You think Bitcoin could lose #1 position because people do not want to
(1) pay competitive prices for the only censorship resistant payment platform
and (2) are willing to sacrifice their security in the system for convenience?
What makes you think that bitcoin is unique in this respect ?
Bitcoin, as of this moment, is a pseudo-centralized system that is ran by about 20 mining nodes, of which 5 are majority and of which some of them are in the hands of one single entity ; and most of these mining nodes have their mining power provided by one single producer of competitive mining equipment, and many of them are based in a single country where individual freedom is very relative.
I wouldn't directly call that the most censorship resistant network, when compared to many other similar systems.
Unique is irrelevant. Market Cap is irrelevant. Security is paramount.
Bitcoin was designed to be the most secure, censorship resistant, online currency possible.
If it outright failed, we wouldn't be here today. Those who copy it, but change fundamental
structures of its security, are not actual competitors, but "pretenders".
It was designed with one purpose, securability. There may be flaws in the system, such
as the current mining centralization problem, but that is only transient. Over long periods
of time, that centralization loses it grip due to technological advancements. In 50 years, it
is possible civilians in their homes may begin solo mining again due to new technology that
are affordable and common in each home, as well as new forms of solar energy accumulation
and storage. The point being, Bitcoin not being so called "unique" now is irrelevant, and that
there may be competitors now (which I disagree with, that is like saying skateboards are
competitors to helicopters) is not important in the larger picture.
All altcoins that currently exist are actually all untested. The only one that comes close to
any testing is Ethereum, and they failed since they proved there can be times where things
are "too big to fail" and will revise their originating social contract based on the whims of their
VCs and ignorant users. Within a year of ETH's release, they directly interfered into their protocol
to "bailout" a subsidiary unrelated to the protocol. All other coins have not even begun to reach
the starting line in the race of cryptocurrency competition. All those coins are wonderful illusions
for those who wish to live a lie.
If a true "flippening" ever comes about, which I can not imagine realistically
occurring, then it only does so because the masses wish to be enslaved.
Bitcoin's only true purpose is to counter the current financial system, not to
mimic it.
Well, in that respect a) it got competitors ; b) it failed due to deflationary design (it is much more a speculative "lets' get rich quickly" asset than a true currency) and c) the masses are not into it.
When you look at the current VOLUMES, in fact, the "masses" (who want to get rich quickly ; not who want to buy coffee) are using 2/3 alt coins, and only 1/3 bitcoin.
So, even though bitcoin has its merits, I don't see what makes it "unique" apart from being the first. It was the first implementation of a new idea. Many others improved upon that first idea since then. There's no reason to stick with the first implementation as the best one for ever. But Ford-T was also the first mass produced car. That doesn't mean the only mass produced car ever to be meaningful is going to stay Ford-T.
If you are thinking about currency, in fact, the exact currency you're using today, and you're using tomorrow doesn't matter. However, if you are sitting on a stash in a greater-fool game (which crypto essentially is), then of course you're not happy when the fools go to another game - because you might end up being the greater one after all.
Satoshi proposed an answer to the online currency problems inspired by the problems with
the financial world in 2008, but that does not mean that the full use and potential of the
system has come about. The masses that exist now, and are entering our sphere are the
"get rich quickers". Majority of them are either directly from the financial world where they
have been taught to "rape and pillage" then repackage and sell to the next fool, or very
young children who have little money, but are beginning to learn trading by participating
within the altcoin world. Both of those "masses" are not the primary target of this type of
currency. Those people are irrelevant to Bitcoin's long term goals. If anything, they are
hurdles that we must be overcome since they think PayPalCoin is equivalent to Bitcoin.
Comparing Bitcoin to the model T-Ford is an incorrect analogy. A better example would be
comparing it to an engine. There are different types of engines in existence with each
designed to facilitate different purposes. Some are efficient and others are gas hogs,
some are simple and others are heavily complex, some are for the air and others for
the ground.
All those different engine types are like the cryptocurrency world. Each engine facilitates
a different purpose, but only one engine is specifically designed for the average form of
road travel. That is the modern day car engine. It is the standard today because of it
reliability and etc. Though there are many other types of engines that could "compete with"
that type, they do not, since the standard today performs its job in a reliable manner. Maybe
one day, when civilians have "flying cars" that standard will change, but as long as there
are cars on the ground, this form of engine type will be the standard (ignoring advancements
such as electromagnetic engines).
I have no concern that Bitcoin will lose to a "competitor" because there are no actual
competitors that currently exist. Majority of all altcoins today are pure illusions that are
untested in many different ways. When an altcoin claims superiority over Bitcoin for a
specific reason, such as "faster confirmation" for example, there needs to be a loss of
something, for that coin to get that gain. That is the reality here. So when you say there
are competitors to Bitcoin, what you are really saying is that some are competitors,
because they decided to do something Bitcoin can not, at the cost of something that
Bitcoin does best. In the world of cryptocurrency, that is a failure, but the masses haven't
learned that yet since they are not instructed, but left to their own education. They think
that illusions can be better than reality and then its becomes their truth.
These individuals are not true Bitcoiners, but are hurdles that must be overcome or they
will erode the system from within. That is what happened with the 2008 financial crisis
and what Satoshi envisioned Bitcoin to counteract. Those destructive masses have finally
arrived at our doorstep, yet you confused them with real purposeful adoption. They are
purely destructive and all consuming. Satoshi did not accept their world/financial views.
