Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on May 19, 2015, 08:23:20 PM

Quote from: smooth on May 19, 2015, 06:53:53 PM

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on May 19, 2015, 06:50:14 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on May 19, 2015, 04:45:40 PM

constantly switching to newer altcoins, even if they represent true improvements, is destructive to SOV. thus, the whole concept of cryptocurrency as a SOV fails miserably. they fail to see this thus their activities are destructive to the SOV concept.

This is one reason I've been wary of the "Bitcoin is shopper's paradise" idea of the past few years where merchant adoption was overemphasized or emphasized before its time, and the premature reference to Bitcoin as "the currency of the Internet" (/r/Bitcoin's sidebar) when it only "has currency," as it were, in a few niche markets so far. This marketing brought in so many people who didn't understand that everything is founded on SoV, and who didn't understand the ledger but rather thought of BTC as "digital tokens you can send through the Internet" (the famous WeUseCoins video with 6M views), with all the second-thoughts and objections that distorted understanding results in.

Well, I agree with your observation about it all being terribly premature but I disagree with your conclusion. In fact my conclusion is exactly the opposite. It is precisely because that focus is premature that Bitcoin has zero legitimacy to claim to be the global ledger of anything other than Bitcoin. You can't be the global ledger of money until and unless you are established -- in reality not just in some supporters' imaginations -- as money.

I agree in one important sense: my comments today on store of value become irrelevant if a new coin (new ledger) emerges and gets massively more investment from outside the current crypto community such that Bitcoin users only constitute a tiny percentage of crypto users anymore. It's clear enough why, because in that situation, we potentially have most of the population using a cryptoledger for the first time without ever having considered Bitcoin a store of value. Instead they consider the new ledger as a store of value, because it's all they've ever known post-fiat.

However, I think the analysis I gave earlier today would apply to that ledger, and we'd never see any ledger switches after that except in catastrophic circumstances.

As I said, I agree when you get to the point where it actually resembles a global ledger. Something that grabbed 0.2% could still be overtaken by something that grabbed for example 1%. But if and when you get to 20% or 80% or whatever, then no.