Bitcoin: Settlement Layer or Payment Network?

[RealBitcoin]

Bitcoin, our beloved cryptocurrency now stands between a forked road and it has to take 1 route, that will define it, and once the route is chosen it cannot turn back. It's now time to decide what bitcoin is, and where it is heading, therefore 2 paths are in front of us: Settlement Layer or Payment Network.

Now obviously my opinion is (and its a strong opinion) that Bitcoin is a Settlement Layer and it's not suited to be a Payment Network.



Here are the reasons why Bitcoin is Settlement Layer:

✓ Bitcoin is a deflationary currency, perfectly suited for longer storage, not instant payments.

✓ Bitcoin has a slow transaction speed, 10 minute is too slow for average transactions, therefore not good for quick shopping.

✓ Most coins are already in cold storage or in black holes, and more will be, it has a low money velocity, therefore few big transactions happen (most transactions are dust faucet payments which can easily be done offchain anyway).

✓ Bitcoin is nr.1. cryptocurrency which means it has instinsic value in the crypto world.

✓ Bitcoin is effectively a commodity, a commodity money, a digital version of gold.

✓ Bitcoin is well trusted and respected therefore any other technology can be easily built upon it.

✓ Bitcoin transaction cost will rise eventually, phasing out small payments, and it will be used only for larger payments, and could become a professional or institutional platform for finance, not an internet joke money.

✓ Bitcoin is nr.1. and the original one, so there can be any derivatives of it linked to it, in a transparent way, that could serve as a quickpayment, like offchain transactions, offchain channels, Lightning Network, payment consolidators,etc..

✓ Making bitcoin a settlement layer is the only way to gain trust of rich people and advancing bitcoin forward to the next level being recognized as a professional platform and a serious thing amongst reputable people.

✓ Bitcoin could be a safe haven against financial collapse, capital control and could store trillions of $ in the future, making it's price stable, while a "quickpay" currency would be very volatile because we know the faster the money velocity the higher the volatility of price. So the trust , the deflationary aspect and the slow money velocity is the perfect combination for a digital commodity and settlement layer system.

✓ Given bitcoin's size, and the money risked in it, we should be extra careful with any sudden changes, so the financially responsible and conservative path is the best way to go, therefore a small block size is recommended.


Yes, so this is Bitcoin, and therefore the Core roadmap is the best suited for it. If you want a payment network coin, then try Litecoin or Doge, but Bitcoin is not well suited for it.

"If you give up financial security for temporary comfort, then you deserve neither." --Me

[25hashcoin]

It is/will be both.

/discussion

[RealBitcoin]

It is/will be both.

/discussion

You cant have it both, because then it will be weak. You have to choose 1 and focus on that aspect.

And for the other, you will have another coin or another alt-chain  or a derivative.


We have to be task-specific or task-oriented, thats the only way to get efficiency, mixed crap is never efficient and most likely full of flaws.

This is the great schism of the bitcoin community. The classic supporters think bitcoin can be both, but they are wrong, they should use Dogecoin instead.

[25hashcoin]

It is/will be both.

/discussion

You cant have it both, because then it will be weak. You have to choose 1 and focus on that aspect.

And for the other, you will have another coin or another alt-chain  or a derivative.


We have to be task-specific or task-oriented, thats the only way to get efficiency, mixed crap is never efficient and most likely full of flaws.

This is the great schism of the bitcoin community. The classic supporters think bitcoin can be both, but they are wrong, they should use Dogecoin instead.

Guessing you never heard of LN or sidechains? And I'm not a classic supporter. I do agree those people should just use another coin though. They don't undrstand bitcoin is still in experimental phase/early stages and isn't supposed to support 7 billion people buying their coffee overnight.

[franky1]

Guessing you never heard of LN or sidechains? And I'm not a classic supporter. I do agree those people should just use another coin though. They don't undrstand bitcoin is still in experimental phase/early stages and isn't supposed to support 7 billion people buying their coffee overnight.

here we have it again.. blockstreamers with their dooms day 7billion people in 2 year theory..

seriously bitcoin does not have 7 billion users. even visa doesnt have 7 billion users, even after 60 years of advertising

bitcoin CAN handle a few million users right now. and WILL handle more users in the next 16 months. and slowly as time goes on it will handle more.
but to do that the BUFFER needs to be raised to allow space a growth.. even if we made the block hard limit double tomorrow. miners will still be making 1mb blocks, in a few months it would be 1.1mb then 1.2 then 1.3 and so on.. SLOW NATURAL GROWTH

i really love how blockstreamers say that increasing the blocklimit is akin to blowing up into a unusable network in the matter of a year where its suddenly and magically going to have 7billion people jump intobitcoin with in a few months..

can you bait and switchers try using logic next time
bitcoin will not have 900million customers by 2020 or anywhere near that number.. so chill out on the doomsday crap as its just not logical or practical

[25hashcoin]

Guessing you never heard of LN or sidechains? And I'm not a classic supporter. I do agree those people should just use another coin though. They don't undrstand bitcoin is still in experimental phase/early stages and isn't supposed to support 7 billion people buying their coffee overnight.

here we have it again.. blockstreamers with their dooms day 7billion people in 2 year theory..

seriously bitcoin does not have 7 billion users. even visa doesnt have 7 billion users, even after 60 years of advertising

bitcoin CAN handle a few million users right now. and WILL handle more users in the next 16 months. and slowly as time goes on it will handle more.
but to do that the BUFFER needs to be raised to allow space a growth.. even if we made the block hard limit double tomorrow. miners will still be making 1mb blocks, in a few months it would be 1.1mb then 1.2 then 1.3 and so on.. SLOW NATURAL GROWTH

i really love how blockstreamers say that increasing the blocklimit is akin to blowing up into a unusable network in the matter of a year where its suddenly and magically going to have 7billion people jump intobitcoin with in a few months..

can you bait and switchers try using logic next time
bitcoin will not have 900million customers by 2020 or anywhere near that number.. so chill out on the doomsday crap as its just not logical or practical

Lol at classiccoiners and their doomsday theories. You said it yourself. Bitcoin only has a few million users and can handle that volume as is. There are also clear capacity increases in the works via cores roadmap. Funny how classicoiners love to ignore this fact. Take your ad hominem and fud elsewhere.

[adamstgBit]

if someone sells 10million dollars worth of bitcoin the market will nose dive very hard, this should give you a clue as to how far off we are of being a Settlement Layer.

baby steps, bitcoin NEEDS to gain a much wider user base before it can even attempt being a Settlement Layer.

[franky1]

Lol at classiccoiners and their doomsday theories. You said it yourself. Bitcoin only has a few million users and can handle that volume as is. There are also clear capacity increases in the works via cores roadmap. Funny how classicoiners love to ignore this fact. Take your ad hominem and fud elsewhere.

lol but forcing to restrict bitcoin growth in favour of off chain is not bitcoin.. i agree it can have both. but not by FORCING people onto a less secure network. it should be a free choice security(onchain) vs speed(offchain).

atleast my doomsday has logic based on a situation that can happen in the next two years. yet blockstreamers rhetoric seems to be a script using a 20-60 possibility, with no bases of logic or real world scenario

bitcoin can grow with both. it doesnt need one choice or the other. and lastly im not a classicer. im just a logical thinker that sees no problem with onchain growth.

and it seems that by you saying the word "ad hominem" you have been schooled by lauda and his ilk.

if you think the only way is LN then you should play with monero or the other altcoins

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

There are green checkmarks next to the points, people. That means they really mean what he says they mean.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Bitcoin is a P2P transaction log.

No need to over-complicate it by defining it as a "settlement layer" or whatever other semantic nonesense exists.

Transactions happen fast, they just aren't always confirmed "fast". However they are confirmed faster than Visa - where you can find out weeks later that a transaction isn't real.

A) With bitcoin, it typically takes less than hour to know it was real and can not be undone. That's what matters, not whether or not it is a "settlement layer" or whatever other term you want to make up for it.

B) Most of the attacks that can cause a TX you see to never make it into the blockchain can only be pulled off by a miner and currently risk a very large block reward if they fail, in addition to losing the attempted double-spend.

C) The one attack that does not require the help of a miner is very easy to defend against. Don't accept incoming connections on the node you use to look for new transactions. This is easy to accomplish, simply turn off incoming transactions in your bitcoind configuration.

Thus - the garbage about long transaction times is FUD. Very cleverly worded FUD but FUD nonetheless.

Be careful of sesquipedalians. Very often they want to use their long fancy words to con you into believing them. Because they use long words and fancy terms like "settlement layer" they must be right, no? No.

Bitcoin is an open P2P transaction log.

That's all it is.

And it functions just fine for instant payments. And it will continue to function just fine for instant payments.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

If you control the flow of money, you have a lot of power.

Bitcoin puts that power into the hands of the people.

There are certain well-funded interests that want to take that power away from the people. Beware of them.

[pooya87]

i agree that bitcoin needs to be one of these two and can't be both because if the price is not stable everybody will think twice before spending it because of the possibility of price rise.

but i don't agree that we need to decide now and there is no turning back. bitcoin has been more of a "Settlement Layer" and more for speculation and profiting and it is going to be this way for a longer time but this can change in time. as more services start accepting bitcoin and as a result more people start using it, the price will become more stable and we get closer to becoming a "Payment Network"

it doesn't need to be so black and white.

[25hashcoin]

i agree that bitcoin needs to be one of these two and can't be both because if the price is not stable everybody will think twice before spending it because of the possibility of price rise.

If bitcoin actually takes off it will be worth exponentially more. Imagine a million dollars per coin one day. Price rises at that point would be nominal in short term and go essentially unnoticed by the average joe. People will have stopped pricing it in other currencies at that point anyway. 1 satoshi = 1 satoshi. You don't see people questioning whether they want to spend their fiat because it can rise a small percentage against another currency do you? Secondly, if bitcoin becomes a mainstream currency, people aren't going to stop paying their bills and buying necessities. They aren't going to stop buying nice things and living it up just because their currency may go slowly increase over time. The average person doesn't even have money. They have debt or just enough to get things they need to survive...some people don't even have enough to survive. They are starving. You think they are going to continue to skip meals if they come upon some bitcoin? No. We are early adopters. Bitcoin is young. The sentiment now will be drastically different in the future.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Million per coin won't happen.

What will happen is there will be alt coins that aren't just sh*tcoins like most have been.

Right now I think there isn't enough demand for a successful altcoin. Not enough to fund serious development and continued maintenance.

Maybe LN will provide that altcoin and maybe it won't. Hard to know but I doubt it.

But bitcoin is not at a cross-roads. It is working just fine and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

[RealBitcoin]

i agree that bitcoin needs to be one of these two and can't be both because if the price is not stable everybody will think twice before spending it because of the possibility of price rise.

but i don't agree that we need to decide now and there is no turning back. bitcoin has been more of a "Settlement Layer" and more for speculation and profiting and it is going to be this way for a longer time but this can change in time. as more services start accepting bitcoin and as a result more people start using it, the price will become more stable and we get closer to becoming a "Payment Network"

it doesn't need to be so black and white.

Classic guys want to make it both, which will make it very weak.

We need to choose it now, and we need to choose only 1 and focus one. And I have very solid proof that a settlement layer approach is better.

[RealBitcoin]

Folks you still dont understand that bitcoin is a settlement layer, primarly. And whatever room there is left, remaining is payment network.

I`m sick of classic people that want it both, but then we wont have it neither.

"If you give up financial security for temporary comfort, then you deserve neither"  (me)

[RealBitcoin]

Look at coins like litecoin and doge.

They have horribly fast payment confirms, if some of the nodes get delayed and they cant update their blockchain in time, the whole network can get disrupted.

Thats why I think at least 5 min should be the confirm time, to have a safe margin of error.


Bitcoin is ultra conservative with 10, and that is good, we dont wanna rush things.


Even the central bankers agree that bitcoin needs to be a store of wealth:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4cbctb/i_think_that_bitcoin_could_be_the_worlds_next/

[Lauda]

There was a similar thread recently:P2P Cash or Settlement Layer?. The first question that should be asked is what is achievable (which was also my first input on the other thread). If you really want to put some effort in your thread it might be good to provide some sort of list of features that are inherent to a settlement layer and those that are inherent to a payment network (then mark those that Bitcoin has). What you did was good, but it could be improved. It is just a suggestion though.

if someone sells 10million dollars worth of bitcoin the market will nose dive very hard, this should give you a clue as to how far off we are of being a Settlement Layer.

Basically, your definition of a settlement layer is something that has a very stable market price?

[KoinKartel]

Bitcoin, our beloved cryptocurrency now stands between a forked road and it has to take 1 route, that will define it, and once the route is chosen it cannot turn back. It's now time to decide what bitcoin is, and where it is heading, therefore 2 paths are in front of us: Settlement Layer or Payment Network.

Now obviously my opinion is (and its a strong opinion) that Bitcoin is a Settlement Layer and it's not suited to be a Payment Network.

Why does it's use actually have to be defined?

You are limiting yourself to thinking within a very small box. Bitcoin has MANY more use cases than playing the role of a payment network "or" a settlement layer. There are limitless capabilities that this network has, some of which haven't even been defined yet.

So to say that bitcoin "must" be either a payment network, or a settlement layer really does put a cap on bitcoin's potential growth

Value transmission is only one small iota of bitcoins capability, we haven't even scratched the surface of what's truly possible with this technology

[RealBitcoin]

Why does it's use actually have to be defined?

You are limiting yourself to thinking within a very small box. Bitcoin has MANY more use cases than playing the role of a payment network "or" a settlement layer. There are limitless capabilities that this network has, some of which haven't even been defined yet.

So to say that bitcoin "must" be either a payment network, or a settlement layer really does put a cap on bitcoin's potential growth

Value transmission is only one small iota of bitcoins capability, we haven't even scratched the surface of what's truly possible with this technology

Because the more complex the protocol is the more risks it carries.

By adding all sorts of junk to it is not a good way when it comes to money.

It must be simple and stable, thats all it needs to be succesful.

If you want complexity then use ethereum or other stuff.