Topic: Bitcoin & Lightning - Would you pay for coffee instantly if it was possible? (Read 765 times)

no, but the problem with your question is that usually these questions focus on two ends of the things you can buy, it is either coffee or a Lamborghini! the thing is, there is a ton of other things in between. so no i won't use Lightning Network to pay for coffee ever. but i will use it for high frequency payments where i need to make a payment fast and safe and also receive it just as fast. for example when i trade specially in altcoin market that it is crypto versus crypto exchange, LN can be a fantastic tool if it gets adopted more.

I rarely used my Bitcoin at all, in fact I am planning get more. Even if the price plunges it doesn't matter, I will still buy whenever I have the means. In terms of using it daily I don't agree with using it with just some coffee, It is the same as it was way back, the 10,000 BTC pizza, and maybe if someday it will be worth a fortunes millions or trillions then you would be probably the talk of the future people who spend their Bitcoin on a coffee. I would use my Bitcoin only if necessary like there's some grave illness that needs to be cured in the member of the family and there no more options to use.

Gresham's law is fallacious, it simultaneously implies a free-market context, and a context where people are being forced to accept a certain type of money. Both cannot co-exist.

History tells a different story to Gresham:

• bad money is bullied into people's commerce
• bad money is popularized through deception i.e. bank notes
• good money is bullied out of people's hands

if an example exists where people willfully chose a poor form of money for any significant length of time, it was followed by an economic collapse that taught them about the effects of bad vs good money



And we do in fact have just clutch of exemplary precedents: in Venezuela and Argentina, Bitcoin has above average popularity. Even in less drastic cases such as Brazil, there is interest (someone in this thread was making exactly your point, BTC is less volatile proposition than the Brasilean Real).


In fact, Bitcoin's volatility has only seen holders make long term gains. When one considers the full extent to which the price of everyday goods or company shares are manipulated on financial markets (in a so-called capitalist system), it's tempting to say that Bitcoin is one of few (or even the only) traded item that has any real price discovery. So it only appears volatile because we are all too coddled by artificial prices.

And of course, as we know from experience with Bitcoin: what happens when someone manipulates prices? After some time, the market participants figure it out, and the price snaps back, in the opposite direction. Yay price stability.

Edit:

think about that final point.

Your food prices are heavily subsidized, and a part of those huge, growing government debts represent the price you are not paying for your food. That cannot last forever.

O nice at least 68% of the people who voted on this have a clue that bitcoin was meant to be used as a p2p e-cash. (so far)

I would just hold the most part as savings, and spent a little for daily things, such as coffee. So the answer was both, the top and bottom.

Actually lightning is only needed for minute things, any other item that could be bought online and confirmed in an hour or later, regular onchain bitcoin works.

We can hope for that, but honestly, it's impossible to know what the transition from state-backed to decentralized currencies would look like. We don't have precedent for it. Theoretically, it could be a turbulent event like USD hyperinflation that causes a fast and violent transition. If fiat currencies are crumbling, people will want to be paid in stronger currencies.

I'm not sure that volatility needs to be driven out for mass adoption. A volatile Bitcoin simply needs to be better than the alternatives.

Bitcoin shouldn't be seen as a mainstream payment currency though. The TX fees and confirmations are horrible compared to other options. What's the point of using my BTC and paying a 1 dollar fee on a 5 dollar coffee, and then making the merchant wait 20 minutes for the money to be verified, when I can just tap my card and not deal with all these issues. BTC will never become a viable option for microtransactions, especially in real life because it was never built for that purpose.

This is accurate, but it is much safer to wait for a confirmation, and no matter how small the fee is, why choose an option that you have to pay for when other payment methods exist (fiat, cash)?

I personally only consider using BTC for online transactions (mostly electronics), as there are quite a lot of stores that accept BTC online, and spending 50 cents per 200 dollars is way more afforable then spending 50 cents per 5 dollars.

At first I want to mention that if I have option to pay with my card, then why not? They even offer me some cashbacks in various places, it's pretty easy, just take card from pocket, put it on terminal and that's all, transaction is done.
Btw if there is option of bitcoin and I forgot to fill my bank's account or don't have money on that at the moment but have some bitcoins, then I would pay with it. Don't take it wrongly but bitcoin payments isn't as comfortable as payments made by credit card. But if we talk about high transactions, of course I'll use bitcoin because it's fast and cheap, especially with lightning network.

I have been using Bitcoin to pay for my bills ever since I have a chance to own it so, definitely I will pay Bitcoin for my cup of coffee regardless of the availability of lightning network.  I am one of the believer that Bitcoin should be used and spent and not hoard it.

Right, but the semantics of a stock are different and their intended use case is for buying power. Bitcoin was created with different fundamental semantics. If it's only exposure is to save and preserve buying power, there would be no need for it to exist. But of course, it's fundamentals are different.

Interesting perspective. I do however wonder how long this will be a valid metric with how LN will eventually take over a lot use cases of the main-chain where it's still speculation that is the driving force behind this market.

Another thing is that you can't exactly know what people are doing on LN because it's not as transparent as the main-chain is, which I'm sure a lot of people (including myself) here would consider an extremely bullish development.

Overall, the volatile nature and the insane up side of Bitcoin are more of an obstacle in my opinion. Not many dare to accept even a portion of their wage in Bitcoin if you discard the few geeks working for crypto companies.

Absolutely, but this is kind of a chicken and egg problem. To drive out volatility/"bad money", adoption must be rampant. For adoption, volatility needs to be driven out.

There's got to be some kind of gradual, seamless transition from good and bad money co-existing to one being the dominant driver.

It's not easy considering Gresham's law. As long as weaker currencies like fiat money ("bad money") are widely accepted, people will opt to hoard away "good money" like bitcoins.

If/when Bitcoin achieves a sustainable economy where there is no need for fiat inflows and outflows -- meaning supply chains and payrolls are covered in bitcoins -- this can change. If people are getting paid in bitcoins, they will feel more comfortable spending them. As it stands, spending bitcoins and rebuying them later could entail lost bitcoins because of conversion/exchange fees and rising price. For most people, it makes more sense just to hoard their coins and spend fiat money on consumer goods instead.

Why not? I pay for few things once in a while with bitcoin.
I normally just let my Bitcoin increase in price when I have nothing to spend it on.  Nothing stops me when I need to spend my coins,not even the possibility of price going up soon.

Bitcoins constantly move in and out of millions of wallets, If people don't really spend Bitcoin because of the expectation that price will increase in the future, then things would be a bit stagnant with the wallets.

Ask the owners of online marketplaces that accept Bitcoin whether people buy with bitcoin or not, you will be surprised by the answer I guess.

This appears to be what a lot of bitcoin holders think. In this kind of situation, would you be comfortable spending it if the amount of BTC you spent is replenished by an immediate BTC purchase, such that your net holdings remains the same?

How can one incentivize a new, average person to begin using BTC if the only reason that people buy it is with the hope that the fiat value will go up?

nice thought, but it'll still hurt lol. i try not to think too much about all the stupid stuff i spent my bitcoins on back in 2014-15. if i'd only known i was spending my coins at the bottom! that's why i never spend coins deep into a downtrend anymore.

it's still a painful subject.

I agree with you and also do they same. I spend some of my earnings when btc is doing well so that I know no matter how bitcoin does I rode some of the high waves and bought some nice things. Without it I would not have the things I have. I would not be able to take my family out as much and all the rest.

I use it regularly though. As I do any other currency. In fact I make more crypto transactions then banking transactions. I only ever use the bank if the people I buy from don't use crypto and even then I still ask them.

Using it as a payment method was the sole purpose of Bitcoin upon creation. But the along the line, many people deviated from that motion to holding till when the price is pumped to sell. I have been using my Bitcoin to pay for services online, which for me have been easier than credit cards. From paying for domains to paying for personal services, so for me it won't change. Truth is, even with lightening, many hodlers will not spend it on services and goods but rather hodl.

Though, i still doubt the possibility of having Bitcoin as a universal currency and still remaining 'decentralized'. For Bitcoin to become that sort of currency it will need more modifications from the authorities. Then, I doubt if many might still want to own it not use it since it might loss the quality of been decentralized.

I understand, how about the situation with people that had bitcoin before mid-2017. For example you have 300% in profits, would you be comfortable spending some portion of that on a purchase while simultaneously purchasing that same amount of BTC so that your net bitcoin holdings don't diminish?

If HODL-ing is the primary mentality of even half of bitcoin holders, what possible incentive does bitcoin even present for usage by the common man?

Even if they say they will, I believe most of the HODLERS will never "waste" their Bitcoins to buy coffee, with, or without Lightning because of the opportunity costs. Bitcoin's strength as a store of value, is also its weakness for adoption.

They might do it once. But don't hope that they will regularly use Bitcoin instead of cash or credit cards.