monero, is or was a fork of bytecoin which i don't like it's history, i like the dynamic blocksize and fees which makes a lot of sense and is a good feature, some developers aren't anonymous and the creator of the whitepaper is anonymous i think, can't seem to trust monero because of it's history linked with bytecoin, bytecoin was a good coin but later they failed and forked into monero. no decent decentralized wallets on mobile wallet, has third party service in wallet which i hate, i don't like the unlimited uncapped total supply which i don't understand, unless it has mathematical design then it's okay
Sometimes a fork means a better implementation. Monero vs Bytecoin is one example of that. Bytecoin had shady mining and some bugs that allowed as far as I know for some supply to be created out of thin air.
A lot of coins forked off from Bitcoin yet failed aggressively, although Bitcoin didn't. Does it make these coins automatically good and all? No, it does not. Also, where do you see third parties in their wallet..? Are you talking about Cake Wallet's swapping service? Cake isn't the official Monero wallet.
Also, after ~18.1M coins are mined, there will be something called "tail emission" which will release only 0.6XMR per block.. since this amount will be fixed at 0.6XMR, with every block the inflation will decrease. It's not really unlimited. If you don't understand something, read about it and inform yourself. Trying to rant about a coin you have no idea about makes you seem like you have no idea what you're talking about..
yes bitcoin is a true genius idea but the next step is to annonymize the blockchain. Im waiting for satoshi to create a new anonymous blockchain from scratch if he or she is up for it
I guess you'll have to wait for a long, long time... IIRC, he dissapeared about 10 years ago and nobody has heared from him ever since... I doubt he'll see your message and think "hey, this guy is right... I'll just re-appear after 10 years to make a new currency".
As for your theory that changes or forks mean a failed coin: i can't say i agree... Changes are made to fix bugs, to add new features, to adapt to changing conditions, to increase troughput, to decrease load... Fixing something (even if it means forking) is not equal to failing. The reference clients contains tens of thousands of lines of code, it's allmost impossible to write such a piece of software without any bugs while anticipating everything that could happen in the future and already including those features in your software. Patches and changes are a natural part of a development cycle... I doubt you'll find a single piece of big, popular software that has been around for a long time but never received a patch.
My wife is driving a Toyota Yaris that i bought about ~8 ish years ago... If i compare my car to the new Yaris, i can see the new model has a lot of new features... Some of them are safety related, some comfort related, some environment related... This does not mean my old Yaris was a failure: at the time i bought said car, it was an "average" car with "average" state-of-the-art features. Just because somebody found new safety features, or people's taste changed so they had to adapt the looks of the car, or the environmental rules changed didn't make my old car "bad"....
okay i understand about forking a little bit now thanks, but how did they even get permission to upgrade the code, how do they have access to the code edit, did satoshi trust someone to look after bitcoin? Its a good thing that btc has a 1mb blocksize which keeps it original and the 21000000 cap