General rule:

The higher bitcoin goes in value, the more of its market share is captured by altcoins.

Have you heard Tom Luongo's latest commentary on that subject ? I think it's very interesting and analytical. Will drop you in at the interesting bit but the whole thing is worth listening to IMO.

Calvin Ayre says fake Satoshi is real Satoshi.

Transaction count on the rise. Getting reflected in coinfairvalue reports:



Dash has been steadily converting upwards towards fairvalue profile since January.

It's broken out of that little 5-minute correction and continuing up again. 8600.

100 BTC wall on stamp vapourised.

9k incoming in minutes.

Must be disaster in the EU election result tea leaves.

Manoevering.

Bitconifer commencing a 4th attempt at breaking out of the 8k arena.

The reason was that you were just about to announce one of the biggest blockchain breakthroughs since 2009 - the successful decoupling of the service protocol from the mining protocol on a bitcoin compatible chain to the extent that the network can generate service-oriented consensus in realtime and respond to sophisticated client-app requests natively without recourse to changing the blocktime or mining protocol.

You simply had to be banned.

I doubt it.

The "majority" has never been invested in reserve assets. They've been invested in the utility assets that make the money that flows into the reserve assets. That's why you're seeing bitcoin dominance decrease over the years even though its price and marketcap rises.

What exactly do you mean by a "real life user".

In monetary assets, a "real life user" is simply someone who's invested. Here - see some metals belonging to "real life users".

Here's some "real life users" making transactions on blockchains. I presume those in the top 5 are just wasting their lives by not doing them on the "holy" bitcoin chain.

Here's some "real life users" providing trustless, blockchain sourced liquidity to traders requiring stable, pegged assets to national currencies. Maybe they should have just stuck with BTC and accepted the losses when their guvpaper based goods prices were rendered irrelevant. (Not to mention the "real life users" making money by shorting or longing that asset onto its peg - but, hey, just hold BTC instead, otherwise you're not a "real life user" ? )

Here's some making money from running masternodes on the Dash network and securing the "o-conf" end of the confirmation cycle so crypto can be used in instant transaction scenarios. As far as I know they're "real life users".

Ethereum is adding thousands of developers every year to its ecosystem but I'm sure that doesn't count as "real life users" as they're not on the bitcoin network, nor are they "users", they're developers.

The reason you folks think there's "nothing going on" and "no value" in other chains is simply because you're so f*ng fanatically tunnel visioned that you've already defined yourselves a self fulfilling prophecy.

Might be an idea to wake tf up and realise that because not everybody thinks like you, not everybody invests like you - at least not exclusively.

Well that makes bitcoin worthless too from many perspectives.


The thing about all these useless commentaries is that they're aways made by bagholders. If you read the mainstream press through the years you'll see exactly the same claims made about bitcoin as "maximalists" now make about alt coins. Then later you hear them trumpetting the opposite view - once they're "in".

The number of empty theories I've heard about this or that going to zero/moon, wiping stuff out or being scams has just developed into a low buzzing drone, there's so many of them. The fact is that altcoins are here to stay. There is no "Metcalfe’s Law" craperry cherry picked theories that will deny markets their diversity I'm afraid.

There's no rocket science to that.

Digital assets are not a natural monopoly, that's all. "Maximalists" say they are. Markets say they're not because markets like diversity and crypto-assets are neither technical standards nor world currencies. They're just a digital commodity used for parking temporarily idle capital.

Moreover, Bitcoin - though it will remain the most valuable long term crypto reserve - NEEDS a healthy alt-coin market to survive and grow. I won't go into this again here as arguments already well rehearsed, but suffice to say the nonsense about altcoins being "wiped out" is ridiculous and always has been.

BTC breaking out.

Hmm. Maybe more like a standard for brush heads.

We're 10 years in and there are now 4 million blockchain transactions occurring each day, only about 0.3 Million (6%) of which are on the bitcoin network. Total reported daily trading volume is about $60 Billion, of which only $1.6 Billion occurs on the Bitcoin network. Another $27 billion or so is in off-chain trading of bitcoin as an asset and the other $30 billion is in non-bitcoin blockchain assets.

So again, contrary to your "standards" metaphor bitcoin is emerging as a horizontal asset, not a vertical one. It occupies a strategic role as a reserve tier within a complex, developing market

.

That is for the most part b.s. and you probably know it is so I won't develop the point further other than to comment on your "it will be integrated into bitcoin" remark.

Sidechains, for example, are an interesting novelty but they're a technological diversification of bitcoin, not a monetary one. If I want an asset who's value is pegged to bitcoin, I'll buy bitcoin. If I want an asset with different monetary properties I'll buy one who's price is set by the free market commensurate with demand. Sidechains in that respect are simply a market rigging attempt by crazed mono-culture zealot developers who think that economics should work like a set of technical standards. It's the ultimate hypocrisy. First...there's no need for anything other than bitcoin, then later...ok, there is but its value must be fixed to bitcoin's.

No. As with any other innovation, the value will be set ultimately by the free market.

@HairyMaclairy my stats were wrong about Facebook. You are right that they are dominant - revised my post accordingly.

I don't think those statistics are for overall social media revenue. Maybe users. Also it shows that Instagram is the most investable, not Facebook, having the smallest market share while being the fastest growing - exactly my point about the crypto market.

I'm not saying that this isn't investible...



...I'm saying people should wake up and smell the coffee. It's investible BECAUSE there's a growing and diversifying sector, not in spite of it.

Facebook is dominant but not a monopoly and certainly not necessarily the future. Apple has only around 16% share of the smartphone market, down from 100% at the iPhone's launch. Netflix has less customers than Amazon Prime depending on how you view the statistics and its dominance is nowhere near to inhibiting new entrants. So those companies competitors are doing quite well actually.

Bitcoin dominance hit a minimum during the last massive price spike (see below), yet its marketcap/$USD price was at a maximum. That's no accident because as money is made in alts, people profit-take into bitcoin. It's the same structure for any monetary asset market and is in fact the very definition of a "reserve asset". There were of course other factors at play such as hedging the contentious hard forks that were going on, the blocksize war and general ideological differences in priority. But such needs to hedge will always exist - periodic storms in markets are a permanent feature of economics.

How does the market respond to such conflicts ? It caters for all through diversification - same as with any commercial sector. 20 years from now, the idea that there was only ever going to be 1 blockchain asset will seem comical, a bit like Thomas Watson's statement of "I think there is a market for maybe five computers".

Non-bitcoin digital asset market share moves in sawtooth waves just like bitcoin's own fiat market. It usually declines to just below the last peak marketshare during which time much of that capital flows into bitcoin and consolidates it. Then fuelling starts again and we move through a new cycle.

There are very few natural monopolies in the world and monetary assets - digital or otherwise - are definitely not one of them. That is something so-called bitcoin maximalists should be thankful for and not moaning about because without it you'd have stagnation and ultimately death of the entire sector, including bitcoin.

Eh...they're not actually. They're figuring out it's about diversification. Not least because of 3 things:

 1. no investor in possession of their senses doesn't diversify their portfolios within any asset class
 2. they understand that monetary assets are not a natural monopoly
 3. they understand that the most expensive asset in the class does not always have the most upside

The "God made bitcoin so we don't need anything else" delusional hopium in this thread is quaint, but you already lost that war 5 years ago and diversification is a one-way street. That is one genie that does not go back in the bottle.