Topic: Does Bitcoin Need To Scale - page 2. (Read 522 times)

The contradiction does not exist inside bitcoin. Everyone can utilize bitcoin benefit either long term investors or a day trader. Thats what makes bitcoin different from other assets in the world. Despite the highly volatile, people can see the advantages that lie behind bitcoin. Moreover, price is not the only thing which seduces people. The security and the decentralization are also what people are looking for. In the world full of scammer and robbers, the blockchain system is the solution reducing most of the bad parts of this world. This technology is being developed for many years. The combination of tech and asset has brought us a new dimensional investment stronger than anything in this world.

There are still many years ahead to know whether bitcoin will continue to survive or not. But in my opinion, bitcoin will be used and utilized in most parts of the world in the near future. No one can deny the assistance of the cryptocurrency.

Attempt at better defining this topic.

Most long term investments are defined in terms of low daily volatility and incremental long term growth. As opposed to the polar opposite of those things.

Long term holdings are usually not attached to merchant solutions allowing for thousands of transactions per second like credit cards. You'd likely never expect to hear a HODL'er of real estate, gold or 401K's complain about not being able to utilize their long term holdings to buy a cup of coffee, due to a lack of real time transactional speed.

To some degree the "bitcoin must scale" paradigm claims btc should become more like a short term traded asset, with higher short term transactional volume and greater volatility. Which might be comparable to implementing a credit card scheme off of a 401k account.

Bitcoin's deflationary model however could be better suited towards producing value through lower volatility and a lower transactional volume. Which could be more appealing to long term investors who prefer investing their capital in safer markets defined by lower volatility rates.

In a sense, bitcoin tries to be a jack of all trades. When it might be better suited to being a specialized HODL master of one. With a profile closer to what one would expect from long term HODL assets. There's a counter argument here which says bitcoin's long term emphasis is a best of both worlds, a benefit rather than a hindrance. I'm not trying to prove things one way or the other. Only interested in hearing what others might say on the topic.

until now BTC is still the most trusted coin with evidence of holding> 60% of all scalability. but will this last long? maybe I will answer "no". many problems faced by BTC such as speed, reward, and usage. the conclusion is that for now BTC is worth considering, but for the next few years there will be other crypto that need to be taken into scale.

Okay, but what does that actually mean in practice?  I sincerely doubt there's a specific amount of scaling which can please everyone.  Someone is always going to moan that the balance is wrong somehow.  People talk about it like it's the simplest thing in the world, but it's actually a really complex issue.

There are many people who want to use Bitcoin for making purchases and daily transactions.
This way Bitcoin needs to scale. It is the most known cryptocurrency and people want this to be used for their transactions are it is the easiest converted crypto to fiat and fiat to crypto.

I think that scalability must be oriented to satisfy all users. Regardless of particular needs or usage trends.

Today with bitcoin we are in that stage of execution, the technological one, perhaps stuck thinking about how we improve (scalability) the Bitcoin.  when at this time, it really isn't necessary.

GB.

Bitcoin is a very important asset for those who will do a large scale in the long run for the HOLD they will think that volatility will be high at the same time later and this is a matter of time where assets will be safe in safer storage.

But on a scale, people certainly have their own goals about the assets in HOLD that they do to cover liquidity with funds that cannot be drawn in for a long time.

There are also their daily traders just to increase the volume that occurs in the market so that this will add higher liquidity and bitcoin will become more trusted by investors.

In fact, the normal scalability of the cryptocurrency, which allows transactions to be performed without undue delays, is, first of all, the convenience in using the cryptocurrency. A cryptocurrency that is less slow in transaction than bitcoin probably no longer exists. Therefore, to raise the question of whether it is necessary to increase the scaling of bitcoin, this means whether we need a bitcoin that will be convenient to use. In my opinion, the conclusion is obvious.

It dont. But will be way more valuable and useful if it scale a lot. It is simple as that. Bitcoin can stay exactly as it is right now and both Lightning and Liquid can fail and any other scaling solution. That dont mean suddenly no one will use Bitcoin anymore. We will. But that add on of use case and value that more transactions would bring will not be here.

I've often suspected that any attempt to define the value through a single aspect is going to land wide of the mark.  It seems more like a combination of factors that result in the value.  Also missing from that linked post is the production cost of mining and probably a few more facets besides those that I haven't yet considered.

For me, I just don't want to see bitcoin as an "optimized HODL asset" but I hope to see it spread like Fiat currencies around the world and you can then use Bitcoin to speculate or as a currency to buy the things you need.
I hope (and I think that this will become reality one day) that I see Bitcoin as a global currency used in the whole world without restrictions and without the need to exchange it for another currency such as the dollar or other, where you can buy online or from the store located near your house or use it on the stock exchange.
So for me, I don’t care much about holding bitcoin until the price goes up and I don’t care if it goes down because you can work in either case but what matters most to me is the spread of bitcoin.

Bitcoin requires a base level of transaction liquidity (spending and reciprocal acceptance) to have any value, that's true. So does anything else that is used as a store of value.

However, I think it would be very wrong to say its value is based on its utility. The past hype cycles alone sort of prove that. Bitcoin's value is still mostly speculative. The market is pricing in the future likelihood of adoption. In my opinion, adoption means people buying BTC (whether to use or hold) because that's what defines market demand, not utility.

If nobody were willing to spend BTC, it would be worth nothing. If the mining security model failed, it would be worth nothing. But assuming these conditions are met, speculators take them as a given. In other words, these metrics are not what the market price is based on.

but bitcoin is not an investment, it is not stock, ... it is a currency. in fact without bitcoin being a currency it becomes worthless and things like HODL lose all meaning. you see everything has a value according to its utility. if bitcoin was only an investment then there would not be any reason for it to exist. if you think about it a little you can see that it would mean that we created a blockchain to store wealth and gain wealth and nothing else! and that makes no sense and is not a utility. not to mention it won't grow at all.

the only reason why bitcoin has grown in the past decade is because it is a decentralized payment system. and a good one at that.
coming back to your question the answer is obviously yes bitcoin needs to scale to become a better payment system.
why do you think hundreds of thousands of hours have gone into developing scaling solutions? why would they even bother with LN if bitcoin was only an investment and didn't need to scale?

Over time, it will reach its maximum, so there is no need to accelerate this process artificially.

Exactly.  There are several varieties.  It's difficult to ascertain whether the OP was referring to all, or only some, of these:

• A decent amount of scaling can come from optimisations and efficiency savings - squeezing a larger quantity of transactions into the space we currently have available.  This is generally considered to be the least contentious option.  We'll hopefully see a few of these in the not-too-distant future.
  
  
• Willing users can opt to send smaller transactions off-chain, sacrificing some security for speed and cost-effectiveness - leaving more space in blocks for significant sums that require the greater security provided by on-chain transactions.  Contentious to some, but it's a moot point.  Still in a fairly early developmental stage.  Currently more suitable for the tech-savvy "power users", rather than less experienced ones.  If successful, it could have the largest impact of all.
  
  
• We can increase blockweight if absolutely necessary - a potential sacrifice to the decentralisation of the network in order to achieve greater throughput.  Highly contentious to many.  Difficult to achieve consensus on.  Generally considered a last resort.
  
  

^ There is no right or wrong answer to this question for bitcoins are similar to fiat currency it depends on the personal perspective if they will treat them as a long term investment or be used in a daily transaction. Both of these has it's own role in the stock market for they can bring a pump and dump to the value of cryptocurrency but making bitcoins on a day trading will be great besides it is also the reason why we will hodl bitcoins and earn as much as we could for we could use it somehow on our necessities. On my own, I prefer seeing my bitcoins as a form of payment replacing the fiat currency and not being governed by any banks globally.

Fiat currencies change by a fraction of percent per day, and a few percent movements generally happen only a few times per year. This volatility is nothing compared to Bitcoin.

More consumer transactions would mean less volatility for Bitcoin, because the current speculation is based on uncertainty whether Bitcoin will succeed as a widespread payment method or not. If it will, then there will be less reason to speculate.

It is very doubtful what people think about bitcoin.
Some think that Bitcoin needs to be utilized as an asset that is going to be used for the daily transactions and some others that is a digital asset that gains value in long term.
Personally, I believe that Bitcoin is the second option. If we want a crypto to be used in daily transactions we must use another coin but not BTC.

I saw a lot of posts that have a problem in terms of holding, why you will hold your bitcoins when the trend is in bearish where it keep making lower lows and lower highs. It is sounds crazy but you are holding in order to lose money if you do it if the trend is bearish. There is also no risk management that I see for those who keep do HODL where they just hold and they do not have stop loss levels that can help them to minimize their losses. There is nothing wrong in doing HODL, the wrong is if you do HODL where the trend in downtrend and if you do not have proper risk management about it.

Define scale... People usually use that word talking about something completely different with bitcoin.

Anyway, I think the point trying to be made here is that BTC doesn't generate a stable positive cash flow as for example QQQ or S&P500 would do long term.

Well, my take would be that with BTC a positive cash flow isn't important. BTC is cash money, but completely disconnected from any systemic risks as modern finance defines them. There's absolutely no possibility of bank collapse, hyperinflation, government or state failure etc. People that hold BTC already must have their means to survive otherwise with their everyday transactions.

Frankly, BTC is a better instrument of facilitating every day transactions only in places where inflation is crazy high and government can't easily support its citizens. In such occasions there are some edge cases that could see more utility from BTC than their local cash. But most people in let's say Venezuela where there is a lot of inflation don't even have regular access to good computers or Internet.

That sounds much like term deposits and government bonds. Well, these options aren't real investments. They bear no risk. They merely let you beat part of the projected annual inflation but not much more.

This is a topic that has been widely discussed. There's an inverse relation between bitcoin's utility as a payment tool and its price for example. Because when prices skyrocket, so do the fees. So when bitcoin goes up in price, it's not so useful for payments anymore because you have strong counter incentives to use it for everyday payments due to fees consisting of an evergrowing part of your transactions as prices rise.