Market prices tend to rise with increased demand. That is a market function. And when you are still lower than your closest competitor, people will still prefer your service over theirs. If a bank wire costs 10$ and takes days and a btc transfer costs 1$ and takes minutes, why would I use SWIFT instead of BTC?
True, Bitcoin today enjoys a 91% market share of crypto. However, in the overall scope of a USD $7B asset class adrift in a many-$T sea, that market share is not unassailable. Indeed, should the masses finally decide to adopt crypto, I would expect them to adopt one that they can actually _use_, rather than one that prevents them from participating due to an arbitrary limitation. Any of dozens of shitcoins are waiting in the wings to meet this market need, jealously awaiting a chance to procure adoption by delivering real value in comparison to Bitcoin.
What will happen, at most, is that shitcoins will be used for low-value txs and btc will be used for high value txs. You want to gamble for a few cents => you use a shitcoin. You want to buy a chewing gum => you use a shitcoin. You want to transfer 500$ or $5 mn, you use BTC.
Why?
If everyone uses litecoin why would Bitcoin be better for larger transactions?
Isn't this similar to arguing about apples and oranges?
To me, it seems more likely that since crypto currencies occupy multiple spaces in realty, both a unit with inherent value, a representative direct transfer of said inherent value, and as a secure proof of existence ledger based on the security/hash power of the underlying item, that use cases would naturally gravitate to these options?
so with an altcoin like litecoin, it has a relatively fast transfer speed and nominal value worth but on the other hand, it's hash-power isn't necessarily as strong as bitcoin
then you have bitcoin which has a slower transfer speed, but possibly due to scarcity and first mover recognition, larger fiat value, but more importantly operates as a stronger public ledger.
so, if you are going to buy a cup of coffee, or transact a nominal value equivalent of a cup of coffee, or register an item of similar value, and then record that or transfer it to another individual, there are certain use cases which will naturally lend themselves to this option as they do not need enormous security behind it
on the other hand
if you are buying a car, or leasing a car, or perhaps a fleet of cars, or a multi-year,million dollar commercial property lease; this is a deal with significant financial liability associated with it; here as time is not necessarily an immediate concern but the concern is more over the duration of the contractual option and that proof of two parties entering into this agreement, you would want something harder to tamper with and more secure, which naturally would lead you to supporting a blockchain with more hash power.
I think you are missing my point. First, let us strike 'litecoin' from the discussion, as it only serves as a standin for 'some unspecified altcoin'. Next, let us dispense with 'speed of transaction' - most cryptos have essentially instantaneous transactions, with confirmations taking some time, and a 4x speedup in confirmation is meaningless from the standpoint of real use cases.
The issue is that there is no good reason for multiple blockchains. If you put 'little' transactions on one blockchain, and 'large' transactions on another blockchain, it makes no difference. Anyone who wishes to have trustless operation on both blockchains will need to have a full node for both blockchains. No reduction in overall resource demands.
But mostly, as the alt gains use due to fulfilling use cases that Bitcoin refuses to fulfill, it will necessarily rise in utility value (that's a tautology). With increased utility value, I posit that it will also increase in monetary value. Such will attract miners. Probably at the expense of Bitcoin losing miners. Such will accelerate to the point where the security position between Bitcoin and the alt will flip. At which point, there be no advantage whatsoever that Bitcoin can claim. Net result: Bitcoin would be abandoned forthwith, with complete collapse in monetary value of its associated token.
IOW, advocating a 'low value' alt to absorb all the 'small' transactions is suicidal.
I think you're point has significant merit but at the same time you can't waive a magic wand and eliminate speed of transaction from the real world equation. Transactions seem to be prioritized, in part, based on what, if any fee, is associated with them. If you use BTC and your transaction had a small fee, it might take significantly longer to confirm then if you paid more or used an altcoin. To some people, this has value, look at HFT. In a similar fashion, your later point assumes that sidechains will eliminate the need for other coins which offer differing values of utility (or I thought it was your point, I can't find it anymore lol).
We have to first share a commun understanding of what the system we are discussing is/does/maturity level, does it have fully implemented side chains? Have we eliminated the block reward or rather 'exhausted it'; does it fully function based off fees now? What is the fiat/value of the underlying commodity? Who are the mining conglomerates, what country do they operate from, and do their nation state interests correlate with the rest of the world or my location's interests?
Depending on the answer to these questions, there could be significant value in alternative blockchains which are able to survive simply off the crumbs of the main blockchain. Some people throw out there redeemable cans but other people can use them. Hypotehtically, a satoshi in future could cost more than it would to propagate a transaction on an alternative blockchain. Bitcoin banned in XYZ coutnry but no Countrycoin and there happens to be an exchange facilitating conversion between the two? All of a sudden, multiple block chains start to have merit.
Your assumptions also seems to neglect the fact that people like choices. Coke/Pepsi, Visa/Mastercard/Amex/Discover. Some people find value in simply having a backup, hence people might carry, both a mastercard AND amex ( SHOCK AND AWE!). But regardless, people still have brand loyalty. Maybe I only drink pepsi, but if I'm out for drinks at a restuarant, and my choices are coke or no drink; I might go with the coke. However, that decision takes nothing away from pepsi, as pepsi was never on option. Pepsi pepsi hamburger...
" shitcoins will be used for low-
valuesecurity/importance txs and btc will be used for high
value security/importance txs."
Sure some miners will goto a coin with more value, but that doesn't necessarily equate to more profitability. If the coin has a significant influx of miners, difficulty rises, and your profits will be less.
I guess what i'm trying to say, is, I need help understanding why there should be only one coin. I think you can have too many coins, but just having one doesn't seem to make sense.
Don't drink and drive and if you can avoid the roads by sleeping with the host/hostess of the party than take the opportunity.
