a trip to the local government building
And if Trump went on TV and pumped that business every day for a year, it would be a certain failure because a "business" is not a clerical detail that you can effortlessly replicate by filing paperwork with the government, it's an organization that embodies the implementation of a concrete business process, it requires that the business owner actually do something.
> the network, the users, the trust, the amount of hardware and software written for it, the number of implementations, the amount of acceptance at vendors, the number of reputable exchanges, and the amount of decentralization
Right... but there is nothing marrying any of that to any specific implementation of a compatible blockchain, this was particularly apparent with the BTC vs BCH fork where companies didn't even know whether or not they should recognize the new ledger that was instantly created out of thin air... but ultimately they decided they would recognize it and suddenly there is "double" the total amount of bitcoin that existed previously. These kind of things can't happen with a business because you can't instantly fork a functioning business with 5 minutes and a PR.
You need to do some more research, because the way you describe things is not how they really are.
The success of a crypto requires much more than just forking and publishing, it's not just hype based except for the scams and fly-by-night operations.
And there aren't "double" the Bitcoin any more than a photocopy of dollar bill doubles the amount of money in circulation.
There is a new cryptocurrency called Bitcoin Cash, but that is not the same as Bitcoin. Just because they have similar names doesn't make then the same, just because they come from the same codebase doesn't make them the same.
Unless you also think that creating a successful browser is just hitting fork and publish, or creating a successful operating system is just hitting fork and publish, or creating a new Facebook is just copying the functionality.
If it's really that easy, then please take over Bitcoin yourself, as there are literally hundreds of billions of dollars to be made here, surely if it's that easy you can handle it?
I can create a business with a hundred dollars and a trip to the local government building, but that doesn't mean i'll be successful, or that i'm a competitor to facebook. Just like how anyone can fork a cryptocurrency, that doesn't make them successful or a competitor to bitcoin.
And I disagree about how creating a business can cost the creator everything, isn't limiting liability one of the biggest reasons to start a company? So that you don't lose everything if it doesn't work.
But I think you need to really look at what it takes to build a cryptocurrency, let alone a successful one. You seem to be ignoring my point that a currency isn't just the code, but the network, the users, the trust, the amount of hardware and software written for it, the number of implementations, the amount of acceptance at vendors, the number of reputable exchanges, and the amount of decentralization. Replicating all of that isn't going to be any easier than getting everyone to switch from facebook to "klathmonbook" would be.
The fact that there are hundreds of cryptocurrencies created all the damn time that aren't overtaking bitcoin proves my point. If you replace the word "business" with "cryptocurrency" in your last paragraph, it still holds true. A good cryptocurrency needs to provide a benefit, and in bitcoin's case (at least to me) that benefit is decentralization, "push based" payments, the ability to be your own bank, a network of users and vendors that trust and use it, and not needing to trust anyone to transact with them using it.