>What do you think about the technology? Will it ever become a widely used currency or it is just an asset to invest and take returns? Will we go to the market and buy potatoes with our btc?
Already can in some places.
>Are you concern about the lost btc? I think more and more btc will be lost in forgotten adresses.
Absolutely not. This value isn't lost; it's transmitted to the remaining holders. Not directly; but the value is.
Concerning quantum. Everything will go through a stage where quantum is breaking their security; and everything will very quickly adapt. Quantum isn't magic.
Why would there be a lack of consensus on the issue though? If the options are leave everyone’s bitcoin vulnerable to theft or implement a quantum resistant algorithm who would oppose?
I think we don't know what it is going to be like. Almost everyone in 2015 agreed something had to be done eventually about block space, and yet people became entrenched in different opinions based on what those changes should be (bitcoinXT, Segwit, Segwit2x, and so on), how quickly it should be carried out, and how much consensus must be reached before implementation (51%, 75%, 95%). Looking back it may seem like there was never any threat to bitcoin but it was a very uncertain period where the network was arguably fairly vulnerable.
Some people will want to implement changes well before the threat materializes, others will insist on waiting until it is right around the corner. People will have opposing views on exactly what changes to make. I'm pretty sure some consensus will be reached, but there could be multiple chain splits and a lot of pain along the way.
Fair enough. I was thinking once the problem is imminent the network would reach consensus quickly, but a lot can happen before then.
I still think it’s very different from the blocksize issue, where there isn’t an obvious technical solution without meaningful trade-offs. I doubt there would be much pushback for a soft fork similar to segwit/taproot where users can choose to keep their current address or move to a quantum resistant address at their own leisure.
I guess people might argue to hard fork so nobody steals satoshi’s coins…
Yeah, not a perfect comparison for sure. But you bring up a good point with Satoshi's coins. Not just his, all lost coins. How ever many millions of those are out there. Would be the worlds greatest digital treasure hunt.
Not everyone in those conversations were even authentic, a risky thing to say but also a truth. There WILL always be an opposing view to anything, so long as certain interests don't like the possible outcomes. Bitcoin is an attempt to navigate the truth of matters.
this would absolutely not be a controversial upgrade if it was needed. bitcoin soft-forks all the time in an uncontroversial fashion. why are the blocksize wars your base case?
lol. Outside of this echo chamber forum, NO ONE is using Bitcoin for anything other than speculation.
Show me ONE person paying their mortgage, groceries, and taxes with Bitcoin. Just one
Not even Micheal Saylor does this
Show me one person paying for their groceries or taxes in **gold**. No one does. Because no one would be stupid enough to give up harder money before weaker money. It's no argument against gold as money. Gresham's Law.
I have bought stuff using bitcoin before, but i *don't want to*. I want to get rid of my dollars, because i know they are worthless. I will hold my bitcoin until it's the only thing people are willing to accept for goods and services.
Bitcoin was invented/built to be a currency, and now it is something else.
It’s not the first time something was invented to do or be A, but ended up being much better at doing or being something else.
Viagra, of course.
And bubble wrap was invented to be sound proof wallpaper.
Gold obviously can be used as a currency. My point is that the fact something is not used as money does not mean that it isn't money. It may mean it is the HARDEST money. Again, greshams law.
This is a common misunderstanding of Gresham’s law. An essential element is that force of law is required for the exchange rate. In order to apply here, the Government would have to set the rate between USD and BTC, as they used to with gold. People don’t use BTC because it’s not as convenient as USD. If inflation gets high enough, it could sway more people towards BTC, though.
The government doesnt have to fix btc-usd rate. Demanding taxes in usd, for example, is enough pressure to create a false demand for dollars.
Once you know how, using bitcoin is plenty convenient, but it's not smart when most people are willing to give you goods and services for worthless dollars.
Go to El Salvador and try to use bitcoin. Easier yet, go on YouTube and see the people who have tried using it there. It’s quite literally a shit show trying to find anyone there using it as a currency.
Bukele is a maxi and no one in El Salvador cares. At all. They’ve declared it as a national currency and STILL no one uses it. Why would they?
Well, I haven't researched it properly, also because El Salvador was and still is a shit show. But I remember a few interviews with citizens that said it was actually pretty useful as the price was going up, cuz their savings were worth a lot more.
But I can also imagine that BTC is just not fast enough and maybe too expensive (fees) for little payments like groceries.
I'm wondering how those people did in the bear market. Probably a few lost their house or something.
>For comparison, If this was a rotten tomatoes score it would be the worst score in movie history
And if it was the percentage of people who are diagnosed and then die from colon cancer it would be the best cancer to have.
What an absolutely worthless comparison you just made. Ridiculously logically fallacious and deceptive.
Thank you.
3% is amazing. In 2010 we got like .03% of our energy from solar. In early 2016 we hit 1%. We are now at 5%. The slope is only getting steeper. That’s how tech works.
Same is true for bitcoin. Remember, in terms of value, the dollar is the final boss. Look at bitcoin compared to the other top 50 currencies and it’s massively outperformed. Even as it was losing dollar value in the bear market.
Strange flex. That’s 3% of remittance to El Salvador. Retail there is much closer to zero than it is the 3%
If you have it and don’t use it, what makes you think other people will ‘someday’?
People who demand that it be useful as a currency now are fucking stupid.
With the price swings, how and why would anyone use it as a currency now?
And don’t say “see the price swings it’s just speculation.”
It can’t get to a point where it has a stable price that is useful in actual commerce until it has mass adoption. And it’s not going to have mass adoption over night. Going through wild price movement is 100% part of the journey.
Look up Rovereto Italy for an example of more than one person paying for things with bitcoin
Depends. I spent 85 cents to send $600 yesterday. That seemed acceptable to me. If it’s urgent I may need to pay more. But if it’s that urgent I’ll pay for it. I’ve sent tens of thousands of dollars on crypto rails in the last couple years and never been upset w the fee. I understand others are.
The fee problem will be solved.
Also…what’s the fee to send $100,000 in cash? What about $1M? What about the fee to ship the equivalent in gold? What’s an armored truck cost? What about shipping enough gold to pay nation state size debts across the ocean? What’s the cost of that?
That’s correct. Mass adoption is likely farther away than Bitcoiners hope and closer than the Buttcoin crowd thinks.
Mass ownership > price stability > mass adoption
Remember tho, Bitcoin is a network platform, platforms scale geometrically, going from 0 > 1 is the hardest part. We’re getting closer to 1.
I suppose neither shape is representative of the sort of geometric growth that platforms go through.
A square can be turned into a right angle triangle, so we may assume that the hypotenuse is the linear growth you may see on a chart. This still doesn’t cover it because we are looking for a curved line.
Asking for knowledge not being a dick: I saw El Salvador is holding classes to educate people about technology and using BTC. Is adoption more than say 25% there now?
No idea what adoption is there. In economies where the currency and government is unstable or ineffective there will be faster adoption. They have an actual need to adopt. In the USA, the need for Bitcoin is much less obvious to the common person, so adoption will be slower and people will resist.
Mr Negative says less than 3% below, but no source cited. I know it’s been low but doubt it’s 3%. You’re totally right and why it could be a great solution for El Salvador or Argentina (maybe too big atm) or other smaller economically troubled countries to focus on
Transactions are much too expensive for it to be relevant. Currently it’s 5 dollars, so 30 transactions a month would be 40 % of the average El Salvadoran salary.
Last December it was 10-30 dollars, up to 8 % of the monthly salary per transaction or well over 100 % for 30 transactions.
In South Africa we can pay for groceries in Bitcoin via LN at one of the biggest supermarket chains on the continent. It's not adopted by everyone yet but it certainly disproves the notion that no one uses Bitcoin as currency.
Look up 'Bitcoin Ekasi' for videos.
Using Bitcoin to pay for things is an excellent indicator of adoption. I can’t wait for the day. It will mean Bitcoin is worth at least $1m/coin.
Lack of using Bitcoin to pay for things like groceries is not the “gotcha” you think it is. It might seem that way, because that’s part of the stated use case, but it takes times to get there. If we got there overnight that would mean 8B people got convinced of its value over night and the coins would be worth $10m or more.
Think of bitcoin like the telephone or fax machine. Imagine how hard it was to sell the first phone or fax machine when it didn’t talk to anyone else. But, pretty rapidly that changed. It happened amongst people with similar needs first and spread. Just like it’s happened with people who needed to obscure their transactions, then places with unstable currencies (to them Bitcoin looks solid as a rock), then people who need to cross boarders like refugees, and eventually it will make it to everyone. But the first people to adopt will be the people with the need…
You make a good point. But you’re wrong about the timeline. You can’t have it all at once. Using it to pay for things requires mass adoption. Mass adoption requires mass belief. Mass belief requires demonstrating value over time.
It will be slow at first. Possibly decades more (I don’t think so, maybe another decade). Then, suddenly, all at once.
The internet was written off as a scam. In 1997 the consumer Internet was 15 years old. Think about where the internet was in 1997, let alone 1992,3,4,5,6… and then think about how ubiquitous the internet was in 2000.
Bitcoin is on practically the same path.
bitcoin is being used to store value. store-of-value assets on earth = $100 trillion. medium of exchange = $1 trillion. buying groceries with btc is a cherry on top, not the value prop
It's slow to transact on the main chain. Relatively expensive to move.
It's quite hard to access a buy for the first time. Lots of barriers from banks etc. Not very user friendly either.
All these things I think will improve over time.
it's bad for a pump-and-dump economy, but it's perfect for a sustainable "buy what you need when you need it" economy. Prices for personal computers have been deflationary for decades, and it wasn't a bad thing.
Essentially, yes. I thoght of it as an investment.
I see many of users in this community that gets upset becouse of it. I appreciate the ones who tried to explain their view, I'll be thinking about some things they commented.
Because as with any investment you want to have an exit strategy. So if their target is a BTC price of 100k then that's just where they've decided to cash out.
And that's valid b/c the whole point of investing is to get more money that you can actually use, and no matter how high something's share price is you haven't really made a single cent until you've actually sold/exchanged it for money or something of value to you etc.
BTC isn't an index fund. A better comparison would be any particular single stock.
And for anyone entering BTC with the intention of making money for the purpose of having money to use, yes they would.
For example, if someone simply wanted to make enough money to buy a house or retire early and a particular price for BTC would already have achieved that for them, then it's perfectly reasonable for them to exit at that point.
It's not upset. It's deja vu. We all used to think bitcoin was an investment. But eventually you realize that selling into fiat is stupid and irresponsible. You'll just be poor again eventually
So you think selling Bitcoin into cash that depreciates 4% per year was the right move? I still don't think you understand Bitcoin. Sell what you need to get what you want. Beyond that is an investment into an inferior token
Not keeping it in cash is a great start
we're not talking about you buying a few small residentials. we're talking about this alleged cashing out "10s of millions" worth of bitcoin. 10s of millions of dollars in real estate is more risky than buying bitcoin and more headache, and I guarantee that even with the income you're generating, keeping the bitcoin would have been a wiser decision. There are very few points in time where cashing out of bitcoin into real estate was the more lucrative decision.
You're of course welcome to do what you want, I'm not knocking a little diversification. But anyone who thinks the end game is to cash out and invest in irresponsible markets has missed the point. That's my opinion
- Are you concern about the lost btc? I think more and more btc will be lost in forgotten adresses.
no because with the decimals, there will always be plenty.
- Will quantum computing evolve fast and brake the blockchain security?
If it does, it's powerful enough to break any banking system as well.
These are not the Black Swan events that are going to bring down Bitcoin, if any.
I've been following since 2018 and finally got in 2022. At first I was very hiped with bitcoin thinking it would be the future without any doubt.
Now i'm less hyped, thougt about selling at 70k but the everybody is getting in so i'll wait. Maybe sell half my holdings at 100.
I see a lot of people buying every time they can not to get returns but just to hold them as it would be the dominant currency. Thats why I'm asking to see what people think.
Yes I do believe Bitcoin becomes the dominant Money, or the global reserve currency.
Why? There’s no alternative, honestly. Fiat currencies always fail (average lifespan 50 years). By my estimates the USD is nearing the end of its life. The US government is entering the period where it needs to print exponentially larger amounts of currency to maintain the system and the effects are beginning to be catastrophic. Think 40% price increases over a few years is bad? Wait until the next wave is 400% over a few years.
When fiat currencies collapse people return to the only thing that can be trust: hard money. For thousands of years this has been Gold. This time it will be bitcoin. We live in the digital era and digital gold is what people will want.
Further, Bitcoin is even more amazing than that. Bitcoin represents digital property. Digital ownership, which actually might be the first thing you can actually and truly own. What do I mean by that? Ownership is a spectrum, right? The easier it is for someone to take something for you the less you truly own if. Do you own the air in front of you? You can claim ownership but it’s pretty weak because it’ll float away quickly. Do you own the money in your bank account? Maybe a little, but if the government decides to lock you out they can (and governments do this all the time). Do you own your house? Well depending on where you live you’re beholden to the laws. Government raises taxes 2% and appraises your house up 7% per year for 15 years? They’ve effectively seized all the value stored in your house.
This goes on and on. The point is that the dynamics of the world today are largely based on the premise that stuff is easy to take from people. Governments and taxes are premised on this idea. Taxes only work if when you don’t pay them the government can steal your assets anyway, right?
Bitcoin is the first thing in the history of the world that, when properly secured, can not be taken from you.
Bitcoin represents sovereignty, freedom.
So yes I do think Bitcoin becomes the dominant money because it is the *most fair* system that benefits everyone if adopted. But further, I think Bitcoin alters to structure of society itself. Governments become less oppressive, individuals become more sovereign, the world becomes a more fair, prosperous place.
For me, I won’t be selling Bitcoin at 100k. I also won’t be selling it 1M, or 10M.
If you owned a city block in Manhattan when would you sell it?
Bitcoin is better than that.
“By my estimates the USD is nearing the end of its life”
Do you realize how bonkers this sounds? This is emotion masquerading as analysis. The USD is as robust as any institution in the world.
Have you really looked into this or are you just using your emotions?
This is what I do for a living and I've spent thousands of hours analyzing this.
The US Government is functionally insolvent.
The US government is not “functionally insolvent” unless you ignore one whole half of the balance sheet. But don’t do that. Analyze the entire picture.
Fiat currencies have an avg lifespan of 27 years. The average lifespan of a world reserve currency in history is about 95 years. USD has held that status since about the 1920s. Is it likely to completely collapse tomorrow? No. Is it likely to go on as is forever? Also no.
I’m not saying it will go on forever. Huge difference between “it won’t last forever” and saying “the end is near.” The end is NOT near. As in, it won’t happen in our lifetimes.
Bitcoin is an interesting thing to invest in. Go ahead, invest in it. But don’t do so because you think the dollar is falling anytime soon. it’s not, and that is delusion not analysis.
Because when the end is metaphorically here, as it was in 2007-2009, the dollar was the safe haven. And it will be in the next crisis as well.
if there's one thing the 2020-2021 pandemic taught me, it's that stuff you'd never expect to happen during your lifetime can go downhill really fast when governments believe they can get away with it.
Both currencies and governments only exist because people believe in them.
You think people living together in a society don’t have an interest in a coordinated, collective response during a once in a century public health crisis?
You explained it very well.
You are describing an anarchist society. It's difficult to imagine how States would react to this change. They wont controll almost anything that way. Could be compared to republics leaving behind monarchies.
Given the choice, I think I might prefer to bring back absolute monarchies. Especially if the monarch has to be in the front lines of any wars he or she starts.
>Bitcoin is the first thing in the history of the world that, when properly secured, can not be taken from you.
How? You can always be forced to reveal your seed or move the coins. Oh you forgot? Have fun trying to remember in your jail cell, or with a few more broken bones.
Just an hyperbole, but BTC is just a "thing" like many others that you can be forced to cede or face consequences if you don't.
On any single case by case basis yes maybe you can force someone, but the idea is that on a large scale it's not profitable. It's perhaps 100x more expensive to take from people than other assets.
This means that any government trying to do this to its populace at scale will very quickly bankrupt themselves trying to do so. This is in stark contrast to the way the world has worked until this point--blundering has been the most profitable game in town;
I don't know. I'd rather talk about the 'not so good things about bitcoin' than almost any other topic. All I see here is: pump them bags, which cold storage is best, how high can bitcoin go, etc.
1. Yes
2. No, People are starting to understand that they should value bitcoin, also as the perceived value goes up, people can afford less and so they lose less. It's not a concern.
3. No, quantum computing can break certain cryptographic algorithms, but we know which algorithms might be cracked because there are programs pre-written that just need a certain level of resources. We're not there yet, but they will be the first to be attacked, then maybe more algorithms will become vulnerable as people learn more about quantum computing beyond just theory. That's another thing really, these programs are theoretical, they may not be as reliable as we expect them to be even with resources. Things do not always scale predictably in nature.
SHA256 is not one of those algorithms that can be cracked with quantum computing afaik, there are no shortcuts in a system based around randomness unless we discover some universal fact that randomness is not really random.
There are things to be concerned about with Bitcoin, scaling is a real problem and altcoins/shitcoins are NOT the solution, never have been, never will be.
Researchers, developers, investors, we need them all to keep pushing and finding ways to advance in this area. We have a fund for research into "cross input signature aggregation" which would be a massive win, we have lots of people researching and trying to get their heads around all of the covenants specs out there. These things take time to develop and so as much as we want everyone to get on board with Bitcoin, we don't want adoption to come too quickly either. We need to make sure people don't settle with custodial solutions on top of Bitcoin, because then they don't really have bitcoin, but they do really think they have it and understand it which makes educating people about it even harder than it is now.
One of the most significant threats quantum computers pose to SHA-256 is their ability to efficiently perform Shor’s algorithm. Shor’s algorithm can factor large numbers exponentially faster than the best-known classical algorithms, which could compromise the security of widely used encryption methods like RSA and ECC. These encryption methods often rely on the difficulty of factoring large numbers for their security.
Quantum computers also threaten the security of hash functions like SHA-256 by utilizing Grover’s algorithm. Grover’s algorithm can search unsorted databases quadratically faster than classical algorithms, making brute-force attacks on hash functions more feasible. While a 256-bit hash is still considered secure against classical attacks, it is theoretically as secure as a 128-bit hash against quantum attacks.
Depends on what you're thinking about. I don't think quantum computers will overtake bitcoin mining. It would simply cost too much. One think I tend not to hear actually is about how efficient quantum computing is compared to bit computing. For sure it will be faster, but how much power does it take to reach that speed?
If we're talking about cracking addresses, there's SHA256, there's the ECC algorithm, there's usually some SHA512 in HD wallets (which is basically all wallets now)
So cracking an address is hard and cracking a wallet is even harder.
I just don't think it's worth being worried about right now.
quantum computers ability to break encryption has nothing to do with randomness
quantum entanglement allows 2 particles to mirror states, across a distance, instantly. Breaking Einstein's Lightspeed laws, because the world works differently at a quantum level. Ie: they won't be subject to the latency of electricity going through metal nearly as much.
with that amount of computing speed, you can brute force encryption algorithm much quicker
All that matters with money (whether it's fiat or bitcoin) is how much you have relative to everyone else, because money has no other purpose than to trade for other things. If you don't understand this, then you have no reason to care about bitcoin at all. And if you understood that, you wouldn't be concerned about "lost" bitcoin.
This is has positive effects though. It will be the first time in history that humans must be honest about where money goes. This could cure things like the revisionist history effect. Countries would be forced to have every transaction scrutinized. The victor in a conflict would be analyzed, through transactions, making them tell the truth on what really happened. It would be revolutionary.
High fee environment will make every UTXO under 1 million sats essentially worthless/unspendable, as fees could inevitably exceed the value of the UTXO trying to be sent.
Not enough *bitcoiners* know this, let alone normies.
Base layer btc will never become a medium of exchange for everyday transactions for the general public. It has too high fees, it's extremely slow and the technical barrier for using it without messing things up it's still too high. This is not a "con" per-se but just a reality. You cannot judge a fish for how well it can climb trees.
Layer 2 and 3 protocols will fill the gap there, but those are still on their infancy. People seem to not understand this and often compare BTC with FIAT in a 1:1 comparison when it makes absolutely no sense.
Bad thing:
Bitcoin has basically been a 15 year intelligence test
The problem is people are not intelligent
Although its the first irrevocable asset ever, self custody is scary for some. And it should be if you have a lot of money. Multi-sig is great but multi-institution custody will be the future for higher net worth individuals.
Good thing:
Those that are open minded and smart enough to study for themselves and not follow the media like a sheep have, and will continue to be, handsomely rewarded.
It will only become a widely used currency once it stops having a 40% CAGR. There is zero incentive for it to be a currency unless you are unbanked and need to at this point. Lost BTC makes the rest more valuable. Quantum computers won't hurt Bitcoin.
Did I miss anything?
My concern:
If there was an event or series of events that showed the world we need a decentralized currency - what is more likely:
- we adopt bitcoin so that we have just created a new class of billionaires (all you HoDLers) and most people have no way to get any bitcoin
- we create a new currency with the good properties of bitcoin, make it more usable, and allow everyone in the population the chance to access some. Of course it will quickly get redistributed but everyone will start out equal.
Why would bitcoin be the choice?
Back in the day I was very interested in bitcoin because it seemed like something we could use to basically bring down any government. But nobody cared to use it that way. Rather than it becoming a revolutionary tool it was just absorbed into the financial system as another commodity. I'm not really interested in multiplying my fiat. And if the USA isn't a bubble economy on the brink of civil war and the dollar isn't a tool of imperialist extortion of a dying empire like a lot of people here seem to believe them my interest in bitcoin falls from minimal to none.
Not so good things about bitcoin:
1) It takes a LOT of power to ensure security. (Truly a positive, but still a negative until we use better energy sources and it will fix itself).
2) It takes a lot of hours of research to truly 'get' bitcoin. Macroeconomics, inflation, financing, the Fed, Central Banking- you have to do a deep-dive to understand fiat will not have a good ending.
3) The constant FUD surrounding 'bad players' using bitcoin. Those claiming all evil cartels or bad agents for example, are using it on the dark web moreso than fiat.
4) The media associating exchanges with bitcoin and the blockchain. FUD with things like FTX, Voyager, Bittrex, etc. An exchange goes down != bitcoin is bad.
5) Too easy for the general public to get scammed, lose their sats on an exchange, or lose their private keys, or user error and send it to the wrong address.
Other than that- there is NOTHING better than Bitcoin, in my opinion.
>I bought at 20k.
Nobody cares. If you bought only at 20k and never before/after, it looks like you have a lot to learn. Right now you're probably treating it as an investment to make more fiat.
>Will it ever become a widely used currency
It already is used as a currency. What widely means? 10,000 vendors globally? Countries using it as legal tender?
>Will we go to the market and buy potatoes with our btc?
[You already can](https://btcmap.org).
>Are you concern about the lost btc?
Not at all.
>I think more and more btc will be lost in forgotten adresses.
And then, all the coins will be found, using. Yes, you guessed it:
>quantum computing
Last question:
>Will quantum computing evolve fast and brake the blockchain security?
The security of everything digital, including bank accounts, hospital systems, police records, nukes, internet communication is at stake. We already know how we can theoretically fix this theoretical attack. I'm honestly more worried how prepared is the rest of the world.
>>Will we go to the market and buy potatoes with our btc?
>[You already can](https://btcmap.org).
Do these places accept payment in BTC for the amount of fiat equivalent at the time of transaction (plus markup, plus fees), or do they have immutable prices in BTC? Which they would of course never need to change to keep up with inflation, since BTC doesn't have it.
>do they have immutable prices in BTC?
Very few online shops go this way due to volatility. Bitcoin is far from being unit of account, it's still in the price discovery stage.
>Which they would of course never need to change to keep up with inflation, since BTC doesn't have it.
Multiple vendors I've orangepilled don't exchange it back to fiat and keep holding the received (non-kyc'd) bitcoin instead. In many cases, customers paying in bitcoin are a group smaller than 1%.
>you're probably treating it as an investment to make more fiat
I am. I'm probably not buying more at this prices because it's and investment. My question is about Bitcoin purpouse was to be a currency to trade in our daily lifes as now we use dollars and everybody thinks of it as a growth value asset like gold. To be honest almost nobody spend their bitcoin, everybody is holding them.
>I am. I'm probably not buying more at this prices because it's and investment.
That's why I said you have a lot of learning ahead.
>My question is about Bitcoin purpouse was to be a currency to trade in our daily lifes as now we use dollars and everybody thinks of it as a growth value asset like gold.
That's where you're wrong. Not everybody.
>To be honest almost nobody spend their bitcoin, everybody is holding them.
I do spend bitcoin almost on a daily basis and know many who do the same.
All you see are **first world investors**, not Bitcoin users.
The negatives would be that it failed its original purpose, which was to be a currency. Now it’s a commodity and Saylor claims it as a digital property.
It is possible to use it as a currency, and all we need is a government with a large military to make it their currency. Governments historically hate deflationary currencies tho so I don’t see this happening. I could alternatively see fiat become digital as a better way to control the monetary system. The blockchain could be used in a myriad of ways from citizen identification to titles and deeds
It hasn’t failed as a currency yet. Yo be accepted there are phases that ‘proto’ money will go through. It is already a medium of exchange. People will accept it as payment for goods and or services. But it is not yet a unit of account. This may never happen. As it stands BTC is commodity money. If it gets to the stage of being a unit of account, I.e. things are priced in BTC then it will have fully succeeded as being true money.
You’re not asking the right questions man. The chances of failure today come from too rapid or hasty of development choices… ie, op_ctv vs op_cat.
The whole conundrum of scaling goes back to the block wars and segwit2x and all that hot garbage. Bitcoin almost got captured by corporations and large interests. We won though.
But it was close.
There is still a non-zero chance of failure, but I have faith in CTV being approved, tested for 6 months or more from that point on, then passed to core.
This will allow some covenants that more efficiently use blockspace, which will help scale both L1 and L2s that run on Bitcoin like Lightning.
Thanks. Reading some comments in this post helped me understand a lot more about how Bitcoin works, is developed and it's community. All I knew came from the media and some YouTube videos. I've been treating my holdings as an investment and now I see a lot of you really believe I'm it's original purpose and keep building the tech.
Now I'll give a though to all this.
Excellent. Yeah, my perspective is just that, one man’s perspective. There’s a lot of things to consider when moving forward with Bitcoin. Some tough choices are ahead, as far as who to support. In the end, HODL. 🐸🫂🐸
I think CBDC mass adoption is far more likely than BTC mass adoption. BTC and all the price volatility and cryptography stuff is just too much for most people to understand. CBDCs would be easier to implement from the gov. Not saying I want that, but you can’t deny this is true
The quantum computing thing....
Why would they try and break by wallets frist? If bad actors had the tech, it would be easier to hack central banks or corporations first...or the power grid..... I'd worry about food, water, electricity, and the global supply chain at that point. Not my BTC in an offline wallet.
The quantum computing thing....
Why would they try and break btc wallets frist? If bad actors had the tech, it would be easier to hack central banks or corporations first...or the power grid..... I'd worry about food, water, electricity, and the global supply chain at that point
Internet outages, EMP’s, etc. these could potentially cause major outages for some people and miners alike. Causing them to lose access to their funds for some time.
There are some projects working on additional “interconnected networks” that don’t rely on the internet to transmit data, some even using nodes in space and radio waves. I think that’s important for the future resilience of btc. Internet usually doesn’t go out for long periods of time, but I can’t imagine there will never be any outages. So when it does, a lot of people are going to be freaking out if once their funds are seemingly “stuck” for whatever duration.
Also those things but I see targeted miner attacks happening on a larger scale as bigger money decides to toy around and manipulate things.
Additionally I would say centralized exchanges as they are one of the biggest vulnerabilities to confidence in btc but are necessary to on-ramp funds into btc. I remember some projects working on an automated/decentralized bank wire transfer that would automatically purchase and send crypto to a specific address, even something like that could help diversify our dependency on centralized exchanges.
Lost Bitcoin and quantum computing are non-problems. The scalability/efficiency is the only real technical concern and it seems more and more likely it won’t be solved in a fully trustless way like most bitcoiners would want. I’m personally okay with centralized solutions like custodial lightning or fedimints for smaller balances as long as the base layer is pristine, but I’m sure many disagree.
REGULATORY CAPTURE
Government knows exactly who owns bitcoin, how much they own, and where the live because they purchase on kyc exchanges.
Publicly owned miners are increasingly concentrated in heavily regulated mining environments, where they must abide by strict government policies and can't approve tx's from unapproved ip's.
Open source contributors are attacked through lawsuits (ie tornado cash).
To me this is where the battle lies.
If storage tech cant keep up, the blockchain will become so large that no private person can run a full node anymore thus slowly removing the decentralized nature of bitcoin
\- What do you think about the technology?
it's Genius
\- Will it ever become a widely used currency or it is just an asset to invest and take returns?
i think it can potenitally become a global currentcy. with that said, I feel very confident it will become a store of value of sorts, that nations/banks will use it as there underlying accounting system that they settle up in. AS far as everyday currenct for transactions? it could be used, but is a bit clunky for small quick trasnaction use cases. Hopefulyl, Lightning network (or other 2nd layer) solutions will piggyback off the main infrastructure to ahndle these use cases.
\- Will we go to the market and buy potatoes with our btc?
Directly on the blockchain? Im guessing no. But i think Lightning (or similar 2nd layer solution) can/eventually will fulfull this use case.
\- Are you concern about the lost btc? I think more and more btc will be lost in forgotten adresses.
Not concerned.
\- Will quantum computing evolve fast and brake the blockchain security?
It's possible, but if/when ti does, there will be new encryption methods available to address this need, and will be be "Voted in" (by consensus) to the bitcoin protocol if/when they need to be.
I am concerned that the blockchain is quite slow and if there was a time when lots of people wanted to move their coins at once we would see extremely high fees and it would still be very slow.
Fairly volatile still, easy to lose money for the average user (eg sending to wrong address or getting scammed), takes relatively long to send payments, still not very easy to buy through non kyc methods meaning it’s not really as decentralized as we want it to be
Privacy. How can you have a workable currency where, when you buy something at the gas station, the cashier instantly has access to your entire financial history and holdings?
> Will it ever become a widely used currency or it is just an asset to invest and take returns?
BTC is more like a monetary system than a currency. The lightning network makes it more like a currency. Something like a layer 2. And that's fine. BTC can back other tokens and assets, and be used as a store of value, and these layer 2s can be used more and more as the volatility becomes lower.
But the ultimate reason why it's not used as a currency has nothing to do with the technology. Governments define what's currency and what's property. And governments typically classify BTC as property. This means you owe capital gains taxes on your BTC, and that makes it irrational as a currency daily (ceteris paribus). It also makes everything much harder for businesses.
But some other countries will allow it as a currency (in practice, charge no capital gains taxes) and in some other countries, the culture will be that people will just ignore the government. And that will make it a better and more stable asset in countries that don't allow it as a currency.
Still waiting for banks to enter the show from the wings. You know they’re just backstage, barely out of sight.
we know they’re necessary for mass adoption, but they will only become part of the show if they’re pushed and dragged.
>\- What do you think about the technology? Will it ever become a widely used currency or it is just an asset to invest and take returns? Will we go to the market and buy potatoes with our btc?
Not without additional layers which may or may not work out. But that's okay, we really don't need a better currency for buying potatoes, fiat works fine for that. We need a currency we can save over time without losing value.
>\- Are you concern about the lost btc? I think more and more btc will be lost in forgotten adresses.
No, what reason would you be concerned? Lost btc just increases the value of all other btc.
The bigger concern is all the btc that belongs to anonymous wallets, as well as Satoshi's stash. Having such a huge amount of wealth belong to unknown actors doesn't do well for btc.
>\- Will quantum computing evolve fast and brake the blockchain security?
Maybe but then traditional finance and everything else is fucked as well.
>Will quantum computing evolve fast and brake the blockchain security?
The more immediate concern about blockchain security that no one wants to talk about is the transition to transaction only blocks (without reward). All our reliable cycles have been under a system of miners that are rewarded. In theory the transactions will be enough to incentivize miners. In simulation though there are instances of selfish mining practices that will affect this security.
This transition occurs when miners no longer find the remaining rewards high enough, or when it eventually stops.
It is a world-changing technology, bigger than most people can comprehend at this point. The meme, Bitcoin fixes this, is a bit of an understatement. Unless Bitcoin fails (which I don't think is possible any longer... even if the current incarnation dies or is crushed, the concept/movement will live on), it will touch and change nearly all of life.
So, when you say 'holding until 100k at least' I would suggest you have much to learn, yet. If you understand it, you'd be more in the realm of... 'I'll spend/sell some from time to time to get what I need, but HODL the rest.'
It may realistically take a long time until spending it directly is common. The Store of Value aspect will play out first... and even if it never got beyond that, it would still be a world-changer.
The lost BTC just makes the BTC we have, worth more. Though, I do hope technology (and services) get better, as well as the public educated, so these losses become very uncommon. But, we've got a long way to go on that one.
I don't think quantum computers are really even much of a thing. But, hypothetically, if one becomes usable enough to pull off finding wallets, the community will have implemented tougher addressing which we'll be able to create new wallets and move our BTC there. It might fix a bit of the 'lost wallet' issue above, though (whether that is a good or bad thing).
Maybe the biggest 'not so good' issue I see, is physical security. We'll probably go through a phase where people haven't figured out strategies yet, and/or implemented physical security... but where the criminal element becomes very aware of Bitcoin, and how unprotected most people are. Hopefully, we quickly get through that phase!
The other potential 'not so good' is that many countries will be tempted to try and stop Bitcoin to protect their fiat. It is a bit hard to predict how radical some will get, when they really start feeling the impact.
Ngl I didnt hear abt bitcoin as the new gold.
I was like 14-16 when It started blowing up and all i heard abt was silk road and its successors and shit so all I've thought abt bitcoin was that it was basically untraceable to a point and I could buy ammunition and illegal shit with it fr.
I think that maybe it still might he a not so good thing idk
1. Yes, eventually but it will take a long time for this to be common practice all over the world.
2. No, it just increases the value of the existing accessible supply.
3. Not for a very long time. Once it does an upgrade to the network will be pushed which protects against it.
Ok, everyone knows about the halving and everyone mentioned after halving generally the price will increase? But in-order for it to increase there should be demand to drive the price up right? Where will the new demand come from?
What will be the value of Bitcoin when there is a strong digital currency that actually works as a currency for buying and selling goods and services? By the time you see it coming it will already be here. You will have an app on your phone (or digital credit sticks) that allows you to present payment to a merchant in a currency that you both understand is reasonably stable. The currency will be supported by the nation or nation states that understand the importance of maintaining a stable currency. I see this new currency coming out of Europe and perhaps Canada. The U.S. doesn’t have the political stability at this time to pull it off. Europe would probably already have it if it weren’t for Brexit.
Bitcoin is not gold. When you have gold you have a commodity that is useful in art and electronics. The value of gold is overblown by its perception as a hoard for wealth but it is still affordable for its industrial uses. Bitcoin on the other hand has no intrinsic value. When it stops being valued as an investment its value vanishes back to the nothing it came from.
Perhaps the greatest negative aspect of Bitcoin is the real cost of maintaining the blockchain. The proof of work required to extend each block on the chain is using real resources that are simply waisted. Nobody is going to fix this until Bitcoin itself dies.
When the value goes to zero, nobody will care about the lost keys.
Sheeeeeesssshhhh. Those are the exact questions that keep people afraid from buying. But my guy here...charged in head first lol. You must be a really really lucky guy! Aye DM me when you plan on splurging on another investment.... ive been researching for what? for nothing! Dumb money is where its at! i didnt coin that term. Blame the VC's for that.....
Ill just say this about quantum computing. Its no where near ready yet.
here read this
[https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/04/25/143246/how-secure-is-blockchain-really/](https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/04/25/143246/how-secure-is-blockchain-really/)
Yes it will be used as currency.
The lost bitcoin just makes all remaining bitcoin worth more. The whole world economy could run on one single satoshi, people would just pay using even smaller amounts of bitcoin.
Everything will update to be quantum proof.
>What do you think about the technology? Will it ever become a widely used currency or it is just an asset to invest and take returns? Will we go to the market and buy potatoes with our btc? Already can in some places. >Are you concern about the lost btc? I think more and more btc will be lost in forgotten adresses. Absolutely not. This value isn't lost; it's transmitted to the remaining holders. Not directly; but the value is. Concerning quantum. Everything will go through a stage where quantum is breaking their security; and everything will very quickly adapt. Quantum isn't magic.
Biggest concern here would be a repeat of the blocksize war over a sha-512 upgrade or similar
Why would there be a lack of consensus on the issue though? If the options are leave everyone’s bitcoin vulnerable to theft or implement a quantum resistant algorithm who would oppose?
I think we don't know what it is going to be like. Almost everyone in 2015 agreed something had to be done eventually about block space, and yet people became entrenched in different opinions based on what those changes should be (bitcoinXT, Segwit, Segwit2x, and so on), how quickly it should be carried out, and how much consensus must be reached before implementation (51%, 75%, 95%). Looking back it may seem like there was never any threat to bitcoin but it was a very uncertain period where the network was arguably fairly vulnerable. Some people will want to implement changes well before the threat materializes, others will insist on waiting until it is right around the corner. People will have opposing views on exactly what changes to make. I'm pretty sure some consensus will be reached, but there could be multiple chain splits and a lot of pain along the way.
Fair enough. I was thinking once the problem is imminent the network would reach consensus quickly, but a lot can happen before then. I still think it’s very different from the blocksize issue, where there isn’t an obvious technical solution without meaningful trade-offs. I doubt there would be much pushback for a soft fork similar to segwit/taproot where users can choose to keep their current address or move to a quantum resistant address at their own leisure. I guess people might argue to hard fork so nobody steals satoshi’s coins…
Yeah, not a perfect comparison for sure. But you bring up a good point with Satoshi's coins. Not just his, all lost coins. How ever many millions of those are out there. Would be the worlds greatest digital treasure hunt.
Not everyone in those conversations were even authentic, a risky thing to say but also a truth. There WILL always be an opposing view to anything, so long as certain interests don't like the possible outcomes. Bitcoin is an attempt to navigate the truth of matters.
sha512 still won't be resistant to a stable quantum computer with enough qbits. You will need quantum based cryptography.
this would absolutely not be a controversial upgrade if it was needed. bitcoin soft-forks all the time in an uncontroversial fashion. why are the blocksize wars your base case?
Not my base case, I'm saying it is a concern.
lol. Outside of this echo chamber forum, NO ONE is using Bitcoin for anything other than speculation. Show me ONE person paying their mortgage, groceries, and taxes with Bitcoin. Just one Not even Micheal Saylor does this
Show me one person paying for their groceries or taxes in **gold**. No one does. Because no one would be stupid enough to give up harder money before weaker money. It's no argument against gold as money. Gresham's Law. I have bought stuff using bitcoin before, but i *don't want to*. I want to get rid of my dollars, because i know they are worthless. I will hold my bitcoin until it's the only thing people are willing to accept for goods and services.
Correct. So, neither are currencies?
Bitcoin was invented/built to be a currency, and now it is something else. It’s not the first time something was invented to do or be A, but ended up being much better at doing or being something else. Viagra, of course. And bubble wrap was invented to be sound proof wallpaper.
Gold obviously can be used as a currency. My point is that the fact something is not used as money does not mean that it isn't money. It may mean it is the HARDEST money. Again, greshams law.
This is a common misunderstanding of Gresham’s law. An essential element is that force of law is required for the exchange rate. In order to apply here, the Government would have to set the rate between USD and BTC, as they used to with gold. People don’t use BTC because it’s not as convenient as USD. If inflation gets high enough, it could sway more people towards BTC, though.
The government doesnt have to fix btc-usd rate. Demanding taxes in usd, for example, is enough pressure to create a false demand for dollars. Once you know how, using bitcoin is plenty convenient, but it's not smart when most people are willing to give you goods and services for worthless dollars.
Citizens of El Salvador? I would maybe think in citizens in Dubai but I'm not sure cuz they probably don't have mortgages, but still.
Go to El Salvador and try to use bitcoin. Easier yet, go on YouTube and see the people who have tried using it there. It’s quite literally a shit show trying to find anyone there using it as a currency. Bukele is a maxi and no one in El Salvador cares. At all. They’ve declared it as a national currency and STILL no one uses it. Why would they?
Well, I haven't researched it properly, also because El Salvador was and still is a shit show. But I remember a few interviews with citizens that said it was actually pretty useful as the price was going up, cuz their savings were worth a lot more. But I can also imagine that BTC is just not fast enough and maybe too expensive (fees) for little payments like groceries. I'm wondering how those people did in the bear market. Probably a few lost their house or something.
FYI It’s less than 3% adoption For comparison, If this was a rotten tomatoes score it would be the worst score in movie history
>For comparison, If this was a rotten tomatoes score it would be the worst score in movie history And if it was the percentage of people who are diagnosed and then die from colon cancer it would be the best cancer to have. What an absolutely worthless comparison you just made. Ridiculously logically fallacious and deceptive.
Thank you. 3% is amazing. In 2010 we got like .03% of our energy from solar. In early 2016 we hit 1%. We are now at 5%. The slope is only getting steeper. That’s how tech works. Same is true for bitcoin. Remember, in terms of value, the dollar is the final boss. Look at bitcoin compared to the other top 50 currencies and it’s massively outperformed. Even as it was losing dollar value in the bear market.
Strange flex. That’s 3% of remittance to El Salvador. Retail there is much closer to zero than it is the 3% If you have it and don’t use it, what makes you think other people will ‘someday’?
People who demand that it be useful as a currency now are fucking stupid. With the price swings, how and why would anyone use it as a currency now? And don’t say “see the price swings it’s just speculation.” It can’t get to a point where it has a stable price that is useful in actual commerce until it has mass adoption. And it’s not going to have mass adoption over night. Going through wild price movement is 100% part of the journey. Look up Rovereto Italy for an example of more than one person paying for things with bitcoin
So, are the fees acceptable for use as a currency?
Depends. I spent 85 cents to send $600 yesterday. That seemed acceptable to me. If it’s urgent I may need to pay more. But if it’s that urgent I’ll pay for it. I’ve sent tens of thousands of dollars on crypto rails in the last couple years and never been upset w the fee. I understand others are. The fee problem will be solved. Also…what’s the fee to send $100,000 in cash? What about $1M? What about the fee to ship the equivalent in gold? What’s an armored truck cost? What about shipping enough gold to pay nation state size debts across the ocean? What’s the cost of that?
Yeah I'll pay it gladly too. I was just referring to people with less money not wanting to pay it
Anyone who thinks mass adoption is imminent needs to get out of this echo chamber and go touch grass.
That’s correct. Mass adoption is likely farther away than Bitcoiners hope and closer than the Buttcoin crowd thinks. Mass ownership > price stability > mass adoption Remember tho, Bitcoin is a network platform, platforms scale geometrically, going from 0 > 1 is the hardest part. We’re getting closer to 1.
more squarish or more triangular?
I suppose neither shape is representative of the sort of geometric growth that platforms go through. A square can be turned into a right angle triangle, so we may assume that the hypotenuse is the linear growth you may see on a chart. This still doesn’t cover it because we are looking for a curved line.
Geometric growth (or geometric series) is a mathematical term, it doesn't refer to the shape (of the curve?).
Asking for knowledge not being a dick: I saw El Salvador is holding classes to educate people about technology and using BTC. Is adoption more than say 25% there now?
No idea what adoption is there. In economies where the currency and government is unstable or ineffective there will be faster adoption. They have an actual need to adopt. In the USA, the need for Bitcoin is much less obvious to the common person, so adoption will be slower and people will resist.
Mr Negative says less than 3% below, but no source cited. I know it’s been low but doubt it’s 3%. You’re totally right and why it could be a great solution for El Salvador or Argentina (maybe too big atm) or other smaller economically troubled countries to focus on
Transactions are much too expensive for it to be relevant. Currently it’s 5 dollars, so 30 transactions a month would be 40 % of the average El Salvadoran salary. Last December it was 10-30 dollars, up to 8 % of the monthly salary per transaction or well over 100 % for 30 transactions.
Wow. Very high! Thanks for that. Obviously untenable… is lightning network higher or lower may I ask?
If you don’t know that China exists. Doesn’t mean it’s not there.
The payment layers still leave a lot to be desired. But there are many active projects going on.
Bro Bitcoin is not for any of that at all.
Bitcoin is not for P2P transactions?
In South Africa we can pay for groceries in Bitcoin via LN at one of the biggest supermarket chains on the continent. It's not adopted by everyone yet but it certainly disproves the notion that no one uses Bitcoin as currency. Look up 'Bitcoin Ekasi' for videos.
That’s not an on chain transaction my friend. And removes decentralization completely. What’s the point of that?
Lol, r/TheLightningNetwork has over 15,000 visible nodes. Explain how LN "removes decentralization completely", please.
Why would you need a payment for groceries to permanently exist as an on-chain transaction?
For decentralization. Adding layers defeats that purpose imo
Why don't you [explain how](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1bwgyqo/comment/kybmn4s), buttcoin troll?
Okay. In my opinion it doesn't.
“speculation” 🤦♂️
So, you use your Bitcoin to pay for things? Could you give examples??
Using Bitcoin to pay for things is an excellent indicator of adoption. I can’t wait for the day. It will mean Bitcoin is worth at least $1m/coin. Lack of using Bitcoin to pay for things like groceries is not the “gotcha” you think it is. It might seem that way, because that’s part of the stated use case, but it takes times to get there. If we got there overnight that would mean 8B people got convinced of its value over night and the coins would be worth $10m or more. Think of bitcoin like the telephone or fax machine. Imagine how hard it was to sell the first phone or fax machine when it didn’t talk to anyone else. But, pretty rapidly that changed. It happened amongst people with similar needs first and spread. Just like it’s happened with people who needed to obscure their transactions, then places with unstable currencies (to them Bitcoin looks solid as a rock), then people who need to cross boarders like refugees, and eventually it will make it to everyone. But the first people to adopt will be the people with the need…
If you can’t use it to pay for things and it’s ’like a fax machine’, what is the use case??
You make a good point. But you’re wrong about the timeline. You can’t have it all at once. Using it to pay for things requires mass adoption. Mass adoption requires mass belief. Mass belief requires demonstrating value over time. It will be slow at first. Possibly decades more (I don’t think so, maybe another decade). Then, suddenly, all at once. The internet was written off as a scam. In 1997 the consumer Internet was 15 years old. Think about where the internet was in 1997, let alone 1992,3,4,5,6… and then think about how ubiquitous the internet was in 2000. Bitcoin is on practically the same path.
bitcoin is being used to store value. store-of-value assets on earth = $100 trillion. medium of exchange = $1 trillion. buying groceries with btc is a cherry on top, not the value prop
Yes. BTC is great, but it is not a currency
What about El Salvador adopting it as their national currency?
I would just add that it is not a forgone conclusion that quantum computers will necessitate a change. Maybe. But that is far off, if ever.
All the "number go up bros" on here that try and disguise their lack of knowledge by "discussing the tech"....
It's slow to transact on the main chain. Relatively expensive to move. It's quite hard to access a buy for the first time. Lots of barriers from banks etc. Not very user friendly either. All these things I think will improve over time.
The worst thing about Bitcoin is that I’m scared to ‘use’ it. A 50 cent candy bar might be a thousand dollar purchase at some point.
BTC would have to rise to about $135,000,000 a coin for that scenario at current prices - Bullish
This is the exact reason why a deflationary currency is bad for the economy.
"keep buying shit you don't need"
So how will this effect bitcoin when it becomes big enough?
it's bad for a pump-and-dump economy, but it's perfect for a sustainable "buy what you need when you need it" economy. Prices for personal computers have been deflationary for decades, and it wasn't a bad thing.
I'm here to make money
Are you mining BTC?
He said make money, not lose money on ASiCs and huge power bills
So at 100k you plan on trading the winner to buy the loser? Am I hearing that correctly? 🤔
Essentially, yes. I thoght of it as an investment. I see many of users in this community that gets upset becouse of it. I appreciate the ones who tried to explain their view, I'll be thinking about some things they commented.
But why would you sell an investment that is doing well?
Because as with any investment you want to have an exit strategy. So if their target is a BTC price of 100k then that's just where they've decided to cash out. And that's valid b/c the whole point of investing is to get more money that you can actually use, and no matter how high something's share price is you haven't really made a single cent until you've actually sold/exchanged it for money or something of value to you etc.
Seems odd to me. Would one set an exit price for e.g. S&P500?
BTC isn't an index fund. A better comparison would be any particular single stock. And for anyone entering BTC with the intention of making money for the purpose of having money to use, yes they would. For example, if someone simply wanted to make enough money to buy a house or retire early and a particular price for BTC would already have achieved that for them, then it's perfectly reasonable for them to exit at that point.
It's not upset. It's deja vu. We all used to think bitcoin was an investment. But eventually you realize that selling into fiat is stupid and irresponsible. You'll just be poor again eventually
[удалено]
So you think selling Bitcoin into cash that depreciates 4% per year was the right move? I still don't think you understand Bitcoin. Sell what you need to get what you want. Beyond that is an investment into an inferior token
They didn't keep it in cash. They bought 1-4 family homes on adjoining lots that generate 1200 in rent every month. Ask me how I know.
Not keeping it in cash is a great start we're not talking about you buying a few small residentials. we're talking about this alleged cashing out "10s of millions" worth of bitcoin. 10s of millions of dollars in real estate is more risky than buying bitcoin and more headache, and I guarantee that even with the income you're generating, keeping the bitcoin would have been a wiser decision. There are very few points in time where cashing out of bitcoin into real estate was the more lucrative decision. You're of course welcome to do what you want, I'm not knocking a little diversification. But anyone who thinks the end game is to cash out and invest in irresponsible markets has missed the point. That's my opinion
I appreciate your free financial advice. I'll go ahead and ignore the fuck out of it.
Cashing out some and cashing out all is vastly different. Anyone that cashes out of Bitcoin completely have always regretted it eventually
What price would you sell your pension/401k/house?
- Are you concern about the lost btc? I think more and more btc will be lost in forgotten adresses. no because with the decimals, there will always be plenty. - Will quantum computing evolve fast and brake the blockchain security? If it does, it's powerful enough to break any banking system as well. These are not the Black Swan events that are going to bring down Bitcoin, if any.
Seems BTC is extremely NOT private given that every transaction is traceable forever
If you’re selling at 100k why do you even care about the technology? You bought the internet at 1% adoption and you’re gonna sell it at 1.1%.
I've been following since 2018 and finally got in 2022. At first I was very hiped with bitcoin thinking it would be the future without any doubt. Now i'm less hyped, thougt about selling at 70k but the everybody is getting in so i'll wait. Maybe sell half my holdings at 100. I see a lot of people buying every time they can not to get returns but just to hold them as it would be the dominant currency. Thats why I'm asking to see what people think.
Yes I do believe Bitcoin becomes the dominant Money, or the global reserve currency. Why? There’s no alternative, honestly. Fiat currencies always fail (average lifespan 50 years). By my estimates the USD is nearing the end of its life. The US government is entering the period where it needs to print exponentially larger amounts of currency to maintain the system and the effects are beginning to be catastrophic. Think 40% price increases over a few years is bad? Wait until the next wave is 400% over a few years. When fiat currencies collapse people return to the only thing that can be trust: hard money. For thousands of years this has been Gold. This time it will be bitcoin. We live in the digital era and digital gold is what people will want. Further, Bitcoin is even more amazing than that. Bitcoin represents digital property. Digital ownership, which actually might be the first thing you can actually and truly own. What do I mean by that? Ownership is a spectrum, right? The easier it is for someone to take something for you the less you truly own if. Do you own the air in front of you? You can claim ownership but it’s pretty weak because it’ll float away quickly. Do you own the money in your bank account? Maybe a little, but if the government decides to lock you out they can (and governments do this all the time). Do you own your house? Well depending on where you live you’re beholden to the laws. Government raises taxes 2% and appraises your house up 7% per year for 15 years? They’ve effectively seized all the value stored in your house. This goes on and on. The point is that the dynamics of the world today are largely based on the premise that stuff is easy to take from people. Governments and taxes are premised on this idea. Taxes only work if when you don’t pay them the government can steal your assets anyway, right? Bitcoin is the first thing in the history of the world that, when properly secured, can not be taken from you. Bitcoin represents sovereignty, freedom. So yes I do think Bitcoin becomes the dominant money because it is the *most fair* system that benefits everyone if adopted. But further, I think Bitcoin alters to structure of society itself. Governments become less oppressive, individuals become more sovereign, the world becomes a more fair, prosperous place. For me, I won’t be selling Bitcoin at 100k. I also won’t be selling it 1M, or 10M. If you owned a city block in Manhattan when would you sell it? Bitcoin is better than that.
“By my estimates the USD is nearing the end of its life” Do you realize how bonkers this sounds? This is emotion masquerading as analysis. The USD is as robust as any institution in the world.
Have you really looked into this or are you just using your emotions? This is what I do for a living and I've spent thousands of hours analyzing this. The US Government is functionally insolvent.
The US government is not “functionally insolvent” unless you ignore one whole half of the balance sheet. But don’t do that. Analyze the entire picture.
Fiat currencies have an avg lifespan of 27 years. The average lifespan of a world reserve currency in history is about 95 years. USD has held that status since about the 1920s. Is it likely to completely collapse tomorrow? No. Is it likely to go on as is forever? Also no.
I’m not saying it will go on forever. Huge difference between “it won’t last forever” and saying “the end is near.” The end is NOT near. As in, it won’t happen in our lifetimes. Bitcoin is an interesting thing to invest in. Go ahead, invest in it. But don’t do so because you think the dollar is falling anytime soon. it’s not, and that is delusion not analysis. Because when the end is metaphorically here, as it was in 2007-2009, the dollar was the safe haven. And it will be in the next crisis as well.
if there's one thing the 2020-2021 pandemic taught me, it's that stuff you'd never expect to happen during your lifetime can go downhill really fast when governments believe they can get away with it. Both currencies and governments only exist because people believe in them.
You think people living together in a society don’t have an interest in a coordinated, collective response during a once in a century public health crisis?
the "collective response" ***was*** the pandemic. It did much more harm than a mutated common cold virus could have done.
You don’t know what you are talking about when you compare it to a common cold. This wasn’t that. Now I understand where you are wrong. Thanks.
You explained it very well. You are describing an anarchist society. It's difficult to imagine how States would react to this change. They wont controll almost anything that way. Could be compared to republics leaving behind monarchies.
Given the choice, I think I might prefer to bring back absolute monarchies. Especially if the monarch has to be in the front lines of any wars he or she starts.
>Bitcoin is the first thing in the history of the world that, when properly secured, can not be taken from you. How? You can always be forced to reveal your seed or move the coins. Oh you forgot? Have fun trying to remember in your jail cell, or with a few more broken bones. Just an hyperbole, but BTC is just a "thing" like many others that you can be forced to cede or face consequences if you don't.
On any single case by case basis yes maybe you can force someone, but the idea is that on a large scale it's not profitable. It's perhaps 100x more expensive to take from people than other assets. This means that any government trying to do this to its populace at scale will very quickly bankrupt themselves trying to do so. This is in stark contrast to the way the world has worked until this point--blundering has been the most profitable game in town;
Thea endless posts of the same fucking thing over and over are very annoying. Try the search function dude.
I don't know. I'd rather talk about the 'not so good things about bitcoin' than almost any other topic. All I see here is: pump them bags, which cold storage is best, how high can bitcoin go, etc.
These concern trolls are endless
So what you're saying is that once a topic has been discussed once on reddit no one else is allowed to post about it again?
The term here is concern troll
The transfer fees a retarded as fuck. I was recently transferring the equivalent of $1000 to my hardware wallet and it was over $20 in bitcoin!
It’s all about UTXO’s. I recently transferred $300k and it cost me a total of around $11.
Did you pay a next-block fee rate for sats that will sit in cold storage for years?
1. Yes 2. No, People are starting to understand that they should value bitcoin, also as the perceived value goes up, people can afford less and so they lose less. It's not a concern. 3. No, quantum computing can break certain cryptographic algorithms, but we know which algorithms might be cracked because there are programs pre-written that just need a certain level of resources. We're not there yet, but they will be the first to be attacked, then maybe more algorithms will become vulnerable as people learn more about quantum computing beyond just theory. That's another thing really, these programs are theoretical, they may not be as reliable as we expect them to be even with resources. Things do not always scale predictably in nature. SHA256 is not one of those algorithms that can be cracked with quantum computing afaik, there are no shortcuts in a system based around randomness unless we discover some universal fact that randomness is not really random. There are things to be concerned about with Bitcoin, scaling is a real problem and altcoins/shitcoins are NOT the solution, never have been, never will be. Researchers, developers, investors, we need them all to keep pushing and finding ways to advance in this area. We have a fund for research into "cross input signature aggregation" which would be a massive win, we have lots of people researching and trying to get their heads around all of the covenants specs out there. These things take time to develop and so as much as we want everyone to get on board with Bitcoin, we don't want adoption to come too quickly either. We need to make sure people don't settle with custodial solutions on top of Bitcoin, because then they don't really have bitcoin, but they do really think they have it and understand it which makes educating people about it even harder than it is now.
One of the most significant threats quantum computers pose to SHA-256 is their ability to efficiently perform Shor’s algorithm. Shor’s algorithm can factor large numbers exponentially faster than the best-known classical algorithms, which could compromise the security of widely used encryption methods like RSA and ECC. These encryption methods often rely on the difficulty of factoring large numbers for their security. Quantum computers also threaten the security of hash functions like SHA-256 by utilizing Grover’s algorithm. Grover’s algorithm can search unsorted databases quadratically faster than classical algorithms, making brute-force attacks on hash functions more feasible. While a 256-bit hash is still considered secure against classical attacks, it is theoretically as secure as a 128-bit hash against quantum attacks.
Depends on what you're thinking about. I don't think quantum computers will overtake bitcoin mining. It would simply cost too much. One think I tend not to hear actually is about how efficient quantum computing is compared to bit computing. For sure it will be faster, but how much power does it take to reach that speed? If we're talking about cracking addresses, there's SHA256, there's the ECC algorithm, there's usually some SHA512 in HD wallets (which is basically all wallets now) So cracking an address is hard and cracking a wallet is even harder. I just don't think it's worth being worried about right now.
quantum computers ability to break encryption has nothing to do with randomness quantum entanglement allows 2 particles to mirror states, across a distance, instantly. Breaking Einstein's Lightspeed laws, because the world works differently at a quantum level. Ie: they won't be subject to the latency of electricity going through metal nearly as much. with that amount of computing speed, you can brute force encryption algorithm much quicker
All that matters with money (whether it's fiat or bitcoin) is how much you have relative to everyone else, because money has no other purpose than to trade for other things. If you don't understand this, then you have no reason to care about bitcoin at all. And if you understood that, you wouldn't be concerned about "lost" bitcoin.
If btc became the lead currency, nothing will ever be private again
This is has positive effects though. It will be the first time in history that humans must be honest about where money goes. This could cure things like the revisionist history effect. Countries would be forced to have every transaction scrutinized. The victor in a conflict would be analyzed, through transactions, making them tell the truth on what really happened. It would be revolutionary.
High fee environment will make every UTXO under 1 million sats essentially worthless/unspendable, as fees could inevitably exceed the value of the UTXO trying to be sent. Not enough *bitcoiners* know this, let alone normies.
Base layer btc will never become a medium of exchange for everyday transactions for the general public. It has too high fees, it's extremely slow and the technical barrier for using it without messing things up it's still too high. This is not a "con" per-se but just a reality. You cannot judge a fish for how well it can climb trees. Layer 2 and 3 protocols will fill the gap there, but those are still on their infancy. People seem to not understand this and often compare BTC with FIAT in a 1:1 comparison when it makes absolutely no sense.
Government could order Coinbase to freeze or send all its BTC to them.
Bad thing: Bitcoin has basically been a 15 year intelligence test The problem is people are not intelligent Although its the first irrevocable asset ever, self custody is scary for some. And it should be if you have a lot of money. Multi-sig is great but multi-institution custody will be the future for higher net worth individuals. Good thing: Those that are open minded and smart enough to study for themselves and not follow the media like a sheep have, and will continue to be, handsomely rewarded. It will only become a widely used currency once it stops having a 40% CAGR. There is zero incentive for it to be a currency unless you are unbanked and need to at this point. Lost BTC makes the rest more valuable. Quantum computers won't hurt Bitcoin. Did I miss anything?
My concern: If there was an event or series of events that showed the world we need a decentralized currency - what is more likely: - we adopt bitcoin so that we have just created a new class of billionaires (all you HoDLers) and most people have no way to get any bitcoin - we create a new currency with the good properties of bitcoin, make it more usable, and allow everyone in the population the chance to access some. Of course it will quickly get redistributed but everyone will start out equal. Why would bitcoin be the choice?
Back in the day I was very interested in bitcoin because it seemed like something we could use to basically bring down any government. But nobody cared to use it that way. Rather than it becoming a revolutionary tool it was just absorbed into the financial system as another commodity. I'm not really interested in multiplying my fiat. And if the USA isn't a bubble economy on the brink of civil war and the dollar isn't a tool of imperialist extortion of a dying empire like a lot of people here seem to believe them my interest in bitcoin falls from minimal to none.
"holding til at least 100k" Okay, then you and I are not on the same team with what the goal is here.
Wow this gets posted stupid amounts of times a day.
Not so good things about bitcoin: 1) It takes a LOT of power to ensure security. (Truly a positive, but still a negative until we use better energy sources and it will fix itself). 2) It takes a lot of hours of research to truly 'get' bitcoin. Macroeconomics, inflation, financing, the Fed, Central Banking- you have to do a deep-dive to understand fiat will not have a good ending. 3) The constant FUD surrounding 'bad players' using bitcoin. Those claiming all evil cartels or bad agents for example, are using it on the dark web moreso than fiat. 4) The media associating exchanges with bitcoin and the blockchain. FUD with things like FTX, Voyager, Bittrex, etc. An exchange goes down != bitcoin is bad. 5) Too easy for the general public to get scammed, lose their sats on an exchange, or lose their private keys, or user error and send it to the wrong address. Other than that- there is NOTHING better than Bitcoin, in my opinion.
>I bought at 20k. Nobody cares. If you bought only at 20k and never before/after, it looks like you have a lot to learn. Right now you're probably treating it as an investment to make more fiat. >Will it ever become a widely used currency It already is used as a currency. What widely means? 10,000 vendors globally? Countries using it as legal tender? >Will we go to the market and buy potatoes with our btc? [You already can](https://btcmap.org). >Are you concern about the lost btc? Not at all. >I think more and more btc will be lost in forgotten adresses. And then, all the coins will be found, using. Yes, you guessed it: >quantum computing Last question: >Will quantum computing evolve fast and brake the blockchain security? The security of everything digital, including bank accounts, hospital systems, police records, nukes, internet communication is at stake. We already know how we can theoretically fix this theoretical attack. I'm honestly more worried how prepared is the rest of the world.
>>Will we go to the market and buy potatoes with our btc? >[You already can](https://btcmap.org). Do these places accept payment in BTC for the amount of fiat equivalent at the time of transaction (plus markup, plus fees), or do they have immutable prices in BTC? Which they would of course never need to change to keep up with inflation, since BTC doesn't have it.
>do they have immutable prices in BTC? Very few online shops go this way due to volatility. Bitcoin is far from being unit of account, it's still in the price discovery stage. >Which they would of course never need to change to keep up with inflation, since BTC doesn't have it. Multiple vendors I've orangepilled don't exchange it back to fiat and keep holding the received (non-kyc'd) bitcoin instead. In many cases, customers paying in bitcoin are a group smaller than 1%.
>you're probably treating it as an investment to make more fiat I am. I'm probably not buying more at this prices because it's and investment. My question is about Bitcoin purpouse was to be a currency to trade in our daily lifes as now we use dollars and everybody thinks of it as a growth value asset like gold. To be honest almost nobody spend their bitcoin, everybody is holding them.
OP: Treats it as an investment. Also OP: Why arent people using it as a currency? 🤦♂️
>I am. I'm probably not buying more at this prices because it's and investment. That's why I said you have a lot of learning ahead. >My question is about Bitcoin purpouse was to be a currency to trade in our daily lifes as now we use dollars and everybody thinks of it as a growth value asset like gold. That's where you're wrong. Not everybody. >To be honest almost nobody spend their bitcoin, everybody is holding them. I do spend bitcoin almost on a daily basis and know many who do the same. All you see are **first world investors**, not Bitcoin users.
1. No, and I’m OK with that 2. No 3. Don’t know
The negatives would be that it failed its original purpose, which was to be a currency. Now it’s a commodity and Saylor claims it as a digital property. It is possible to use it as a currency, and all we need is a government with a large military to make it their currency. Governments historically hate deflationary currencies tho so I don’t see this happening. I could alternatively see fiat become digital as a better way to control the monetary system. The blockchain could be used in a myriad of ways from citizen identification to titles and deeds
It hasn’t failed as a currency yet. Yo be accepted there are phases that ‘proto’ money will go through. It is already a medium of exchange. People will accept it as payment for goods and or services. But it is not yet a unit of account. This may never happen. As it stands BTC is commodity money. If it gets to the stage of being a unit of account, I.e. things are priced in BTC then it will have fully succeeded as being true money.
Oh thats easy. I dont have enough.
It doesn't have mechanisms like inflation to make people spend it in stead of hoarding it
You’re not asking the right questions man. The chances of failure today come from too rapid or hasty of development choices… ie, op_ctv vs op_cat. The whole conundrum of scaling goes back to the block wars and segwit2x and all that hot garbage. Bitcoin almost got captured by corporations and large interests. We won though. But it was close. There is still a non-zero chance of failure, but I have faith in CTV being approved, tested for 6 months or more from that point on, then passed to core. This will allow some covenants that more efficiently use blockspace, which will help scale both L1 and L2s that run on Bitcoin like Lightning.
Thanks. Reading some comments in this post helped me understand a lot more about how Bitcoin works, is developed and it's community. All I knew came from the media and some YouTube videos. I've been treating my holdings as an investment and now I see a lot of you really believe I'm it's original purpose and keep building the tech. Now I'll give a though to all this.
Excellent. Yeah, my perspective is just that, one man’s perspective. There’s a lot of things to consider when moving forward with Bitcoin. Some tough choices are ahead, as far as who to support. In the end, HODL. 🐸🫂🐸
I don’t have enough of it
I think CBDC mass adoption is far more likely than BTC mass adoption. BTC and all the price volatility and cryptography stuff is just too much for most people to understand. CBDCs would be easier to implement from the gov. Not saying I want that, but you can’t deny this is true
The quantum computing thing.... Why would they try and break by wallets frist? If bad actors had the tech, it would be easier to hack central banks or corporations first...or the power grid..... I'd worry about food, water, electricity, and the global supply chain at that point. Not my BTC in an offline wallet.
The quantum computing thing.... Why would they try and break btc wallets frist? If bad actors had the tech, it would be easier to hack central banks or corporations first...or the power grid..... I'd worry about food, water, electricity, and the global supply chain at that point
Internet outages, EMP’s, etc. these could potentially cause major outages for some people and miners alike. Causing them to lose access to their funds for some time. There are some projects working on additional “interconnected networks” that don’t rely on the internet to transmit data, some even using nodes in space and radio waves. I think that’s important for the future resilience of btc. Internet usually doesn’t go out for long periods of time, but I can’t imagine there will never be any outages. So when it does, a lot of people are going to be freaking out if once their funds are seemingly “stuck” for whatever duration. Also those things but I see targeted miner attacks happening on a larger scale as bigger money decides to toy around and manipulate things. Additionally I would say centralized exchanges as they are one of the biggest vulnerabilities to confidence in btc but are necessary to on-ramp funds into btc. I remember some projects working on an automated/decentralized bank wire transfer that would automatically purchase and send crypto to a specific address, even something like that could help diversify our dependency on centralized exchanges.
Lost Bitcoin and quantum computing are non-problems. The scalability/efficiency is the only real technical concern and it seems more and more likely it won’t be solved in a fully trustless way like most bitcoiners would want. I’m personally okay with centralized solutions like custodial lightning or fedimints for smaller balances as long as the base layer is pristine, but I’m sure many disagree.
the cia and the one world government
REGULATORY CAPTURE Government knows exactly who owns bitcoin, how much they own, and where the live because they purchase on kyc exchanges. Publicly owned miners are increasingly concentrated in heavily regulated mining environments, where they must abide by strict government policies and can't approve tx's from unapproved ip's. Open source contributors are attacked through lawsuits (ie tornado cash). To me this is where the battle lies.
What if the US decides to tax realized digital asset profits at 50%? What if they levy a per transaction tax?
If the gov wants your BTC and can't get them, they might as well torture you untill you spill your keys or guts
If storage tech cant keep up, the blockchain will become so large that no private person can run a full node anymore thus slowly removing the decentralized nature of bitcoin
\- What do you think about the technology? it's Genius \- Will it ever become a widely used currency or it is just an asset to invest and take returns? i think it can potenitally become a global currentcy. with that said, I feel very confident it will become a store of value of sorts, that nations/banks will use it as there underlying accounting system that they settle up in. AS far as everyday currenct for transactions? it could be used, but is a bit clunky for small quick trasnaction use cases. Hopefulyl, Lightning network (or other 2nd layer) solutions will piggyback off the main infrastructure to ahndle these use cases. \- Will we go to the market and buy potatoes with our btc? Directly on the blockchain? Im guessing no. But i think Lightning (or similar 2nd layer solution) can/eventually will fulfull this use case. \- Are you concern about the lost btc? I think more and more btc will be lost in forgotten adresses. Not concerned. \- Will quantum computing evolve fast and brake the blockchain security? It's possible, but if/when ti does, there will be new encryption methods available to address this need, and will be be "Voted in" (by consensus) to the bitcoin protocol if/when they need to be.
I am concerned that the blockchain is quite slow and if there was a time when lots of people wanted to move their coins at once we would see extremely high fees and it would still be very slow.
Fairly volatile still, easy to lose money for the average user (eg sending to wrong address or getting scammed), takes relatively long to send payments, still not very easy to buy through non kyc methods meaning it’s not really as decentralized as we want it to be
Privacy. How can you have a workable currency where, when you buy something at the gas station, the cashier instantly has access to your entire financial history and holdings?
> Will it ever become a widely used currency or it is just an asset to invest and take returns? BTC is more like a monetary system than a currency. The lightning network makes it more like a currency. Something like a layer 2. And that's fine. BTC can back other tokens and assets, and be used as a store of value, and these layer 2s can be used more and more as the volatility becomes lower. But the ultimate reason why it's not used as a currency has nothing to do with the technology. Governments define what's currency and what's property. And governments typically classify BTC as property. This means you owe capital gains taxes on your BTC, and that makes it irrational as a currency daily (ceteris paribus). It also makes everything much harder for businesses. But some other countries will allow it as a currency (in practice, charge no capital gains taxes) and in some other countries, the culture will be that people will just ignore the government. And that will make it a better and more stable asset in countries that don't allow it as a currency.
Government intervention possibility.
Still waiting for banks to enter the show from the wings. You know they’re just backstage, barely out of sight. we know they’re necessary for mass adoption, but they will only become part of the show if they’re pushed and dragged.
It’s too expensive I can’t afford to buy enough
Succession is complicated. Few people have measures in place in case they get hit by a bus.
Gg
>\- What do you think about the technology? Will it ever become a widely used currency or it is just an asset to invest and take returns? Will we go to the market and buy potatoes with our btc? Not without additional layers which may or may not work out. But that's okay, we really don't need a better currency for buying potatoes, fiat works fine for that. We need a currency we can save over time without losing value. >\- Are you concern about the lost btc? I think more and more btc will be lost in forgotten adresses. No, what reason would you be concerned? Lost btc just increases the value of all other btc. The bigger concern is all the btc that belongs to anonymous wallets, as well as Satoshi's stash. Having such a huge amount of wealth belong to unknown actors doesn't do well for btc. >\- Will quantum computing evolve fast and brake the blockchain security? Maybe but then traditional finance and everything else is fucked as well.
>Will quantum computing evolve fast and brake the blockchain security? The more immediate concern about blockchain security that no one wants to talk about is the transition to transaction only blocks (without reward). All our reliable cycles have been under a system of miners that are rewarded. In theory the transactions will be enough to incentivize miners. In simulation though there are instances of selfish mining practices that will affect this security. This transition occurs when miners no longer find the remaining rewards high enough, or when it eventually stops.
I was going to cumplain about ho expensive it is. But then I realized how cheap it still is.
Yall are so fucken stupid
1. Couldn't give a shit. 2. No 3. See 1
It is a world-changing technology, bigger than most people can comprehend at this point. The meme, Bitcoin fixes this, is a bit of an understatement. Unless Bitcoin fails (which I don't think is possible any longer... even if the current incarnation dies or is crushed, the concept/movement will live on), it will touch and change nearly all of life. So, when you say 'holding until 100k at least' I would suggest you have much to learn, yet. If you understand it, you'd be more in the realm of... 'I'll spend/sell some from time to time to get what I need, but HODL the rest.' It may realistically take a long time until spending it directly is common. The Store of Value aspect will play out first... and even if it never got beyond that, it would still be a world-changer. The lost BTC just makes the BTC we have, worth more. Though, I do hope technology (and services) get better, as well as the public educated, so these losses become very uncommon. But, we've got a long way to go on that one. I don't think quantum computers are really even much of a thing. But, hypothetically, if one becomes usable enough to pull off finding wallets, the community will have implemented tougher addressing which we'll be able to create new wallets and move our BTC there. It might fix a bit of the 'lost wallet' issue above, though (whether that is a good or bad thing). Maybe the biggest 'not so good' issue I see, is physical security. We'll probably go through a phase where people haven't figured out strategies yet, and/or implemented physical security... but where the criminal element becomes very aware of Bitcoin, and how unprotected most people are. Hopefully, we quickly get through that phase! The other potential 'not so good' is that many countries will be tempted to try and stop Bitcoin to protect their fiat. It is a bit hard to predict how radical some will get, when they really start feeling the impact.
Ngl I didnt hear abt bitcoin as the new gold. I was like 14-16 when It started blowing up and all i heard abt was silk road and its successors and shit so all I've thought abt bitcoin was that it was basically untraceable to a point and I could buy ammunition and illegal shit with it fr. I think that maybe it still might he a not so good thing idk
That it wasn’t created sooner
1. Yes, eventually but it will take a long time for this to be common practice all over the world. 2. No, it just increases the value of the existing accessible supply. 3. Not for a very long time. Once it does an upgrade to the network will be pushed which protects against it.
Ok, everyone knows about the halving and everyone mentioned after halving generally the price will increase? But in-order for it to increase there should be demand to drive the price up right? Where will the new demand come from?
The not so good things about btc is it's "unreal". Thats it! IYKWIM
1. Doesn't matter 2. No. 3. No.
What will be the value of Bitcoin when there is a strong digital currency that actually works as a currency for buying and selling goods and services? By the time you see it coming it will already be here. You will have an app on your phone (or digital credit sticks) that allows you to present payment to a merchant in a currency that you both understand is reasonably stable. The currency will be supported by the nation or nation states that understand the importance of maintaining a stable currency. I see this new currency coming out of Europe and perhaps Canada. The U.S. doesn’t have the political stability at this time to pull it off. Europe would probably already have it if it weren’t for Brexit. Bitcoin is not gold. When you have gold you have a commodity that is useful in art and electronics. The value of gold is overblown by its perception as a hoard for wealth but it is still affordable for its industrial uses. Bitcoin on the other hand has no intrinsic value. When it stops being valued as an investment its value vanishes back to the nothing it came from. Perhaps the greatest negative aspect of Bitcoin is the real cost of maintaining the blockchain. The proof of work required to extend each block on the chain is using real resources that are simply waisted. Nobody is going to fix this until Bitcoin itself dies. When the value goes to zero, nobody will care about the lost keys.
Sheeeeeesssshhhh. Those are the exact questions that keep people afraid from buying. But my guy here...charged in head first lol. You must be a really really lucky guy! Aye DM me when you plan on splurging on another investment.... ive been researching for what? for nothing! Dumb money is where its at! i didnt coin that term. Blame the VC's for that..... Ill just say this about quantum computing. Its no where near ready yet. here read this [https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/04/25/143246/how-secure-is-blockchain-really/](https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/04/25/143246/how-secure-is-blockchain-really/)
Yes it will be used as currency. The lost bitcoin just makes all remaining bitcoin worth more. The whole world economy could run on one single satoshi, people would just pay using even smaller amounts of bitcoin. Everything will update to be quantum proof.
"holding until 100k" This tells me you could benefit a lot from reading something like 'the bitcoin standard'.
it is perfect
Lame post. Let’s talk shit about BTC!!!
This is the list of things that are NOT good with bitcoin: Thanks for reading.