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

Bitcoin's adoption need not to be forced,bitcoin is helping you,me and all of us,bitcoin is not helping itself.Bitcoin is open to all,Its a decision to be precise.Just like you earlier stated that some countries are against bitcoin adoption,while some are not.
 
 Most bloggers and business practitioners/financial consultants would not promote bitcoin this way if it were really a bad choice or a Ponzi Scheme and the likes.The good truth is that the crypto market has turned every challenge into an opportunity,since it's existence so far.Even with all the difficulties to global adoption.
 
The value of cryptocurrencies can change rapidly and unpredictably, which could lead many to financial stability and wealth.The government have chosen to use bitcoin's unbalanced high volatility as an obstacle.

But if we are not greedy and have no idea of getting rich quickly, how can scammers deceive us? And is that really the main reason why governments don't like bitcoin and even many countries ban it just to protect their citizens? Are they protecting their citizens or for their own benefit?

You invest in cryptocurrency, do you pay taxes and comply with the law? I think that's why many governments don't like bitcoin. But I think we're off topic because the OP's question was about bitcoin not being used as a means of payment, a currency  .

If govt would care about that, would help educating people. Because yes, there are so many hyip and other scams around it's hard to see the correct way. Plus so many altcoins promising this and that.
Plus, even Bitcoin is a tough topic, with so many Bitcoin Whatever coins and also Wrapped (or not) Bitcoin tokens, an individual can too easily get scammed.
But banning is imho not about that. It's more about taxes and other political decisions (if individuals are allowed, companies will want too, and then proper regulations are needed, which are more difficult).

As of now, many countries let their citizen invest in Bitcoin but with caution because there are still some scammers who are convincing them to invest in their Ponzi Schemes and other scam projects. if only not for these people, we would be free and not get much attention from the government but because they always create some kind of problems that always involve money and huge numbers of victims, they put tight and complicated requirements just to create an account in our local exchanges which was not the case before back then.

They don't have to, you can use Electrum wallet and many other wallets to trade bitcoin with other people and there's also decentralized exchanges that isn't connected to the government, with those systems already existing, it's just a matter of time before everyone uses them even without the intervention of the government. I also don't believe that bitcoin transactions in a country is stopped because it's prohibited in a country, remember that it's a pseudonymous currency which means that you can somehow mask your identity and if there's a will, there's a way for people to use bitcoin no matter how harsh the restrictions for usage are, also who said that it wasn't created to fight the banks? Bitcoin wanted to eliminate the middlemen and banks are the middlemen is a lot of transactions so piece the puzzle.

to clarify yet again

when there is no legislation its "not illegal". but also not ratified/recognised as "legal"...
by having no legislation its "not illegal".... as opposed to legal/illegal

this means, and we seen it for years merchants were using it,* but the 'trust' was low.
* alpaca socks, bitcoin cupcakes, bitcoin pizza, wikileaks, silkroad, [ list goes on]

it was also treated as similar to collectables in buyer/sellers eyes same 'not illegal' bases as antiques/pokemon/magic the gathering cards

and yes anything can be treated as unofficial currency. even when not deemed as trusted/ratified "money"
EG even couples in a relationship can treat sexual favours as currency
EG even a neighbour helping another neighbour fix a car/mow the lawn, treat a beer/vodka as currency in exchange for the help
but those are not ratified/official currency

we have now seen that now legislation exists the barriers of entry have heightened
the more people lobby for government recognition, the more people end up requiring government to give permission for official channels to then use it(CEX) under government terms and conditions

On some country (such as US), Bitcoin has legal status as money. Here's an example, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jpmorgan-cyber-bitcoin-idUSKCN11P2DE/. On country without clear regulation, i would guess the merchant assume it's not forbidden or dare to take some risk.

Okay, this is getting too personal for me, so I'm going leave this conversation.

they government does not "oversight"
there are not enough government agents to watch everything
they instead create legislation that condition businesses to police their own customers which create hindrances for businesses to start up and people to use bitcoin freely

im all for crime prevention, especially scammy thieving services that trick people.. however government can and have and do overstep the line with their legislation

did you know that in NYC you cant just start up a currency swap shop between fiat and btc unless you have a bitcoin licence.
its easier to open a coffee shop and sell coffee beans than it is to open a bitcoin business in NYC

..
you attempted to come to this forum with a username portraying some knowledge about the legislations(evidence of your own post show both lack of research and knowledge)
yet you went from "stop asking for legal tender status" to now saying you support governments extra ratifications that endorse a currency and come with extra conditions that tighten the previous openness of said currency.. but in your narrow view that the government have not harmed or hindered bitcoins utility(you ignoring many factors)

So you object to governments providing any oversight on commerce whatsoever?

awww, your so cute..
now you are defending the government oversteps by you trying to sweep things under the rug

you do realise the superbowl adverts dont just appear.. adverts based on bitcoin(now ratified as currency) now have to go through a review by the FTC that regulates advertising for financial services..
so when superbowl advertised a CEX it had to have approval

unlike years ago where someone just rented a billboard and promoted bitcoin, no approval needed

yes you see it on TV but to get on TV was not just a private deal sponsorship of money changing hands and thats it.. there is more to it, thats superbowl advert needed approval,

also people are getting arrested for promoting things where they are not officially doing it via the legislation of advertising financial services, currencies..
where as years ago promoting bitcoin or other crypto or services were equal to talking about beany babies or pokemon cards

..
as for exchanges doing kyc. no they dont do it voluntarily to stop fraud..
exchanges have to:
  be regulated now
  follow the regulations
  employ a compliance officer
  create policies that meet regulated standards of:
     vetting customers ID via official channels
     monitor customers activity and flag suspicious activity
     log customers activity and keep records for 5-10 years
     review suspicious activity for signs of possible law breaking
     report highly suspicious activity
     should authorities court order it after they review highly suspicious reports received:
         provide further data on customers,
         lock their accounts
         freeze/seize value and pass to authorities
      
and its not voluntary
    

yes we are no longer in the wild west where anyone can just set up a swap shop.. but thats the thing, not everyone can just set up a swap shop now..

i am in complete laughter how you started in this forum warning of government oversteps.. but now you are like dont worry about them, their oversteps arnt harmful, hindering, conditional

sorry to inform you but things have changed over the years.. and its time you learn about the changes due to legislation over the years

..
each time a government ratifies bitcoin via legislation those ratifications come with conditions of jurisdictional power that allow governments to then apply new conditions of use by its citizens(either personally or professionally)

but yea i am still chuckling how you first were in uproar about people trying to lobby government for legislative ratification.. and now your like pfft doesnt matter

Yes, it's theoretically possible to curtail trade in Bitcoin with government regulations.

But it hasn't happened, and there's no sign of it happening in the USA (quite the opposite, given the approval of the ETF), and millions of people own Bitcoin and other cryptos.

People complaining about Bitcoin not being a mainstream means of payment right now have no reason to blame "the government".

While the government may not explicitly aim to eliminate Bitcoin, regulatory actions can impact the ecosystem. For instance, stringent regulations could stifle innovation and deter investment in the industry. It's crucial to acknowledge that regulatory challenges might not manifest as an outright ban but could include restrictive measures that impede the development and adoption of decentralized technologies.

The absence of an outright ban and the visibility of Bitcoin in mainstream media do not necessarily mean that the cryptocurrency faces no hindrances in the U.S. The regulatory landscape is multifaceted, and a more comprehensive understanding is required to evaluate the potential challenges that could affect Bitcoin adoption in the long run.

It's such a shame that till this day many offline stores are still not accepting digital currencies as payment, it always come in handy but it seems that I am the only one that think this way.

I ran out of fiat money today, trying to purchase a brand new laptop for myself, and I asked the seller if they have other ways that I can balance up the money for the laptop and he replied me with a no, I was like how about Bitcoin and he still said no, this is a country where there is no ban on bitcoin, it's a shame, bitcoin is more like gold than payment solution, I wish it was the other way around or both.

It was later that he said he have some Bitcoin that he is holding but those are for holding sake he said, he wasn't planning to add more because of reasons, I guess that's why he didn't want to collect Bitcoin as payment.

Fully agreed! Bitcoin is not built to handle mass transactions. It simply cannot handle the volume. From the practical view point, Bitcoin is a bad currency as a payment method. It cannot scale to the level to compete with traditional payment methods.

But Bitcoin is a great investment asset. That's why people save more Bitcoins than spending it. Because the potential of price increase in Bitcoin is second to none.

How do explain the thousands of merchants all over the world, including the USA, who accept Bitcoin then? Are they all breaking the law?



I said meaningful hinderances. There are freakin Super Bowl commercials selling Bitcoin to millions of people. This sure doesn't look like a country where Bitcoin is banned to me.

And not only not banned, but not hindered in any way such that it would meaningfully reduce adoption.

And doing a little KYC--which is required for every sort of financial instrument, not just Bitcoin--does not hurt anything.

And for what it's worth, if I understand it correctly, most of that stuff is done voluntarily by the brokerages to protect themselves from fraud, not some commandment from the government. At minimum they would have to do at least some checks or they would get ripped off. This is not some government killing their business through regulation specially targeted at Bitcoin because they want to eliminate Bitcoin because it "competes with the dollar" or something.

I've been around the block(chain), and "the government" being the only culprit in Bitcoin adoption is simplistic. Your points about transaction speeds, prices, and usability resonate. They're brutally true. Lets not forget regulatory frameworks and government attitudes' complex impact on the ecosystem.

I agree that technological and usability challenges are substantial. However, government actions - or inaction - impact adoption. The complicated relationship between innovation and regulation should be acknowledged, not blamed.

Bitcoin has the capacity to transform financial systems, but its a community effort. Supporting Bitcoin entails advancing technology and handling regulations with wisdom and resilience. Finding the right balance between innovation and user and regulator acceptance is key.

You are right about this. Countries like USA support bitcoins so far.

Bitcoin ETFs have also been approved in USA and they will further boost the growth of bitcoin and other crypto. Personally , I feel that whatever USA does, most of the other good economies in the world, just try to follow that. Also, USA has the highest income overall and thus lot of money is flowing towards crypto from them.

But without Bitcoin legal status as currency/payment method, merchant can't just accept Bitcoin which also hinder adaption.


None. At best, you can find P2P marketplace or instant exchange with optional KYC (they can ask for KYC under certain condition). And such place usually have bad exchange rate or high fees.

compared to how things were pre 2013. things have changed
compared to how things were pre 2015. things have changed
compared to how things were pre 2017. things have changed
compared to how things were pre 2020. things have changed

one note, just to poke
many exchanges now dont accept credit card, they prefer wire transfer (avoids chargeback scamming)

many exchanges now require KYC which takes upto 24 hours to validate before you can exchange

so ill ask you
When can you go on the Internet and buy Bitcoin in five minutes with your credit card ?

agreed instead we should strive to try to improve the current system being delusional and saying that bitcoin is perfect as it is won’t get us anywhere.
the first step in solving a problem is identifying the problem

i believe… That bitcoin has a lot in store and we should take a step backward to reflect on what can we improve on i just hope that actually someone comes up with a solution whether that would be another genius or satoshi himself 

It contradicts the whole system, if you're looking for decentralization and privacy, if you ask government to adopt it, they will ruin the decentralization and privacy.

Unfortunately Bitcoin isn't private, anyone can see all address, balance and history on the explorer. Fast, low fee, decentralized and private are suit to Monero, but there are many centralized exchanges already delist Monero. So there's no way the government will adopt Monero.

There are no meaningful restrictions on the use of Bitcoin in the USA. Anybody can buy, hold and sell Bitcoin, cryptos, and non-blockchain digital currencies. This is demonstrated by the fact that billions of dollars worth of Bitcoin is traded every single day in the USA, and there are millions of holders of Bitcoin investments which are ultimately backed by companies that trade directly in Bitcoin.

When you can go on the Internet and buy Bitcoin in five minutes with your credit card and the US government will not arrest or otherwise penalize you for doing so, this is what I call "perfectly legal". Maybe your definition of that is different, but that's how I use the term.

Perfectly?
you might want to check the legislation terms .. its not so perfect
i preferred the era before legislation, back when bitcoin was termed 'not illegal' (separate status different to 'legal' ratified by legislation)

What governments are you talking about? Certainly in the USA that is not the case--Bitcoin and other cryptos are perfectly legal here.

What country do you live in where Bitcoin is being thwarted by the government?

That's actually not the main problem why governments don't want full adoption of Bitcoin.

Each government in several countries certainly has their own research and will have different problems.
It cannot be generalized that every country has the same constraints.

Banks are indeed a barrier to adoption, as traditional money is still the primary means of transaction.
But the main reason why adoption cannot be done is the application of Blockchain Technology, which cannot provide freedom of space for the government so that everything can be tracked, and the government does not have any control over it.

Governments prefer centralization, whatever they must be able to control, otherwise there will be strict regulations imposed.

No Never !
The government is not even ready to accept that there is a system that is not under the supervision of the government, even if these useless governors know that they cannot stop the decentralized system, if they do not have the ability to fight against one thing. If so, he doesn't have his own wisdom, but this fool can't discover a system that has fast transactions and a low fee, and he has no interest in himself. which is required by a servant in daily life i.e., fast, low fee, and private. 
 
Why isn't the government ready to adopt Bitcoin?
 
 I have an answer
 
Actually every Governement is well aware of how great Bitcion Bitcion is and how easy it provides to humans. But the reason for not adopting is people with useless currency, i.e., Banks. This Banks system is the one that hesitates to adopt Bitcoin because in the banks that have this large number of salary holders who take salary without work, they will be on leave because of Bitcoin because blockchain will give people the option to do any time and will be able to transact in a few minutes from anywhere at a low fee.

its a well known term of "barrier of entry"
if they can lobby for set standards to be able to perform in an industry, it then controls the newbies and opponents from competing, especially of those lobbying for standards already meeting the standards based on their fiat policies of compliance..
thus new start-ups then need to jump over hurdles to get-in

how else do you think big businesses monopolise markets

I guess we shouldn't be surprised, but it's still amazing to me that something invented in the context Bitcoin was invented would now have proponents begging the government for special favors so their investment will increase in value. I'm not saying it's all Bitcoin enthusiasts or even a majority, but it's still amazing.

to be LEGAL. in actual fact is where this is legislation to permit it/ratify it as usable.. where most permit usually come with conditions
EG
drinking alcohol is legal.. as long as you are of age and not driving while drunk
centuries ago alcohol was not illegal as there were no legislation regarding alcohol centuries ago. it was wild west open to use and abuse.. until legislation came along to ratify it as legal (after prohibiting it for a time first)
and thats how they catch you. by adding terms into the ratification of legalising something, permitting, licencing it



just because bitcoin has libertarian roots.. does not mean using bitcoin de-citizenises people to suddenly be outside of the jurisdiction the live..
people and businesses still need to follow the legislation of there country.. even when using bitcoin
(laws can only threaten people.. not code..(code has no brain no eyes, no ears))

yes bitcoin began with a clean slate.. no law existed to say yay or nay... it was new thus lack of yay/nay meant it was not ratified as legal. but also not declared as illegal.. thus was open to be used and treated as not illegal due to lack of legislation
(no legislation = not illegal....   legislation allowing=legal  legislation not allowing=illegal... 3 separate statuses)

but over the years legislation did begin.. and we(humans) need to ensure the legislation does not over step too far..

bitcoin has no legs, no arms. no brain, no ear, no mouth.. it cannot change or prevent laws..
PEOPLE and BUSINESSES need to scrutinise and lobby government to not overstep.. however there is a profit greed group lobbying the other way, wanting bitcoin to be treated a certain way for their own profit desires even at a cost of the libertarian way bitcoin begun

Can you give us a specific example? As my link in the OP shows, there are almost no countries in the world that outlaw Bitcoin. And the countries where it is legal represent about 98% of the world's economy.



These two statements seem to contradict one another. On one hand you are saying that using the government to force people to accept Bitcoin will never work, and then you go on to say that it will require governments to... force people to use crypto.

The "buddy cop movie" approach between a private entity and the government is also known as "crony capitalism", wherein businesses extract special favors from the government in order to get ahead. Why do you think Bitcoin needs that? Why can't it succeed on its own?

And do you understand how contrary that is to Bitcoin's libertarian roots?

This mix-and-match approach reflects the confusion surrounding crypto – is it a revolutionary tech or a risky gamble? Jury's still out, but one thing's clear: legality is a major roadblock to wider adoption. But here's the twist: super strict rules might kill the fun altogether! Crypto's all about innovation, and too much red tape can stifle its potential. Finding the sweet spot between freedom and control is key.

Forcing people to adopt crypto is like forcing broccoli down your little cousin's throat – it ain't gonna work. Instead, we need organic growth fueled by education, understanding, and responsible development.

The future of crypto and governments is like a buddy cop movie – they gotta work together to make it work. Governments need to listen to the crypto crew, understand the tech, and create rules that protect people without killing the vibe. Crypto's more than just making quick bucks – it's about a whole new way of thinking about money and tech.

Because most crypto enthusiasts have very little understanding of how government works and what they can do. If government really hated Bitcoin, they would take very simple steps - ordering banks to stop servicing large crypto trading platforms and a bit harder but still doable - monitor p2p transfers and freeze suspect traders. This alone would destroy 99.9% of Bitcoin liquidity and Bitcoin would be traded mostly for cash, gift cards, stolen credit cards and so on and basically it would be worth $500 or so. And true believers would still hoard it and wait for the day when government collapses and their coins become world currency.

Satoshi also never mentioned whether bitcoin would replace or completely destroy the current monetary system. These misunderstandings are largely of our own making and have spread to this day. Many people feel disgusted with fiat, banks and they worship bitcoin, from there they propagate that bitcoin will defeat the government monetary system. But because of this inaccurate propaganda, it has also unintentionally caused misunderstandings between banks, governments and bitcoin. They believe that bitcoin is a real threat and there have been many bans of bitcoin over the years.

Personally, I think that even if bitcoin does not become an asset like what is happening, bitcoin will never be able to become the main currency of the world, it will never happen. As long as the government still controls this world, bitcoin or any coin will never become the main currency without recognition.

The initial concept that we have always understood until now about bitcoin is not as a replacement but as an option. We must be able to distinguish between payment options and substitutes in payments because in this case bitcoin is not a substitute because fiat and legal currency of the current government remains a major payment method and we certainly know that.

I think in this case we ourselves are the ones who actually impose a little will because after all fiat is still fiat which will remain a primary part of our needs regardless of the existence of bitcoin or not fiat will remain the main payment. As for bitcoin, it is only as a companion if we want to use it but it is also not a real force.
Do not as if to say that all those in bitcoin have a desire that bitcoin is recognized and made as a legal payment replacing fiat because not all are like that which is precisely if we hold fast to things like this misunderstanding will widen and make it seem as if people who are in bitcoin are dissidents because they do not obey the government who wants a new revolution in the payment system and replace fiat with bitcoin.

Right. VPNs can be a sneaky way to still mess around with Bitcoin even if a country says no. Luckily no bans in your neck of the woods so you're rocking both fiat and Bitcoin without a hitch. Using regular money for day-to-day stuff and keeping Bitcoin as your investment sidekick sounds like a sweet combo like convenience meets some crypto fun

Well, to be honest even with the banning of Bitcoin in a specific country I think we can still interact with it by using VPN's but yeah I don't have problems using both assets alongside each other so there is no need for me to blame the government because they don't ban it here in my country. Regulations only works on local and international exchanges that is registered here in my country and it's all working good. It's convenient and fun using fiat on a daily basis and at the same time using Bitcoin as an investment.

There are still not so much bitcoiners in the world and even less of them are ready to spend crypto. That's the reason

I agree with that statement, but what if BTC transaction become cheaper and the usage of cold wallets becomes more user friendly?
I know that it's close to impossible for the BTC blockchain to beat the fiat payment systems in terms of fees and transaction quantity, but what if Bitcoin upgrades to another level, or what if a better altcoin gets invented?
Bitcoin already got mass adoption as a speculative investment/"digital gold", I don't think that BTC will ever get mass adoption as an actual currency. The first problem is price volatility, the second problem is that there's no point for the businesses to invest in a BTC/crypto payment gateway infrastructure, because it's not worth it.

i have been to many countries spoke to many people as individuals and businesses and when many speak of bitcoin in less developed countries, they liked(past tense) the idea of a currency that can remit and offer payments for commerce.. but then returning years later they said the fee's were the reason they stopped accepting bitcoin as payment
they also noted the temporary drop in fee's didnt last long enough to promote accepting bitcoin for goods again before the spam restarted..
never did they say they stopped due to preferring it as investment, nor did they say about customer preferring to hoard for fomo.. they were annoyed by the fees.

countries where $1-$10 is a days wage is why developing countries dont adopt bitcoin as a payment option for commerce
(and dont reply thinking its an opportunity to promote the flawed sandbox test of bugs of the subnetwork you think billions of developing countries should use, so dont try advertising it as much as you have at as many opportunities as you have.. stick to caring and concentrating on BITCOIN not other network promotions)

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.

However, the fact is that there are still many countries that prohibit bitcoin. In my country, bitcoin can be owned as an asset but not as currency. So anyway, without legality from the government, Bitcoin will remain in a gray area

It seems that currently Bitcoin is still in a "gray" area, even though countries ban it, in fact they are not serious about banning it because the government does not carry out raids or confiscate Bitcoin. It seems like the government is doing this on purpose, because if all countries agree to ban and eliminate the circulation of bitcoin then at least the country can mass close all crypto exchanges.

In my opinion, if bitcoin is legalized as a currency in all countries it will not shift the position of USD because bitcoin has a limited amount and there will be problems with transaction volume as you said, but at least it can be used as an alternative currency in cross-border trade

The Wikipedia article op is referring to can be helpful, but it's important to note that it can be outdated or misinterpret certain things, as well as assume it's legal somewhere when it's just not illegal.
In any case, I agree that the lack of adoption is not on the governments. If we're talking about democracies, laws change actively when there's a strong public demand for something. The demand for Bitcoin as a form of payment is simply not high enough to prompt major changes and adoption. It can change over time, but let's also not forget that Bitcoin blockchain doesn't scale well (I'm talking about the limit of processed transactions per minute and transaction fees when the network gets congested). The op is correct to point at the importance of scalability.
Of course, people here can say that there are alternative, off-chain solutions to address that problem, but then we lose some of that decentralization and financial freedom that came with Bitcoin.

There's a lot of disinformation and incorrect notions going around about the legality of Bitcoin, cryptocurrencies and digital currencies.

Here is a good place to start if you want the facts about Bitcoin's legality:

Legality of cryptocurrency by country or territory

What you can learn from is that for almost all purposes, Bitcoin (and by extension cryptocurrencies and digital currencies) are not meaningfully curtailed by government regulation on individuals. Even China's ban on Bitcoin hasn't stopped Binance from trading $90 billion per month there. Based on this, you would be hard-pressed to find a civilized country where you could be put in jail for owning or trading Bitcoin. They exist, but they amount to a tiny fraction of the world's economy.

And yet in the face of these facts, a near constant refrain from many crypto enthusiasts is that the reason Bitcoin hasn't replaced the world's sovereign currencies like the USD and the Euro is because there's a conspiracy of government regulations to stop it. They can't point to how exactly this works, but more importantly, they seem to ignore the fact that Bitcoin transactions can take 30 minutes to complete and cost 30 US dollars, making the transaction unthinkable for all but a microscopic fraction of worldwide daily transactions. And while more centralized blockchain-based approaches improve this situation somewhat, they are still orders of magnitude away from the scalability necessary, and the key pair requirement for end-users is clunky and makes it hard to adopt.

When I first designed the Haypenny transaction platform, my first task was to calculate the number of monetary transactions going on in the whole world on any given day, and then calculate that number for peak times of the year (e.g. Christmas), and then multiple that by a factor for the peak hours of the day, and then multiplying that by a factor of five to account for "peak-second" loads (yes, my professional background is whole-internet scale systems in case you couldn't tell ).

The number you arrive at when you do these calculations is that you'd need a system that could handle a transaction load in the signal-digit millions of transactions per second if you wanted to replace daily credit card and physical cash transactions worldwide. And you'd need to handle several hundred billion transactions a month.

That is what is required for a currency to replace the current status-quo, and Bitcoin and other blockchain-based cryptocurrencies can't do it, and they can't even get close.

And it should go without saying that transactions would need to cost far less than today's transactions in order to replace the status-quo: people don't make a major change to their long-held behavior unless there is a significant incentive to do so.

And then there's the usage model. Not only does any new technology that replaces the exact functionality of an existing one need to be far cheaper in order to have a chance, it needs to be easier for end-users, too. Requiring every consumer to have a private key is something we've been dreaming about since about 1994 (I was there ), but its a pain in the ass that most consumers don't want to deal with.

These are the reasons there is not mainstream adoption of Bitcoin for everyday payments, not some conspiracy by "the government".