First to market and the technology that works good enough. Nothing has come around that is better, enough, to warrant a switch. Once that happens we will go with better technology, it has always been the case.

The current banking system is better right now, because it's at least usable and scalable. Of course the current banking system is centralized and expensive, which is a problem, but if a substantial portion of Bitcoin's userbase is arguing for that transaction speeds and costs are irrelevant because Bitcoin will be centralized too, then I'm not giving them credit for that.

And frankly, it's not at all true that no other coins have come around that are better. Monero is vastly better at privacy than Bitcoin in pretty much every way. There are already coins on the market that are using proof of stake today. In pretty much every area, the state of cryptocurrency has evolved over Bitcoin -- but, importantly, none of those coins have become better systems for speculative investing. And I would argue that's the "better enough" that most Bitcoin advocates care about.

I also don't see any reason to assume that once Bitcoin goes more mainstream that a community that is currently hostile to change because it might affect their wallets is suddenly going to be less hostile to change. Bitcoin could be evolving today. People could be switching to better coins today. But they're not. It's not going to be easier to make those improvements in the future.

Bitcoin is the technology. The idea that we need wide adoption of a technology that is ill suited for the problem it is trying to solve, just so that we can drop that technology and choose something that's actually usable on its own without first reimplementing the entire concept of banks -- it just doesn't make sense as a long-term strategy.

You're discounting the whole problem the bitcoin solves because of speculating. Since dawn of time there have been only 2 types of money, token and ledger. Bitcoin came around and created a third type of money and the genius of it is to do that it had to create a new concept of time. That's the cool part that the article goes in depth about. I'm sorry but it's hard for me to believe that anyone who read that article can go back to "speculation" arguments.

There are tons of coins that do what Bitcoin is doing, except better. They also create their own concept of time. They handle distributed anonymity better, they integrate very clever concepts like zero-knowledge proofs and proof of stake. Bitcoin does not have a monopoly on the concept of a distributed ledger or any of the other concepts that are actually interesting about blockchain technology.

But Bitcoin is particularly bad at everything surrounding the concept of a distributed ledger. In fact, it is set up in such a way as to make working with its distributed ledger more difficult than it needs to be. It was an interesting first pass at this technology, but it has been very clearly surpassed by other coins in pretty much every single way.

So the question is, given that Bitcoin is particularly bad at what it does, given that other cryptocurrencies are doing the same things that the article praises except better, why are people sticking with an outdated technology? I would posit that people who are really genuinely excited about concepts of "creating time" would be moving to better coins that are doing even more clever things than Bitcoin is, and the people who remain are largely remaining because they're interested in the speculation part and for them concepts like "first to market" are very important.

But I don't see how anybody would ever say they prefer Bitcoin because of the technology. It's outdated.