BTC will be very hard to replace, but DRK already has the fundamentals that BTC lacks. I'm not saying DRK will be the replacement. I'm just pointing out the inevitability of antiquated technology to be replaced by better stuff. I stopped using my 1core 32bit AMD chip about 6 years ago...
I think you're being highly selective in deciding what you regard as being "fundamentals".
DRK has certainly improved on Bitcoin in several ways - algo efficiency, anonymity etc - but those are technical properties, not necessarily "fundamentals" that impact on it's status as a reserve currency.
Bitcoin has been superseded technically by almost all new altcions, but they have never put a dent in its value - not even litecoin did. So technical superiority isn't "it".
In fact, your computer hardware example actually undermines your own case because if you look back at the evolution of the digital industry, hardware technology hasn't been one of the "fundamentals" while those areas that have been have persistent against a wave of "improvements" on their original design:
- the Unix operating system: 41 years old, now underpins all new Apple desktop hardware, not exactly considered "antiquated"
- The ASCII and Unicode character codings for information interchange, 50 and 27 years old respectively
- SQL, Structured Query Language for database access, 44 years old and only getting more widespread adoption with every year
- TCP/IP that underpins the internet: 40 years old
- all the high level internet protocols and markup languages - http, smtp, html etc 24 years old and getting more widespread adoption with every year
What these show is that the "true" fundamentals do not get superseded. They persist and consolidate with time and adoption.
If Bitcoin is still around in 20 years you can bet your bottom dollar that it's not going to get removed from "reserve currency" status just because its algo is outdated. See the things I mentioned in my last post - those are the real "fundamentals", not technical characteristics.
I was hoping someone would be smart enough to have this conversation.
Several of your points are only half-truths.
ASCII and Unicode are standardizations of a concept. Inches and Centimeters still exist. The objects they are used to measure... You get the point.
What came before TCP/IP? Remember token ring? Where's that? CAT5 or RG[wahtever] coax? Where was fiber 40 years ago? I can think of AT LEAST a half-dozen network protocols that were the Bee's Knees at the time, but anyone under the age of 40 would have no idea what I'm talking about... History did not begin the day you were born, and most people seem to think it did...
Do you so easily forget Web 2.0? Where was CSS in 1994? It was improved upon. And the so-called standard of http... Lets not have that argument...
The comparison of apples with oranges is missing the point. The bottom line is that things are improved upon and don't always fit where they currently are once the new things come along.
Some reach a point where there simply isn't a way to improve them, they've been perfected. Cryptocurrency is not one of these things. BTC was the FIRST. I don't have my TRS80 anymore. Nor any 5.25in floppy disks or drives. I also do not have a 2400baud modem hanging around, either.
One of the fundamentals of BTC is it's current penetration. One can make the same argument about paper dollars. Everyone uses it and doesn't know well enough to stop for their own good.
If improved upon significantly enough, BTC will be too antiquated to use. Is that a property that can occur with crypto? Is it possible that guv could create it's own ripple or nxt and force everyone to use it under pain of incarceration?
My suggestion is that we stand at the beginning, not the end, or even in the middle. If you would have told me 20 years ago that I'd be using a cable modem pushing 90mbps on a global network that's orders of magnitude faster, I would have laughed in your face. Waxing my 2400baud external modem certainly didn't achieve that. Yup, it still uses TCP/IP. But there are a myraid of things that have fallen to the wayside in that wake. You nor I had the capacity to predict which they would be.
If BTC is improved upon significantly enough, the brand name won't save it. That's really all it's got going for it at this point: Massive brand recognition and acceptance. Is that fundamental enough? It wasn't for Atari or Commodore... Satoshi called it an experiment. A very damn well thought out experiment. But there is still room for improvement. Enough to antiquate it? I dare you to suggest that your crystal ball is that good.
To further underscore the matter: Why do you buy BitCoin?
For me, the answer is "Because that's how I get DRK."
BTC is, for me, a Dump coin that I use to buy DRK. I'm not the only one. It's one thing to say that about a hyped shitcoin... But I'm saying that about BTC. That which you say is impossible is in fact inevitable, and has already begun...
