Topic: If not a "store of value" or "medium of exchange" ... - page 3. (Read 815 times)

The bitcoin community is failing because we are only seeing bitcoin as digital asset alone which will serve as store of value while what we should have embraced it more on is the use of it as medium of exchange, because when it comes to digital asset, there is no way that bitcoin can be exchanging hands, it is only going to be staying in our wallet because we are keeping it for future growth and with this.

There is no way that we can be seeing more of demands of bitcoin, but if we use it as means of exchange, I think that it will create more demands for bitcoin, and we already know the principle of an increased value, which is the law of demand and supply, the more that there is demand of bitcoin as against the supply, then the value will keep appreciating till it reaches its peak, so holding it alone will not help, but while holding, we also have to endeavor to also spend it.

But Bitcoin IS a medium of exchange and especially a store of value these modern times. An medium or an instrument of trade and speculation also. It's a hope for a better global monetary system  

Bitcoin is not paypal,its medium of exchange only but with its speculative nature people find opportunities to make money and making in million in no time by manipulating the prices if they have enough capital for it but one thing is we can't expect this to happen forever,we may have forex like trading only when people adopted to crypto currencies in the vast payment places.

Next few year maybe bitcoin is business to get much profit, first time bitcoin as currency with using purchase payment lke PayPal or Payza maybe become business next few years later.

I hope u remember how the voting / signaling for segwit worked. Even that without the 2x promise it d ve never ever happened.

Uasf is sooo lol and shows u re all in for trolling

Who's censoring? How can it be censored? There's a person out there who is saying his coin is Bitcoin for crying out loud. He has bitcoin.com, /r/btc, and had the @bitcoin Twitter account promoting that his coin is Bitcoin.

Community needs/desires? You make it look like that the WHOLE community wanted big blocks. Plus you said that Bitcoin "bilaterally split" into Core and Cash. Which one does the community want/the market want?


Not when the network increases its block size whenever a demanding minority wants, preventing it from scaling out, increasing costs.

For decentralization, Bitcoin's main value proposition, static node requirements are better for the network eventually.


The UASF begs to differ, and to see that it started as the minority that the majority followed.

segwit increases throughput to the extent that witness data is removed from the base block. this is why most blocks are now 1-1.5MB instead of <1MB.


that would only be true if we needed to increase base block size to 2MB. there is no need; you are inventing it.


i want to restrict block size to force fees higher. if block space isn't limited, bitcoin's economic model of a hard capped supply simply doesn't work. i would never want to sacrifice long term economic viability of the protocol for short term throughput gains.

plus a hard fork to increase the base block size would undoubtedly result in a blockchain split. schnorr signature aggregation incentives may justify another another soft fork segwit-style increase. that may be a reasonable compromise down the road.

They also forget the fact that virtually all money today it's just that , virtual. if they believe in virtual money, and they accept virtual money at their stores and retail locations, then why wouldn't investors and institutions accept Bitcoin, which is essentially a better form, I'm more secure form of the fairy virtual money they already except.

Many conventional investors view bitcoin as something that has no inherent and innate value. Compared to land, fiat, or any other item, bitcoin solely exists on the internet which the store of value depends on how much people are willing to pay for it. Just like gold which tends to be compared with cryptocurrencies, the price may be determined by the law of supply and demand.

People are forgetting the purpose on why bitcoins were created. The value is not the coin itself but the technology on where it runs- the blockchain. With its implementation and application, it revolutionizes payment transactions by eliminating the need for a third-party consensus in handling transactions. Everything is made transparent in a public ledger.

If it's not a store of value or a medium of exchange, then bitcoin can be categorized as a commodity or digital asset. Even gold has been categorized as a commodity even though we know that gold has been known for thousands of years as the safest asset

Bitcoin will have some mix use as Store of Value and Medium of Exchange. Based on its features, I think it'd be 80-90% Store of Value. Some people think Bitcoin as a speculative asset. But if you look at the daily trading volume, it's about less than 1% of coin supply. So very few coins are being used for trading. Most of the coins sit as Store of Value.

SoV handicaps Bitcoin. It doesn't work very well as a Medium of Exchange. This is an area that needs new ideas. I outline the problem in the below article. I believe we need a parallel chain that has constant inflation rate.

https://bitflate.org/post/2019/08/26/bitcoin-missing-link-to-the-world.html

1. if you knew the tech you would know keeping 1mb base and just saying the weight can grow wont actually increase transactions, as even segwit transactions need to sit in the base, thus are so they are also restricted.
EG base 1mb weight 32mb.. transactions still around average 2500 a block even if all segwit. what your not realising is the weight is for bloated signature/scripts.. not new transactions

2. by expanding base to 2mb but without reducing the sigops limits. people can do quadratic signing exploits. sigops need reducing. and its not even complex to do, nor does it need a hardfork to reduce sigops. it can be as a standard release

3. i presume by your preference to not see sigops limit reduced, you are for the mindset of never ever expanding the base block which means never expanding the transaction count per block..

4. so imagine fiat, with a country doing a bankrun. imagine thousands of people turn up to a bank branch wanting their funds withdrawn but the bank says. sorry folks not today as walmart cam along and used up all of our transfer allotments.
do you really think people will think thats fair and just walk home happy. do you think a decentralised payment network should be designed in preference to centralised custodians,,

seems to me you dont care about bitcoins ethos and purpose you just sound like someone that just wants to let core do as they please and screw the community that may actually want to use btc as a medium of exchange

and that word "free market" you core fanboys seen to really love reading them out dated core speaches and reciting their buzzwords.. please atleast find some new material. that "free market" chestnut has been around for years and its convincing no one

which is why legacy transactions are still subject to the same limit as before segwit. this is not a problem at 1MB base block size. it's also not a problem for linearly scaling sigops---thus the compromise to increase block size for linearly scaling sigops.


so what? as long as we don't increase the base block size, this isn't a problem. and they'll pay a hefty price for the trying too: legacy transactions cost >40% more than bech32 segwit transactions. the fee market punishes would-be spammers.


i disagree. this should be a free market mechanism to whatever extent possible. if they are willing to outbid other users, they should be able to get their transactions confirmed first.

There are no "non- mining full nodes". This is some creative non sense that u just repeat.

U try to teach ppl their e banking client can do much. Sure u can validate what ur bank s server calculated for u. As miners do for ur wallet. But u can only shout and run to miners if ur client cannot follow the protocol.

Nice trolling from u though

it can simply increase the blocksize actually.. todays technology is far more superier than the requirements of 1mb base
yes i said todays tech. oh and it only costs $50 for such tech

centralising the network?? how...  go on say that scripted joke, you know th one, the one your friend told you about servers..
..
my response: people will run full nodes on home devices
again
my response: people will run full nodes on home devices

here is a real tip for you
did you know at the millenium, people thought this device was science fiction

yet guess what by the time kids watching that sci-fi show grew to be adults it became reality


..
oh wait, i think i can predict the next joke of your comedy routine.
the joke about how you want/think very NEEDS to b a full node. but the punchline being you actually prefer people to move over to another network where users only use lite wallet and entrust "factories" to manage it.
its funny because its you and your friends that want centralisation. your even dad against competing dev teams

and another joke i predict from you will be trying to return to the joke about huge jumps in on go, to avoid talking about scaling and try to make it sound like people want huge leaps by midnight.. again please learn scaling, learn tech progression, learn the stats of how fast a block actually takes to be validated and relayed per peer... atleast try to research independantly

try to look into block propagation time (hint: its seconds not minutes to reach majority network)

What have I been telling you? Bitcoin can't simply increase the block size without scaling in/centralizing the network. But users shouldn't run full nodes, so it's OK, right?

High fees and long confirmation times aren't always a factor. Most of the time, I'm sending or receiving and merchants are happy to accept 0 confirmation even. Same as between me and most people. As long as you don't mind waiting for 1 confirmation to confirm things, payment is accepted. So I really don't get this thing about not being a medium of exchange.

Altcoins? Now there is where majority if not all are just speculators.

I think it is somehow between investment + currency.

Since they makes worldwide transactions affordable plus makes the market more accessible for everyone.
Therefore it passes as a currency also you can also buy and sell certain things with Bitcoin.

The value of Bitcoins can be somehow taken as stocks therefore I think they are perfect investments.

more comedy gold.
trying to say bitcoin cant scale because of physics..[facepalm]
scaling is about timely growth, which physics actually proves is possible.
whats not possible is huge single leap to an impossibly large number.

the reason i laugh is the core fan camp are the ones that keep throwing around the term 'gigabytes by midnight' meaning they are not talking about scaling they are trying to say those that want scaling 2,4,8,16,32.. dont want scaling but want 'gigabytes by midnight'

sorry windy but please do your research. physics actually proves that scaling is possible.
oh and one other thing. the numbers involved in the massive debate on the first step forward for scaling was just 2mb base.. which if you done some research is far far below the limits of modern/current computers. so please do your research and stop your false mantra of 'centralisation coz servers'

remember this. 50 years ago people got to the moon using computers that only had the power of what we now use in cheap plastic calculators you can buy from staples stores for $2.
we have moved on from back then. these days a phone the size of a calculator has more power than a dsktop PC from the millenium

please just stop repeating your friends comedy scripts like a bad standup with no original material. try to actually do some independant thinking

(here is a hint. by the time bitcoin needs the processing power of a current server.. that system when needed will be found in a smart phone that fits in your pocket.)
(here is another hint. ets take iphone 3, released in 2008 and available in 8gb,16gb,32gb.. iphone 11 available in 64,128,256
yep technology has not just improved x2,not x4, but yes x8)

Did I call you names? No. Is that your way to end the debate? I said you're trolling.


In the real world, by real, in this dimension, no one can go around the laws of physics.


Because they had to specialize, or be left behind mining with inefficient hardware, and mine at a loss.


Non-mining full nodes validate, they are as part of the network as the nodes the miners connect to. Some miners don't run their own full nodes anymore. Plus why would you tell everyone not to? Is that your whole debate for big blocks? "Because the community doesn't have to run their own full nodes"?