Basically, I was saying that your statement was based on an analogy. This is very simplistic. Not that simple isn't sometimes right, and not that your analogy was completely false, but the replies to your message, showed much deeper and well thought out possibilities.
The analogy you pose, loses traction (or grip) as we start to understand that the protocol in this situation is money (for starters, and when you look at the further uses of it, more value is added). So, not only is it money, but it is a backing for other technologies which will be built on top of and along side it and all that they entail. (e.g. Counterparty, NXT, Ethereum, etc.) So, where as we can't exactly buy "http" we can by "BTC". The companies that bubbled and crashed are not exactly analogous to BTC itself crashing, where as those companies were built on top of the internet, they were not the internet (http). We might say any of Counterparty, NXT, Ehtereum, etc. might fail, but that is not the same as BTC failing. BTC (http) is not going anywhere anytime soon (unless there is a catastrophic event), so companies such as Pets.com, etc. might have failed, but HTTP never bubbled and failed. The analogy you pose is incomplete and has to be, as the current technology of Bitcoin (and it's blockchain) is not just a protocol. It also contains an intrinsic value in a sense.
Its about sharing
Thank you for clarification.
Protocol is money, yes. I would say that all the cryptocurrencies are some kind of protocols in their kind. We can say that if BTC is "kinda TCP/IP", then other alts are other protocols (either higher level like HTTP and SMTP or same level, like IPX, AppleTalk, etc.). Some of them will fail being a standard (IPX, AppleTalk), some won't.
But that was not the main idea. I am trying to convey that there will be the boom of companies that use cryptocurrencies as the main underlying resource, just how Pets.com et. al. used TCP/IP and HTTP. Let's call them cryptofiners (operating with cryptographic finances). This must lead to de-facto standard cryptocurrencies rise drastically as they get higher and higher demand. These cryptofiners will appear and appear causing a bubble similar to dot-com bubble, consequently, leading to cryptocurrencies' value bubble as well. Then the majority of them will fail due to the same reasons the majority of dot-coms failed. Some may survive but that won't stop the whole cryptofiners' bubble to burst. Along with it the value of underlying cryptos will fall. That's right that protocol itself haven't failed, however its value will decrease significantly.
This new bottom might be either at this level in case we are on the verge of cryptofiners boom, or at several K$ in case we see that boom after next rally, or elsewhere, but I see it very likely for dot-com bubble history to repeat.
I see your point and I think most of us here don't really claim to know what eventually is going to happen to BTC. But it does appear that the first mover advantage is a very very difficult thing to overcome. And now we can see BIG money (e.g. Wall St., Venture Capital funds, etc.) jumping on board with BTC. They will try to protect their investment at all "costs". Throw on top of that necessity, like remittances and person to person value transfers. The list goes on.
So, let's say there is a bubble in BTC. Where are we on that timeline? I bet you most would say we are at the very beginning. When the internet bubble happened (2002? ish) we all knew what the internet was. It had gained mass adoption due to AOL (those CD's all over the place), masses of websites, multiple ISP providers, etc.
At this point in time, it appears very premature to say we are anywhere near THE BUBBLE popping. I mean most people don't have a clue about Bitcoin. When the internet bubble popped money was beyond flowing into it, it was crazy. That is JUST starting here.
Here is a nice calculator to look at all of the variables involved in predicting Bitcoins price. We are just getting started (and that is NOT to say we don't pop/adjust in the interim).