Please do not fall into this mistake of inferring Bitcoin's superiority on the basis of its userbase.
The headstart is much more than a simple number of users. It is a complex history where time, trust and capital growth are much more important than a simple assessment of its userbase. A very organic process which can scarcely be reproduced.
Have you contemplated the idea that by purchasing Monero through either fiat or Bitcoin you are also "starting" from a public asset?
The headstart is much more than a simple number of users. It is a complex history where time, trust and capital growth are much more important than a simple assessment of its userbase. A very organic process which can scarcely be reproduced.
Have you contemplated the idea that by purchasing Monero through either fiat or Bitcoin you are also "starting" from a public asset?
It's true, the first speculators of Monero are transferring public assets into the Monero system (unless they are the lucky ones mining pure Monero). But as the economy grows, goods and services will begin to be traded for Monero and these will be truly anonymous.
As far as your initial point, let's first go back a *scant* four years to 2011:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/android/iphone-overtakes-blackberry-to-become-top-phone-for-business-users/
Secondly, let me take you back to the year 2008. Something amazing happened that no one expected. No, it wasn't bitcoin:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/facebook-overtakes-myspace-globally/
Let's go back a decade before that:
http://www.wired.com/2009/09/0928ie-beats-netscape/
Now let's step back a century:
http://www.somdnews.com/article/20140108/NEWS/140109402/a-century-ago-autos-began-overtaking-horses&template=southernMaryland
All these things required a superior replacement to disrupt an established competitor. In some cases the original asset paved the way while the successor inherited the fruits of that labor with a refined version.
Now again, I don't think Monero will completely replace Bitcoin (assuming it gets its shit together with blocksize issues) because a public ledger is valuable too. But if you're only argument for why bitcoin is better is because "more people use it" in the face of overwhelming technological superiority... well, that's not an argument that stands up to the test of time.
You puzzle me
On one hand you make these very insightful comments and on the other you fall into the most basic of logical traps.First, if you accept that Monero speculators also happen to only obfuscate the origin of their money then I'm not sure why you brought up the point in the first place. Providing we eventually get a private sidechain goods & services will also be sold directly for these private tokens and therefore be "truly anonymous".
Now as for as breaking down your list of new technologies that supplanted their predecessor one doesn't have to think hard to realize the parallels you attempt to make with Bitcoin do not apply.
The iPhone and automobiles were truly a technological leap over their predecessor. I'm sorry but it is absolutely a stretch to pretend that Monero can claim that. Monero boasts one important additional feature but its technological "superiority" is certainly not on the level of, for example, Bitcoin over fiat.
Other examples you've pulled up are irrelevant since they came at absolutely no cost to the user. It was trivial for users to switch from myspace to Facebook or from netscape to IE. As it relates to money that is absolutely not the case.
I think where we seem to disagree is that you suggest that Monero has "overwhelming technological superiority" where as from where I stand it really only improves on one of the many important features of money.