That very subjective statement is stated as fact. That is all.
(You could start with In my opinion, or there could be .. and this is why I think so)
I think people will hop on anything that they think will "make" money. I wouldn't look at the market today and start guessing about 5 years from now much less this years end. It's electronic tulip mania in the end and there's no telling which way the market will go much less if or when the whole trend will pass.
Your dismissive "that is all" means you have nothing to refute what I wrote, imho. I said "about 2" which could mean 1, 2, 3, or maaaybe 4, but let's be real here, it probably means 1-3 (often 1-2) because cryptocurrency is in tech, and tech tends to consolidate around 1-3 (often 1-2) major networks. Economists have known about the network effect for ages, so have computer scientists. If you want to educate yourself, you can start by simple google search. But any self-respecting tech enthusiast already knows this.
Take Windows for instance. Why is Windows so freaking hard to dislodge as a desktop OS? Because it dominated OSes early so more software was written for it. More software written for it means more people gravitate towards the OS. It just kept snowballing and even today, Microsoft has a de facto monopoly over large portions of businesses' client PCs and PC gaming. Is there room for anything other than Windows? Technically yes. But Microsoft OSes utterly dominate, Apple is a distant second, and everything else like Linux is rounding error, despite Microsoft product not necessarily being the most technologically advanced, and despite how some alternatives like Linux are free to install.
If you talk about stuff outside of tech, you may find more than 1-3 major networks, for historical, cultural, political, and other reasons. For instance, there are more than 1-3 major languages (side note: the number of languages going extinct keeps growing... we're definitely consolidating around fewer and fewer languages over time). We also have more than 1-3 major currencies, though the USD is the world reserve currency by a mile, with the Euro attempting to consolidate its position as a distant second--when times get tough, people want to hold stuff like USD and Euros, just like if crypto goes down, people panic and want to either get out of crypto entirely, or to at least hold bitcoin and maybe litecoin.
But within the fast-moving world of tech, it's almost always the case that only 1-3 (often 1-2) networks dominate and that anything that replaces them has to be significantly better. So in tech you get stuff like:
Video Game Graphics API: Direct3D dominates, OpenGL a distant second
Social networks: Facebook dominates, Google+ a distant second
Client OS: Windows dominates, iOS a distant second
Mobile OS: iOS and Android dominate (BBRY was dominant pre-touchscreen; Apple knew it needed something "different" and the way they blended touchscreen with UI was that killer feature; Android did manage to catch up and overtake iOS but only because they were quick to scrap their existing plans and jump on the touchscreen UI bandwagon, and because a LOT of the industry was shut out of the iPhone deal between Apple and AT&T; since Apple did not license iOS to anyone else, that left the non-Apple hardware vendors and non-AT&T carriers desperate for a solution, which helped Android build enormous market share quickly... if Apple had licensed its technology we may have seen things happen differently, like iOS being a de facto monopoly with Android a distant second)
Mobile processors: ARM dominates, x86 a distant second
Desktop/Server processors: x86 dominates, ARM tablets attempting to make inroads
eReaders: Kindle dominates, Nook a distant second
Consoles: Playstation, Xbox, and Nintendo a distant and fading third that may pull a Sega and become a software firm only
Cameras: CaNikon dominate DSLR market share (since nobody wants to sell all their lenses just to go to a new mount; their competitors have never been able to catch up, just ask Sony how hard it's been to pry a few % market share away from CaNikon... that's why they are also trying to change the game by introducing Mirrorless cameras... it's hopeless to compete vs. CaNikon in DSLRs and doing so means you will forever be a distant third at best, but it's not so hopeless for Mirrorless which potentially offers unique advantages)
So yes, everything I write is "imho," but let's be real here, the network effect is very powerful, especially in tech, meaning each industry usually has 1-3 dominant standards, often just 1-2. If you want to make a big splash and steal market share away, you have to be sufficiently different in order to lure people to your network.
Fact of the matter is, nobody wants to buy multiple e-readers or consoles if they can help it--they would rather just buy once and run everything on that one. Nobody wants to buy 239865723468 cryptocurrencies if they can help it.
As long as bitcoin remains "good enough" with more and more companies willing to do business with it, then bitcoin will be hard to kill (meaning, hard for a rival cryptocurrency to displace). Every time a bitcoin ATM goes up, an exchange goes up, a company accepts bitcoin, etc., bitcoin becomes a little harder to kill. Litecoin doesn't fundamentally add anything new, so it's a minor miracle that it's worth anything at all. I think people just bid it up because they were late to bitcoin and hope litecoin will take off, or maybe they think it has some other small value, like as a backup to bitcoin if anything ever happens to bitcoin's blockchain.
Is LTC supposed to save less data on a disk or is it just so young it's only 2GB?
BTC might kill itself once we need to store 100GB of crap or so. Starting the client off classic HDD might take half a day then. It's already pretty painful right now when the data is only 15GB.
Exactly. Bitcoin has some flaws like bloated blockchain, Litecoin is going to have the same problem as it grows older. There have been calls to prune the blockchain but so far they've gone nowhere... it should be technically possible but so far the developers have not made it a top priority. A revolutionary new coin may be able to give bitcoin-like advantages and also address bitcoin shortcomings from the get-go. Such a coin has absolutely no guarantee of being on SHA256 or Scrypt, are possibly more efficient on NVidia hardware than AMD, and such a coin might not even have "mining" as we know it. Proof of Stake coins operate differently than Proof of Work coins like Bitcoin/Litecoin, so PoS coins don't require wasting tons of electricity on hashing power for security.