[heifetz]

except that Uber and Lyft are operating companies with revenue, expenses and earnings. Bitcoin is a "currency" without inherent value, or cashflow potential. I admit, Bitcoin may have some utility, but is that utility any different from another cryptocurrency? To rephrase my question, if someone was able to clone Gold, why should Gold be worth more than the clones?

[tom_mellior]

> Bitcoin may have some utility, but is that utility any different from another cryptocurrency?

Yes. It's easier to find shops that accept Bitcoin than it is to find shops that accept other cryptocurrencies. That's the utility: Being able to use it to buy stuff.

This utility is not because Bitcoin made superior technical choices, it's simply due to first mover advantage and network effects. If every place that accepts Bitcoin today started accepting other cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin would be likely to lose against those with higher transaction capacity and cheaper/more transparent fees.

[craigc]

I'm not saying it SHOULD be worth more. Just saying that market behaviors don't always make logical sense.

Right now most cryptocurrencies trade against Bitcoin. If that were to change it would require all exchanges introducing new trading pairs against some other coin. Not saying that won't happen, but it would take some time.

Also, yes those companies have revenue, expenses, earnings which can be used to value them. My point was let's say tomorrow I release my own uber competitor. Even if it is better in every way than Uber: Better UX, faster, easier to make payments, all robotic cars (debatable if that is better :]), etc, etc.

That does not mean that my app will gain adoption and end up becoming more valuable than Uber. Some of it has to do with brand recognition, first mover advantage, press coverage, etc.

A lot of people thought Ethereum would take over as the dominant cryptocurrency cause it can arguably do everything bitcoin and more, but that didn't happen and Bitcoin is still going strong.