Topic: Global adoption — A ridiculous term (Read 624 times)

Depends what you mean by globally adopted. I think it already is globally adopted to a degree, in that it is being used in every country in the world. If you mean become the dominant world currency, then absolutely not. There are far too many powerful people and institutions which depend on fiat to continue to enrich themselves to let bitcoin take over that quickly.

We are heading in the right direction, and fiat is becoming hilariously devalued, but it will take much longer than 10 more years I would think.

Lightning is great, and combined with Taproot has a lot more potential improvements, but it is not ready for global adoption yet, as I seem to remember we discussed in another thread. Even just onboarding the majority of the population with a single Lightning channel each would take years of block space. We need developments like Eltoo and Channel Factories to be well established long before we can reach a that stage with Lightning.

Nice counter-arguments.

So, I guess that you imagine it being globally adopted in this decade (?). It's already been 11 years since its start and some serious adoption has begun, even from a government. There are lots of things built upon it right now and the main one is IMO the LN. Who knows, the world may suddenly or slowly switch to Bitcoin. The CBDCs will probably affect it.

I found a nice thread predicting this decade brazenly: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5342510

I feel great the I came into Bitcoin a decade later; I'd, probably not hate it, but surely consider it an experiment.

In time, yes. When computers were first bring built, a lot of industry leaders thought there would be zero market for them, with quotes like "a world market for maybe 5 computers" or that "one machine would suffice for the whole country".

Most governments are on a steady path towards more surveillance, more control, and more oppression, while all fiat is on a steady path to excessive inflation and devaluation. Bitcoin is only becoming more popular as time goes on.

No one is forcing anyone. If they want to constantly lose their purchasing power by holding fiat long term, then they are of course free to do so.

My point is that cars, mobile phones, internet, microwaves, power tools and other technological inventions became globally adopted, because they were found useful by the average human. They later became a necessity in each house hold. The purpose of Bitcoin is to make the third-party unneeded; I'm pretty much certain that the majority of the house holds out there don't feel the same need like I do.

If someone doesn't want financial autonomy, he/she has no reason in being forced to use something that is not centralized under the control of a central authority. How can you convince him moving into it while fiat satisfies him with the same benefits?

There is literally nothing in the world which is 100% safe. Yes, people will lose money through carelessness with bitcoin, but people also lose money through carelessness with fiat. My point is that you do not need to have a deep technical understanding of a technology to be able to use it safely. People drive cars, use mobile phones, use the internet, cook with microwaves, use power tools, and loads of other potentially dangerous things every day without understanding how these devices work at a technical level.

Maybe it will. But such is the beauty of bitcoin - if someone does not want financial autonomy for some reason, then there are plenty of third parties which will store their coins for them, just like a fiat bank.

Not at all. If the seller doesn't want to accept bitcoin, that's their choice. If they lose out on a customer because of it, then that's the customer's choice.

This topic made me think about how much every person benefits when they are the first to establish or acquire it. I guess it's the same for everything. When a person develops or builds a company, it could go the same route. Many people use it, and they could go public and be speculated by people about their value. It's always going to be centralized somehow, and you cannot go and justify being equal because they did the hard work initially. They usually deserve it.

With the part of global adoption, it's going to make it even more scarce. Increase in value, essentially. I guess the better word for that is "selfish." Self increase in wealth in which almost everyone in the world wants.

I don't know where you live, but in my country, there are lots of traffic-related deaths every year, which makes me think that the global adoption of car driving wasn't a wise choice. If your society is “full” of arrogant people and the state isn't known for their national health system, then global adoption may be dangerous. Fortunately, the number of deaths seems to be decreasing, but there are much more cases where the drivers suffered from serious accidents.

I'm not sure if comparing the global adoption of Bitcoin with car's driving is proper; they are two distinct things where in driving we become responsible for our own transport and in Bitcoin for our own wealth. Just like someone could predict that the average human will face car accidents, I predict that the average human will lose money.

I guess that you don't want to replace the fiat system, but having it as a second option. Okay, agreed; I myself want to sometime buy a Big Tasty from McDonalds using the lightning network just to feel cool.

But, I should have bolded that word; there are people who believe that it'll replace it, not that it'll be optional. Are these Bitcoiners “imaginators” of an anarchic society or not?

Besides that, did anybody ask the sellers? Yes, it needs to be a choice, but the sellers don't have any; if the buyer says so, they have to accept it. Isn't this dictation? Can't the seller be an average human who is unaware of technology? Who has no idea what's a block chain and disagrees with not having a third party?

Where there dictations with any of the previous global adoptions?

All the average user really needs to know is that they should verify their software, store their seed phrase on paper, and maybe buy a reputable hardware wallet. They do not need to know how to verify k values, or even what k values are. They do not need to know the majority of things we have been discussing to be able to use bitcoin securely and safely. How many people do you think could change the head gasket on their car, or even identify what the head gasket is? Not many, and yet billions of people safely drive a car every day.

Because they should at least have that choice.

Allow me to use another analogy. In the field of medicine, until fairly recently we would practice what is termed "paternalistic medicine". This is the idea that the doctor/physician knows best, and the patient should simply do as they are told. The patient comes with a problem, the doctor diagnoses it, prescribes the best treatment, and the patient does as they are instructed.

There are a lot of problems with this approach. Let's say I'm treating someone for cancer. Invasive surgery and chemotherapy gives the best chance of survival, so that's what the patient should do, no questions asked. But what if the patient doesn't want to spend months or years essentially bedridden and dealing with the side effects of chemo, and would rather live their remaining time to the full? The patient has no autonomy here. An authority figure has simply dictated what they must do.

Now we are moving towards what we call shared decision making. Now the physician presents the patient with options - we could do this, or we could do that, or we could do nothing at all. What's important to you, the patient? The patient takes responsibility for their own health. Some patients may not want to do this, and that's fine. They can opt to go back to the doctor telling them what they should do. But at least that is a conscious decision on their part and hasn't just been dictated to them. At least they had the choice.

Now, if a person wants to opt out of financial autonomy and trust a third party to store their wealth, then that is their choice. But it needs to be a choice, and not just dictated to them from some government authority figure.

Im already out on that motive on replacing fiat completely because its really an impossible thing to happen because as long government do exist then theres no way that fiat could be overtaken or replaced. Centralization would remain and stay as long they do exist.

Although adoption is indeed on the move and it isnt really a ridiculous term because if we do try to look at it on how far we had progressed out then
we can really say that theres really improvement over a decade.

It is just it didnt really able to reach out on what we do anticipate nor expect which is not actuall surprising at all because of some characteristics
on where bitcoin does have.

@o_e_l_e_o, I'm quoting you from another thread, to avoid getting off-topic there.

---

Speaking of “few”;

I really wonder, though, if after all, we truly want to replace the traditional banking system with this one, knowing that it won't be handled by the average user same like in terms of security. We know that the average user human will not be responsible for his own wealth, but we feel like we have to get rid of the dollar and replace it with something that can't be controlled by a central authority located in the society where people can be assisted, but rather, forces them to be responsible for something they weren't before. I'm still curious why that necessity...

I hope we both agree that there is a chaos about lightning network right now and that there are believers whose thought is replacing the current fiat with Bitcoin due to this convenience.

Not resist price increase is a lot of people aim with this currency. Sometimes i can't wonder what will people do if bitcoin really be adopted as global currency or maybe whatever they want it to be  because to replace fiat itself is already hard. If me, in my opinion actually what happen to bitcoin we do support as much as we can, if only can hold then hold, if can tell other people but not only what is good point but risk behind it so that people can know about bitcoin better is ok too.

Global adoption is difficult, but if people like the US White House tech advisor who has approximately $ 5M in BTC, it is something that catches the eye of anyone and also invites them to trust the technology and the great development of BTC in the world of the market, making BTC the economy that best suits people by being deflationary in nature:

White House Tech Advisor Holds Up to $5M in Bitcoin

Source: https://beincrypto.com/white-house-tech-advisor-holds-5m-bitcoin/

It is interesting to know that these people think that way when talking about BTC, although it is a topic that for many is not very well known, it tends to attract their attention, and knowing that people like these have BTC gives them more confidence.

many people know bitcoin, want it to be global adoption. so, every tail in this world can do, or fill their economy (not only for currency, but economy too). but, its really hard for this knowledge be global adoption. to many obstacle, to many hole to meet by this thought.


and this is good one, if global adoption just for people in the world use bitcoin. we assume not all people, but many people in the world.

and how would that be to miss the point? if there are not many people all over the world using bitcoin as a means of payment then we are doomed to use bitcoin just to do Hodl and trade on exchanges


bitcoin is already used in almost every country in the world, I believe that in each country there is someone who has bitcoin and over time the number of people in each country who will be using bitcoin will be greater

From what i see, some people always think global adoption is bitcoin be used as payment. We can see if a person create thread about it, it always directly to aim about it and maybe bitcoin replace fiat. Global adoption, is only when people know and use bitcoin no matter what it will be used. As investment for example, it is already considered global adoption because people all over the world can use bitcoin as much as they want.

The bitcoin market is still relatively tiny, and smaller markets are more volatile. At present, a single large investor can move the price enough to trigger a bunch of stop losses and set off a large cascade resulting in a significant price shift. If we ever reach the point where a majority of people in the world are using bitcoin, then the relative power of any single user falls enough that this is no longer possible. Sure, we will still have price fluctuations, but a fluctuation of $100 a day when the price is $100,000 doesn't really matter compared to the same fluctuation at the price of $1000. Plus if we ever reach the point that bitcoin is the dominant global currency, then people will stop thinking of bitcoin in terms of how much fiat it is worth and simply think of 1 BTC = 1 BTC.

There's a great discussion from Andreas Antonopoulos about this in 2 minutes starting here: https://youtu.be/6IDzpvmGzxo?t=2520

Not necessarily. If you have 1000 people using bitcoin and 1000 more arrive, then that is a huge shock to the system. If you have a billion people using bitcoin and 1000 more arrive, it makes no difference at all.

This is what I explain in the first sentence of the OP. There's no standard definition for global adoption; anyone can assume their own.

Look, I get you, I'm just not quite convinced that a digital commodity with a hierarchical structure and with a very volatile market price can be used as a medium of exchange. I find LN really cool as a solution to the scaling issue, but there are lots of people believing that due to its existence, it can be globally adopted as a medium of exchange.

Then, there are people like you and me who see it more as a long-term store of value.

o_e_l_e_o probably takes it for granted that the island will someday stop having newcomers. In that case, it'd surely be less volatile.

Sorry @o_e_l_e_o, I don't really understand how bitcoin will have a relatively stable price/ the price drop to a minimum when it reach global adoption while we know that bitcoin price is quite volatile long ago. So far I only know that every bitcoin sold in large quantities will affect the price quickly and the price will drop temporarily.

In my opinion, this opinion may be quite relevant to the condition and habit of the people who use the payment system. Even though bitcoin is legalized, it will not be the main mean of payment/ currency used by people anywhere and can be equated with gold or other valuable that have been legalized as a mean of payment before.

I am not sure in anything but what I can see is that other countries from South America like Panama, Brasil, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Mexico, are following exactly what El Salvador did, and more countries from other parts of the world will follow.
People don't understand that global adoption doesn't mean that you will be able to buy coffee or beer with Bitcoin, but you will use as back up especially when current fiat currencies crash and burn in near future.

Better ask Venezuela, Nigeria and other countries that had hyperinflation can they buy something with their local currencies, they are faster and you can use them to warm up if you are freezing in winter.
Bitcoin will never be used as main currency in any country, just like you are not using gold or silver to buy anything (you could do it unofficially) but they still value more than fiat and paper money.

That ship has sailed. Governments around the world are already trying to regulate it, force more invasive KYC on bitcoin users than on fiat users, tax it more aggressively than fiat, demand exchanges hand over customer data, employ blockchain analysis companies to track you, and so on.

If bitcoin did reach global adoption, then any price swings would be minimal. With such a huge amount of liquidity, anyone could dump a huge amount of coin on the market without dropping the price, and with billions of users then the small number of idiots who listen to tweets from the likes of Elon Musk would be very much in the minority. And at least with bitcoin you know at some point the value will almost certainly go up again, as opposed to accepting fiat where you know it will only ever go down.