This isn't very realistic, the amount that you plan to sell must coincide with the amount you plan to spend, at the timing must coincide too. For most investors this will not be the case and they will just sell BTC for a liquid asset - fiat.
This is only true if you replace
all your trades on exchanges by buying/selling goods. You can do it partially, and if you want to buy or sell more, then you can combine both methods. Of course if you have complex trading strategies then you can't replace all your trades by buying and selling goods.
It isn't an "one or another" thing. It's more like that it would be better to gradually shift more to buying goods instead of selling on exchanges.
The difficulties of being your own bank - key management and irreversibility of transactions are not correlated with the levels of adoption. Maybe in the future someone will release a more idiot-proof wallet software for mass use, but for some reason no one made such wallet in all these years.
I don't see current (particularly mobile) wallet software as
that difficult to use. However, I think you're correct that there is room for improvement particularly in the field "protect the user from him/herself". I don't know that many mobile wallets, but for example a simple function only allowing to spend a certain amount per day (as it's common in bank accounts) could help there.
Key management is something you generally have to learn in the digital world, also for fiat transactions and identity management. Irreversibility is mainly an issue if you trade with anonymous trading partners, while when buying goods at a merchant you are entering a legal contract with an established entity. At least that's what most people would do when they buy goods and services. So if they scam you then you've to take legal action, as if you had paid with cash.
The biggest factor of Bitcoin volatility is that there's no mathematical formula for estimating Bitcon's "objective" value, so it's all just based on pure guess of traders.
There's also no convincing mathematical formula of the value of other, less volatile goods like gold. There are machine learning based models being developed but that could also be possible for Bitcoin. Trading volume of gold is however
10 times higher than Bitcoin's. So this can explain its lower volatility.
We are waiting for this to happen in the last several years and it isn't happening.
Yup. That's also what I meant with the "limbo" Bitcoin is currently in.
The problem is that most of the Bitcoiners don't want BTC to become an actual currency. They simply want to buy BTC at 20K and sell it at 100K USD.
Again yup, this is the
current most common usage pattern. The idea of this thread is to think a bit about how a transition to the next stage could become possible.
There could be technical solutions, like for example what hatshepsut93 wrote above (more "idiot-proof" wallets). I for example think also that a reloaded OpenBazaar-like marketplace software would help a lot. Also we can think about smart-contract-based solutions to hedge against volatility. There are a lot of possible options, but they're not taking off.
If Bitcoin was so awesome and so much better than the fiat payment systems, then why didn't everyone in the world just dump fiat and use BTC?
The answer seems obvious. The fiat payment systems aren't that bad and Bitcoin isn't perfect.
I actually agree here and I'm not among these ultra-maximalists who think Bitcoin will replace all fiat operations. However, I think it's also not correct to downplay Bitcoin's advantages. Needing no centralized intermediaries nor human intervention (apart from development and bugfixing) makes Bitcoin the first completely automatized payment system in the world. For quite big markets like international payments/remittances and for the unbanked there aren't much better options.
It's not that they forgot. They never cared!
Sometimes I'm becoming as fatalist as you
But even if many people don't care, it can make sense to think about the reasons for Bitcoin being "stuck" at this "speculative asset stage" and how this could improve, in particular which incentives could get people to get "on track" to a more P2P cash-friendly stance again.