<p>I don't think there are severe drawbacks of Bitcoin. Certainly none that other coins are solving.</p>

<p>However, Bitcoin has certain properties that could be replaced with some other. Most altcoins to just that. Popular properties that altcoins change are:</p>

<ul>
<li><strong>replace <a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_work" rel="nofollow">PoW</a> with something else</strong></li>
</ul>

<p>Some altcoins do not use a PoW mechanism or use a hybrid mechanism. PeerCoin (originally named PPCoin) was the first altcoin to use the <a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake" rel="nofollow">Proof-of-Stake</a> mechanism, which basically requires miners to hold a certain amount of currency in order to mine new. PeerCoin uses a hybrid of PoS and PoW. <a href="http://www.nxtcrypto.org" rel="nofollow">Nxt</a> is an altcoin that uses pure PoS.</p>

<ul>
<li><strong>the <a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_work" rel="nofollow">PoW</a> algorithm</strong></li>
</ul>

<p>Bitcoin uses <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2" rel="nofollow">SHA-256</a>, which is a hash algorithms that almost entirely requires CPU cycles to calculate. This means that it is easy to create custom hardware to perform this calculations. There are many altcoins that use <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrypt" rel="nofollow">Scrypt</a> as the PoW algorithm. Scrypt is more memory-intensive and therefore harder to implement in custom hardware. The first altcoin to implement Scrypt is <a href="https://litecoin.org/" rel="nofollow">Litecoin</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primecoin" rel="nofollow">Primecoin</a> requires miners to calculate large prime numbers as a PoW mechanism.</p>

<ul>
<li><strong>the total amount of coins that can be mined</strong></li>
</ul>

<p>Bitcoin has a 21 million coin limit. Some altcoins raise this limit, such as <a href="http://dogecoin.com/" rel="nofollow">Dogecoin</a>, others lower it, such as <a href="http://www.42coin.org/" rel="nofollow">42</a>.</p>

<ul>
<li><strong>the rate at which new blocks are created</strong></li>
</ul>

<p>Bitcoin blocks are mined at an average rate of one block every 10 minutes. Many merchants require that a transaction has been confirmed by several blocks before they accept it. With a confirmation time of 10 minutes (in fact, the recommended amount of confirmations to wait for is 6) can be quite cumbersome in certain use cases. <a href="https://litecoin.org/" rel="nofollow">Litecoin</a> has a confirmation time of 2.5 minutes.</p>

<ul>
<li><strong>the time it takes before the maximum amount of coins is created</strong></li>
</ul>

<p>Block rewards usually have a halving time. Every halving time the block reward halves until it is too low to represent using the maximum precision and it becomes zero. With Bitcoin it will <a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply" rel="nofollow">take until 2140 until the block reward becomes zero</a>. Some coins shorten this period. Sometimes they shorten it so much that the creator (who mines first, of course) is accused of pre-mining because he can mine very fast and easy in the beginning of the existence of the coin.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-26T09:08:18.553Z
Thanks! PoS sounds interesting, and I like the idea of primecoin trying to calculate something actually (slightly) useful instead of brute-hashing. Personally, I consider changing the amount of total coins nonsense though, since that is equivalent to changing the scale (apart from, maybe, changing for how long miners get a reward in addition to fees).
Tobias Kienzler
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-26T20:22:03.533Z
Well, take care with PoS though. I once read a post from one of Bitcoin core devs (yeah I lost the post and can't find it anymore) that PoS is not at all as safe as PoW is. And about increasing the amount, the Dogecoin community quite enjoys talking in big numbers :) It sounds better that you can say I own 10k doge instead of 1 BTC, right?
Steven Roose
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-27T07:49:25.927Z
Well, I could say I own a billion nano-Satoshi :P But PoS alone does indeed sound a bit risky - if one party _does_ manage to hold the majority of altcoins they'd most likely increase their lead forever, and there seems to be no mechanism to prevent that. Though, I start having an idea - one could track which part of a given transaction was already "used" as PoS (via it's history) and only unused parts, to be included (in the respective fraction) in the coinbase transaction, would count
Tobias Kienzler
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-27T14:27:43.357Z
I think that's somehow the principle of how it works. But I thought the main issue was that there was much less incentive for minders to only work on the current branch. The way of gaining your PoS share is by being lucky to be picked and you will get your stake * the time you are holding it without PoS share. But because no "work" is involved, it would make sense to keep trying to append your self after any recent block to try having more luck there. It was something like that. Could result in regular forks and orphaned blocks.
Steven Roose
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-25T15:47:07.667Z
2014-01-25T15:47:07.667Z
Steven Roose
<p>There exist quite some alternatives to bitcoin that are partially based on it, and I'm sure their creators all are convinced they improve upon something. But are there any serious drawbacks in bitcoin that can or will probably never be fixed?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-25T10:07:59.517Z
Related [Why do we need alternatives to Bitcoin?](http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/8114/5406)
Murch
<alternatives>
Are there any _severe_ drawbacks of bitcoin justifying all the alternatives?
Tobias Kienzler
# Are there any _severe_ drawbacks of bitcoin justifying all the alternatives?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-01-25)

There exist quite some alternatives to bitcoin that are partially based on it, and I'm sure their creators all are convinced they improve upon something. But are there any serious drawbacks in bitcoin that can or will probably never be fixed?

**Tags:** alternatives

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Related [Why do we need alternatives to Bitcoin?](http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/8114/5406)  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2014-01-25. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

I don't think there are severe drawbacks of Bitcoin. Certainly none that other coins are solving.

However, Bitcoin has certain properties that could be replaced with some other. Most altcoins to just that. Popular properties that altcoins change are:

* **replace [PoW](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_work) with something else**

Some altcoins do not use a PoW mechanism or use a hybrid mechanism. PeerCoin (originally named PPCoin) was the first altcoin to use the [Proof-of-Stake](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake) mechanism, which basically requires miners to hold a certain amount of currency in order to mine new. PeerCoin uses a hybrid of PoS and PoW. [Nxt](http://www.nxtcrypto.org) is an altcoin that uses pure PoS.

* **the [PoW](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_work) algorithm**

Bitcoin uses [SHA-256](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2), which is a hash algorithms that almost entirely requires CPU cycles to calculate. This means that it is easy to create custom hardware to perform this calculations. There are many altcoins that use [Scrypt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrypt) as the PoW algorithm. Scrypt is more memory-intensive and therefore harder to implement in custom hardware. The first altcoin to implement Scrypt is [Litecoin](https://litecoin.org/). [Primecoin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primecoin) requires miners to calculate large prime numbers as a PoW mechanism.

* **the total amount of coins that can be mined**

Bitcoin has a 21 million coin limit. Some altcoins raise this limit, such as [Dogecoin](http://dogecoin.com/), others lower it, such as [42](http://www.42coin.org/).

* **the rate at which new blocks are created**

Bitcoin blocks are mined at an average rate of one block every 10 minutes. Many merchants require that a transaction has been confirmed by several blocks before they accept it. With a confirmation time of 10 minutes (in fact, the recommended amount of confirmations to wait for is 6) can be quite cumbersome in certain use cases. [Litecoin](https://litecoin.org/) has a confirmation time of 2.5 minutes.

* **the time it takes before the maximum amount of coins is created**

Block rewards usually have a halving time. Every halving time the block reward halves until it is too low to represent using the maximum precision and it becomes zero. With Bitcoin it will [take until 2140 until the block reward becomes zero](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply). Some coins shorten this period. Sometimes they shorten it so much that the creator (who mines first, of course) is accused of pre-mining because he can mine very fast and easy in the beginning of the existence of the coin.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks! PoS sounds interesting, and I like the idea of primecoin trying to calculate something actually (slightly) useful instead of brute-hashing. Personally, I consider changing the amount of total coins nonsense though, since that is equivalent to changing the scale (apart from, maybe, changing for how long miners get a reward in addition to fees).  
> **username_2**: Well, take care with PoS though. I once read a post from one of Bitcoin core devs (yeah I lost the post and can't find it anymore) that PoS is not at all as safe as PoW is. And about increasing the amount, the Dogecoin community quite enjoys talking in big numbers :) It sounds better that you can say I own 10k doge instead of 1 BTC, right?  
> **username_0**: Well, I could say I own a billion nano-Satoshi :P But PoS alone does indeed sound a bit risky - if one party _does_ manage to hold the majority of altcoins they'd most likely increase their lead forever, and there seems to be no mechanism to prevent that. Though, I start having an idea - one could track which part of a given transaction was already "used" as PoS (via it's history) and only unused parts, to be included (in the respective fraction) in the coinbase transaction, would count  
> **username_2**: I think that's somehow the principle of how it works. But I thought the main issue was that there was much less incentive for minders to only work on the current branch. The way of gaining your PoS share is by being lucky to be picked and you will get your stake * the time you are holding it without PoS share. But because no "work" is involved, it would make sense to keep trying to append your self after any recent block to try having more luck there. It was something like that. Could result in regular forks and orphaned blocks.  

---

