Bitcoin & Lightning - Would you pay for coffee instantly if it was possible?

[shadow12348]

How can we have mass adoption if we're not trying to use it for payments.

The masses want to save and preserve their buying power. That's the most likely job Bitcoin ends up with in its present form if it becomes big enough and relatively stable enough. Hundreds of millions have exposure to stock markets. You can't use stocks for payments either.

Right, but the semantics of a stock are different and their intended use case is for buying power. Bitcoin was created with different fundamental semantics. If it's only exposure is to save and preserve buying power, there would be no need for it to exist. But of course, it's fundamentals are different.

[serjent05]

What I'm trying to understand and defend against a lot of the mass skeptics is this exact question - Would you use bitcoin as a currency if it was possible?

I believe, irrespective of the value, anybody that held bitcoin before 2017 would be in a place to spend it.

I have been using Bitcoin to pay for my bills ever since I have a chance to own it so, definitely I will pay Bitcoin for my cup of coffee regardless of the availability of lightning network.  I am one of the believer that Bitcoin should be used and spent and not hoard it.

[shield132]

Bitcoin was created to be a universal currency and lightning makes it possible to make completely P2P micro-transactions for a few pennies paid in fees.

Now let's assume for the sake of this poll that you could now spend your bitcoin that is under your control on your wallet, anywhere, by just tapping your bitcoin wallet (hardware or mobile) against an existing credit card machine and you are able to pay with bitcoin over lightning.

What I'm trying to understand and defend against a lot of the mass skeptics is this exact question - Would you use bitcoin as a currency if it was possible?

I believe, irrespective of the value, anybody that held bitcoin before 2017 would be in a place to spend it.

At first I want to mention that if I have option to pay with my card, then why not? They even offer me some cashbacks in various places, it's pretty easy, just take card from pocket, put it on terminal and that's all, transaction is done.
Btw if there is option of bitcoin and I forgot to fill my bank's account or don't have money on that at the moment but have some bitcoins, then I would pay with it. Don't take it wrongly but bitcoin payments isn't as comfortable as payments made by credit card. But if we talk about high transactions, of course I'll use bitcoin because it's fast and cheap, especially with lightning network.

[timerland]

Why not, right? We wanted more merchants and businesses to accept bitcoin as a payment, so why would we decline it if we can use it alternatively as a payment? For me, I would try buying coffee using it if possible but I would consider the value. How can we have mass adoption if we're not trying to use it for payments.

Bitcoin shouldn't be seen as a mainstream payment currency though. The TX fees and confirmations are horrible compared to other options. What's the point of using my BTC and paying a 1 dollar fee on a 5 dollar coffee, and then making the merchant wait 20 minutes for the money to be verified, when I can just tap my card and not deal with all these issues. BTC will never become a viable option for microtransactions, especially in real life because it was never built for that purpose.

It feels like a waste to make a payment with Bitcoin.
If the lightning network is activated, I want to pay with a less burdensome cryptocurrency.

Lightning Network is built to help instantly send/receive Bitcoins so by that, transaction fees on transferring are reduced. So I don't think it would be burdensome to use Bitcoin for payment.

This is accurate, but it is much safer to wait for a confirmation, and no matter how small the fee is, why choose an option that you have to pay for when other payment methods exist (fiat, cash)?

I personally only consider using BTC for online transactions (mostly electronics), as there are quite a lot of stores that accept BTC online, and spending 50 cents per 200 dollars is way more afforable then spending 50 cents per 5 dollars.

[squatter]

It's not easy considering Gresham's law. As long as weaker currencies like fiat money ("bad money") are widely accepted, people will opt to hoard away "good money" like bitcoins.

If/when Bitcoin achieves a sustainable economy where there is no need for fiat inflows and outflows -- meaning supply chains and payrolls are covered in bitcoins -- this can change. If people are getting paid in bitcoins, they will feel more comfortable spending them. As it stands, spending bitcoins and rebuying them later could entail lost bitcoins because of conversion/exchange fees and rising price. For most people, it makes more sense just to hoard their coins and spend fiat money on consumer goods instead.

Absolutely, but this is kind of a chicken and egg problem. To drive out volatility/"bad money", adoption must be rampant. For adoption, volatility needs to be driven out.

There's got to be some kind of gradual, seamless transition from good and bad money co-existing to one being the dominant driver.

We can hope for that, but honestly, it's impossible to know what the transition from state-backed to decentralized currencies would look like. We don't have precedent for it. Theoretically, it could be a turbulent event like USD hyperinflation that causes a fast and violent transition. If fiat currencies are crumbling, people will want to be paid in stronger currencies.

I'm not sure that volatility needs to be driven out for mass adoption. A volatile Bitcoin simply needs to be better than the alternatives.

[Artemis3]

I would just hold the most part as savings, and spent a little for daily things, such as coffee. So the answer was both, the top and bottom.

Actually lightning is only needed for minute things, any other item that could be bought online and confirmed in an hour or later, regular onchain bitcoin works.

[TimeBits]

O nice at least 68% of the people who voted on this have a clue that bitcoin was meant to be used as a p2p e-cash. (so far)

[Carlton Banks]

It's not easy considering Gresham's law. As long as weaker currencies like fiat money ("bad money") are widely accepted, people will opt to hoard away "good money" like bitcoins.

Gresham's law is fallacious, it simultaneously implies a free-market context, and a context where people are being forced to accept a certain type of money. Both cannot co-exist.

History tells a different story to Gresham:

• bad money is bullied into people's commerce
• bad money is popularized through deception i.e. bank notes
• good money is bullied out of people's hands

if an example exists where people willfully chose a poor form of money for any significant length of time, it was followed by an economic collapse that taught them about the effects of bad vs good money

I'm not sure that volatility needs to be driven out for mass adoption. A volatile Bitcoin simply needs to be better than the alternatives.

And we do in fact have just clutch of exemplary precedents: in Venezuela and Argentina, Bitcoin has above average popularity. Even in less drastic cases such as Brazil, there is interest (someone in this thread was making exactly your point, BTC is less volatile proposition than the Brasilean Real).


In fact, Bitcoin's volatility has only seen holders make long term gains. When one considers the full extent to which the price of everyday goods or company shares are manipulated on financial markets (in a so-called capitalist system), it's tempting to say that Bitcoin is one of few (or even the only) traded item that has any real price discovery. So it only appears volatile because we are all too coddled by artificial prices.

And of course, as we know from experience with Bitcoin: what happens when someone manipulates prices? After some time, the market participants figure it out, and the price snaps back, in the opposite direction. Yay price stability.

Edit:

think about that final point.

Your food prices are heavily subsidized, and a part of those huge, growing government debts represent the price you are not paying for your food. That cannot last forever.

[kaya11]

Bitcoin was created to be a universal currency and lightning makes it possible to make completely P2P micro-transactions for a few pennies paid in fees.

Now let's assume for the sake of this poll that you could now spend your bitcoin that is under your control on your wallet, anywhere, by just tapping your bitcoin wallet (hardware or mobile) against an existing credit card machine and you are able to pay with bitcoin over lightning.

What I'm trying to understand and defend against a lot of the mass skeptics is this exact question - Would you use bitcoin as a currency if it was possible?

I believe, irrespective of the value, anybody that held bitcoin before 2017 would be in a place to spend it.

I rarely used my Bitcoin at all, in fact I am planning get more. Even if the price plunges it doesn't matter, I will still buy whenever I have the means. In terms of using it daily I don't agree with using it with just some coffee, It is the same as it was way back, the 10,000 BTC pizza, and maybe if someday it will be worth a fortunes millions or trillions then you would be probably the talk of the future people who spend their Bitcoin on a coffee. I would use my Bitcoin only if necessary like there's some grave illness that needs to be cured in the member of the family and there no more options to use.

[Herbert2020]

no, but the problem with your question is that usually these questions focus on two ends of the things you can buy, it is either coffee or a Lamborghini! the thing is, there is a ton of other things in between. so no i won't use Lightning Network to pay for coffee ever. but i will use it for high frequency payments where i need to make a payment fast and safe and also receive it just as fast. for example when i trade specially in altcoin market that it is crypto versus crypto exchange, LN can be a fantastic tool if it gets adopted more.