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.
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.