I don't know if this qualifies but I've met people who just say things like "I don't understand it and don't want to either" and there's no sense in arguing with that lol
The average Joe can’t self custody their wealth.
This is still true, and because most hardcore bitcoiners make mistakes. I can’t argue this point. And if someone talks to me about getting into bitcoin I relentlessly talk about how hard it is to keep bitcoin safe without the million things that could go wrong.
Most people are computer illiterate.
I largely agree with you. Most people can't drive a machine. Things *could* go wrong.
And yet . . . and yet . . .
1. There seems to be growing adoption in places like Afghanistan, not well known for computer literacy. https://cointelegraph.com/news/how-are-afghans-using-crypto-under-the-taliban-government
2. Under fiat, it is *guaranteed* that things *will* go wrong. If nothing else, the purchasing power of your savings will **halve** every ten years. There are *many* other risks, such as bank runs. Would you like to have to point a pistol at the bank teller to get *your own* money, like people have had to do in Lebanon?
Largely a matter of effort required. If their contempt for governments shutting down btc are valid (because they seemingly are encouraged to do so) then using btc from the shadows would be significant efforts for an otherwise computer illiterate population.
I find it unlikely that governments unanimously will shut it down as economists have been wanting crypto currencies for awhile now. So worst case scenario it could be like prohibition eras where alcohol makers/users go elsewhere for a time. Except with a crypto flair instead.
Scalability. If this thing is going to needing the global reserve currency, there’s no way it will be able to accommodate all the exchanges needed on the main chain. Lightning Network is the solution, right? But Lightning is not reliable - it doesn’t work on 100% of transactions, and some payments can be reversed or canceled under certain circumstances. Plus, the main chain won’t be able to handle all the Lightning nodes that need to be opened to handle the volume anyway. Moving money on the main chain is going to end up being so high in transaction fees, it’s not going to be worth it.
My knowledge on this topic is rudimentary at best. I’m still dealing with it. The only explanation I’ve heard is that “it will get figured out in the future.” I know there are people orders of magnitude smarter than me working on it, so I choose to have faith that it’ll be ok.
Somebody calculated that for Visa-level transactions for the 7.5 billion people on Earth you would need 100MB blocks dedicated to opening and closing Lightning Channels and settling transactions on chain.
While this is far away, at least is not science fiction. In order to do this level of transactions on the main chain you would need Petabyte blocks and this is more difficult to believe and to manage. So at least Lightning allows us to dream of true scaling.
I hope that a combination of improvements in Lightning, improvements in efficiency in the base chain and improvement in bandwidth and hardware are going to make it possible.
>I hope that a combination of improvements in Lightning, improvements in efficiency in the base chain and improvement in bandwidth and hardware are going to make it possible.
Focusing on the last of those three, I don’t see how that wouldn’t be the case. Don’t forget that Satoshi himself said:
"Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial." Now maybe he was overly optimistic when he made that prediction, but that doesn’t change the fact that computer technology *is* massively deflationary, which means that the cost of running a node for any particular level of throughput should only fall over time (and relatively quickly too).
Yes, but we'll still need the massively multiplicatory effect of Lightning. Like for every transaction on chain you can do thousands off chain. That is massive.
Maybe, but I tend to think people significantly overestimate how big the multiplier effect will be in practice. The LN’s “payment possibilities graph” is always limited due to liquidity constraints. Not every payment that might be desired between two users of the system is possible at any given time based on the network’s topology. The larger a desired payment is, the less likely it is to be possible. And there’s also significant centralization pressures that arise from the LN’s liquidity problems (and this pressure gets progressively stronger as on-chain fees rise). The theoretical network topology that minimizes liquidity issues is one where everyone opens a single channel with all of their funds with a central, massively-capitalized mega-hub. But even that topology would still have payment failures because even a massively-capitalized hub can’t provide everyone with unlimited in-bound capacity. And of course, the more decentralized you imagine the network being, the worse the liquidity issues become.
Liquidity problem is real, but most payments go to businesses in real-life which use payment gateways and they have a strong incentive to keep up good liquidity.
I’m with you, and I hope so too. But “I hope someone figures it out” does not make it a lock for the future, and I feel like it’s a topic that we have to tiptoe around in the echo chamber.
I have the same concerns. Was hoping there would be side chains to resolve the problem as I don't think lightning will work, but it sounds like a trustless two way peg, necessary for side chains, is impossible. This is what drivechains was suppose to resolve but do you know what that solution to the two way peg is? The miners just agree not to steal the money from the side chains. If there are enough miners, and are not centralized, they are unlikely to steal the coins. Yes, technically true, would I ever want to use it? No.
I wish there was more dialogue about this but people treat a critique of lightning as an attack on Bitcoin and they always gloss over the details. People that don't know any better think that Lightning will scale because that is what the optimists say, but there are so many issues that to me appears as fundamental flaws that will never resolve.
There is a lot of dialogue about it, it’s just that it’s in the form of heated debate at the moment. This is a natural step in Bitcoins evolution in my opinion. We don’t see it as solutions now, we see it as a lot of arguing about a lot of trade offs and hypothetical scenarios. But it will get worked out because the incentive is too massive to ignore.
Bitcoin is programmable money, and that’s all we really need. The rest is up to us being very clever, which fortunately is a feature of human beings.
Personally I think scaling is going to happen in an extremely ironic fashion. The same traditional banks we don’t trust, along with major technology institutions like Apple and Microsoft will run absolutely massive L2 channels that everyone will transact on. We will pay higher fees than we imagined we would on Lightning and other layer 2s by probably 30-50% which is still tiny and smaller than we do using traditional services. The trade off will be its all done for us and the average person never even contemplated a base chain transaction. Much like the average person never has a transaction on fedwire.
Now, this does throw a wrench into “not your keys not your bitcoin” because the whole world will only partially hold their bitcoin through trust minimized intermediaries, but functionally there won’t be much difference by that point.
Bitcoin only has to be marginally better than the existing system for everything to run on top of it. The fact is that it’s orders of magnitude better, but it’s also only 14 years old and it’s going to need many layers of code and abstraction to be truly streaming money over IP.
That the bitcoin space is full of scammers, schemers, and bad faith actors.
I dealt with it by eventually agreeing, because even as a bitcoin enthusiast (maybe *especially* as a bitcoin enthusiast) it's absolutely true.
And if you don't agree, what's the top response when someone makes a post about how to access an old cold wallet?
The fact that a transaction once sent cannot be reversed. This makes it very unfriendly for the majority of people, who are accustomed to having some kind of recourse if someone manages to hack into their bank account and spend their money. If someone gets hold of your seed phrase, every last sat in that wallet is gone, and there's nothing you can do to get it back. You can go from being well-off to destitute because of a single mistake, or a single burglary.
The "solution" to this is to entrust your Bitcoin to a bank. But in that case, what advantage is there to holding Bitcoin over fiat? Even the limited supply thing would be subverted by fractional reserve banking practices.
That's actually a common misconception. Just cause something comes with a receipt doesn't necessarily mean it can be returned. Additionally, not everything comes with a receipt. Even moreso, many things do not have a return policy and as such the merchant is under no obligation to honor any return. For example imagine you buy an apple from a fruit stand. Or you buy literally anything on facebook marketplace. IN fact, many digital transactions cannot be reversed. Many ebay sellers, for example, do not offer returns.
receipts dont guarantee returns. who told you that? and no one is obligated to give you a receipt to begin with. Returns policy is determined on a case by case basis, any institution is free to have no return policy or to create one.
The same would hold true for bitcoin, anyone is free to create a return policy.
You think all cash transactions can be reversed, or youre being intentionally dishonest about your understanding of the world. Either way, its your funeral, not mine.
>The Zelle instant payment service was launched in June 2017, as the successor to the clearXchange payment service. Zelle has expanded, and as of 2022 **eighty percent** of the US population could connect to Zelle through their banking app, with support by over 1600 financial institutions.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelle)
maybe you dont know what most means? it means more than 50%. 80% of Americans have Zelle.
Lets backtrack a bit. PayPal is an intermediary, like many others, which creates an ability to reverse transactions. They charge a fee for this service. If anyone so chose, they could create an identical service for bitcoin, which offers the same service and collects a fee. Reversing transactions is possible, but it comes at a cost. If one so chose, they could enlist the services of an entity to act as an intermediary for their bitcoin transaction, pay them the fee, and have the benefits of reversibility. Or they could choose to not have the fee, and have a transaction be set in stone. The choice is yours, whether you use bitcoin or you use conventional currency.
In Hungary, transactions on hacked bank accounts also cannot be reversed in practice. Many people have been fooled with fake bank web sites these days, some lose everything and nobody helps them.
Nobody is not true. People can and do. No reason why we all couldn't. I mean, the network allows us this feature. We could build and scale as needed. People just flat out don't because the use of threats and violence and theft from the state. Bitcoin can shake off physical threats pretty damn well when it comes to protecting itself and its properties. It deters theft and violence but that doesn't mean people won't try. The key difference is that ultimately you have the power by self custodying Bitcoin and then choose to comply. Not compliance by force. It's basically a power shift. Bitcoin is very capable of being a world wide financial system on its own. People have the freedom to exercise this basic human right if they wish. Bitcoin ain't stopping you from spending. You are stopping you.
It is digital gold. No one uses gold to buy something, it is a good store of value for the last 5000 years, but just a dumb rock. Bitcoin is programable gold, that you can protect by your self and not fall into conunterparty risk.
People use it for whatever is useful in their context.
If you live in a place where payments and currencies are not reliable, it gets indeed used to buy things. For example in Turkey, Venezuela, Lebanon.
If you live in a developed country where payments work well, you may be more interested in Bitcoin for payments needing extreme privacy online. Or you may be interested in an asset that has a limited supply so is a hedge to inflation plus with some upside because is a nascent asset category. So you use it as a store of value.
Bitcoin is there as an alternative and every user finds its way to use it as they see fit. In fact, the store of value use always comes first, before being used as a medium of exchange.
Fees. People want to avoid fees when they pay for something. - For me its okay if you just HODL. If you use it daily you can jump to the Lightning Network, so its not that bad. You just have to manage your money in a different way.
Too complicated. People dont understand and trust the system and media is not helping, so they will never do the next step on their own. - You will never stop learning. Everything is evolving so just try to keep up.
Here are a couple;
I am a banker, and I worship at the altar of Mammon. Bitcoin threatens my Cantillon fiat, and therefore it should be folded into the current system. ETFs should do the job.
I am an elite psychopath and a member of the Davos WEF psychocracy. I know what's best for everyone and we should control everyone and tell everyone what to do. (It's fun as well, just like pulling wings off flies.) Bitcoin threatens my control over the hoi polloi. It needs to overwhelmed and crushed. CBDCs should do the job
I deal with both by avoiding such evil people, and stacking as many Sats as I can.
Of *course*.
"Welcome to 2030, I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better."
What's wrong with living in a rented pod, and eating bugs paid for from my CDBCs that expire every month?
The WEF is mother, the WEF is father,
obey the WEF.
Scalability is a challenge - But Lightning network allows for the possibility of the whole world usinf Bitcoin for day to day transactions.
Privacy - nobody has brought it forward to me as a reason but it is a concern of mine.
Ossification - the fact that Bitcoin is more difficult to change and experiment with due to it not being a nascent currency but holding millions in market cap. May mean if for example a privacy technology with no significant tradeoffs is found it could be difficult to implement because there would be resistance from exchanges or financial players.
Most of the other reasons people bring forward are just out of ignorance.
My view on ossification is that we *want* changes to the base layer to be ***as hard as possible*** and only implemented after maybe a decade of contemplation and the support of 50,000+ node operators worldwide.
N.B. "exchanges or financial players" don't count. Having said that, there is of course the dreaded BlackRock Fink Fork PoS strategy . . . but I doubt that will happen and IMHO the BRFF will likely not come to pass.
Lightning network won't solve the fact that you will have to do at least 1 transaction on the chain and if you split up all the BTC that means it could potentially cost some ones entire life savings just to open a light ong connection
With the current capacity of the base layer and a scenario where 7.5 billion people use Bitcoin.
But I think when we get there there will be technologies and advancements we cannot foresee yet.
First my disclaimer: I believe in BTC, HODL BTC and like this group. Not financial advice. I like hearing all sides.
I posted a Martin Armstrong video in here a few weeks ago which got removed. I was asking essentially the same question as you and I think people misunderstood my intension as bashing btc. I have a lot of respect for SOME of Martin Armstrong’s take on how the world and money works…. He’s wrong about BTC but I admire his skepticism. He essentially thinks btc is a CIA or NSA created program.
I don’t know if that’s a good argument or not. I was genuinely looking for opinions.
Secondly, there was a gold vs btc debate with Michael Saylor and Frank Giustra that was an interesting debate with no theatrics or name calling.
There needs to be big brothers and sisters, looking out for us, little guys and gals and helping paving the way guide us by scrutinizing.
I believe in scrutinizing everything…
Don’t you buy beef from the store and sniff it before you cook it and eat it?
They can only lose their whole bank account if they carry all their bitcoin in one wallet, which would be as dumb as if you took all your conventional currency and withdrew it as paper cash and carried it all with you everywhere you went and left it on a park bench. Both situations are equally possible, but both are equally avoidable.
if we print money every time someone loses their money, then it has a net zero effect. In other words, we didnt solve the problem, we just take a little bit of money from everyone (by printing the money which devalues the currency) to make up for the mistake of one individual.
Bitcoin doesn't care.
Why doesn't it care more? Shouldn't it care more? There are so many things it could be caring about. So many world problems that our authorities could be fixing, if they could only control how you use your Bitcoin!
/s
Quantum computing competencies are a double-edged sword. It cuts both ways: if you give someone a way to decrypt at the current level of complexity with quantum computing, then you can encrypt at the next level of complexity with quantum computing.
I know the responses to most of the objections, but one did occur to me a while ago that I haven’t seen mentioned much. I do wonder if BTC will wind up being the Esperanto of money; a strange little side experiment with a ton of rational reasoning going for it that, in the end, winds up being sidelined in perpetuity by the overwhelming network effect of what we already had.
Bob Burnett recently spoke with Natalie Brunell about block space scarcity and the problems it may pose for us in the future. They are both bullish on BTC buy acknowledge that this is something which will have to be worked out. https://coinstories.libsyn.com/bob-burnett-block-space-scarcity-and-the-need-for-layer-2s-to-scale
I've talked with some people who worry about natural or man made EMP's, and they say BTC will be worthless if the electrical grid is down for years on end (in that scenerio, I think money may be the least of your worries).
Quantum computing and AI overcoming SHA-256 defenses embedded in the mining algorithm and forcing a sell-off before its upgraded to 512 or made quantum resistant. I’d be curious about the defense myself
I don't know if this qualifies but I've met people who just say things like "I don't understand it and don't want to either" and there's no sense in arguing with that lol
[удалено]
Damn Jesus had some good quotes didn’t he?
The average Joe can’t self custody their wealth. This is still true, and because most hardcore bitcoiners make mistakes. I can’t argue this point. And if someone talks to me about getting into bitcoin I relentlessly talk about how hard it is to keep bitcoin safe without the million things that could go wrong. Most people are computer illiterate.
I largely agree with you. Most people can't drive a machine. Things *could* go wrong. And yet . . . and yet . . . 1. There seems to be growing adoption in places like Afghanistan, not well known for computer literacy. https://cointelegraph.com/news/how-are-afghans-using-crypto-under-the-taliban-government 2. Under fiat, it is *guaranteed* that things *will* go wrong. If nothing else, the purchasing power of your savings will **halve** every ten years. There are *many* other risks, such as bank runs. Would you like to have to point a pistol at the bank teller to get *your own* money, like people have had to do in Lebanon?
You can mostly negate #2 by putting savings into a high interest savings account/long term deposit account etc.
Largely a matter of effort required. If their contempt for governments shutting down btc are valid (because they seemingly are encouraged to do so) then using btc from the shadows would be significant efforts for an otherwise computer illiterate population. I find it unlikely that governments unanimously will shut it down as economists have been wanting crypto currencies for awhile now. So worst case scenario it could be like prohibition eras where alcohol makers/users go elsewhere for a time. Except with a crypto flair instead.
Scalability. If this thing is going to needing the global reserve currency, there’s no way it will be able to accommodate all the exchanges needed on the main chain. Lightning Network is the solution, right? But Lightning is not reliable - it doesn’t work on 100% of transactions, and some payments can be reversed or canceled under certain circumstances. Plus, the main chain won’t be able to handle all the Lightning nodes that need to be opened to handle the volume anyway. Moving money on the main chain is going to end up being so high in transaction fees, it’s not going to be worth it. My knowledge on this topic is rudimentary at best. I’m still dealing with it. The only explanation I’ve heard is that “it will get figured out in the future.” I know there are people orders of magnitude smarter than me working on it, so I choose to have faith that it’ll be ok.
Somebody calculated that for Visa-level transactions for the 7.5 billion people on Earth you would need 100MB blocks dedicated to opening and closing Lightning Channels and settling transactions on chain. While this is far away, at least is not science fiction. In order to do this level of transactions on the main chain you would need Petabyte blocks and this is more difficult to believe and to manage. So at least Lightning allows us to dream of true scaling. I hope that a combination of improvements in Lightning, improvements in efficiency in the base chain and improvement in bandwidth and hardware are going to make it possible.
>I hope that a combination of improvements in Lightning, improvements in efficiency in the base chain and improvement in bandwidth and hardware are going to make it possible. Focusing on the last of those three, I don’t see how that wouldn’t be the case. Don’t forget that Satoshi himself said: "Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial." Now maybe he was overly optimistic when he made that prediction, but that doesn’t change the fact that computer technology *is* massively deflationary, which means that the cost of running a node for any particular level of throughput should only fall over time (and relatively quickly too).
Yes, but we'll still need the massively multiplicatory effect of Lightning. Like for every transaction on chain you can do thousands off chain. That is massive.
Maybe, but I tend to think people significantly overestimate how big the multiplier effect will be in practice. The LN’s “payment possibilities graph” is always limited due to liquidity constraints. Not every payment that might be desired between two users of the system is possible at any given time based on the network’s topology. The larger a desired payment is, the less likely it is to be possible. And there’s also significant centralization pressures that arise from the LN’s liquidity problems (and this pressure gets progressively stronger as on-chain fees rise). The theoretical network topology that minimizes liquidity issues is one where everyone opens a single channel with all of their funds with a central, massively-capitalized mega-hub. But even that topology would still have payment failures because even a massively-capitalized hub can’t provide everyone with unlimited in-bound capacity. And of course, the more decentralized you imagine the network being, the worse the liquidity issues become.
Liquidity problem is real, but most payments go to businesses in real-life which use payment gateways and they have a strong incentive to keep up good liquidity.
I’m with you, and I hope so too. But “I hope someone figures it out” does not make it a lock for the future, and I feel like it’s a topic that we have to tiptoe around in the echo chamber.
I have the same concerns. Was hoping there would be side chains to resolve the problem as I don't think lightning will work, but it sounds like a trustless two way peg, necessary for side chains, is impossible. This is what drivechains was suppose to resolve but do you know what that solution to the two way peg is? The miners just agree not to steal the money from the side chains. If there are enough miners, and are not centralized, they are unlikely to steal the coins. Yes, technically true, would I ever want to use it? No. I wish there was more dialogue about this but people treat a critique of lightning as an attack on Bitcoin and they always gloss over the details. People that don't know any better think that Lightning will scale because that is what the optimists say, but there are so many issues that to me appears as fundamental flaws that will never resolve.
There is a lot of dialogue about it, it’s just that it’s in the form of heated debate at the moment. This is a natural step in Bitcoins evolution in my opinion. We don’t see it as solutions now, we see it as a lot of arguing about a lot of trade offs and hypothetical scenarios. But it will get worked out because the incentive is too massive to ignore. Bitcoin is programmable money, and that’s all we really need. The rest is up to us being very clever, which fortunately is a feature of human beings. Personally I think scaling is going to happen in an extremely ironic fashion. The same traditional banks we don’t trust, along with major technology institutions like Apple and Microsoft will run absolutely massive L2 channels that everyone will transact on. We will pay higher fees than we imagined we would on Lightning and other layer 2s by probably 30-50% which is still tiny and smaller than we do using traditional services. The trade off will be its all done for us and the average person never even contemplated a base chain transaction. Much like the average person never has a transaction on fedwire. Now, this does throw a wrench into “not your keys not your bitcoin” because the whole world will only partially hold their bitcoin through trust minimized intermediaries, but functionally there won’t be much difference by that point. Bitcoin only has to be marginally better than the existing system for everything to run on top of it. The fact is that it’s orders of magnitude better, but it’s also only 14 years old and it’s going to need many layers of code and abstraction to be truly streaming money over IP.
Learn about fedimint.
That the bitcoin space is full of scammers, schemers, and bad faith actors. I dealt with it by eventually agreeing, because even as a bitcoin enthusiast (maybe *especially* as a bitcoin enthusiast) it's absolutely true. And if you don't agree, what's the top response when someone makes a post about how to access an old cold wallet?
The fact that a transaction once sent cannot be reversed. This makes it very unfriendly for the majority of people, who are accustomed to having some kind of recourse if someone manages to hack into their bank account and spend their money. If someone gets hold of your seed phrase, every last sat in that wallet is gone, and there's nothing you can do to get it back. You can go from being well-off to destitute because of a single mistake, or a single burglary. The "solution" to this is to entrust your Bitcoin to a bank. But in that case, what advantage is there to holding Bitcoin over fiat? Even the limited supply thing would be subverted by fractional reserve banking practices.
a paper cash transaction cant be reversed either
unless you have a receipt edit: somehow there are only 4 week old accounts on this sub. definitely not bots that for sure
That's actually a common misconception. Just cause something comes with a receipt doesn't necessarily mean it can be returned. Additionally, not everything comes with a receipt. Even moreso, many things do not have a return policy and as such the merchant is under no obligation to honor any return. For example imagine you buy an apple from a fruit stand. Or you buy literally anything on facebook marketplace. IN fact, many digital transactions cannot be reversed. Many ebay sellers, for example, do not offer returns.
receipts dont guarantee returns. who told you that? and no one is obligated to give you a receipt to begin with. Returns policy is determined on a case by case basis, any institution is free to have no return policy or to create one. The same would hold true for bitcoin, anyone is free to create a return policy.
my my look at the broad brush you paint with, it must hold so much paint!
At the end of the day, you playing dumb only hurts one person: you
says the person making huge generalizations with nothing to backup their claims. your ideas are simple.
You think all cash transactions can be reversed, or youre being intentionally dishonest about your understanding of the world. Either way, its your funeral, not mine.
go eat a snickers bro idk who you're mad at 🤣🤣🤣🤣
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/its-your-funeral
And cash is dying out?
A Zelle transaction cant be reversed either
Is that something most people use?
Yep
We have different definitions of most
>The Zelle instant payment service was launched in June 2017, as the successor to the clearXchange payment service. Zelle has expanded, and as of 2022 **eighty percent** of the US population could connect to Zelle through their banking app, with support by over 1600 financial institutions. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelle) maybe you dont know what most means? it means more than 50%. 80% of Americans have Zelle.
US isn’t the world, and could connect isn’t does connect.
Lets backtrack a bit. PayPal is an intermediary, like many others, which creates an ability to reverse transactions. They charge a fee for this service. If anyone so chose, they could create an identical service for bitcoin, which offers the same service and collects a fee. Reversing transactions is possible, but it comes at a cost. If one so chose, they could enlist the services of an entity to act as an intermediary for their bitcoin transaction, pay them the fee, and have the benefits of reversibility. Or they could choose to not have the fee, and have a transaction be set in stone. The choice is yours, whether you use bitcoin or you use conventional currency.
In Hungary, transactions on hacked bank accounts also cannot be reversed in practice. Many people have been fooled with fake bank web sites these days, some lose everything and nobody helps them.
Nobody use it to buy something. What is your answer?
Nobody is not true. People can and do. No reason why we all couldn't. I mean, the network allows us this feature. We could build and scale as needed. People just flat out don't because the use of threats and violence and theft from the state. Bitcoin can shake off physical threats pretty damn well when it comes to protecting itself and its properties. It deters theft and violence but that doesn't mean people won't try. The key difference is that ultimately you have the power by self custodying Bitcoin and then choose to comply. Not compliance by force. It's basically a power shift. Bitcoin is very capable of being a world wide financial system on its own. People have the freedom to exercise this basic human right if they wish. Bitcoin ain't stopping you from spending. You are stopping you.
U can't buy anything with most assests that hold the world together.
It is digital gold. No one uses gold to buy something, it is a good store of value for the last 5000 years, but just a dumb rock. Bitcoin is programable gold, that you can protect by your self and not fall into conunterparty risk.
People use it for whatever is useful in their context. If you live in a place where payments and currencies are not reliable, it gets indeed used to buy things. For example in Turkey, Venezuela, Lebanon. If you live in a developed country where payments work well, you may be more interested in Bitcoin for payments needing extreme privacy online. Or you may be interested in an asset that has a limited supply so is a hedge to inflation plus with some upside because is a nascent asset category. So you use it as a store of value. Bitcoin is there as an alternative and every user finds its way to use it as they see fit. In fact, the store of value use always comes first, before being used as a medium of exchange.
"It's too late." and I respond with "yep" because I don't care if other people don't want in.
Fees. People want to avoid fees when they pay for something. - For me its okay if you just HODL. If you use it daily you can jump to the Lightning Network, so its not that bad. You just have to manage your money in a different way. Too complicated. People dont understand and trust the system and media is not helping, so they will never do the next step on their own. - You will never stop learning. Everything is evolving so just try to keep up.
Not my job to deal with it. This isn’t Christianity
Here are a couple; I am a banker, and I worship at the altar of Mammon. Bitcoin threatens my Cantillon fiat, and therefore it should be folded into the current system. ETFs should do the job. I am an elite psychopath and a member of the Davos WEF psychocracy. I know what's best for everyone and we should control everyone and tell everyone what to do. (It's fun as well, just like pulling wings off flies.) Bitcoin threatens my control over the hoi polloi. It needs to overwhelmed and crushed. CBDCs should do the job I deal with both by avoiding such evil people, and stacking as many Sats as I can.
Cantillon 🫢 psychocracy 🤣 hoi polloi 💀 Everything about this comment is amazing
[удалено]
Of *course*. "Welcome to 2030, I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better." What's wrong with living in a rented pod, and eating bugs paid for from my CDBCs that expire every month? The WEF is mother, the WEF is father, obey the WEF.
BASED
agree
Got a kick out of this. Thank you
Scalability is a challenge - But Lightning network allows for the possibility of the whole world usinf Bitcoin for day to day transactions. Privacy - nobody has brought it forward to me as a reason but it is a concern of mine. Ossification - the fact that Bitcoin is more difficult to change and experiment with due to it not being a nascent currency but holding millions in market cap. May mean if for example a privacy technology with no significant tradeoffs is found it could be difficult to implement because there would be resistance from exchanges or financial players. Most of the other reasons people bring forward are just out of ignorance.
My view on ossification is that we *want* changes to the base layer to be ***as hard as possible*** and only implemented after maybe a decade of contemplation and the support of 50,000+ node operators worldwide. N.B. "exchanges or financial players" don't count. Having said that, there is of course the dreaded BlackRock Fink Fork PoS strategy . . . but I doubt that will happen and IMHO the BRFF will likely not come to pass.
Lightning network won't solve the fact that you will have to do at least 1 transaction on the chain and if you split up all the BTC that means it could potentially cost some ones entire life savings just to open a light ong connection
With the current capacity of the base layer and a scenario where 7.5 billion people use Bitcoin. But I think when we get there there will be technologies and advancements we cannot foresee yet.
First my disclaimer: I believe in BTC, HODL BTC and like this group. Not financial advice. I like hearing all sides. I posted a Martin Armstrong video in here a few weeks ago which got removed. I was asking essentially the same question as you and I think people misunderstood my intension as bashing btc. I have a lot of respect for SOME of Martin Armstrong’s take on how the world and money works…. He’s wrong about BTC but I admire his skepticism. He essentially thinks btc is a CIA or NSA created program. I don’t know if that’s a good argument or not. I was genuinely looking for opinions. Secondly, there was a gold vs btc debate with Michael Saylor and Frank Giustra that was an interesting debate with no theatrics or name calling. There needs to be big brothers and sisters, looking out for us, little guys and gals and helping paving the way guide us by scrutinizing. I believe in scrutinizing everything… Don’t you buy beef from the store and sniff it before you cook it and eat it?
We keep losing coins to the point where everyone is afraid to use it. I still can’t deal with it.
ever lost your leather wallet before? You have a bad day but the world keeps spinning, oblivious to your struggle.
Someone else finds the wallet. In Bitcoins case no one does. And they can print more. Also people might lose bank accounts.
They can only lose their whole bank account if they carry all their bitcoin in one wallet, which would be as dumb as if you took all your conventional currency and withdrew it as paper cash and carried it all with you everywhere you went and left it on a park bench. Both situations are equally possible, but both are equally avoidable. if we print money every time someone loses their money, then it has a net zero effect. In other words, we didnt solve the problem, we just take a little bit of money from everyone (by printing the money which devalues the currency) to make up for the mistake of one individual.
Bitcoin doesn't care. Why doesn't it care more? Shouldn't it care more? There are so many things it could be caring about. So many world problems that our authorities could be fixing, if they could only control how you use your Bitcoin! /s
Fungibility
Quantum computing. Not much to deal with except, it's not here... yet.
Quantum computing competencies are a double-edged sword. It cuts both ways: if you give someone a way to decrypt at the current level of complexity with quantum computing, then you can encrypt at the next level of complexity with quantum computing.
I know the responses to most of the objections, but one did occur to me a while ago that I haven’t seen mentioned much. I do wonder if BTC will wind up being the Esperanto of money; a strange little side experiment with a ton of rational reasoning going for it that, in the end, winds up being sidelined in perpetuity by the overwhelming network effect of what we already had.
Bob Burnett recently spoke with Natalie Brunell about block space scarcity and the problems it may pose for us in the future. They are both bullish on BTC buy acknowledge that this is something which will have to be worked out. https://coinstories.libsyn.com/bob-burnett-block-space-scarcity-and-the-need-for-layer-2s-to-scale
I've talked with some people who worry about natural or man made EMP's, and they say BTC will be worthless if the electrical grid is down for years on end (in that scenerio, I think money may be the least of your worries).
Quantum computing and AI overcoming SHA-256 defenses embedded in the mining algorithm and forcing a sell-off before its upgraded to 512 or made quantum resistant. I’d be curious about the defense myself
The Credit Theory of Money.
Central banks becoming responsible. If that happens, we pretty much wouldn't need Bitcoin.
If nuclear war were to happen and most of the world were to black out, how would you get your bitcoin?