Ask HN: Why haven't people moved on from Bitcoin?

[sr_banksy]

I keep reading about how energy inefficient it is, both transacting & mining. Numerous banks and firms have labeled it a scam, yet they devote resources to trade in it. Out of naive curiosity:

1) Why has Bitcoin captured mainstream attention and not other viable alternatives that have been touted to be better (say ETH, LTC etc)? Is it simply first mover advantage?

2) What would it take to replace it as the de facto cryptocurrency standard?

[mrb]

Most of what you read about Bitcoin (or most advanced topics in the press) is wrong or misleading. Eg. I read articles saying a transaction consumes x kWh or energy, but in reality a transaction does not consume energy. Transaction rate and energy consumption are independent. It would be like saying each bit on a CD-ROM "consumes fuel" when it's shipped on a mail truck.

Only some high-profile individuals have labelled it a "scam", but the majority do recognize for what it truly is: a revolutionary technology and social phenomenon.

[sr_banksy]

Fully agree that blockchain is revolutionary technology. But why has Bitcoin captured mainstream attention and not others (say Ethereum, Litecoin etc)?

Understood about energy. I will read deeper.

[mrb]

Bitcoin has captured mainstream attention solely because it was the first mover.

It doesn't help that one of the most prominent energy consumption estimate is flawed: http://blog.zorinaq.com/serious-faults-in-beci/