Black and white thinking as always.

You refuted exactly zero arguments from the very well-written website above, which by the way is what always happens when the matter comes up. Because you don't actually have any valid arguments, and therefore devolve into ad hominem attacks.

It's cute you believe in digital scarcity as an absolute thing, meanwhile Bitcoin has actually had an inflation bug in the past, which if you would stop regurgitating dogma for a minute you would understand the implications of that as it applies to your argument.

But tempered rational thought is not usually the mark of a religious zealot.

Moving further, in a classic display of projection (because it's an all or nothing, black and white thing to you), you imply that any other project that addresses a shortfall of Bitcoin has inherently as its goal the overthrown of Bitcoin.

I'm not even going to list the many alternative interpretations (and there are many, believe me),I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.

You also seem to conflate scarcity in Bitcoin (let's for a moment assume it is bug-free enough that we will never see something like that happening again, an assumption I would like to hold true btw, unlike you, who resentfully desires us "shitcoiners" to be rekt because, essentially, we don't follow your church) with digital scarcity in general.

Seeing as this is all open-source and the cost of copying digital information is essentially zero, it is no surprise we see many cryptos nowdays. And honestly the situation is a lot better than it used to be (even though there are a lot more projects), because there is a lot of really cool technology being developed (and yes, I appreciate that you don't and can't appreciate this, since for you by definition anything outside Bitcoin is a shitcoin, therefore you never really look outside that box, therefore you could never really know what you're talking about).

However, it still seems rational to me that for the explicit purpose of protecting oneself from fiat debasement, Bitcoin is the best choice.

Unlike you (because I'm not a zealot), I don't think that could NEVER change, but I do find it extremely unlikely (and have allocated my resources accordingly).

To finish, your assertion that "there is no limit to the supply of a digital object that moves on the internet in a private way" is just that - an assertion, and a faulty one at that. I would suggest you actually read and study the site linked before in order to reach a more nuanced conclusion.

Furthermore, you're also assuming, once again, that it is an all-or-nothing proposition, when it isn't; having a blockchain that is opaque and therefore vastly superior for the single purpose of transacting anonymously and privately is a valuable tool in the arsenal against pervasive mass-surveillance.

This does not mean, and does not have to mean, that it is a better tool for everything else too, and it does not mean you should stake  your fortune on its fate and unlikely success as a replacement for Bitcoin.

More than anything else what annoys me about you maxis is that you can't seem to grasp those elementary distinctions because your minds are polarized and you seem to live in a bubble of people who think the same things. And then unironically refer to others as NPCs.

Bitcoin is just a tool, Monero is just a tool. Relax. Use the best tool for the right job, don't be a religious nutjob.

Or don't, but then at least don't murder the truth.