The way I see a thesis like yours is a lack of understanding of Pareto law distributions and lack of security on altcoins.
Everyone that can afford it will go into Bitcoin and the rest will go for the scraps, may the full blocks scenario happen again. At the end of the day the other coins don't suffer from these problems because they don't have to deal with a bunch of transactions (and if they did they would get exposed). There isn't any sound technology that scales without tradeofs, none of them justify moving your BTC into alts, because you are trading security in the process (maybe someone finds giving up on some security in order to trade fast and cheap worth it, but at that point why not just use LN for smaller transactions)
Give me something as secure as Bitcoin that scales to mainstream worldwide levels for the masses and I will sell all of my BTC for it (hint: such coin doesn't exist)
There are some alts that have scalability problems, I have invested in one where this became apparent when ordering a succession of rapid transactions which took 1 hour to confirm at 10% masternode efficiency. Other chains do not have this problem, yet enjoy just as much or more daily transactions than Bitcoin, so this argument that all altcoins do not scale, is incorrect. My concern is btc fanboys incessant conviction that btc must be the only coin to prevail in a new global economy. It is much healthier to have a true decentralized ecosystem of coins to avoid pitfalls of relying on only one.
"Give me something as secure as Bitcoin that scales to mainstream worldwide levels for the masses and I will sell all of my BTC for it (hint: such coin doesn't exist)"
If such coin does arise you can bet it will be centralized. I think the op is wrong, bitcoin scaling issues will be resolved.
Lightning Network is centralized scaling with second layer solution, due to requirement of node collateral to operate the network.
you are only making an emotional post here which i am willing to bet is because you have invested in a bunch of altcoins that you thought were going to go to the moon but failed to do so since they were in fact pump and dumps!
1. Synergistic ecosystems such as masternodes and proof of stakes that share community index sites for their specific algo, of which many forks have instant transfer, privatesend and by themself may not support a global market, but together will be big enough to do so
2. Scalable projects using their inhouse chains such as Raiblocks which unfortunately rebranded to a generic name
3. Service based/utility/security and proprietary chains of which there is an increasing number, both new brands and old fortune 500 migrations
4. AI chains further into the future, which will bring crypto to 1 quadrillion market cap
1. if you want a centralized payment system then why do you even bother with cryptocurrencies? you have much better options such as Visa and Paypal,... you should use them instead of bothering with masternode centralization.
2. i have not really gotten into DAG coins but based on small research i have done i find them pretty interesting and i agree that they have good potentials but a coin like NANO doesn't seem the safest option in my opinion. not to mention that this coin is 100% premined and had a terrible distribution. also a huge supply. you can't expect any meaningful rise out of this coin.
3. i have yet to see a real project!
4. there is no AI chains. there is a lot of altcoins and lots of ICOs that use the buzzword of Artificial Intelligence but they don't have anything remotely close to it.
1. Masternode coins is an ecosystem of decentralization by developers spread all over the globe as opposed to BTC (edit: 20% of coins owned by top 100 wallets). Hybrid merchant solutions using Visa and mastercard licensing partnerships will greatly benefit crypto wealth transfer in its second stage. Working on it myself as there are synergistic marketing effects with issuing branded prepaid physical card.
3. When they come, it is wise to be attentive ahead of time.
4. In the future.
Why would you even remotely consider that the troubles we had last year is the same ones we have right now ?
Do you really honestly believe bitcoin and ethereum did NOTHING about the scaling problems ?
I mean sure bitcoin was not ready for such a big interest and it was on the roadmap to help get it bigger movements done easily however when the bull came knocking too quickly bitcoin got caught unprepared however right now with the addition of segwits and lightning networks and all that people know that bitcoin is not like how it used to be last year and improved on what was a test try. It can carry out tens of times higher than last years volume. Of course, it will still need to improve if it wants to be a global currency but that is still a bit far away. Do not assume people are standing around and capping bitcoin to a point, it has unlimited options to improve.
Nothing of value was done, LN is a centralized implementation, and Buterin is checked out on Billionaire Island. Top 5 is a bubble.
this is a very common mistake that the newcomers like you always make when they look at altcoins. they see these unused altcoins that are seemingly working fine so you think that they are better. but what you don't know is that because they are not used their faults aren't showing.
it is like bridge that can not support the weight that it is supposed to support or promises to support. and this bridge is only used by 1 car at a time. so everything looks fine. but as soon as there is a little bit more traffic and more cars passing that bridge you can see the real catastrophe when it collapses and takes lives.
Some, not all. There are 3000 coins with dozens of independent chains, network congestion is more a result of inefficient centralized exchanges than technical limitation. There are fully scalable solutions right now to enable global migration to crypto based on aggregated transaction growth of the top 50. It's not about 1 or 2 coins, this will be an ecosystem of successful brands that will enable decentralization, the more, the better.
And now I would like to formulate an argument in opposition based on the scientific evidence since 2017. This is an argument I have made persistenly in the past as it adresses scalability and tether.
To keep it short, I believe at the very least the top 2: Bitcoin and Ethereum are obsolete due to a hard problem of scalability as those of us who were present in december 2017 got to witness, and the shitshow that ensued with fees and (deliberate?) slowing of the entire network.
Well you mentioned the shit show last year, so I'm sure that you're aware about the spammer clogging the bitcoin network that causes the fees to go up. And then the subsequent move to a Segwit address which drastically reduced the fees. Same with Ethereum, Cryptokitties paralyzed their network, it was a huge wake-up call for them, Vitalik has been talking about Ethereum 2.0 last few months, so its on their radar. Serenity is coming up, as far as I know, so I don't see both of them going obsolete as you trying to picture them.
Lots of talk from this guy but no progress, doesn't merit $20B valuation at this stage when competition is catching up or surpassing at 1/50 valuation.
Bitcoin and Ethereum are obsolete due to a hard problem of scalability
Neither is done and dusted, they are active protocols subject to change, revisions and vast improvements.
Vast improvements are due, yet BTC is valued as a mature business at $100B = overvalued.
It's getting increasingly expensive to spam these networks. In a couple years, I think Lightning and sidechains will allow us to put all this FUD behind us.
Fudders are creative, they'll find other aspects to hammer on, like LN isn't Bitcoin, and that side chains aren't Bitcoin. Fud is an aspect of this market that we'll never get rid of. It was like that back in early 2013 when scaling wasn't even a major thing, and it's still like that today.
The main point is that people have proven to pay what they need to pay in fees in order to keep using their favorite network. The low tier users not adding anything might flow into other coins because they offer lower fees, but that's an advantage on its own since it allows both Bitcoin and Ethereum to have more quality use rather than people constantly moving dust back and forth.
LN is centralized solution. High fees as something positive is a ridiculous argument.
No one mention the incredible energy waste of bitcoin mining. I got interested in ETH in early 2016 because the project wanted to harness mining energy to boost supercomputing. It failed and did not scale.
Solutions will emerge, but at the moment, nothing in the top 5 could be considered solid investment opportunities.
