I can't believe you brought up Amazon, because I almost posted, bitcoin isn't like Amazon. If you really think they are comparable, you don't know shit.... And that the altcoins are riding the waves of bitcoin? Who cares? Is that your argument? It just shows that the trailblazer makes it easy for the competitors to move in. One more advantage for the competitors, they don't have to break new grounds... By the way, (looks like I have to spell it out) the point with alt coins is: If you are a vendor already accepting bitcoin as a payment method, there is really no good reason why not to accept the most popular altcoins. Just like if you take Visa, you might as well take Mastercard too... And you might want to read up on proof of stake methods, to see how many more advanced alt coins are there... If you don't believe in alt coins, why do you own so much of them?
I have been making the same point drown has, but with Facebook and you keep on bringing up myspace was first and now they are not here. Has anyone taken over facebook? I would say bitcoin is more like facebook than myspace. It may be taken over but it hasn't. And while there are 50 coins out there, the same thing happened when the internet first started. There were 1000's of little amazons and would be amazons. All I know is that when they mention crypto currency anywhere in the media. 9.9 out of10 times they mention BITCOIN and no one else....peace.
Hehe, so we are using the same analogy to prove opposite points? My point is that bitcoiners claim that bitcoin is "unique and limited in supply" simply isn't true. There are both better coins and more in supply. Your only argument in favour of bitcoin seems to be the first mover advantage, which might prove to be true or not, we shall see, but the Myspace analogy shows that first mover means nothing in internet technology. And it is more like credit cards, not like social networks. There can be more than 1 winner, but that also means that the evaluation has to come down to earth when there are 4-5 generally accepted digital currencies... By the way Amazon wasn't the first big online bookseller either, Bezos got the idea from another company, when he saw its costumer base's growth.* And actually Amazon could kill bitcoin really fast by issuing its own coin, distributing it among its membership and giving it a decent valuation from the start. Now can you honestly say there is no such a danger when talking about the fundamentals of bitcoin? And I didn't even bring up government regulation yet, which is also hanging above the bitcoiners' heads.... Oh yes, and Riskarb's Amazon analogy... It is incredibly easy to enter the digital currency market, that's why we have 50+ altcoins... *"The company began as an online bookstore, an idea spurred off with discussion with John Ingram of Ingram Book (now called Ingram Content Group),..."
I don't know why you're upset, pizza-boy, but I didn't birth you, so go smack mommy around if it makes you feel better. We're talking about an entrenched-technology here. Rarely is the best-tech the leader (Windows OS). The Amazon analogy is good. Go ahead and start a web-store and undercut AMZN's pricing. Offer US-based customer service. You won't last a year. The barrier to entry is enormous. Your definition is lacking. The LTC algo is virtually identical, but with a faster blockrate and greater capacity. Meaningless. There is zero intrinsic value in any of 'em, so the "first to mkt" wins. There is no competition to BTC in crypto and LTC will indeed remain the silver to BTC gold. BTC is perceived as the de facto standard where perception is everything. Can be said of any mkt outside of basic commodities. The only value is what appears on the dom at any given moment.