Without market restrictions, smaller competitors have a stronger chance of breaking into a market and decentralizing the industry. However, dominance by a majority party tends to be the natural order of things. Case in point: the crypto market, how Bitcoin has maintained 50%+ dominance for most of the industry's history while many competitors fight to split the other half.
I think the drive for competition comes from a natural desire for choice, or at least the illusion of it. Also, geographic concerns tend to lead to some level of competition due to time factors. As humanity expands beyond the Earth's atmosphere, the distance and time required to organize a monopolizing cartel becomes more difficult. This is the same effect that led to the American Revolution, where the central authority was just too far away to be entirely efficient.
Speaking of illusion of choice; I previously worked for AT&T and was privy to the fact that they actively work with other internet service providers to negotiate non-compete regions so they can all charge exorbitant prices for sub par services. This primarily happens in suburb and exurb communities. Why I don't believe that regulation is a net positive, to say that there are not specific situations where it has it's merits is equally mistaken. Still though, if having to chose between over-regulation and ancap, i'd take ancap any day. I'm tired of being told what I can and cannot do with the product of my own labor. I am not a slave.
Std Oil was a monopoly, but they also drove the price of oil down 90% and kept it there for over a century. They literally saved the whales. It is very difficult to maintain a free market monopoly without aggressive price discounting.
But even then Std Oil started to break. Before it was over, they were getting their ass kicked by the oil services industry. They wouldn't offer oil services to smaller competitors who were taking over Texas. The share holders revolted, and got the government to break up their monopoly, separating off their oil services industry. Another example of how on their own, monopolies tend to become bloated and unresponsive to the market.
Maybe by bitcoin is over 50% of crypto currency but what about currency itself?
(I heard it was 4th amongst all currencies. I haven't double checked that.)
If something becomes a monopoly or monopoly like without government then something could still enter the market.
The Bitcoin example is arguably a poor one. Its market dominance exists because it's the most appreciative asset as cryptocurrency's first mover. That is to say, it's naturally the favored coin for speculation and hodlers because it's the best performing asset in human history. This is akin to saying that gold has market dominance in the metals markets. In that sense, neither Bitcoin nor gold really relates to the type of monopoly/oligopoly market supremacy you're discussing wherein an active market competitor controls the heights.
It's definitely an example of market preference, but Bitcoin doesn't have a monopoly even if it has market dominance. The two are not synonymous. And even then, its dominance is a feature of its appreciative value the way gold might be preferential asset over other metals, not because of the market's preference for Bitcoin's utility (or lack thereof) which is outmatched by other cryptocurrencies. That lapse in utility is also becoming magnified in the current day. Bitcoin's reign is unlikely to be everlasting as a result, nevermind the one-true-coin believers.
There are cases of monopolies that are the result of a single competitor being so efficient, cost attractive and capable of serving its market that it becomes a "natural monopoly" for whatever period it can sustain that. It's the one type of monopoly that isn't viewed dourly because it tends to represent the best possible result for both sides of the equation.
Standard Oil's monopoly, and its inability to maintain it (and why), is described by David Friedman in the Machinery of Freedom. While I can't really do the response real credit here, the simple answer is that it works quite the opposite to what you imply -- without government intervention, Standard Oil couldn't keep competition from breaking their hold. But with intervention, monopolies are more easily captured and maintained.
You can find some of Freidman's answer here (PDF, see the end of page 21 and a few beyond as well as other parts that speak to Standard Oil and more specifically to Rockefeller's unsuccessful strategies.) In all, it's an EXCELLENT read if you're really interested in how free markets topple rather than uphold monopolies and oligopolies.
The premise is that as long as the monopoly business is not engaging in unethical business practices that it doesn't matter if they're a monopoly. All ancap ideology focuses on is barring the unjustified use of force or fraud in interpersonal relations. As long as a big company doesn't break those rules, then they can only maintain monopoly status by doing a fantastic job such that nobody sees an opportunity to compete with them or is able to successfully compete with them. That's perfectly ok in ancap world.
Without market restrictions, smaller competitors have a stronger chance of breaking into a market and decentralizing the industry. However, dominance by a majority party tends to be the natural order of things. Case in point: the crypto market, how Bitcoin has maintained 50%+ dominance for most of the industry's history while many competitors fight to split the other half.
I think the drive for competition comes from a natural desire for choice, or at least the illusion of it. Also, geographic concerns tend to lead to some level of competition due to time factors. As humanity expands beyond the Earth's atmosphere, the distance and time required to organize a monopolizing cartel becomes more difficult. This is the same effect that led to the American Revolution, where the central authority was just too far away to be entirely efficient.
Speaking of illusion of choice; I previously worked for AT&T and was privy to the fact that they actively work with other internet service providers to negotiate non-compete regions so they can all charge exorbitant prices for sub par services. This primarily happens in suburb and exurb communities. Why I don't believe that regulation is a net positive, to say that there are not specific situations where it has it's merits is equally mistaken. Still though, if having to chose between over-regulation and ancap, i'd take ancap any day. I'm tired of being told what I can and cannot do with the product of my own labor. I am not a slave.
Std Oil was a monopoly, but they also drove the price of oil down 90% and kept it there for over a century. They literally saved the whales. It is very difficult to maintain a free market monopoly without aggressive price discounting.
But even then Std Oil started to break. Before it was over, they were getting their ass kicked by the oil services industry. They wouldn't offer oil services to smaller competitors who were taking over Texas. The share holders revolted, and got the government to break up their monopoly, separating off their oil services industry. Another example of how on their own, monopolies tend to become bloated and unresponsive to the market.
We could name plenty of monopolies. Its either the government or protected by it. Don't worry about a monopoly on a stateless society.
Maybe by bitcoin is over 50% of crypto currency but what about currency itself? (I heard it was 4th amongst all currencies. I haven't double checked that.) If something becomes a monopoly or monopoly like without government then something could still enter the market.
The Bitcoin example is arguably a poor one. Its market dominance exists because it's the most appreciative asset as cryptocurrency's first mover. That is to say, it's naturally the favored coin for speculation and hodlers because it's the best performing asset in human history. This is akin to saying that gold has market dominance in the metals markets. In that sense, neither Bitcoin nor gold really relates to the type of monopoly/oligopoly market supremacy you're discussing wherein an active market competitor controls the heights.
It's definitely an example of market preference, but Bitcoin doesn't have a monopoly even if it has market dominance. The two are not synonymous. And even then, its dominance is a feature of its appreciative value the way gold might be preferential asset over other metals, not because of the market's preference for Bitcoin's utility (or lack thereof) which is outmatched by other cryptocurrencies. That lapse in utility is also becoming magnified in the current day. Bitcoin's reign is unlikely to be everlasting as a result, nevermind the one-true-coin believers.
There are cases of monopolies that are the result of a single competitor being so efficient, cost attractive and capable of serving its market that it becomes a "natural monopoly" for whatever period it can sustain that. It's the one type of monopoly that isn't viewed dourly because it tends to represent the best possible result for both sides of the equation.
Standard Oil's monopoly, and its inability to maintain it (and why), is described by David Friedman in the Machinery of Freedom. While I can't really do the response real credit here, the simple answer is that it works quite the opposite to what you imply -- without government intervention, Standard Oil couldn't keep competition from breaking their hold. But with intervention, monopolies are more easily captured and maintained.
You can find some of Freidman's answer here (PDF, see the end of page 21 and a few beyond as well as other parts that speak to Standard Oil and more specifically to Rockefeller's unsuccessful strategies.) In all, it's an EXCELLENT read if you're really interested in how free markets topple rather than uphold monopolies and oligopolies.
The premise is that as long as the monopoly business is not engaging in unethical business practices that it doesn't matter if they're a monopoly. All ancap ideology focuses on is barring the unjustified use of force or fraud in interpersonal relations. As long as a big company doesn't break those rules, then they can only maintain monopoly status by doing a fantastic job such that nobody sees an opportunity to compete with them or is able to successfully compete with them. That's perfectly ok in ancap world.