[keymone]

> What do you even mean when you say "on fundamental level"?

Fundamental properties of bitcoin are its decentralization and security achieved via and expressed in, very transparently and using very simple formula, in terms of energy expenditure, tying it unambiguously to the real world physics.

No other project has such properties or comes close to the level to which those properties are achieved in bitcoin.

> All of this can be said about btc too.

Nope.

> Btc has really bad performance and decentralization and independence (from what?) can be questioned.

Only if you don’t understand what performance of a cryptocurrency is, or what decentralization of cryptocurrency means. And independence is from marketing campaigns, politics and other shenanigans that crypto world is full of.

[Kbelicius]

> Fundamental properties of bitcoin are its decentralization and security achieved via and expressed in, very transparently and using very simple formula, in terms of energy expenditure, tying it unambiguously to the real world physics. >No other project has such properties or comes close to the level to which those properties are achieved in bitcoin.

There are other PoW coins. Some of those do calculation that are actually useful on their own. That means that there are coins with better, as you say, fundamentals.

> Nope.

Yes.

> Only if you don’t understand what performance of a cryptocurrency is, or what decentralization of cryptocurrency means.

Only if performance and decentralization mean something completely different in cryptocurrency than anywhere else. If so, can you explain or provide a source that explains it that I can check.

> And independence is from marketing campaigns, politics and other shenanigans that crypto world is full of.

BTC is full of marketing campaigns, politics and other shenanigans. To claim otherwise is to ignore, or be completely oblivious, to bitcoin history and present.

[keymone]

> Some of those do calculation that are actually useful on their own. That means that there are coins with better, as you say, fundamentals.

no, getting anything valuable out of PoW function besides security of the chain is a subsidy to the attacker and lowers the security of the chain by that same amount. it also introduces unnecessary complexity, potential of bugs, point of contention over consensus rules, etc. objectively worse.

> Yes.

trade decentralization and independence for performance - bitcoin doesn't, it's the most performant and decentralized financial network in the world

lots of hype and marketing - there's barely any compared to shitcoins

lots of bells and whistles of questionable value - barely any compared to shitcoins

lots of money being made in scams and rug-pulls - zero scams perpetrated by bitcoin developers, shitcoin world is built on scams

so no, none of it aplies to bitcoin, all of it applies to shitcoins.

> Only if performance and decentralization mean something completely different in cryptocurrency than anywhere else

i don't care enough to argue with you about definitions of performance and decentralization, ultimately you decide what matters to you. what matters to me at the moment is best represented by bitcoin - security per joule, cost of attack and cost to participate. every other shitcoin is far behind.

> BTC is full of marketing campaigns, politics and other shenanigans. To claim otherwise is to ignore, or be completely oblivious, to bitcoin history and present

false. bitcoin ecosystem is full of people that will market things to you, some honest, some not very much. shitcoins on the other hand are built on and of marketing and scams. if you don't understand the difference, we can just stop here, no point to continue.