1. The network effect. There are possibly better coins out there. I own those too. 2. Extreme hoarding is a self-perpetuating phenomenon that lasts years.
The premise was to make a registered securities vehicle so that managed money in the US could invest. That is a huge untapped market.
Exactly, it shouldn't and therefore I can't see it as an efficient market. I haven't checked lately, but what are the other coins doing? Do they move at all like BTC, new highs in the last month? In an efficient market, the other coins should be able to be swapped for BTC and vice versa and because they seem to be alternatives for each other they should track each others trades. If they don't... it will be like a bubble. In which case BTC definitely looks more like a religion to me, the believe and faith are the driving forces.
Well first of all... it's a free world. Second of all... I'm not clueless, just haven't followed the other coins in the past 6 months. Third of all.... are you on your period?
As long as 2 sides of transaction trust the 3rd party - the trustee, in case of bitcoin it's a mathematical protocol - I see no reason why it should not work.
Yeah, but that's no different than paper currency. Sure, there are plenty of other cryptocurrencies out there besides Bitcoin. But there's also plenty of other paper currencies in existence besides the U.S. Dollar. Just because derivative currencies exist (both digital and paper) doesn't mean that there can't be one leader to rally around in each space.
This is correct, however some times this is used as an implication that e-currencies have no underlying support compared to fiat. I take a more positive interpretation -- without any government mandate or coercion whatsoever, people have freely chosen to utilize them. What does that say about the e-currency? What is better long term? That which is utilized through coercion or that which is freely chosen?