Topic: Global adoption — A ridiculous term - page 2. (Read 624 times)

Global adaption will be a really hard thing to be achieved since not all can acquire or can be able to use the full functionality of Bitcoin to become part of their daily lives. It seems to be a near to impossibility term for the adaption of Bitcoin. It can be at least be alter into "massive adaption" since it seems to fit the reality that not all can adapt into using it but many can be able to still do it.

I think that global adoptation and mainstream use of the bitcoin as a day to day currency is hard to achieve, and that is due to the fact of  it being decentrelized and uncontroled meaing that the price will always be constantly changing at any time, so a guy who owns a shop could sell a product that is worth 10$ and the next week finds himself with only 5$, for somone who is earning more than enough and wants to invest in bitcoin he could start accepting as a apyment method in his business but from somone who his trying to make a living it would hard, at least this early.

Global adoption is the common term used by the users not because it will be literally used by everyone, but because it will be available to the most part of the world. Global adoption has its pros and cons. Bitcoin's adoption would lead to bigger community that will benefit most users because there will be more investors pumping the market. On the other hand, this may also cause to a situation wherein the government would try their chance to regulate it.

Personally, I want bitcoin to be mass adopted so that many people can be aware and benefit. You see, bitcoin has so many features that central banks don't have such as having decentralize nature, anonymity, high security, and so on. In addition, it is a good investment vehicle and a medium of exchange as well. I want other people to experience what I enjoy, but of course, only if they want to.

Regarding the issue about those people pushing global adoption for additional wealth, I just want to say that not everyone is like that. Sure, there are people using the opportunity of pushing bitcoin's adoption for their own benefit, but it shouldn't bother you much. It's not as if they are stealing something. They are just promoting and utilizing their resources. I think it's a win-win scenario as long as they're transparent to the future users (that will be generated from global adoption) about the risks. After all, it's not always about the money alone.

I actually think that people in both groups (people who see bitcoin as a currency vs those seeing it as an investment) are growing at all times but the ratio differs based on when in the 4-year cycle we are in.
If we consider the cycle to start from the bubble burst, first year is the big drop and a long bear market, second year is accumulation and small rises, third year is bigger rises and build up of momentum, and forth year is the massive rises and the eventual bubble.
In year 1 and 4 we have more speculators due to the high volatility but in year 2 and 3 due to most stability (less profit to be made by traders) we have the least number of speculators and more "believers".

Because they cannot control it. It's that simple. Are you sure that every other country will behave same like El Salvador did?

I hope they all adopt it and maximize this global adoption, because I have bitcoins.

There's a difference between adopting Bitcoin and legalizing it. Yes, you can make it legal to use Bitcoin, but will there be places to use it, you know like... locally? It could surely provide a great way to purchase from the other side of the Earth, but locally, it'd be better to use your nation currency. It's faster, it costs less to make a transaction, you don't have to dedicate some hundreds of hours understanding how it works and it'd be better for you to spend it now, rather than keep it.

You can see what happened with El Salvador could happen with many more countries around the world, and there is nothing ridiculous about that adoption, but Bitcoin is all about separation of money from state.
Why not having more than one currency in country and you let the citizens decide what they want to use legaly, not charging them ridiculously high taxes like now.
Let's see what country will accept Bitcoin as legal tender next and then we can talk more about global adoption.

It is unlikely that we will ever wait for the global adoption of cryptocurrency by states and their bodies. Most likely, a decentralized cryptocurrency will be the lot of ordinary people and partly of business structures. Governments will use their central bank stablecoins instead of cryptocurrencies.
El Salvador does not have its own currency. The dollar is used there as money. Therefore, they can use Bitcoin without any problems. However, almost all full-fledged states have their own currency and they will never give up on it. At the same time, cryptocurrency may well walk in society along with the currency of states.

It might be considered ridiculous not only because it is not yet possible but also because it is almost trying to remove the essence of bitcoin. Privacy and decentralization of the coin might get removed or disregarded as the global adoption takes place. Indeed some may benefit but generally, all of us will suffer if ever that happens. Maybe we could not stop it someday as technology continues to improve but still for now, let us stop pushing it through as the solution the world needs. There are still a lot of ways for the world to keep on surviving without asking for the help of a digital currency.

Yup, no doubts I do have the same thoughts as you, and I feel that it is not going to be completely adopted by everyone. We are still have going to have the conventional currencies, the USD, Euro, Pounds and the rest of them are going to be there as the base currency we use. Then we will also have bitcoin, which will be widely adopted for sure. There are going to be more stores in future that will be accepting bitcoin more than they have now. So that’s a plus, but it’s not going to be the only thing we will have. And there are even going to be lots of altcoins that will come out by then that will be really good enough.

Funny you should mention that, with the news coming out a few hours ago of El Salvador being the first country in the world to propose to recognize bitcoin as legal tender. I agree very few countries, if any, will give up their fiat monetary system, but that's not to say bitcoin cannot also be accepted as legal tender in all these countries, especially given that bitcoin is already being accepted by traders and merchants in these countries.

No chance. In an apocalyptic event such as a meteor strike, nuclear war, massive solar flare, etc., then all monetary systems will be worthless. People will barter for food, clean water, shelter, medicines, fuel, and weapons primarily. Fiat, bitcoin, precious metals, etc., will all be equally worthless.

Well, you're trying to cross the street and you think it's the right thing to do because you just need to get to the other side.

That is, you will have your reasons for crossing, no one criticizes them but not everyone can follow you, at least not everyone. And those who stay don't have to be fools, maybe those fools are watching fools cross.

Making it clear from the above that there are no absolute points of view as to what adoption is, I can tell you and I have mentioned it before, adoption is coming late for ordinary people, but because of their ignorance or their little ability to access goods / assets that by culture they do not manage at their disposal but do so by imposition.

The above is just a part of what adoption really means, we must add the judicial, governmental, etc. and perhaps the most difficult the ideological level.

Now the reality of the large bitcoin holders cannot be covered with a finger, but the same happens with the Fiat or to give it a name the $ for example.

With bitcoin if you want to have more depends on you, with the $ that there are many millionaires has never implied that new ones arise, in fact, of the list of the 500 richest in the United States at least half started with a minimum capital.

An excellent point and very well written. Global Adoption can be from two standpoints, one is regulatory adoption that all countries or at least most of the countries decide to use cryptos as the only legal tender and they decide to forgo their traditional fiats, this option seems unlikely as no country would want to lose power by themselves, a few friendly countries might do it but no way the big guns are going to scrap their own fiats, but yes they might allow cryptos to coexist which too to me looks unlikely.

The second meaning of global adoption is from a personal perspective. Basically, every person on Earth or at least most of them thinks of Bitcoin as a valuable thing something like Gold. Not talking about its investment value but if tomorrow there is an apocalypse, chances are only people holding gold would be able to buy anything. Bitcoin has to reach up to this level, which too seems unlikely at least in the next 30-40 years.

But the catch now is what I have written in a lot of posts before too. That if everyone starts considering bitcoin merely as a store of value and something to Invest, it will lose the utility it was made for which means it's value is a hoax, whereas if a person starts to spend their bitcoin the price cannot go up for an infinite time It eventually will plateau at a point.

Global adoption is just a term that comes out of its users. I prefer to call it ambition to fulfill satisfaction and display the wealth of Bitcoin.
fulfillment of commercial needs and it only gives a high desire value for the social status that he wants to be considered as a rich person.
Bitcoin has been a means of multiplying finances from one decade to another. but in the end if it continues, then gradually Bitcoin is just like a stopover and will be abandoned forever.
On the other hand, we don't think so, because our ambition is not just to fulfill our needs. we still want Bitcoin to exist as a function of paper money. and make it a global transaction tool.

Just one of scores of ridiculous terms used in practically every manifesto and "white paper" since Bitcoin. Pretty certain most people using them know the ridiculousness of them.

Mass adoption. Global adoption. Decentralization. Critical mass. Internet of value. Disruptive tech. Democratized money. Sovereign finance.

The shit remarkably devoid from the 9 pages actually describing Bitcoin.

I will always prefer to trade without a third party who is spying on my transactions, adding that information to a variety of databases, and selling it to any number of third parties.

Most of the time you perform a credit card charge back, the credit card company refund you from their own funds and then pursue the seller to try to recover their losses. If the seller is bankrupt, was fake/anonymous, in another country, manages to evade them, etc., then they never recover that money. There is no reason that if bitcoin was adopted globally that some companies offering "buyer's insurance" or something similar wouldn't pop up.

Everyone on this forum had the exact same opportunity to mine bitcoin in the early days. Just because some did and most did not does not make it a pyramid scheme.

Yes, that's my point. Without a use case it is worthless. There is nothing wrong with wanting to hold bitcoin as a long term hedge against failing fiat currencies, but if you want it to outperform fiat then it needs to have a use case as a currency.

It really depends in the services/products you're buying. I was referring to trusted internet services. The term “irreversible” is being brought to the community as something good, and it is, indeed, in a way. You transactions are resistant, but is the third party really unneeded on a purchase? If, let's say, someone wants to rip me off, shouldn't I have a third party to protect me somehow? What about the taxes? Payees could avoid paying the same taxes they were paying when they used a payment method that required a financial institution.

These are the first thoughts that come to my mind, if Bitcoin was globally adopted as a currency.

But, the adoption isn't increasing. As you said, there are people that cash out. They buy bitcoins to gain profit. They may agree with Bitcoin's philosophy, but they're in just for their fiat gains.

How can you characterize the speculation steadier when a guy makes a tweet and the price goes 5% down?

Yes, but on a healthily operating state, the currency would be inflated analogously to remain the mushrooms' price same. But, on Bitcoin, everything's fixed.

I might wasn't clear enough. I was referring just to the global adoption believers, not to all the Bitcoiners.

I'm a confirmed “overthinker”. 

So you do earn; value. And besides that, by being early you get the chance to mine more bitcoins than the ones a decade later.

I don't claim, no one knows for sure, but I can make my own assumptions. Although, I have to tell you that if you believe in the depths of Bitcoin as a currency, you should wish that the speculators are more than the users. If these fluctuations happened and the investors were the minority, imagine how fluctuating it'd be oppositely.

The key word here is “if”. The holders rely on the global adoption and despite that, we've already said that it's useful. I may hold an amount of BTC, but it satisfies me for oversea transactions.

You're probably right about what people mean in term of adoption. But at the same time they ignore the interest of government who want bitcoin to gain tight control so it is clear that global adoption will be very difficult. Maybe the current use of the word "global" is not appropriate because the government doesn't want it, but it is still possible for us to enjoy mass adoption as adoption increases day by day.

Despite all that, it is possible that global adoption is being used by some for their long-term investment interest. While we still have countries that are less friendly with bitcoin as a mean of payment.

But even if every person in the world decided they didn't want gold anymore, there would still be a demand for gold for microchips, circuits, machinery, chemistry, jewellery, etc. If every person in the world decided they didn't want bitcoin anymore, then bitcoin would have no purpose. Bitcoin's purpose is to a be a currency, and the constant price rise in terms of fiat is exactly because you can use it to buy goods and services.

At the moment obviously not, but should we ever reach the "global adoption" phase of bitcoin being the primary currency of a significant proportion of the global population, then I will imagine we will have forked to add several more decimal places long before then. We can't have the dust limit being 294 sats being the smallest you can send when 294 sats is equivalent to >$10.

I think you get this wrong, at least for my own definition of global adoption. But I think global adoption itself is like impossible without accepting the fact that a lot of corps will use Bitcoin to their own advantage, making "decentralization" and "freedom" useless for the users accessing their platforms. For example, global adoption imo means PayPal's acceptance too. But PayPal's acceptance means I, as their user, have to hold my money in a custodial account.

That defeats Bitcoin's purpose of being a free currency if I use it incorrectly. Yes, I know: you can still use BTC freely even if you have those platforms existing, and even if your gov bans Bitcoin. They can't stop it, they can just move it to the underground markets. But still, by using it incorrectly, we're defeating its true purpose!

For me, global adoption is not only about the money. I don't care how much a Bitcoin will be as much as I care about it continuing to be a free, decentralized, globally-accepted payment system. I'd lie however if I said I don't care about making money.. The thing is, if you take Apple stocks as an example, some people who've joined them in early saw a future in Apple's existence. Whoever of the early investors who is still holding their stocks today is rich - does that make it a pyramid scheme? It doesn't! The early birds are at the highest profit, while we've seen Apple's success too late. I think this is perfectly natural and fair and we still are early birds ourselves even today. You cannot create a system that is 100% fair, and this is the fairest way of wealth distribution we can have imo. Without the very early birds, we couldn't have reached today's price. What if nobody ever really had an interest in Bitcoin? Why wouldn't the earlier ones deserve more money since they're part of the ones who made Bitcoin what it is today?

About those people repeatedly talking about global adoption - the idea itself isn't bad at all, but you have to remember that people will always care about their own wallets first before the rest. These guys will promote and advertise whatever thing they get into, hoping for their message to go across the world and somehow magically make their investment pump. Humans are greedy, and you can't change that.

Listen, dollar is not used globally by all people, but it is, or at least it was recognized as asset for global trading and online payment, even if everyone knows it is backed by nothing and has unlimited supply but it had global adoption.
Gold is also adopted globally and many people are wearing gold on their bodies as yewerely yet almost nobody today is using gold purchasing any items.
Global adoption for bitcoin does not mean that every human being on planet will use Bitcoin all the time, but it can be used as backup asset, for trading between countries and for larger transfers all around the world.
If we are talking about using Bitcoin for everyday small purchases than that is only possible with some second layer solution, but I really don't consider this to be a global adoption of Bitcoin.

Bunch of people own gold, they don't trade with it or do anything, most of it is stored in some boxes collecting dust, yet I don't see gold doing bad comparing with fiat.

True, but can you really spend single satoshi or milli.satoshi onchain?
I can imagine this will be even harder in future.