You basically just repeated what you said before. There can only be hyperinflation if they share the same blockchain. This is one of the benefits of digital currencies, they have fungibility. They exist in and of themselves and cannot be confused for something else. If you say there is going to be alt currency hyperinflation, that just shows how ignorant you are. If they all continue to be worth less than ten cents each, then how is that hyperinflating the value of anything? There are always multiple copycats of any great invention, and this is no different, but that doesn't mean they will all be successful in any meaningful way.
By the way, there are already well over 100 cryptocurrencies. So far, no hyperinflation. The vast majority of them are junk.
just like to point out that BTC was trading under $20 at the beginning of the year. Probably not a consequence of alt coins, but last check BTC was trading over 700. That is some serious price inflation right there.
I completely understand the concern of alt-coin inflation. Look at total market cap in USD. according to the website in this link its something like 12 billion. BTC is about 2/3 of that.
I'd also like to point out that the infrastructure investment being made isn't necessarily BTC exclusive. BTC is carving the path for adoption, but there is nothing inherent in BTC that makes it the "choice" crypto for the market to use. Sure it is the most popular right now in terms of adoption. That gives it a head start, no doubt. However, BTC is quickly leaving behind the possibility of core updates due to the likelihood that a core update will disrupt everything else being built around it.
So you'll get a series of patches for BTC while the alts have the ability to fork and tweak and basically continue the beta test without disrupting the market. IOW, it the more BTC is adopted, the less possibility of core innovations and improvements. This leaves a huge gaping hole in the over all stability of using just ONE version of crypto-currency.
crypto-currency isn't even close to refined. That is the value of the alts. BTC built the foundation, but no one lives on a slab of concrete. And no one builds on a foundation that has known cracks. It was impossible to know the cracks in the BTC foundation because no one knew what to look for. It was total beta mode, capable of handling simple things like hiding money from the law, or black market operations, or a way to escape fiat currency hegemony.
There will be lots and lots of layers stacked onto the BTC protocol to attempt to patch the cracks in the foundation. The more layers that are stacked, the weaker the core. I think that is just an engineering concept that needs to be addressed. The core I don't think was designed to handle security. The core simply offloads security on to the end user. That is fine and all, but the core offers no support to the end user to perform security tasks such as the ability to claim ownership of the string of 1's and 0's that represent the individual's money.
Think about it. Everything is in the block chain. You cannot separate your money from the block chain. You cannot therefor own your money. All you can do is control ACCESS to a piece of the block chain. Even your wallet that you created on your local that you store in "cold storage" with your elaborate "security" measures, is merely a control mechanism that grants you access to manipulate the block chain. In and of itself, that wallet is completely worthless. You are invariably connected to block chain, which is owned by no one.
That is not necessarily a bad thing, as it's better than being invariably connected to the fed and fiat, but ultimately the realization must come that just like with your dollars are debt instruments where ownership becomes meaningless due to the debasement of the central monetary authority, your BTC's are ACCESS instruments where ownership becomes meaningless due to concept of ownership being non existent in the disconnected from human identity core. I am not sure what to call that yet, it's a feature of the software, anonymity. Ownership as a concept in my mind requires connection to human identity. It is not enough to say "someone owns it". The question must be answered, "who owns it".
I have already shown how having access does not prove ownership. Someone cannot not steal or find the keys to my house and then say that because they have access, they now have ownership. Having the keys to my house does go a long way into giving me the benefit of the doubt that I own the house, but ultimately any challenge in ownership involves identification. BTC at it's core and by design run's away from human identity. This needs to be patched in my view otherwise owning access to the ability to manipulate the block chain is quite meaningless since what we are really concerned about with money is who has a legitimate right on either side of a transaction to claim the real property that the transaction represents.
