I'm skeptical of a few things in the medium post, for instance if you compare the etherium's ERC20 defi ecosystem to bitcoin, you will get more git repositories because there are simply more coins.
Secondly, more is not always better, and measuring developer activity by git repositories is like measuring lines of code as a metric for the amount of work being done.
There are many other considerations that make a transaction possible. If you remove them, then a transaction wont have much value.
For instance, security of chain's history or censorship resistance are required. These features can fall apart quickly with incentive misalignment. They are tail risks and easy to ignore until it happens
It would be more impressive if Jack can sell his first tweet, once on each major platform. Now they are somewhat fungible, non fungible titles. If one is worth more than the other, why?
Lindy effect. Sure you can copy it, but the original remains. The scarcity exists inside the network, and in a sense you cannot copy it, because the copy is just that - there is no use in copying it.
> Lindy effect. Sure you can copy it, but the original remains. The scarcity exists inside the network, and in a sense you cannot copy it, because the copy is just that - there is no use in copying it.
That's why I refer to it as a speculative bubble; everyone is betting on how much other art appreciators will pay for artsy bitcoins in the nebulous future.
It's also only moderately explanatory; the original BTC client doesn't work on the current network any more, either. So what does BTC have that BCH doesn't? They share a root block.
