Gold has no intrinsic value. Nobody buys it because it's used in some niche cases. If that was the case, the marketcap would be tiny compared to the current marketcap, which is based on:
1) Network effect
2) Ability to hold money outside of the system
3) Speculation
Just like bitcoin. But bitcoin is even better since it has unique features, like moving money from A to B in ways that are impossible in any other way, that is it intrinsic feature dare I say.
I agree that gold's "intrinsic" value is much smaller than its current price, but it exists and is the base for all the hype around it. In the case of Bitcoin, the intrinsic value is exclusively tied to network effect because the code itself can be freely copied (and has been copied many times as we all know). Altcoins aren't bigger only because they're far away from Bitcoin's network
effect size.
About noobs panic selling or panic buying, that also happens with gold, but since the marketcap is huge, the effect is not that noticeable. Bitcoin will keep growing in marketcap, which means those same panic sells/buys will be less noticeable overtime.
I agree, but we're talking about an event that takes place in a few days, not in a couple of years
Bitcoin is undervalued as it is today, so it will keep growing even if no major scaling updates are rolled out, with that im not saying shouldn't and will not come, they will sooner or later (not in BUcoin form tho)
I agree that cryptocurrencies are undervalued, and so is Bitcoin if it conserves its leading role in the cryptocurrency space. But Bitcoin was also undervalued in early 2014 and it got into a bear market for more than a year. So I don't understand why this affirmation is contrary to a short-to-mid-term trend reversal like the one I mentioned here (I've already said that I'm
not talking about "Bitcoin's dead" here.)
Those coins are so fast because nobody uses them. If they had the same amount of transaction volume as bitcoin then guess what would happen.
Valid point, but there are altcoins which do have superior scalability to BTC (e.g. IOTA, Ardor and maybe Byteball but that last one seems pretty centralized to me.). And for the short-to-mid term, if (for example) Dash and Monero manage to capture 50% of Bitcoin's transaction volume (25% each) then none of each will have scalability problems but Bitcoin's leadership already would be under question.
If you look at the graph, the long-term trend and the very-short-term trend are both going downwards (that means, the Bitcoin dominance tends to go down). The mid-term trend was stable in the last months - in my opinion because Bitcoin's rally has attracted a lot of altcoin speculators' money. But I expect that to change. We can freeze this discussion now because we can't look into the future
I think you misunderpreted my affirmation of a "post-ETF crash" to be long-term bearish, but I'm talking only about the short term and what could happen on March 11/13. And I don't see sub-500 (and maybe not even sub-700) prices - at least if the Segwit/scaling stalemate doesn't continue for much longer.
