Went for fluffypony's domination tweets, couldn't find them.
I'm guessing the word "fungible" was applied liberally directly to the tweetstorm.
The butthurt of the Bitcoin Maximalist Supremacist Monopolists is in direct proportion to the cognitive dissonance they suffer from watching their analytical frameworks fail to be validated with predictive power.
The canonical example (besides Frap.doc's anti-altcoin rantings here) is Daniel Krawisz's obscenely inaccurate exaggeration of "The Coming Demise of the Altcoins" (
http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/the-coming-demise-of-altcoins/).
For such a smart guy, he really screwed the pooch on this one. But then again, so did Blockstream's (not-coincidentally former) Head of Strategy.
Let's all laugh at how wrong whiny little Daniel's bigoted expectations have proven to be!
Isn't it impressive how absolutely convinced he is of his own hilariously incorrect assumptions?
A new altcoin cannot survive with only a fraction of the cryptocurrency pie. It must defeat everything else to succeed, including Bitcoin. Since it begins at an extreme disadvantage with respect to Bitcoin, it cannot succeed with technology that is marginally superior to Bitcoin. It must be as significant an advance over Bitcoin as Bitcoin is over the dollar.
...
Altcoins are not viable because they cannot reproduce that which gives Bitcoin an overwhelming competitive edge: its market cap. It is unethical to create an altcoin with the purpose of making money off of it for this reason. They should not be taken seriously. The way to defeat them is to keep demanding of the altcoin promoters that they spell out why their altcoin makes sense as an investment. The more that this demand is made, the worse altcoins will look.
I guess the new altcoins didn't get the memo huffily declaring why it was impossible for them to survive, given the (admittedly flakey) Bitcoin Domination Index's sustained collapse to a humiliating (in the literal sense of more humility and less hubris) 33%. It's past time to rename that figure to either the Bitcoin Submission Index, or the Altcoin Domination Index.
Saifedean and Frap.doc, unlike Krawisz before them, right off the bat fail to account for Namecoin, the OG alt partially created and thus Blessed with propriety directly from Satoshi.
These overeducated derps failure of imagination was completely predictable. Here is a simple substitution exposing the paltry tissue of bad faith on which rests the entirety of Krawisz's line of argumentation.
Bitcoin cannot survive with only a fraction of the fiat currency pie. It must defeat everything else to succeed, including the dollar. Since it begins at an extreme disadvantage with respect to fiat currencies, it cannot succeed with technology that is marginally superior to fiat currencies. It must be as significant an advance over fiat currencies as fiat currencies are over barter.
Crypto-currencies are not viable because they cannot reproduce that which gives fiat money an overwhelming competitive edge: its market cap. It is unethical to create a crypto-currency with the purpose of making money off of it for this reason. They should not be taken seriously. The way to defeat them is to keep demanding of the crypto-currency promoters that they spell out why their Bitcoin makes sense as an investment. The more that this demand is made, the worse Bitcoin will look.
QED the Never-Alters were wrong to begin with, comporting with the consensus reality that emphasizes this fact every day in which alts persist in their domination of Bitcoin.
Poll
