History has shown that all republics and nations will ultimately fail as well, so yes, in this sense I agree with you, in 100 years bitcoin may likely be replaced.
Do you really need statements like that to make your point? Quite ridiculous and a logic that really doesn't lend itself at all to what will happen in the foreseeable future.
I hear your opinion, that Bitcoin has no threats from other digital currencies. My view differs. At this juncture, your arguments are not convincing me to change my view at all. Your need make a statement like the above just erodes your effectiveness in making the point.
USD has no value if not used either.
But, as an entrenched national standard, there is almost zero possibility that another national standard currency would arise. As for Bitcoin, there are already competing digital currencies, and users can arbitrarily choose which one to use, if any.
While you can use different transaction methods in the US, or even use other currencies, but only relative to the USD. There is no practical way, or even a compelling reason to not use the USD standard if you are a US citizen. But it is quite easy to get along without dealing with Bitcoins in the US and everywhere else in the world. That makes Bitcoin or any digital currency different, and much much much more easily overtaken.
The Bitcoin economy is a freckle in the world economy, don't believe that a bunch of purchases servers/miners, etc are yet enough to keep it safely as the digital leader. I agree its likely going to remain, but all it takes is a higher risk perception to start tilting the scales.
What about all the hardware and software that cannot so easily be re-purposed for other digital currencies? ATM'S, BTC Hardware wallets, POS systems, ASIC miners, ect...
That is a barrier to competition, but look how fast Bitcoin arose. There are no nations, are unifying entities supporting digital currencies, they only exist with value because they are popular and useful.
Simply put, there for the foreseeable future, there will be the staple national currencies, and then digital currencies. There is no reason to assume that Bitcoin will stay on top other that its first mover status. Not a single other reason.
But, at least we seem to have clarified that there are differences from national currencies.
You can certainly trade in multiple currencies in many countries, but those currencies are also generally established ones. They are not competing to be the standard for said country.
You fail to understand the fundamental difference between an entrenched, standard, national currency, and a digital currency. Bitcoins, as of today, are only valued relative to USD and Euro, for all practical purposes. They could disappear tomorrow and there would be almost no global transactional impact, and no entity to ensure they continue to carry value.
So, I agree that Bitcoin has a first move advantage, but your confidence that other digital currencies could not quickly compete appears to be higher than mine. The problem is that is Bitcoin's only advantage.
The USD is unique as the standard US currency. Just as every other national currency is unique.
I recall some equipment monitoring techniques used in my industry. There were reams of data. If a piece of equipment failed, you could go back and look at the data and see that there were indications. But filtering those indications out as useful input was always the problem. Only the blatant, in your face indications were caught. I see a similar problem here, that you might be able to show cause and effect with this data in hindsight, but it won't be so clear when you don't know the answer already.
Isn't the problem with the value of the USD is that there can be an infinite amount of competing currencies expressed by giftcards, crypto-currencies, and other forms of fiat?
No, there is only one currency standard for the country. They can trade with other currencies but everything is based on its relation to the USD, but as far as the USD goes, there is not competitor in the US, and particularly not one that influences the value of the USD.
Any employee dumb enough to fall for a phish should be fired.
I agree, when you work for ICANN or an organization of similar responsibility, there has to be some accountability at the employee level.
I wonder if this could mean people living in an area with lots of storms have a significantly higher risk of cancer.
Higher risk, maybe, but imperceptibly small based on physical evidence. Even these "higher doses" are relatively small, well under the point where real world statistical evidence shows any increase in cancer rates. Fact is, other environmental causes dwarf radiation even at much higher doses when it comes to cancer risk. Now, if you get a hundred times these doses on a regular basis, you may expect to see some observable increases in certain cancers.
Higher altitude exposure to UV is a real risk. Plenty of evidence for that.