Bitcoin can not replace fiat

[deisik]

(Plz don't give me the "bitcoin transactions takes too much time to get confirmed" comment because the answer will be "put some transaction fee")

But this is not how things should be

There shouldn't be such fees in the first place. Conceptually, given the number of nodes capable of confirming transactions (i.e. nodes having full copy of the blockchain), the fees shouldn't be there at all. In fact, there should be negative competition since among a few dozen thousand nodes capable of confirming transactions will always be a couple of nodes that will first include transactions with no fees, just to support the network at its lower edge. Today, we see paradoxical situation when miners instead of facilitating bitcoin payments are actually hindering them. This is nonsense from an economic point of view if you ask me, and this should be changed

[1714619609]

1714619609

[1714619609]

1714619609

[1714619609]

1714619609

[wck]

(Plz don't give me the "bitcoin transactions takes too much time to get confirmed" comment because the answer will be "put some transaction fee")

But this is not how things should be

There shouldn't be such fees in the first place. Conceptually, given the number of nodes capable of confirming transactions (i.e. nodes having full copy of the blockchain), the fees shouldn't be there at all. In fact, there should be negative competition since among a few dozen thousand nodes capable of confirming transactions will always be a couple of nodes that will first include transactions with no fees, just to support the network at its lower edge. Today, we see paradoxical situation when miners instead of facilitating bitcoin payments are actually hindering them. This is nonsense from an economic point of view if you ask me, and this should be changed

Whoa you got it backwards!   Fees were always meant to replace mining rewards at some point.   What is the point of mining if you can't cover your costs and make a profit?   Early on block rewards were high to allow for the network to get going.   Now it is going and people need to stop expecting free transactions to work quickly.  

[FasTroy]

Its not important for bitcoin to replace. we can easily exchange them with fiat and use for daily purpose. Bitcoin's value changes from day to day. It can't be controlled by any regulations or authorities. And manipulation is easier. So I totally agree with you in this case

Yes, I agree with you mate,
But bitcoin cannot replace fiat in different ways. one of them. The volatility of bitcoin price. Bitcoin price change day by day. It can decrease or increase according of using bitcoin by the community. Of course we can convert bitcoin to fiat. but most of member who have bitcoin they want convert their bitcoin when the price is high.

[Theb]

I agree with you. In fact, only a small percentage of the world's population knows about the cryptocurrency. Therefore, the crypto currency will not soon catch up with the popularity of Fiat. And hardly ever replace the Fiat

It is not really able to make it, that is the fact with bitcoin. And bitcoin will always be treated as an investment by most of the people, though many of us are already using it as an online currency. But there would be one day that the fiat will be upgraded into something that has the same idea with bitcoin and other crypto's.

Yes, bitcoins are now considered by many people as investments. This is due to the fact that the price of bitcoin is growing. In the long term, it can grow several times.
Few people use bitcoins to buy everyday products

Actually as of now in most of the countries, we can't buy any everyday products using bitcoins directly because they are not so popular in mainstream business yet. Bitcoins are more popular in the gambling industry. But for investment purpose, it is quite good because of its high price fluctuations we can make some profits regularly.

Fiat has been fully involved in our daily lives and it will take a lot of time to completely eliminate it and start using bitcoins. Bitcoins has started replacing credits  cards which were being used online.

We can not used bitcoin for our daily lives this is only digital currency and not all people can access bitcoin that is why it is impossible to replace fiat by bitcoin and fiat is much needed by all people for daily. The only advantage of bitcoin is the value it has big value that our fiat and also we can earn in bitcoin itself.

Yeah the usage and users of fiat are more in compare to bitcoins and spending fiat is easy in compare to spending bitcoins and even in future most of the people will prefer to use bitcoin only for online transactions and for offline they will prefer fiat.

It does not depend on people. Many people agree to buy food for bitcoins. But they do not have such an opportunity. Stores do not sell goods for bitcoins. I hope that in the future I can buy anything for bitcoin. And then I will definitely forget about Fiat

That's right and even now people prefer to use credit cards for shopping as they don't want to carry hard cash in their wallet and once people will start knowing bitcoins they will follow the same and will start buying goods with bitcoins.

i think we can see this in future after bitcoin is accepting in many places and there are offline store that accepting bitcoin as payment. i think in future, credit card will not use again as bitcoin is more easy to use than credit card and bitcoin is not only have the card but we can save it in our android phone.

but i think the number of such shops are present in very limited areas. but i am hopeful that when the number of bitcoin users will increase more and more, then we will be able to use bitcoin in our local shops also.

Why are you here talking about like we always need to choose Bitcoin instead of Fiat Currency? Because what I see is that they can live together without replacing one another. Also I think that all users want is to have as many payment options as possible and Bitcoin is one of them to be honest Bitcoin won't replace anything in this world it can just be an option to everyone.

[Astvile]

I think yes.Bitcoin cannot replace fiat currencies because fiat currencies is sponsored by the government,they are the one who manage and runs it.No government will let them be defeated when it comes to earning and prestige

[ekoice]

Yes, got you intrigued, didn't it?

Bitcoin is a very good thing to have as an asset. Just like gold. Even better if I may say. It's secure, and unlike fiat money it actually exists and work is put into it to produce it. This makes it great to store value.
However, it cannot and will not replace current fiat money that the entire world it using. It just cannot.
Take paying a cup of coffee for example. To pay your coffee with bitcoins, one must get bitcoins first, either by mining or buying bitcoins with other kinds of money (*cough*fiat*cough). It ends up being a quite complicated process, don't you think?
Until we reach the point where paying for a cup of coffee is as easy with Bitcoin as it is with cash, we will never get mass adoption. And as far as I see it, there is no way of simplifying the acquiring of bitcoins.

Yes,bitcoin cannot replace fiat.Even now,in many countries,most people dont even have a bank account and debit card,credit card.They dont know about digital transactions.What they know is paper money which they can feel with their hands.In future also,Fiat currency would exist,but its usage would get reduced.Bitcoin would be a secondary payment option.

[bitgolden]

Its not important for bitcoin to replace. we can easily exchange them with fiat and use for daily purpose. Bitcoin's value changes from day to day. It can't be controlled by any regulations or authorities. And manipulation is easier. So I totally agree with you in this case

Yes, I agree with you mate,
But bitcoin cannot replace fiat in different ways. one of them. The volatility of bitcoin price. Bitcoin price change day by day. It can decrease or increase according of using bitcoin by the community. Of course we can convert bitcoin to fiat. but most of member who have bitcoin they want convert their bitcoin when the price is high.

People are treating bitcoin like it is gold nowadays but with extreme increased past, bitcoin is a type of investment there for it cannot replace the fiat in anyway, and besides the price being volatile.

Bitcoin source is limited we can’t have as many bitcoin as we want so there will be not enough bitcoin for the whole world to use, and also look at the transaction only with a few users now it is very slow, imagine if more people start to use it, you will have to wait four days for one transaction.

[DoublerHunter]

Its not important for bitcoin to replace. we can easily exchange them with fiat and use for daily purpose. Bitcoin's value changes from day to day. It can't be controlled by any regulations or authorities. And manipulation is easier. So I totally agree with you in this case

Yes, I agree with you mate,
But bitcoin cannot replace fiat in different ways. one of them. The volatility of bitcoin price. Bitcoin price change day by day. It can decrease or increase according of using bitcoin by the community. Of course we can convert bitcoin to fiat. but most of member who have bitcoin they want convert their bitcoin when the price is high.

People are treating bitcoin like it is gold nowadays but with extreme increased past, bitcoin is a type of investment there for it cannot replace the fiat in anyway, and besides the price being volatile.

Bitcoin source is limited we can’t have as many bitcoin as we want so there will be not enough bitcoin for the whole world to use, and also look at the transaction only with a few users now it is very slow, imagine if more people start to use it, you will have to wait four days for one transaction.

Great opinion, I also agree that bitcoin will not replace the fiat because of its limited source of supply that cannot sustain the whole population of our world and it is very volatile so how come that the businesses will get consistent value of their bitcoin. But for me there is still a chance for bitcoin to be used by the most of the countries because soon after a few years, bitcoin will be improved very well and the confirmation time will be faster than now because the miners will solve that problem by increasing their number.

[ekoice]

Yes, got you intrigued, didn't it?

Bitcoin is a very good thing to have as an asset. Just like gold. Even better if I may say. It's secure, and unlike fiat money it actually exists and work is put into it to produce it. This makes it great to store value.
However, it cannot and will not replace current fiat money that the entire world it using. It just cannot.
Take paying a cup of coffee for example. To pay your coffee with bitcoins, one must get bitcoins first, either by mining or buying bitcoins with other kinds of money (*cough*fiat*cough). It ends up being a quite complicated process, don't you think?
Until we reach the point where paying for a cup of coffee is as easy with Bitcoin as it is with cash, we will never get mass adoption. And as far as I see it, there is no way of simplifying the acquiring of bitcoins.

Yes,bitcoin cannot replace fiat.Even now,in many countries,most people dont even have a bank account and debit card,credit card.They dont know about digital transactions.What they know is paper money which they can feel with their hands.In future also,Fiat currency would exist,but its usage would get reduced.Bitcoin would be a secondary payment option.

[BitHodler]

(Plz don't give me the "bitcoin transactions takes too much time to get confirmed" comment because the answer will be "put some transaction fee")

But this is not how things should be

There shouldn't be such fees in the first place. Conceptually, given the number of nodes capable of confirming transactions (i.e. nodes having full copy of the blockchain), the fees shouldn't be there at all. In fact, there should be negative competition since among a few dozen thousand nodes capable of confirming transactions will always be a couple of nodes that will first include transactions with no fees, just to support the network at its lower edge. Today, we see paradoxical situation when miners instead of facilitating bitcoin payments are actually hindering them. This is nonsense from an economic point of view if you ask me, and this should be changed

We are at a point where the financial gains have more priority for miners than serving the whole Bitcoin eco system in a honest and appropriate manner.

It has no chance of changing unless we move away from the POW aspect and incentivize some sort of a node pos system.

That idea on its own will not be welcomed as the fundamental changes are too severe, which basically means that Bitcoin won't entirely be Bitcoin anymore but a complete different coin.

[deisik]

But this is not how things should be

There shouldn't be such fees in the first place. Conceptually, given the number of nodes capable of confirming transactions (i.e. nodes having full copy of the blockchain), the fees shouldn't be there at all. In fact, there should be negative competition since among a few dozen thousand nodes capable of confirming transactions will always be a couple of nodes that will first include transactions with no fees, just to support the network at its lower edge. Today, we see paradoxical situation when miners instead of facilitating bitcoin payments are actually hindering them. This is nonsense from an economic point of view if you ask me, and this should be changed

Whoa you got it backwards!   Fees were always meant to replace mining rewards at some point.   What is the point of mining if you can't cover your costs and make a profit?   Early on block rewards were high to allow for the network to get going.   Now it is going and people need to stop expecting free transactions to work quickly. 

In fact, it is you (as well as many others) who are getting it backwards

But because you didn't see it forwards (pardon my English), you can't tell the correct direction, and what you consider as being backwards is in fact how things should be done right. Mining serves the purpose of confirming transactions, that's what miners are needed for. There is neither necessity nor requirement that confirming transactions should incur any costs or bring financial profits. This is where you make a logical mistake (and get it backwards yourself). You implicitly assume that mining should necessarily require some serious expenses that would justify high transaction fees. In reality, though, there are no such provisions. Mining can and should be made cheap, and negligibly cheap at that to make transaction flow as smooth and unimpeded as possible

[boyptc]

I think yes.Bitcoin cannot replace fiat currencies because fiat currencies is sponsored by the government,they are the one who manage and runs it.No government will let them be defeated when it comes to earning and prestige

We need fiat and we know the mere fact that fiat won't be replaced by bitcoin. But one day fiat will be digitized but bitcoin isn't the replacement of it. That will be like credit card or PayPal money that we can use for transacting but I can see that bitcoin can be considered by it's risky.

[deisik]

(Plz don't give me the "bitcoin transactions takes too much time to get confirmed" comment because the answer will be "put some transaction fee")

But this is not how things should be

There shouldn't be such fees in the first place. Conceptually, given the number of nodes capable of confirming transactions (i.e. nodes having full copy of the blockchain), the fees shouldn't be there at all. In fact, there should be negative competition since among a few dozen thousand nodes capable of confirming transactions will always be a couple of nodes that will first include transactions with no fees, just to support the network at its lower edge. Today, we see paradoxical situation when miners instead of facilitating bitcoin payments are actually hindering them. This is nonsense from an economic point of view if you ask me, and this should be changed

We are at a point where the financial gains have more priority for miners than serving the whole Bitcoin eco system in a honest and appropriate manner.

It has no chance of changing unless we move away from the POW aspect and incentivize some sort of a node pos system.

That idea on its own will not be welcomed as the fundamental changes are too severe, which basically means that Bitcoin won't entirely be Bitcoin anymore but a complete different coin

I can't really tell whether PoW is worse or better than PoS in this respect

I just don't have enough technical knowledge to make a definitive conclusion, but I think we don't even need to go that far. The issue can be fundamentally and I daresay even gracefully solved by introducing instant transactions in the way Lightning Network makes them possible. Massive off-chain transactions will necessarily bring down the number of on-chain transactions to a minimum, and miners will have to either leave or include all transactions. Otherwise, they would still have to leave eventually. But once expensive miners are gone, difficulty will readjust and cheap miners will take over. This process will necessarily cause demonopolization of the mining field via purely economic, indirect means

[Theb]

(Plz don't give me the "bitcoin transactions takes too much time to get confirmed" comment because the answer will be "put some transaction fee")

But this is not how things should be

There shouldn't be such fees in the first place. Conceptually, given the number of nodes capable of confirming transactions (i.e. nodes having full copy of the blockchain), the fees shouldn't be there at all. In fact, there should be negative competition since among a few dozen thousand nodes capable of confirming transactions will always be a couple of nodes that will first include transactions with no fees, just to support the network at its lower edge. Today, we see paradoxical situation when miners instead of facilitating bitcoin payments are actually hindering them. This is nonsense from an economic point of view if you ask me, and this should be changed

We are at a point where the financial gains have more priority for miners than serving the whole Bitcoin eco system in a honest and appropriate manner.

It has no chance of changing unless we move away from the POW aspect and incentivize some sort of a node pos system.

That idea on its own will not be welcomed as the fundamental changes are too severe, which basically means that Bitcoin won't entirely be Bitcoin anymore but a complete different coin

I can't really tell whether PoW is worse or better than PoS in this respect

I just don't have enough technical knowledge to make a definitive conclusion, but I think we don't even need to go that far. The issue can be fundamentally and I daresay even gracefully solved by introducing instant transactions in the way Lightning Network makes them possible. Massive off-chain transactions will necessarily bring down the number of on-chain transactions to a minimum, and miners will have to either leave or include all transactions. Otherwise, they would still have to leave eventually. But once expensive miners are gone, difficulty will readjust and cheap miners will take over. This process will necessarily cause demonopolization of the mining field via purely economic, indirect means

To be honest Transactions Fees are kind of a cheap thing considering that it is way cheaper compared to what Banks try to take from our accounts.  Recently I just sent Bitcoin to my friend in which it cost me around .00045200 BTC which is just around half a dollar. Transactions fees like this help maintain or support Bitcoin itself as they are the ones who give us the most benefit from using it in our daily lives.

[wck]

(Plz don't give me the "bitcoin transactions takes too much time to get confirmed" comment because the answer will be "put some transaction fee")

But this is not how things should be

There shouldn't be such fees in the first place. Conceptually, given the number of nodes capable of confirming transactions (i.e. nodes having full copy of the blockchain), the fees shouldn't be there at all. In fact, there should be negative competition since among a few dozen thousand nodes capable of confirming transactions will always be a couple of nodes that will first include transactions with no fees, just to support the network at its lower edge. Today, we see paradoxical situation when miners instead of facilitating bitcoin payments are actually hindering them. This is nonsense from an economic point of view if you ask me, and this should be changed

We are at a point where the financial gains have more priority for miners than serving the whole Bitcoin eco system in a honest and appropriate manner.

It has no chance of changing unless we move away from the POW aspect and incentivize some sort of a node pos system.

That idea on its own will not be welcomed as the fundamental changes are too severe, which basically means that Bitcoin won't entirely be Bitcoin anymore but a complete different coin

I can't really tell whether PoW is worse or better than PoS in this respect

I just don't have enough technical knowledge to make a definitive conclusion, but I think we don't even need to go that far. The issue can be fundamentally and I daresay even gracefully solved by introducing instant transactions in the way Lightning Network makes them possible. Massive off-chain transactions will necessarily bring down the number of on-chain transactions to a minimum, and miners will have to either leave or include all transactions. Otherwise, they would still have to leave eventually. But once expensive miners are gone, difficulty will readjust and cheap miners will take over. This process will necessarily cause demonopolization of the mining field via purely economic, indirect means

To be honest Transactions Fees are kind of a cheap thing considering that it is way cheaper compared to what Banks try to take from our accounts.  Recently I just sent Bitcoin to my friend in which it cost me around .00045200 BTC which is just around half a dollar. Transactions fees like this help maintain or support Bitcoin itself as they are the ones who give us the most benefit from using it in our daily lives.

The problem is that the transaction fees are growing quickly now.   At some point the fees won't be cheap.   For small transfers the transfer fees can be a serious issue.

[Teraboy]

(Plz don't give me the "bitcoin transactions takes too much time to get confirmed" comment because the answer will be "put some transaction fee")

But this is not how things should be

There shouldn't be such fees in the first place. Conceptually, given the number of nodes capable of confirming transactions (i.e. nodes having full copy of the blockchain), the fees shouldn't be there at all. In fact, there should be negative competition since among a few dozen thousand nodes capable of confirming transactions will always be a couple of nodes that will first include transactions with no fees, just to support the network at its lower edge. Today, we see paradoxical situation when miners instead of facilitating bitcoin payments are actually hindering them. This is nonsense from an economic point of view if you ask me, and this should be changed

We are at a point where the financial gains have more priority for miners than serving the whole Bitcoin eco system in a honest and appropriate manner.

It has no chance of changing unless we move away from the POW aspect and incentivize some sort of a node pos system.

That idea on its own will not be welcomed as the fundamental changes are too severe, which basically means that Bitcoin won't entirely be Bitcoin anymore but a complete different coin

I can't really tell whether PoW is worse or better than PoS in this respect

I just don't have enough technical knowledge to make a definitive conclusion, but I think we don't even need to go that far. The issue can be fundamentally and I daresay even gracefully solved by introducing instant transactions in the way Lightning Network makes them possible. Massive off-chain transactions will necessarily bring down the number of on-chain transactions to a minimum, and miners will have to either leave or include all transactions. Otherwise, they would still have to leave eventually. But once expensive miners are gone, difficulty will readjust and cheap miners will take over. This process will necessarily cause demonopolization of the mining field via purely economic, indirect means

To be honest Transactions Fees are kind of a cheap thing considering that it is way cheaper compared to what Banks try to take from our accounts.  Recently I just sent Bitcoin to my friend in which it cost me around .00045200 BTC which is just around half a dollar. Transactions fees like this help maintain or support Bitcoin itself as they are the ones who give us the most benefit from using it in our daily lives.

The problem is that the transaction fees are growing quickly now.   At some point the fees won't be cheap.   For small transfers the transfer fees can be a serious issue.

That's why we are need the blocksize increase, I though if the limited block will make the spam transaction is easy to happen on the btcoin network and make the fees are going to the moon and make the small transaction will be useless because it's not enough to pay the fees.

[STT]

We dont need to do anything exactly.  If you consider all crypto currencies not just bitcoin as a singular standard.   If people want to send 10 cent value on a blockchain, there are coins which will do that.   If people argue they are not as secure then you are kind of missing the point, use the right tool for the job and I dont think bitcoin should be trying to capture every single crypto transaction.   Leave something for the small fish.

I can't really tell whether PoW is worse or better than PoS in this respect

Capitalism should always be competitive, when that does not occur it turns into a failed system that does not serve its users.   Since we are already dealing with a dollar system biased to political aims and bitcoin was supposed to be the free market alternative, it does not bode well for a growth in trade.


The answer for POS is that it works great, let it find its place in the market.  Be that small or big transactions, the users themselves should judge the level of security of speed to cost that they want.   Really this is the best outcome, free range, open competition and agreed standards within each coin

[stergium]

(Plz don't give me the "bitcoin transactions takes too much time to get confirmed" comment because the answer will be "put some transaction fee")

But this is not how things should be

There shouldn't be such fees in the first place. Conceptually, given the number of nodes capable of confirming transactions (i.e. nodes having full copy of the blockchain), the fees shouldn't be there at all. In fact, there should be negative competition since among a few dozen thousand nodes capable of confirming transactions will always be a couple of nodes that will first include transactions with no fees, just to support the network at its lower edge. Today, we see paradoxical situation when miners instead of facilitating bitcoin payments are actually hindering them. This is nonsense from an economic point of view if you ask me, and this should be changed

We are at a point where the financial gains have more priority for miners than serving the whole Bitcoin eco system in a honest and appropriate manner.

It has no chance of changing unless we move away from the POW aspect and incentivize some sort of a node pos system.

That idea on its own will not be welcomed as the fundamental changes are too severe, which basically means that Bitcoin won't entirely be Bitcoin anymore but a complete different coin

I can't really tell whether PoW is worse or better than PoS in this respect

I just don't have enough technical knowledge to make a definitive conclusion, but I think we don't even need to go that far. The issue can be fundamentally and I daresay even gracefully solved by introducing instant transactions in the way Lightning Network makes them possible. Massive off-chain transactions will necessarily bring down the number of on-chain transactions to a minimum, and miners will have to either leave or include all transactions. Otherwise, they would still have to leave eventually. But once expensive miners are gone, difficulty will readjust and cheap miners will take over. This process will necessarily cause demonopolization of the mining field via purely economic, indirect means

To be honest Transactions Fees are kind of a cheap thing considering that it is way cheaper compared to what Banks try to take from our accounts.  Recently I just sent Bitcoin to my friend in which it cost me around .00045200 BTC which is just around half a dollar. Transactions fees like this help maintain or support Bitcoin itself as they are the ones who give us the most benefit from using it in our daily lives.

The problem is that the transaction fees are growing quickly now.   At some point the fees won't be cheap.   For small transfers the transfer fees can be a serious issue.

yes that is a problem, it is making for the user of bitcoin more difficult to send money from place to place even creating problems for the users of bitcoin who are using bitcoin for shopping etc.

[Bitcoin0916]

Yes, got you intrigued, didn't it?

Bitcoin is a very good thing to have as an asset. Just like gold. Even better if I may say. It's secure, and unlike fiat money it actually exists and work is put into it to produce it. This makes it great to store value.
However, it cannot and will not replace current fiat money that the entire world it using. It just cannot.
Take paying a cup of coffee for example. To pay your coffee with bitcoins, one must get bitcoins first, either by mining or buying bitcoins with other kinds of money (*cough*fiat*cough). It ends up being a quite complicated process, don't you think?
Until we reach the point where paying for a cup of coffee is as easy with Bitcoin as it is with cash, we will never get mass adoption. And as far as I see it, there is no way of simplifying the acquiring of bitcoins.

Yes,bitcoin cannot replace fiat.Even now,in many countries,most people dont even have a bank account and debit card,credit card.They dont know about digital transactions.What they know is paper money which they can feel with their hands.In future also,Fiat currency would exist,but its usage would get reduced.Bitcoin would be a secondary payment option.

Yeah right, fiat money will continue to exist because the use is legitimate and fully protected by the government, despite the use of the bitcoin is already widespread, but will always be secondary and fiat is always primary.

[MintCondition]

Yes, got you intrigued, didn't it?

Bitcoin is a very good thing to have as an asset. Just like gold. Even better if I may say. It's secure, and unlike fiat money it actually exists and work is put into it to produce it. This makes it great to store value.
However, it cannot and will not replace current fiat money that the entire world it using. It just cannot.
Take paying a cup of coffee for example. To pay your coffee with bitcoins, one must get bitcoins first, either by mining or buying bitcoins with other kinds of money (*cough*fiat*cough). It ends up being a quite complicated process, don't you think?
Until we reach the point where paying for a cup of coffee is as easy with Bitcoin as it is with cash, we will never get mass adoption. And as far as I see it, there is no way of simplifying the acquiring of bitcoins.

Yes,bitcoin cannot replace fiat.Even now,in many countries,most people dont even have a bank account and debit card,credit card.They dont know about digital transactions.What they know is paper money which they can feel with their hands.In future also,Fiat currency would exist,but its usage would get reduced.Bitcoin would be a secondary payment option.

Yeah right, fiat money will continue to exist because the use is legitimate and fully protected by the government, despite the use of the bitcoin is already widespread, but will always be secondary and fiat is always primary.

This is the reality, our governments already marked our currency that will be hard to diminished on us. For it is one of the label that makes our country, In this millennial times wherein currencies also overtakes in technology there were really some improvements that technology offers to make online transactions faster this is were bitcoin really takes part. Bitcoin may not replace our fiat in our country or government,but here with technology bitcoin rules.