"MySpace" was the funniest one I've seen.
It really means nothing. ETH is currently impractical for micropayments. ETH fees are at least $0.1 or so right now, which is still impractical for those same microtransactions that people are supposedly trying to sort out.
Bitcoin will remain a dominant cryptocurrency for as long as a truly great cryptocurrency hasn't become popular yet. Bitcoin is not a truly great cryptocurrency, nor is Ether (not that Ether is a cryptocurrency either). As soon as there's a system which makes micropayments practical and gives a fundamental reason for the price to remain relatively stable, that system will be dominant.
Litecoin has segwit.
bitcoin is the gold standard a very strong savings account.
It's not though, is it?
Historical gold prices have moved around loads. If you had to retire in a certain 5-year timeframe, you could be talking about losing half of your initial investment at many points.
You might be getting something that's safer than fiat currency because of its scarcity, but you're not getting something that's a
very strong savings account.
Bitcoin is different to that because any other coin can provide the exact same utility. You mentioned Litecoin - oh look, Litecoin has SegWit and a faster block time, and a few other improved characteristics. So who's to say that Litecoin doesn't suddenly become the "very strong savings account"? And if another coin is more scalable than that and does away with some of Litecoin's problems, then who's to say that
that coin doesn't become a "very strong savings account"?
My point is that digital assets can be scarce, but there can be any number of assets with different characteristics. Therefore the only ways to ensure that the price of a cryptocurrency is stable enough to use are:
-Systems which give the price a fundamental reason
-A cryptocurrency which is good enough that people don't feel the need to rush off to a new one
Both of these things are difficult and could take several years.
