I saw this statement in the Economist piece on Blockchains:
Bitcoin itself may never be more than a curiosity. However blockchains have a host of other uses because they meet the need for a trustworthy record, something vital for transactions of every sort. Dozens of startups now hope to capitalise on the blockchain technology, either by doing clever things with the bitcoin blockchain or by creating new blockchains of their own.
Obviously Bitcoin could become “nothing more than a curiosity” if all the action moves to other blockchains. But right now the Bitcoin blockchain has an order of magnitude more hashing power and market cap, so we are certainly not seeing any other blockchains developing the kind of network effects that Bitcoin has. Of course, that could change. It is something I check on at least once a week and will continue to do so.
But if we see “a host of other uses” materialize “by doing clever things with the bitcoin blockchain”, I have always assumed that would be a catalyst for Bitcoin itself, both in terms of value, but also liquidity and importance of the currency.
Is that a flawed assumption?
