Topic: What is truly missing in the Bitcoin ecosystem to get this to the masses - page 2. (Read 552 times)

I hear you about decentralization and running nodes, but I do it and it is super simple to setup and I am far from being the most technical pleb out there. I even run a couple of small channels for fun. However with the shortage of Raspberry Pi's I see how the number of nodes won't expand quickly. I see there are around 13k nodes right now.   

I scrolled from the 1st page before wanting to say this until I found yours. lol
And I think like you, I think bitcoin just needs a bigger technical community (at least actually using bitcoin in its network). Everywhere people say about " Just Holding, I'm Hodling!!!", but it's sad to see them doing it in a centralized service. Although I don't know how many bitcoin nodes there are currently individually, but I believe they are mostly run only by early adopters or companies that have centralized services. Bitcoin will be in concern if there is no preservation/regeneration of technical users especially from newcomers who continue the efforts of the old people to keep bitcoin "decentralized".

All interesting points, I am not worried about the concerns regarding people won't spent Bitcoin, we have to remember in developed countries we are using this mainly as an investment (would love to see the stats), vs in developing countries or countries with high inflation who are using it to pay actually pay for products and services (ex. Africa), however since some of these are via LN does this mean that Bitcoin is not actually being spent, can we say LN does not add to the liquidity of Bitcoin since it only impact the network on opening/closing of a channel?

In terms of concerns regarding LN and having to open up multiple channels I tend to disagree, the avg Joe will just get Blue Wallet and exchange the on-chain balance to the LN balance for a fee, other wallets allow this too. 

Most people are already aware of Bitcoin but don't have the technical knowledge of entering the space. Not that much technical knowledge would be needed, but most people are in line with traditional notions of fiat currencies and it takes years to disrupt the beliefs. Bitcoin will end up working its way to the masses not by choice if major currencies begin to fail with hyperinflation so you might wait for that market to open, it's just going to take time.

This is exactly what they've been doing with bank accounts. They deposit money, so they can spend them later.

But, with Lightning there's no trusted third party.

Correct. This is how routing works.

Well, it depends on where you spend them. If it's the same individual, just open a channel directly with them. The more the channels, the more the chances of having your transaction successfully accomplished.

And Bitcoin also had centralized exchanges two years after it got invented. Did that make it bad? If you don't want trust, you can settle this without trust. If you don't care about trust, you can use a hub.

Far far trustless than debit cards.

Fiat is also simpler than Bitcoin.

please note this topic is about BITCOIN, but silly people seem to take it as a opportunity to advertise their altnet as the solution..

^^ starts making some value points.. but of course,... you can guess what happens next .. he goes and contradicts himself when advertising his altnet


BITCOIN. i must emphasise this BITCOIN. is easy. you copy a QR code/address.. and you pay the destination.. job done, end of story

but blackhatcoiner then goes and advertises a different network (emphasis a completely different payment scheme) where people need to pre-arrange their spending habits for the next few months by deciding what value to put into what channels to lock value up for months ahead. and hope that when using LN the partners will be available and online and liquid to allow payments. and all the other crappy stuff that makes LN worse then bitcoin and credit/debit cards.

yes with a debit card you just 'tap and pay' you dont need to have set up 5 cards with certain balance just to increase the possibility of hope of successful cheap payments. you can just use one card and tap and pay and your done.
people choose to have more then one card.. but in LN its near on essential to have more then 1 channel, just to ensure you can make payments. which means locking up multiples of funds
say you want to spend $500 next month. because routes are not guaranteed people would need on average to have locked up $2000 in 4 channels of $500 so that they can have a near 100% experience of successfully spending $500 a month


in LN you need to do alot more prep works before during and after making LN payments EG before making a payment organising the channels and looking for the best channel to create linking to the best routes you might want to use later.
during the payment you have to see which channels are free and able to offer the route and have the cheapest one.
after payment, you then have to watch your payments closely and ensure your partner doesnt try to mess with you by broadcasting the wrong attempt/event

LN is so bad that they are now trying to invent watchtowers to be bank managers watching over penalty settlements. they are also inventing hub factories(custodial banks) so that funds go inwards to high liquidity central services to avoid the route/hop problems of needing multiple channels

oh and there is always a spending limit on LN, far far worse then bitcoin/debit card limits

bitcoin/fiat debit cards are simpler. just pay and not have to think about it again.

oh and LN after 5 years.. is no where even close to the bitcoin adoption rate of 2014(5 years after bitcoins invention) so dont kid yourself that LN is utopia

I agree with all the other points but high number of scams is not something bitcoin related. In fiat world we keep seeing people getting screwed by scammers as well, if we can't handle that in the fiat world then there is no way that we could handle it in the crypto world neither. It is just the nature of humanity, we keep scamming each other, we scammed people 5000 years ago and we are doing that today as well.

It will never change, destroy all evidence of bitcoin ever existed and there will be people getting scammed anyway using fiat or any other currency. If people think that bitcoin is a bad thing because of scams, they should never use fiat, there are 1000x more scams going on in fiat.

Lucky you!


There may be more people spending bitcoin than you'd think. Or maybe my logic is flawed. However, if one has a lot of money, he will just invest. But from those in this forum, I cannot expect them all just HODL (because if they would be so rich they would probably spend more time travelling around the world than sitting online). I expect a majority of those in here do spend, especially if the price is right (yes, I know that this is the weak point and it can depends from person to person).

Somehow, since Bitcoin is not accepted so much, Bitcoin-as-investment might be a selling point for Bitcoin. Maybe. I don't know... But that's not really something I can call "getting mainstream".


For now the payment processors in my country were very few and overly expensive. I had overly high hopes toward them.. years ago. I'm now disappointed.
But you're right, it may be one good course of action...


I agree about volatility. I don't agree about the part with safety of their coins, since I see that a second (or third!) step, when they did find out this or that about Bitcoin.
Most don't get there. Most see the official warnings, see the price wild fluctuations and stay away, not getting as deep as wallet security and "trading their freedom" (where you're right, of course)


One can hope, OK? Never say never

Yeah of course, we still didn't reach that point where we can easily  buy everyday stuff like food and groceries using bitcoin (as a mater of fact, in Croatia we can even do that as the biggest supermarket chain accepts bitcoin through payment processor for online purchases) but I was more aiming at those that are avoiding to spend bitcoin even when they can for simple things.


That's true, but first step imho is them accepting bitcoin via payment processors and when they see that they have plenty of traffic, we can maybe see direct payments.

From my experience talking with people that are not interested/reluctant to buy bitcoin, their main concerns when it comes to using bitcoin for payments are volatility and the fact that they are responsible for safety of their bitcoin and not the bank. As I said, majority of people are ready to trade freedom for the sense of lack security and I don't expect that to change ever. If anything, its only getting worse.


Difference between sportsbet and exchanges is that sportsbet doesn't have (afaik) their own cryptocurrency/blockchain like many of the exchanges do. I would like for exchanges to focus more on bitcoin, but honestly I don't see it happening.


Majority of them will simply opt for some payment processor first and I can understand that choice looking from their point of view as even if they get crypto directly, they still have to pay their suppliers, taxes etc and all that is done in fiat. So then they have to sell bitcoin to pay all of that, and we know that fees are not negligible. But who knows, after enough people buy their stuff that way, maybe they decide to accept bitcoin directly.

Or simply, because:

• They're ignorant. They don't know how their money works etc.
• They can't comprehend the benefit of being self-controlled, financial sovereign.
• They've been misinformed.
• They're satisfied with credit/debit cards, online payment systems, banking accounts and don't bother to take it once step further.

Here are a few other reasons to play with.

And spending fiat isn't as easy as spending Bitcoin, unless someone else's keeps it for you, which therefore makes it a political problem. Look, I get your point, I'm just saying that the reason why some may find it difficult technically, is because they don't find it necessary at all.

And more merchants adopt Lightning day by day. It's inevitable to succeed as a currency, given that the people will have understood the utility. What's concerning me is if most merchants will have understood self-custody or will they just embed a BitPay or Coinbase API which will ask for KYC and other such nonsense.

It's not just having global adoption or not, but broader than that.

I agree with both statements. Bitcoiners indeed tend to have an immense lack of patience.


While I agree that most see Bitcoin as something good only for investing into, I do spend, just unfortunately in most cases I have to get fiat first.
I would gladly pay with Bitcoin if:
* I would not have to overpay hugely for having the benefit of spending Bitcoin
* the grocery stores would accept Bitcoin. I cannot eat TVs, laptops and mobile phones, they hurt my digestion.
And imho one big problem with the rather slow "expansion" of Bitcoin is the lack of acceptance in stores around the world.

Just ask yourself: why would average Joe get into Bitcoin if they don't see it used anywhere and also government officials tell it's not OK? Imho that's why some risk to buy for holding... and that's basically all... (and yes, then we can get more technical).


Of course that they'll advertise mostly their business. But I think/hope that sooner or later they'll advertise Bitcoin too, simply because going mainstream will help their business making more money.
Imho Sportsbet.io did/does it right with the sponsorship of a football team: both their name/logo and Bitcoin are visible on the equipment.


Maybe. But, as I said, if they don't see Bitcoin accepted (and advertised) at the stores they going to and the government and media is pushing the "bitcoin is bad" and "bitcoin is unsafe" rhetoric, most will just stay away.

That's one way of looking at it. There must be other ways. For me, it is less political and more technical. In most cases, people are not hindered to use Bitcoin even if their governments are not recognizing it. But why are they not into Bitcoin? It is probably because of the technicalities involved. Keeping Bitcoin is not as easy as keeping fiat. Comparing Bitcoin and fiat, the latter is user-friendly or easy to use and handle.

And, of course, there are the rest of the reasons like the masses don't really feel the need to use Bitcoin, there are a few business establishments that accept it as payment, and others.

I think what’s still missing when it comes to bitcoin and mass adoption is the lack of cheap and speedy transactions. Right now it simply takes too long and is too expensive (most of the time) when you’re trying to quickly get funds from point A to point B. This is still a very new technology and this will take some time so I am confident we will get to that point, just hopeful it’s sooner than later.

You have a very good point of view from the regular masses' perspective. A lot of people don't want to be responsible with their wealth, they want others to take care of it. So even if banks are offering very little interest, they are just happy that their funds are safe in the bank. But when it comes to saving their own keys and understanding how crypto works, they won't try to educate themselves. But for some, who educate themselves about this market, they will appreciate and feel lucky that they learn this market.

If you are asking about what is hindering bitcoin scalability, I have something to say from the layman's view or rather the uneducated.

The uneducated or even the educated but not informed always trust their wealth for people to manage.
First, they have a bank.
Second, they have a bank manager,
Third, they have a financial advisor,
Then, investment advisor
And many more. They cannot take charge on how to manage their wealth themselves.
So, when they hear bitcoin and know they will take responsibility themselves from saving the keys, knowing how to perform transactions, do backups etc. They will not join the bitcoin movement.
So, the technicalities of bitcoin is one of the reasons uneducated don't care about it.

Everything will be put in place once the government takes the side of bitcoin. All those trusted media will come to stop those negative news about bitcoin if the government demands it to stop.  I guess what we truly miss is the full acceptance of bitcoin in the government. But as long as they believe that bitcoin will certainly replace fiat in the future, and will never be centralized, everything in the so-called trusted media will always be hard to stop.

first people need to define how they see 'reaching the masses'

some see it as there being atleast 5 retailers in every town offering products for bitcoin so that people can buy alot of normal lifestyle stuff..

some see it as having custodian institutions hoarding coin and offering it as collateral in share form for the world to then invest in via official wallstreet retirement plans linked to employment (spot ETF)

some see it as locking bitcoin up into multi-signing party contracts so that people can then mess around with value on different networks to then use for multiple lifestyle stuff (sidechains and altnets getting the real adoption, not bitcoin)

some just want to see bitcoin mentioned on TV shows and movies as much as say american shows mention about euros or yuan

The main barriers are conflict of interest between governments and the crowd. Governments want to control the crowd, earn from the crowd etc. Bitcoin brings freedom of control and financial prosperity to the crowd. By using and owning Bitcoin, the crowd don't have to rely on central banks, avoid or reduce tax pay for governments until more regulations implemented in future.

All of such are not what governments like so they will use law, regulations, social media especially government-backed social media to use misleading terms like virtual currency, etc. as very first barrier to prevent access of the crowd to Bitcoin and cryptocurrency.

Is Bitcoin getting into mainstream slower than we would like? Sure, but I don't think that bitcoin is slow at all. Keep in mind that bitcoin is around for a little bit more than a decade which is nothing really for something so innovative and first of its kind.


While banks and governments are certainly not big fans of bitcoin and are a big reason why people are reluctant to start using bitcoin, I don't think that its solely their fault. First of all, we have to ask ourselves do we use bitcoin enough for what is originally intended for. I hear even on this forum people saying that they are saving bitcoin and spending fiat only and if bitcoiners are saying that, how can we expect that others that are way less informed about bitcoin will start using it?

Question is whether average Joe would be interested in bitcoin even without the banks/government FUD? The thing is, majority of people don't like personal responsibility, "be your own bank" thing and will regularly sacrifice freedom for a sense of false security, so for them bitcoin will always be a scary thing to some degree. That also explains why so many people keep their crypto on the exchanges and other centralizes services instead of their own non custodial wallets.


Those business have their own tokens to push so I don't expect from them any help when it comes to making bitcoin more appealing to the masses.

So many great responses here. I was not expecting that much traction from this post.
Yes I agree with you, I find that since this Bitcoin is not a company, there is no CEO to come on CNBC to defend or fight the FUD.


Regulation will come quickly, a Spot ETF will help, however I would be surprised if the regulators kept pushing this. Also when the SEC vs Ripple case closes I expect them to focus their attention on how to regulate Bitcoin and Crypto.

I agree regarding mining, however I feel running a node is simple to do (I do it!) and everyone can help to decentralize the system, eventually I expect the LN to be 'slightly profitable' for those wanting to route payments, hence this could be the next thing the average Joe could do.

For the number of scams, this will continue, however FIAT has just as much scams yet the media like to focus on Crypto scams vs FIAT scams.


This is where I see the potential and where the community can better help vs educate whether through paid advertising etc. As was mentioned by @NeuroticFish if the community came together to get paid advertising instead of relying on exchanges that could also further help adoption along with fighting FUD. Many other projects have VC's or companies behind them, however I do feel the marketing aspect is missing from Bitcoin and certainly an aspect which if a group of Bitcoiners came together we could setup some paid advertising and I am sure others would participate. However as someone as mentioned Bitcoin is doing its thing, so maybe we should not push it neither.....