Topic: What is the future of bitcoin? Commodity, currency or smth else? - page 3. (Read 671 times)

Yes, because that's the point. No one gets to tell you what Bitcoin is "officially" for. If you think it's a currency, then go use it as a currency. If you think it's an investment, then go use it as an investment. Etc. Freedom at its best.

Why should replaced? I don't think it will be.
No need to replace fiat, Bitcoin has got its high trust from its investors, holders, and also many other parties. In fact, the value of Bitcoin has been growing so far. We don't need to make it as a currency only or a commodity asset only. In fact, Bitcoin can be both as long as there is no ban from a country. We have seen that there are different things considered by each country that they may support or even ban Bitcoin. But so far, Bitcoin is accepted much in this world,

OK, question was about the role of bitcoin from the personal point of view. Somebody prefers to keep this asset, another is interesting in circulation, exchanging and spending.

even investments are a currency.
swapping shares is a currency transaction.
behind the scenes of institutional banks. they trade insurance certificates, debt agreements(mortgages) and other things. these are their currencies.

as for commodity.. pfft. nah majority call bitcoin an asset..

its why i made my post as some newbies need education in common economic definitions before they go down rabbit holes using the wrong terminology and then creating some conscious bias to stick with their wrong definitions because they see other newbies using the wrong terminology

EG
in the real material world a wallet holds bank notes and coins. where as a key ring holds keys.
in bitcoin a wallet holds keys. and the blockchain holds the coins.

yet a decade ago people with less experience of understanding definitions chose the wrong words to describe how bitcoin features work. and so we got stuck in the badly worded metaphors

..
we dont need to start having alot of newbie users calling it a commodity(wrongly) and then have the bias of following the trends where people start preferring to call it a commodity just because they seen someone else call it a commodity. even if technically and metaphorically it is not a commodity

Thank you for your point of view.
People have already choosed between investment and currency. The word "commodity" is commonly used for bitcoin meaning  in this forum. )))

concepts the topic creator needs to understand about bitcoin and his words in his post.

1. bitcoin is not a commodity, nor never shall be
   - a commodity is a raw material used to make other products..
   - bitcoin is not this.
   - bitcoin is an asset not a commodity
   - people compare bitcoin to gold which is a commodity.. AND an asset
   - gold sits on TWO markets. commodity (manufacturing supply) AND asset (investment)
   - bitcoin follows the gold asset properties(there is a cost to mine it, and its rare)
   - bitcoin does not follow the commodity properties(conductive, malleable)

2. bitcoin is a currency.
   - anything that is used as a medium of exchange is a currency.
   - giving people vodka for helping out/being neighbourly chores =vodka is a currency
   - even sex is used as a currency in some relationships
   - if you are talking about bitcoin becoming a FIAT currency, forget it.
   - if you are talking about being accepted as a common(legal tender) currency.. it has

3. bitcoin is not meant to replace fiat.
   - bitcoin is not meant to take away the government currency and replace it
   - bitcoin is meant to be an open second option,. a choice. an exit, a hedge against fiat
   - there will never be a scenario of a "one world currency". there are hundreds of fiat currencies
  
4. the single satoshi is as useful as a single penny of fiat. (not very much)
   - 1btc is as useful as 100m pennies (not everyone can afford $1m or $30k in some countries)
   - 1btc does not exist in code or data. its a human visual construct for graphic easy display
   - no one is forced to buy a whole btc like no one is forced to buy a whole tonne of gold
   - there are other visual construct 'basket allotments' like 1bit (100sats)
   - 1bit can be compared to $1(visual construct not value) with 100 smaller parts if needed.
   - bitcoin can achieve 20,999,999,976,900 bits ($20trillion visual construct comparison not value)

5. the overall concept to think about
   - each person can have ~2500 bits if shared equally with all 8+ bill population
   - the concept is not to have enough units where 1bit is enough for a loaf of bread
   - its not to be abundant to give people plentiful amounts of units.
   - its concept is to be deflationary where by the conversion to other abundant currencies
   - value of set units become worth more due to the lack of abundance of bitcoin units
   - when fiat create more fiat. bitcoin is worth more $ value in comparison.
   - there is enough units even if planetary population went up
   - if population grows to 20billion people, bitcoin  1000 investible 'bit' units
   - where those units have a 2.5x value compared to population of 8bill

When talking about bitcoin as a currency for circulation, it is OK to take into account the habits of users (a wide range of buyers), including what numbers people are used to see today on store shelves and online sites. In most cases, these are dollars and euros, and prices between 0-10,000 units. The circulation of bitcoin strengthens its position, so the point is about bitcoin circulation, demand and user habits.

Yes. There are a lot of different fiat currencies currently on the market. But most often we see USD and EUR in the Internet. Never the less where people are, they need to choose one currency in order to make a deal (to buy and sell). Usually it is USD or EUR. That is why presenting prices in satoshi is quite new.

It is unlikely the fiat system would disappear, governments simply derive too much power from it to let it go so easily, after all taxes tax your income but by printing fiat whenever they want governments can tax your wealth.

Bitcoin in the best case scenario will become a parallel system widely used by a great deal of the population and accepted by governments simply because they do not have the power to completely stop it, they will try to regulate it as much as possible, which is something we are already seeing, but the regulations would not be enough to decrease its usage.

Both, more likely a currency being the primary usage. I don't expect fiat to be completely eliminated in the future. It's possible that fiat currencies will compete with crypto to fight for the consumer's business (and given the government's track record on managing fiscal policy, it wouldn't be a difficult choice.) There might be a few currencies that can sustain consumer confidence, though Bitcoin will most likely come out on top.

Those using Bitcoin for a commodity and holding the currency just makes the supply less and increases the price by demand. It doesn't regress the coin.

Why would one satoshi be impractical or unconvenient in everyday life? Or, say, 1 mBTC?


There are a lot of different fiat currencies currently on the market, and their base values are quite different. You seem to not be aware of this.
According to current exchange rates, for example, one South Korean Won (KRW) is equal to just a little over 2 satoshi. With that in mind, why do you think presenting prices in satoshi is more difficult than in other currencies?


What you said doesn't make sense. You may wish to reword your comment to make it more understandable.

Currency circulation is needed in order the demand for bitcoin would be high. If bitcoins are simply put in reserve, then there will be no reason to develop the status of bitcoin. In this case, bitcoin may lose its value. What do you think?

I know some *cryptocurrencies* that have a supply of around quadrillion.  

Let's take Bitcoin, here is less than 22 million BTC but Bitcoin can be divided into several satoshis which means that limited supply is not a problem if we are talking at the dollar satoshi level.

Demand is the problem, I don't think we'll get enough demand to get one satoshi worth a dollar.

When you're talking about Cryptocurrency, always be precise about which one, bitcoin is a digital currency and it's acceptable for making transactions for exchange of goods and services, other cryptocurrencies are most likely to be sh*tcoins, bitcoin has a role in this modern economy and the role of fiat as well cannot be overemphasized but their respective success in the later future will determine their performance to either replace the other or be use along altogether in the nearest future.


If you should be talking about digital currency then it should be on bitcoin and that is the only digital currency that has the future to dominate the major currency of fiat role in the economy, it's already in circulation, OP i think by now you shouldn't be in doubt about how bitcoin can be used as a currency.

For me I do think that Bitcoins will forever be an investment opportunity since for me spending it as money is not really a good idea, the price is going to increase ofcourse and therefore I would rather hoard the coins if I had any also the opportunity also these are more focused in some countries and places against the others, I only found 1 restaurant in London till now which accepted bitcoins in the West side the focus is on things like cards, visas, fiats, as compared to cryptocurrencies like bitcoins and the government as well is focused on cbdc's. For me it's definitely an investment.

Agree. What is the role of these roadside rocks now?

ZWL are interesting for local people )))
Satoshi is good for asset but it is difficult for presenting price (on sites) as far as it is common to see numbers 0.01-100000 (usd/eur/etc) now

will you accept "affordable asset" ? As far as crypto performs as currency the meaning "affordable digital currency" (to buy) appeared too 

Always has been... 

Perhaps in another galaxy, but not in the Milky Way. 1,000,000,000 is 100 quadrillion times bigger than 0.00000001.

0.00000001 BTC, or 1 sat in short, is currently valuated at 0.0003 USD. This means that, for each of the smallest unit of USD you give, which is 0.01 USD (or 1 cent in short), you can buy 33 sats. It's definitely "affordable".

You still get the whole Bitcoin situation wrong and misconception, Bitcoin will not and can never replace faint to be used as an alternative, this means both Bitcoin and fiat will co-exist in the same economy. Bitcoin/cryptocurrency can not act unilaterally in a system and that means it transaction has to involve either faint at some point. Bitcoin's limited supply does not make it unaffordable to buy its smallest unit that is a misconception it may be expensive that is only when you want to exchange it with a faint, I will advise you to take your time to study Bitcoin and its decentralized nature to build a better knowledge about it so that you would not work around with this misconception for long.

I'm sure many people above have already said this, but let's make it bold for some "extra understanding":

You do not need to buy 1 BTC to afford items priced in Bitcoin.

Sure people have various biases such as preferring $99.99 to $100, but perhaps the unitary value of something is the most prevalent bias of them all. That is, everything is denominated in units of 1, and cannot be divided (cents are for extremely cheap stuff).

Actually, it is impossible to adjust the unit value of a truly decentralized currency, since that would be equivalent to a central bank issuing a new banknote and taking the old one out of circulation. This would require many hardforks and would cause havoc to the blockchain.

Looking for an "affordable currency" is like a person buying a typical roadside rock just because he couldn't afford a kilogram of gold, even though he could just have bought a gram of gold. If doesn't make any sense at all.