>"Blockchain" is a database, but bitcoin is much more than its storage backend.

Blockchain in this context is referring to a specific set of implementation details to create a database. They are similar but not the same, a blockchain is a database but a database is not a blockchain.

>The reason you can't simply replicate it is due to the monetary policy.

I’m not fully grasping what you are implying here, mind explaining further?

> In a world where anyone can make their own cryptocurrency, and we have "bluejellybeanBucks" and "sparkieSterling", how much value are these silly currencies going to have?

This world already exists and the value of each should be somewhat independent, “bluejellybeanBucks” may have a feature that creates far more value than “sparkieSterling” for example. I would postulate that the majority of the currencies created will be low value but I don’t really see this as an issue with cryptocurrency in general.

> Their value will converge towards zero as more of them are printed and less of them are actually useful for representing value.

I don’t actually see an issue with this as market forces can handle this. If I have a street with a single Starbucks (bitcoin) serving the population adequately I can still open 20 more shops. The value will converge towards zero as more stores open, thus the closure of failed stores should occur.

>The whole point of Bitcoin was to solve this inflation problem. If you don't care about inflation, you don't need a "blockchain" to begin with.

Do you have a source for this claim? Although a touted difference between fiat and bitcoin, the idea of deflation isn’t limited to bitcoin. I could create bluejellybeanBucks to include the same mechanism that bitcoin does. I could also decide to print the currency at specific times or even give control to a central authority that will print money when deemed fit.

> Bitcoin has the network effects, and it also required the creation (inflation) of some initial set of distributed digital asset because it was the first of its kind, and could not piggyback off of some other scarce, verifiable asset.

While true Bitcoin does had the network effects, this does not mean another contender will be unable to rise to the top. Any cryptocurrency that one chooses to create can implement it in a way that mirrors bitcoin or piggyback off of some asset.

> Every other "cryptocurrency" that came afterwards, could piggyback of a scarce digital asset and avoid the inflation problem. They had Bitcoin to piggyback off.
Well, they didn’t have to and again, this is a choice in the development of each specific asset.

> In future, all "blockchain" projects will be implemented as sidechains to bitcoin, or as payment networks which transact in Bitcoin and therefore don't create inflation by design.

This is a little absurd to me and I don’t really see this future happening. In anycase, any predictions of the future here is mainly speculation.

> Things like the Liquid sidechain, Sidechain One (drivechains), Rootstock, Lightning network, etc. These are the "implementations" which will be competing for users, but they'll all be functioning on the same currency, because any currency other than Bitcoin is destined to lose value with time, due to the inflation they designed into their system.

Sure, the implementations you described are on bitcoin, but again, solutions of this sort can be
applied generally to other cryptocurrencies. Any currency other than Bitcoin is NOT destined to lose value with time. If you are specifically talking about a currency that has inflation built in, sure I would agree, but when discussing a currency this isn’t necessarily the case.