Topic: An analysis on how Bitcoin gets to 1 billion users (Read 398 times)

I  wouldn't go as far as to say that all user actions are monitored today. With fiat, if you pay in cash, you can to essentially undetected (if you want to avoid face identification you can simply wear a mask which is still recommended even if not obligatory). If you are browsing the Internet, you can use VPN if you want to ensure your privacy. Also, nobody has enough resources to literally monitor every user (at least, to do so actively instead of living the job to algorithms). Bitcoin is transparent, so transactions are very traceable. Whether these lead to your real identity is largely a matter of how careful you are. As for me and privacy, I would prefer the companies to know less about me, yes, but I am also not going to go out of my way to achieve it.

If it is not always, is there a chance that it would not be adopted by 1 billion by 2030 similar to what the article was implying?

Also, arguable if all altcoins have no utility. It can be argued that platforms similar to Ethereum and Binance smartchain has more utility than Bitcoin. The argument against these platforms are they are centralized, however, Ethereum can also be argued that it has enough decentralization to protect against government censorship.

Bitcoin simply isn't convenient enough for every day use. Some people (including myself) could say that Bitcoin wasn't designed for every day usage(despite what Satoshi was claiming in the whitepaper). The expectation of 1 billion daily Bitcoin users will never happen in reality and there's nothing wrong with that.
Nobody is saying that Bitcoin is supposed to be the number 1 global currency. I would be perfectly fine, even if Bitcoin never becomes truly mainstream.
I don't think that anyone could verify the accuracy of this statistical data, but 30 million people seems like a pretty good number for a 12 year old technology.
BTC reaching 1 billion active users seems more like a fantasy, rather than an achievable goal.

Not always, it only speeds up until we reach mass adoption then it slows down and plateaus.

That is how new technologies are adopted, the more different from what they are replacing they are the slower their adoption is going to be. On top of that we have a lot of FUD by the heads of the corrupt existing financial systems that has slowed the adoption down even more.

No simply because adoption happens based on utility not hype. Altcoins are all hyped up without any real utility. History has also proved that they always dump and eventually disappear. You can take a look at how the list of "top" altcoins were 9 years ago and how many of those "top" coins exist today!

More good news and mainstream media positive news but it seems that's not possible because of the banks will obviously oppose when they see their competitors gaining lots of investors. The people that are in this field really need to work to explain to the people they know what's bitcoins all about and how would it be a huge help for our money freedom. That's what makes people stick to it when they know exactly the point of having bitcoins as your assets because they really like when they have total control of their money rather than the banks who might gonna close any day from now.

If the argument is based on the model of the S curve, yes rate of adoption always speeds up. However, what I am questioning is based on reality, it has been 10 years and we are still on the bottom of the S curve? We cannot assume that it can occur based on the model because if it can, is there an argument for altcoins to also increase in rate of adoption only because it existed? Please be reminded that Bitcoin is not only a technology, it is also a medium for finance.

In any case, sorry for being skeptical on this.

if we are talking about actual holders of bitcoin with actual UTXO signing privilege to actually make a transactions on the actual bitcoin network..
well you just have to count the UTXO as the max amount of potential holders ..

obviously some users have more then 1 UTXO to their name so there are less people than the UTXO count

as for other people that are using balance in centralised exchanges.. or altnet tokens representing something.. well its a simple "not their key, not their coin."

there might be many suggested 'hundreds of millions' of people with 'wallets' and custodial balance, and altnet tokens.
but there are a massive difference between bitcoin holders vs central service balance/altnet token users

i know some will say even if you have a altnet token or a centralised exchange balance your "still a bitcoiner" but thats for a lengthy debate (emphasis on holders using the bitcoin network)

I don’t know if those statistics and data are correct, because I believe is just an estimate and we definitely have more than that amount of bitcoin Holders/Users. There are some underground Bitcoin users that or just dormant holders but even if we haven’t yet reached one billion holder/Users at the moment I doubt if this would take long before we reach that figure.

I think the report is quite comprehensive and compares many things that humanity adopted and how fast it happened. While it might look like a failure that we're still so low in terms of the percentage of people using Bitcoin, these things do take time sometimes, and it's possible that decades are needed till be can truly talk about global adoption. It also means that Bitcoin hasn't failed yet in terms of global adoption and we might see 1 billion users or more within our livetimes. I am not sure it's going to happen, but I think it might, and I'd be happy to stick around to see it. That being said, Bitcoin curve over 10 years seems very different from those of top technologies, so perhaps the prognosis is too optimistic after all.

Idk where you got that from, never heard anyone claim/ push that lightning is better than bitcoin. It’s simply a way to transfer bitcoin off-chain, which is legitimate. That’s it.

Idk why this much hate for lightning tbh, sure it’s not perfect, but fine for certain use cases. And more beneficial than not having it. If you have a way to scale the chain without getting centralized, go ahead, I’ll listen.

people that use buzzwords of L2. "ontop" "Skin" "layer"
are trying to push the psychological(subliminal) imagination that LN and other altnets are bitcoin2.0 or are above bitcoin(better then bitcoin).. EG layer/skin analogy being the protective layer that saves the fruit inside from going bad

try to avoid these psychological subliminal words to fake trust that LN is the best and better option than bitcoin.

bitcoin is the MAIN NET the actual blockchain. bitcoins never leave the blockchain. these altnets are not more secure or more trusted then bitcoin..
call them bridged networks or sub networks or altnetworks. because thats what they are

LN is definitely not meant to be confused to be thought of as bitcoin 2.0.. LN is not even something solely functional feature for only bitcoin. its an altnet that can be used for multiple currencies it bridges between

I think we are bound to see a pattern similar to what we saw with social media, in which at the beginning we see a slow expansion, then a critical point is reached which lead us to explosive growth only to reach a point in which the growth becomes way slower and stabilizes, in my opinion we have yet to see the explosive growth, and if I were to take a guess I think the adoption will accelerate during this decade at a speed way faster than the previous one.

Bitcoin has more than 1 million adoptions in the world if there is census all people isn't Bitcoin I will say that Bitcoin is almost 75% uses who grab it's bitcoin across the world. And then Bitcoin was known true advent from social media and without social media nobody would have known the Bitcoin is existing right now but you're all the world so many of them have one bitcoin today true the profit is a give people

I am not sure about this. With LN, people will need to periodically add/remove coin from their various channels, and I am not aware of any reasonable assumptions as to how frequently users would remove coin from a channel for the max block size to remain reasonable.

The current implementation of LN is not necessarily going to be the best. The current devs are working on improving it, and there is no reason why they should be given a monopoly on improving L2 implementations.

an average block does 1800tx, an average day would be 144 blocks
this allows for an average of ~260,000 transactions a day.

under people do one trade a day on bitcoin to be classed as "using bitcoin". only allows 260k people
are using bitcoin

under the assumption people hoard/lock funds and only do 2 trades a month thats 3.94m people
under the assumption people hoard/lock funds and only do 2 trades a year thats 47.3m people
under the assumption people hoard/lock funds and only do 2 trades per 22 years thats ~1billion people

.. i know the altnet girls will cry how using their network will help reach billions of people and trillions of transactions by not having 'people use the bitcoin network'. but to achieve this, without scaling BITCOIN(scaling the bitcoin network) means people have to hoard/lock funds up for 22 years to cater to 1 billion people hoarding btc while transacting in pegged value on altnets.

even if THEY pretend their altnet value is "bitcoin"(pfft(facepalm) would it truly be using bitcoin if you never move coin on the actual bitcoin network for 22 years

the only way to bring this down into the realms of actually still calling it "people using bitcoin". is to have people actually using bitcoin network... after all bitcoin never ever leave the bitcoin blockchain/network... rather then the delusions of the pegged altnets which wouldnt need monitoring/ using bitcoin network for 2 decades.. which pretend to be next gen/next level bitcoin(facepalm)

by this i mean.
if we assume hoarding/locks of 12 months instead of 22years. . then bitcoin transactions need to increase by 22  (~28mb blocks)
if we assume hoarding/locks of 1 month instead of 22years. . then bitcoin transactions need to increase by 22  (~343mb blocks)

this is not a call for massive leaps overnight.
this is not a call for needing to cater to 1billion users this year.

but we really need to stop thinking the solution is to avoid using bitcoin and moving everyone over to an alternative network for a couple decades. and instead we really need to think about SCALING BITCOIN

emphasis
SCALING: not leaps or huge jumps, just small step increases progressively over time
BITCOIN: by this i mean the bitcoin network, not altnets co-branding the name, or pretending to be next gen/level bitcoin

..
i hope even the altnet girls are enlightened to realise that their altnets cant even cater to 1 billion users right now without subjugating users to never touch the bitcoin network for 2 decades, thus scaling bitcoin is required

The only way for the adoption to slow down is when many governments ban bitcoin which is still possible up until now. There are also other reasons on why people won't engage in bitcoin even if bitcoin is already legalized on their country. A long term bear is one it and also the following; extreme volatility, fees, slow transaction, being to complex or complicated, and many more.

It is possible for 1 billion users to be accommodated because one whole bitcoin can still be divided into to smaller pieces and also not all that who engage in bitcoin are using it daily as a currency but majority of them is using it passively therefore it cant cause an issue on the network.

An interesting roundabout way of doing something.

They first went to the blockchain and counted "new entities" which actually means addresses of not known wallets that have received funds then cut out the "leaving entities" so people who have depleted their balance only to arrive at current users of 30.8 million unique entities (users) on the network right now, which hmmm, you could have predicted by only looking at the addresses with a balance over 0.0001 satoshi which, guess what is 31,047,646

So you had to go through all these mambo jumbos only to reach an obvious metric that ironically they also list on their website in their charts.

Also by that metric, I have some really bad news for the 1 billion targets, for years ago the numbers on the same metric were 24 million, even if we increase each year adoption by 10% (which didn't happen previously), the 1 billion mark won't be reached till 2037, so you need to reach pretty fast a more than 20% growth in usage each year for that.

IMO, I believe that the 30.8 Million net Bitcoin users are already a huge achievement of the crypto industry. But making it a Billion users is a big task to do, but it's not impossible because as the technology is improving the adoption will continue to increase on a year-to-year basis thats why we should continue to support the Bitcoin to make that one Billion target users a reality, nevermind those competitors. After all, they have also the interest to protect so they gonna hate, But one thing is for sure they cannot destroy Bitcoin.

Looks & sounds like clickbait. Wanting to get 1 out of every 8 people on the planet into BTC?
Eliminate the very young (kids under 4 or 5) those with very limited access to tech and so on you eliminate even more.

Possibly in the FAR future, but in the short and medium terms. We would need a lot more price stabilization and places (businesses) accepting it.

We here on the forum are a very small bunch of people for whom BTC is important  There are a lot more people who outside of some news blurbs have no idea about it.

-Dave

doesnt matter if LN is run but different dev teams on different protocols(separate sub-nets)
or there is a single LN... the problem is all the versions lf LN have major flaws..

the main being lack of consensus protocol (fails to solve byzantine generals problem)
the next being the actual paying of more people on a network
by which the three directions for LN are..
a. master hubs everyone has a channel with.. (avoiding routing)
b. users playing pass the parcel down a stream of users (using routing) where the more users on the network means more hops to go through to reach everyone
c. users require more channels for more potential destinations to have a more direct contact without as many hops.


each of these directions fall flat into the problem of value liquidity.
a. this scenario needs a master hub to have alot of value locked up to have liquidity in each of its channels to palm off to its customers
b. for every hop along a lengthy route they have to rely on each person along the route to have available balance and be online to service that payment. the more people in the network. the more distance between source and destinations, the more hops means the more chance of running into a roadblock
c. the more channels a user needs to open the more funds it needs to lock up (like the (a) hub problem, but where funds are locked on the user side) where the user becomes a hub. meaning if all they have invested/acquired of  crypto is like $800 worth. 2 channels is $400 per channel 16 channels is $50 a channel. which then limits how much they can spend at at given time to a destination available only on one channel

LN has many other flaws too. not just routing bottlenecks of liquidity issues of channels or the requirement of all parties involved in a payment needing to be online. or the requirement of middlemen to sign whereby they can just be assy and refuse, holding payments up/delaying 'success'/fail messages. or the fact that the more hops needed=more fee due to having to pay each hop. or the issue around having to map larger routing tables becomes a bloat of gossip the bigger the network gets and the more data required just to update. or the issues around centralisation of hubs or the dilution of spendable value if users had to have more channels.
.
but also that the settlement and punishment parts and the initial funding locks are not firmly ruled systems which are audited by the network to ensure compliance.. yep LN is not a consensus network and does not fulfil the byzantine generals problem