I already explained it. But somehow, by saying that I make "claims" (which is true btw), you seem to imply that you do not? I gave my reasoning and you did as well. They are both "claims". But it seems to me that reality seems to favor my claims abit more.
Because even if Litecoin managed to hold on, your theory still can't explain why Litecoin was the only one that managed to succeed, even though there exists other BC copies. If you insist on holding to your theory, I request you don't dodge the question on that one.
As for the other currencies, I'll oblige you and give you a list of the other crypto currencies:
As for Litecoin (because I don't want to be accused of dodging your question) the reason it gained in value is relatively simple. It's being used as BC's backup. People have ZERO faith in dollars/euro's, so instead of exchanging BC for fiat, they choose to exchange their BC for another cryptocurrency. LC was the best candidate for that.
If BC's price crashes, they exchange their BC for LC. And the nice thing about doing it this way, is that multiple people had this idea and they KNOW that more people are doing this, making the risk relatively low. So LC's exchange value is almost sure to rise in value when BC prices go down. Whenever BC prices rise again, they exchange their LC back for BC.
So LC rises, because of the rise of BC. But even so, the growth of LC simply can't compare to BC's rise in growth. That certainly doesn't suggest that it could ever serve as BC's second supply of coins. Not to mention that it's a bad example, since it has a different exchange value. Only another cryptocurrency with almost the exact same exchange value as BC (in other words pegged to BC) could ever serve as this theoretical expansion of BC's supply that you claim should be possible.
But before you adress this, first address why you think that that list I just gave you doesn't contradict your theory.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: