Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33
Just wondering, is being the first mover the only real advantage to BTC over other cryptos? I mean, isn't Litecoin basically Bitcoin but a bit faster?
I read an article where investor Jim Rogers said something like " there's an infinite number of currencies with a finite number of coins". Obviously being first and the most popular is important, but if we are comparing it to gold... what's to stop another gold being created that becomes as valuable (or, so many alternatives being created that the value of all gets diluted).
That is not how it works. Many coins whatsoever can easily coexist together. They already do. Similar like traditional payment methods paypall, venmo, credit card, apple pay, cash, samsung pay etc....
What is necessary for another coin to become more valuable than bitcoin?
People are incentivized to use bitcoin. They can either leave bitcoin and support another coin. It might take quite a while (2 years in bitcoins case) before that network grows sufficiently large, become monetized and their incentive for running the new coin reaches a breakeven point. There is obviously a disincentive for splitting resources and run both networks. One can do it but without fully understanding the real liquidity of both networks it would never be a good choice to split-and-run. Networks that are monetized from scratch are doomed to fail or are usually outright scams.
But yes, if somebody comes up with a full CS solution to the byzantine problem, builds a prototype and serious proposal then there is a reasonable chance that bitcoin will have a real competitor. But even if somebody finds a theoretical solution, getting it deployed and grow a decent decentralized network organically is still another thing....