Topic: Please stop blaming "the government" for lack of Bitcoin mass payment adoption - page 3. (Read 664 times)

Neah, you missed the most important one:
"Why should I spend my coins when the havening is near and the new ATH will be over $200k"

This is why Bitcoin fails as a payment method, because the vast majority of "users" are not interested in actually using as in returns.
The fees and the slow time for confirmations are excuses, we had last year weeks of 1satvb next block transactions being possible, what did that mean? That there was no actual usage, what happened with ordinals was just a different issue, yo can see how fees are going down right now back to 10sat/b , you can get a tx for half a dollar not $30 as you mentioned, this means only one thing, there is no actual demand for those tx!

As long as there is hope of making 4x 5x in a year just by holding coins you will see no use of it as a mainstream payment method!

Bitcoin was never supposed to replace fiat and become the primary method of payment for everything in the world, it was created to become an alternative for peer-to-peer transactions that would provide complete privacy and decentralization to its users whereas traditional financial systems fail badly at this because you can't do anything with your finances without them knowing because the current financial platforms you use are centralized and are always under supervision.
People that think Bitcoin can replace cash and become the primary mode of payment for everything and there will be no fiat currencies anymore should understand that this isn't going to happen. However, Bitcoin has it's advantages over the centralized financial platforms.

I completely agree that something that is not Bitcoin can handle worldwide transaction volume. Take Haypenny for instance.

Of course the question people will ask is, why have a 2nd layer at all? If there is a digital currency that truly scales to worldwide transaction volume (or a platform that supports a multitude of such currencies), then why worry about the "first" layer?


 


Bitcoin being widely held won't make any difference--the same technical limitations will be there regardless of how many individual holders there are.



Bitcoin (the actual Bitcoin and not some system that "theoretically represents" Bitcoin that isn't actually Bitcoin) will never get mass adoption in terms of transactions because of blockchain's technical limitations.

We are already in the final stage of Bitcoin adoption with the ETF: it is now a mainstream investment instrument. Bitcoin does not have a future as a mainstream means of transacting e.g. as a currency.



Maybe. I'm personally going to bet that even in 2045, the speed of light is still only going to travel at 186k miles per second, so blockchain's technical limitations will still be there .

For me the phases of Bitcoin will look like this:

1. Bitcoin establishes itself as a mainstream investment instrument (today).

2. A viable non-blockchain digital currency system emerges that has a better user model and can scale to worldwide transaction volume.

3. Somebody uses that currency platform to front Bitcoin transactions (and all kinds of other transactions), meaning end-users only actually interact directly with the non-blockchain system when they transact.

4. At some point lots of people wonder why Bitcoin and other blockchain currencies even exist since they never actually see them or interact with them ("what is a private key?", they ask).

Will Bitcoin survive being "layered" by systems that actually work for the masses? Who knows. But ask any major technology company whether they'd rather own layer one or layer two .

I'm not blaming them or anything, in fact I like the idea that the government is nonchalant about bitcoin adoption and that it slowly creeps under their noses because that way, we can all just not worry about them thus making us achieve freedom from all control from them plus having the government in the bitcoin space is something that many of us wouldn't like to happen because they're definitely going to be putting in a lot of their regulations in hopes of controlling their citizens that are using bitcoin plus the taxes that you're avoiding for a long time is going to be a thing for you now that the government is involve so no I don't blame them, I like to thank that they're as disconnected to this as possible.

One good example of why the government isn't a necessary thing for mass payment adoption is China, the CCP is always meddling with the people that are using bitcoin there, they seize a lot of mining operations there and they made it clear that they're the only one that should be doing all that mining and that anyone there trying to get into bitcoin is either under heavy restrictions and guidelines or they're outright having problems with the government.

Here we have two financial systems, one is old and has speed and low fees, but its problem is centralization and lack of privacy, and the other is modern, it lacks speed and low fees, but it has decentralization and privacy. Which one will you choose?

Of course, governments will choose the first system because it suits their authority and centralization perfectly, while I think most users will prefer the other system, which enjoys decentralization and privacy, because it suits them more.

So what is the solution ? Is it possible to have one system that suits the government and the people at the same time? The question is: If we get one system that is fast, low-fee, decentralized and private, will governments agree to adopt?

The question is in another way: If Bitcoin were developed to solve all these problems and we obtained the required speed and low fees, would governments agree to adopt mass payments with Bitcoin?

OP, sure, but I mean also it's not like anyone thinks Bitcoin is going to take over every single monetary transaction in the world. If bitcoin were doing 1/1000th of that  I think we could all agree that would certainly count as extremely mature mass payment adoption. It just seems weird you are trying to set that bar as being every single transaction that takes place in the world.

Also, not really fair to say fees are too expensive and blockchain can't handle it, because of course none of this is going to happen on the base layer of Bitcoin. Payments are all going to be done at 2nd layer, centralized networks, side chains, etc. Mostly only large payments, moving a decent amount of money, on-boarding/off-boarding payment solution networks, or batch transactions are going to be on-chain. Obviously nobody is going to be paying an on-chain fee, even if it is only like $2 to buy $20 of groceries.

In terms of the idea that people need something to be extremely convenient in order to use it. Agreed. And while I'm sure there will be millions of people using LN, and perhaps millions of people using other 2nd layers or side chains or whatever, there's also going to be plenty of people just using centralized networks to make bitcoin payments. And yeah hardcore ideologues are going to shout and scream at that but it's simply the reality. Just as there are tons of trades on exchanges for every one on-chain tx that is going to or from an exchange, there are going to be lots of people using corporate bitcoin payment platforms where likely many hundreds or thousands of bitcoin transactions will be taking place for every one on-chain tx to or from those platforms.


Anyway, I don't know who you are referring to as blaming the govt for lack of bitcoin mass adoption lol, but the sorts of people that blame the govt for everything are usually loons anyway.


Of course the MAIN reason why Bitcoin doesn't have mass payment adoption yet is because it doesn't have mass ownership adoption yet, plus most people would mostly use it so save with right now, not spend. You don't get mass demand for payments until (1) there is already mass ownership, and (2) a ton of that user base have been owning bitcoin for a long time so that they've seen lots of appreciation and feel okay starting to spend it, and probably (3) bitcoin price appreciation has slowed down to earthly level so that it becomes a bit more reasonable to spend bitcoin rather than only save it.


Mass payment is the end game for bitcoin - it is the final stage of bitcoin adoption as it grows organically from one person to mass adoption. You have to go through all the other stages first, namely, (a) risky tech invention, (b) get rich quick scheme, (c) super good investment, (d) store of value / savings, (e) payments. Payments is the final step. Step "a" was like the first couple years of bitcoin's existence. Step "b" was pretty much 2013 through 2017 or perhaps through 2021 but by 2021 pretty much all the get-rich-quicker people has switched over to NFTs and meme tokens or just any newly created random altcoin. Step "c" started in the get-rich-quick phase and continues through today, and nobody is going to want to be spending bitcoin while bitcoin is such an insanely good investment to hold. Step "d" is of course already taking place but we're still mostly in step "c", as its mostly long time bitcoiners who understand its not just a real good investment but is how we should all be saving money that it'll store value long term, but we've still got many years to go until bitcoin is fully out of step "c" and gets far enough along in step "d" that we can even start talking about step "e", payments, being a real use case. I'd say this decade is mostly going to be "investment" phase, next decade "store of value / savings" phase, and by the 2040s I think we'll see the payments phase really get going in a large way. We'll gradually see major retailers start accepting bitcoin, online well before in-person, and that'll probably start maybe late this decade but probably mostly next decade, but I would expect the actual usage numbers of that payment option at merchants to be low until probably the 2040s. Having a novel currency grow organically from one person to mass payment adoption will absolutely take decades, and we're only 1.5 decades in now so there's still a long way to go. And yeah, it's got nothing to do with people's govt conspiracies or whatever you are referencing in your post.

For Bitcoin to become a mass payment method, the government have to approve for it to be possible, if they don't agree, bitcoin will only be available for payment in those countries that have chosen to allow their citizens use it. If you agree with me, for Bitcoin to become a max payment method, the government will have to make it centralized to enable them control it very well. If Satoshi is not dished out, the government can not make Bitcoin centralized. Bitcoin wasn't created to fight against the bank or to fight against cash. Bitcoin is good the way it is.

I agree it was never designed to do so, but many people talk as though it will and then thing the sky is falling when, year after year, most of the world still uses traditional sovereign currencies.

Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general are not meaningfully restricted. There is nothing, legally speaking, stopping them from supplanting most of the world's daily transactions. As such, I really don't see any evidence that governments like the US government would try to stop a viable digital currency from taking over most transactions. Why would they care? I guess I was never a big believer in the Illuminati .

I couldn't agree more, my insight lies along the same spectrum as you guys do, although mine particularly leans more towards the lack of action on the government's part. Because let's be real here. Even if you argue that the government of this certain country's not allowing massive crypto adoption because of the fear of hackers becoming prevalent, the fact remains that it is not bitcoin that is driving these hackers to hack, it's the money to be made in the business and they could very well use any other type of payment channel that doesn't involve cryptocurrency and the results would've remained the same. More robust crime-fighting features and less about putting the blame to crypto is what I'm really at.

This isn't to say that crypto is to be blamed for some boo-boos in the past, for instance. Scammers and Ponzi schemers using crypto as their main driver to mobilize their nefarious plans. While the mechanism is pretty much similar to hackers the fault in this case lies upon crypto, considering the fact that it too, lacks features that would disable users from using it as such.

Bitcoin is not replacing the global currencies and was never designed to do so. Bitcoin is a decentralized currency which offers freedom to its holders and an escape from the centralized system. Bitcoin does not want to become the new fiat.

But if it wants to be, the governments would have to approve of it and find ways to regulate it before using it. The scalability issue is one that limits some merchants from using it, but if that was fixed governments would not still approve of it.

I don't get it. Thinking.. You don't get money just of the country just for leaving.

These three statements are very sad but unfortunately true.

You can not rely on Bitcoin any more as a replacement for Fiat in case you ever need it.  Because there is no way I would spend such a hefty Fee for a Transaction worth some grocery shopping.  It was fine back when Fees were low.  Not so much now however.

It is a great deal to own Bitcoin if you need to flee the country.  See how Ukrainians got caught with a lot of money on them at the border control.  You can travel with Elon Musk worth of Bitcoin on you and no body would know a thing.  But for daily usage this is totally unreliable nowadays.

If bitcoin gas fees continue to be this high, bitcoin would only end up as an investment asset forever, many new investors don't even sere bitcoins innovation anymore, they don't care if  was built better than normal fait currency and traditional banking system , all they know if the price would higher and every one screaming bitcoin to moon, 95% of them are all about their gains, very few bitcoin enthusiast actually hold bitcoin for as lovers.

Bitcoin would reach mass adoption, but would they be adopting bitcoin as that's what we should be asking, as envisioned by satoshi or as an investment asset.

While you are missing the fact that fiat money means central bank IOUs, usually endorsed by governments, hence they will prefer that (for inflation, for example) so no conspiracy needed, you have a valid point on slow confirmation and high costs (although I think that you've exaggerated "a bit" the fee, these days 2$ was enough, but I know the fees were much higher + some do overpay greatly).

Indeed, Bitcoin is not suitable yet for paying on chain at the grocery store of for coffee. On LN that goes well, but LN (or alternatives, who knows) need to make a leap out of their infancy yet.


Sadly, I fear that at the point we can pay for everything with Bitcoin, we will only get to own some satoshis, because others who don't care about current small problem, will hoard it and will use it as reserve currency.
What I mean is that you're right, but you should consider getting over this and still support bitcoin and stack sats.

This is exactly what is happening in my country where the government wants to control the currency and amount every citizen has in their accounts. The government is forcing the people to use the local currency while they are well aware that the local money is losing value. Bitcoin has helped many of us to keep our money safe from this authoritarian policy.

Bitcoin has also created alternatives for hedging against inflation. Before now people used precious stones like gold and silver to protect their money from losing value during inflation. Bitcoin is now the leading hedge against inflation and many people in my location are adopting it.

The government is not the main reason, but we cannot deny the fact that they have in some way contributed to it. If the government of many countries are fully in support of it and have in some way promoted the use of bitcoins, bitcoins will be more in use for payments that it is used currently.
 The hardest set of people to convince to change their long-held behavior are the old and advanced. They will not really see any reason to change unless the system they are used to fails them or the new one like bitcoin offers a better incentive like you have said.

Its normal with some countries regulation prohibit bitcoin as legal currency payment method but giving space bitcoin could be owned assets for investing or trading. Don't panic too much, even though Bitcoin is still prohibited as means of transaction, there is still hope with the number of transactions increasing from year to year and the potential profits gained from implementing taxes on Bitcoin or crypto transactions. I think there are has chance in the future that Bitcoin will be adopted as a legal means of payment.

You can see how drastically increasing with bitcoin or altcoin values transaction every country, the government won't losses bigger opportunity how to get income trough taxes and will make bitcoin become legal currency transaction in the future and make effective with taxes transaction trough bitcoin.

Bitcoin is not trying to replace the status quo of financial transactions. It kinda began with that motto, but scaling issues didn't take long time to appear.

What Bitcoin is trying to replace, at least from my perspective, is a sociopolitically vulnerable monetary system whereas the state intervenes and monopolizes in money creation. In this new monetary system, people's money is not de-valuated due to a few senators' decisions. It does not belong to a government, and is fully transparent.

That's what Bitcoin trying to replace. (And of course, peer-to-peer cash via the Internet rocks!)

I am USA based I can send cash for no cost using Zelle.
I do not need to use BTC for sending money in the USA.

Zelle is pretty much irreversible way to send money.

I use it often enough and I know I must be careful and not enter the worth info as I can lose the cash I send.

Does Zelle have weaknesses yes it does.

Does sending BTC have weaknesses yes it does.

But If I am selling something and you pay me with Zelle I am pretty safe.

So I agree with you that btc simpley is not a great way to send money/wealth.

It is  a very good way to get money out of a bad country or a country that becomes bad.

So if you are middle class you should have some in case you need to leave your country.

Not all governments are against bitcoin and its adoption - while many governments support and give permission for its adoption and trading. Some countries do not legalize bitcoin completely - they prohibit its adoption, but allow users to trade and invest in it.

The growth of the crypto industry has very likely pushed governments to open up the space and adjust their regulations to be more profitable – not just for the industry, but also for themselves. I've read that wikipedia article a long time ago and of course there have been a lot of changes that have occurred over time. Legality is a major issue hindering adoption growth – but adoption need not be forced.