there can be an infinte number of cryptocoins, any brand of them is just as good for commerce as any other, and there is no reason to believe that bitcoin will be among the ones that will succeed if they do succeed.
This has been refuted again and again. People want a secure, noninflating coin. Not evapourcoin. Not resourcecoin. They dont want coins for dogs or dope or sex. One coin. Not countrycoin, not citycoin. One international coin. They don't want a coin with more frequent blocks. Not premine. Not centralized. They want one coin.
Then why are the altcoins still thriving? Those who buy and use them are not people?
Those kinds of coins could be competitors. Maybe one other, maybe two. [ ... ] Most probably, altcoins could ever only reach a small part of the total value.
And it is me the one who states mere opinions, without any arguments?
Without arguments, what the flying fuck? There were arguments, even after you redacted away a few of my sentences.
You can have your
opinion about the likelihood of bitcoin surviving, but the
fact are that there is no justification now to claim that they will die, and bitcoin will not. The "first players advantage" and "network effect", if they were real, should have prevented the altcoins from starting. That they started and are thriving is proof that those advantages are not that significant.
On the other hand, some altcoins appear to have characteristics that bitcoin does not have; who can tell whether they won't be decisive?
(I hope no one will claim that "bitcoin is now too big to fail".

)