No, we try to not have that kind of discussions, it's not denial, it's just keeping this thread free from shitcoin talk.
If you must talk about them there are literally dozens of other threads, keep this one clean.
If you must talk about them there are literally dozens of other threads, keep this one clean.
OK, now I have to reply to this accusation. I wasn't talking about shitcoins. Pay attention. Someone asked why Bitcoin was losing market dominance and I suggested it was capacity issues with Bitcoin. It's everyone else who jumps on with suggestions of using shitcoins for some reason.
Oh poor lil Richy_T.....
trying to stay on topic (like a good bitcoin maximalist.. #nohomo), but everyone else causing his lil selfie to have to respond. I have to weigh in on this 1 millionth Big/Small block detour.
People still see this as entirely black and white. Bitcoin chose small therefore it = digital gold. Period.
This completely ignores the fact that more and more folks are working on the tech behind doing transactions on layers. Spending bitcoin quickly (and even in a trust minimized way) is already working somewhat, and will only work better and better with MANY choices and tradeoffs. Just like you can spend the USD with credit cards, checks, cash, payal etc, and see that settle in your account daily, and have those banks settle via FEDwire Bitcoin is starting to work the same way.
With ONE importnt difference. WE are fedwire. You do not have to be a bank to use the BTC blockchain.
"But it will be too expensive to transact on the base chain!" Says who? You can still do it. Anyone can do it. Having small transactions priced out is compitition and we have chosen that path to secure the best distributed/decentralized ffuture possible for the base layer.
Someone fleeing their oppressive country cannot use Fedwire to take their savings with them. But they can bitcoin. (Or lightning, or liquid, etc)
Bitcoin WILL be used transactionally. Folks (ex Saylor) are knowingly downplaying this right now EXACTLY because the longer we can keep the "digital gold only" narrative going the longer the reserve banks will drag their asses.
But we should know better gents...
People still see this as entirely black and white. Bitcoin chose small therefore it = digital gold. Period.
This completely ignores the fact that more and more folks are working on the tech behind doing transactions on layers. Spending bitcoin quickly (and even in a trust minimized way) is already working somewhat, and will only work better and better with MANY choices and tradeoffs. Just like you can spend the USD with credit cards, checks, cash, payal etc, and see that settle in your account daily, and have those banks settle via FEDwire Bitcoin is starting to work the same way.
With ONE importnt difference. WE are fedwire. You do not have to be a bank to use the BTC blockchain.
"But it will be too expensive to transact on the base chain!" Says who? You can still do it. Anyone can do it. Having small transactions priced out is compitition and we have chosen that path to secure the best distributed/decentralized ffuture possible for the base layer.
Someone fleeing their oppressive country cannot use Fedwire to take their savings with them. But they can bitcoin. (Or lightning, or liquid, etc)
Bitcoin WILL be used transactionally. Folks (ex Saylor) are knowingly downplaying this right now EXACTLY because the longer we can keep the "digital gold only" narrative going the longer the reserve banks will drag their asses.
But we should know better gents...
I guess we don't all agree. I stand corrected.
Sidechains may have a major use case in the future, we will see. Right now they are just experimental.
The main chain as a store of value is what is giving us this price and is the driver behind any significant price increases going forward.
We don't need a swiss army knife, we just need a stable store of value. That's what the world needs.
I think we DO agree mostly. And I agree that BTC as a store of value is use case #1. It's just that the digital, ephemeral nature of BTC lends itself to technological solutions with few boundaries which will happen quickly and take it into the realm of a transactional asset as well. I also think use case #1 is really the only one we should be focusing on now... at least in certain contexts.
One of the good things about bitcoin is that it gives no shits about either use case number 1 or use case number 2, and each of us can choose whichever use case that we want, including use case number 3 or even the use case of NOT using it. It does appear that a large number of us believe that use case number 1 is driving a lot of bitcoin's current value, but many of us also appreciate that bitcoin can already be used for a variety of other use cases, even if some of those other use cases are more limited in their availabilities or user-friendliness.. but bitcoin has capacities beyond use case number 1 and 2.
Use case #1 also implies that the true value of BTC per whole coin is indeed going to 100 million USD. Eventually. It will take decades maybe. Around the year 2050 we will find out. Some of us will be gone, others will have just "matured" ... We will see... we will see...
Sure, it could take another 10 to 30 years for BTC to reach $100 trillion.. which is a mere 100x from here.. or $5.5 million per coin... but it does seem that you are outlining this in a bit too much of a bearish way because the more bullish scenarios could actually quite easily reach $5.5 million per coin within 2 cycles. I don't need to elaborate on the numbers, do I?
This cycle could top anywhere between $62k and $1.5million.. and let's just look at the more bearish of numbers (that's 2021)
The next cycle could then top $200k to $500k (remember bearish numbers).. (that's 2025)
The next cycle could then top $1 million to $5.5million (remember bearish numbers).. (that's 2029)
Are we going to need another cycle if the numbers are even more bearish than I have outlined? or could it take another 5 cycles as seem to be suggesting could be the case..
yeah.. I don't really expect to make it to 2050.. but sure there could be a chance.. as with anything. In recent years, I did have a doctor tell me that I could make it to 2060-ish (not in those words, exactly), and my health has not really deteriorated since such statement but still taking such optimism with a decently large grain of salt.... I am a bit skeptical of experts - even though it did make me feel good at such time the statement was made.
