Bitcoin isn't the internet of money, it is an internet for money. With this distinction in mind, it would be foolish to think that the first cryptocurrency would be the last. It took many implementations and iterations of wide area networks to arrive at the Internet Protocol we have today.
While Bitcoin doesn't share the same set of problems as fiat currency, it has its own burdens, and has proven completely ineffective as a functional money system outside of speculation and fraud. The novelty of Bitcoin is supposedly its 'immutable ledger', a phrase used so frequently in defending Bitcoin, that it has become divorced from its meaning, and divorced from the reality that solutions to distributed logging existed long before Bitcoin, and many more solutions to this problem will be developed with no regard to the blockchain.
Bitcoin itself will never replace anything -- cryptocurrencies will remain monolithic in purpose and function for a very long time. The underlying ideas to the Bitcoin protocol will be iterated on, and we'll see these ideas implemented in distributed software, but to incessantly hype Bitcoin as the singular platform for cryptocurrency is to live in a bubble.
Yes, it seems that human attention has become the ultimate luxury commodity. I think that a cryptocurrency derives a significant portion of its value from the mere fact that that a lot of people know about its existence.
A lot of celebrities these days make huge sums of money in spite of being untalented. Being famous is valuable in itself.
People (especially rich people) want to be loved and/or respected. The "why" doesn't actually matter. If you own a lot of something which a lot of people know about, then you will be respected.
The blockchain is public. Everybody can see it. It's the ultimate instrument of vanity. In the future you'll be able to show off your wealth without the stigma associated with actually showing it off. People will be able to look you up on a popular blockchain and know that you are an influential individual.
It solves a big problem that rich people have. They want to appear humble but at the same time they want other people to know that they are rich.
Yes, and we can see the Oligarchical squatters who acquired large stakes in Bitcoin.
In economics, the Gini coefficient is the standard measure
of how inequitable a society is. This is tricky to
determine for Bitcoin, as it's not quiet a "society" in
the Gini sense, one person may have multiple addresses and
many addresses have been used only once or a few times.
(The commonly-cited figure of 0.88 is based on one small
exchange in 2011.) However, a Citigroup analysis from
early 2014 notes: "47 individuals hold about 30 percent,
another 900 a further 20 percent, the next 10,000 about
25% and another million about 20%"; and distribution
"looks much like the distribution of wealth in North Korea
and makes China's and even the US' wealth distribution
look like that of a workers' paradise
Dorit Ron and Adi Shamir found in a 2012 study that only
22% of then-existing Bitcoins were in circulation at all,
there were a total of 75 active users or businesses with
any kind of volume, one (unidentified) user owned a
quarter of all Bitcoins in existence, and one large owner
was trying to hide their pile by moving it around in
thousands of smaller transactions. (Shamir is one of the
most renowned cryptographers in the world and the "S" in
"RSA encryption")"
Bitcoin will never be the most interesting w.r.t technology, but it has the potential for having the highest market cap. It has a huge network effect, and currently stands as the major conduit for fiat to any other cryptocurrency.
If only humans always chose the best solutions to a problem. That's not how things work though. Many sup-par solutions have been chosen because they gained adoption more than because they were the best solution.
While Bitcoin doesn't share the same set of problems as fiat currency, it has its own burdens, and has proven completely ineffective as a functional money system outside of speculation and fraud. The novelty of Bitcoin is supposedly its 'immutable ledger', a phrase used so frequently in defending Bitcoin, that it has become divorced from its meaning, and divorced from the reality that solutions to distributed logging existed long before Bitcoin, and many more solutions to this problem will be developed with no regard to the blockchain.
Bitcoin itself will never replace anything -- cryptocurrencies will remain monolithic in purpose and function for a very long time. The underlying ideas to the Bitcoin protocol will be iterated on, and we'll see these ideas implemented in distributed software, but to incessantly hype Bitcoin as the singular platform for cryptocurrency is to live in a bubble.
pls buy litecoin