BTC is Gold 2.0 – What humanity has been waiting for centuries

[Rw13enlib88]

The only way to do this is by all agreeing that BTC is Gold 2.0

We dont need a new technology to pay the coffee.
 

As soon as I see this, I smell an agenda.

you should change your avatar

To have value, something must not only be scarce but be useful.  You talk
about the users, but unless users can have fast cheap transactions
then why is it useful in the first place?

Because is the first SCARCE digital good?

Yes Bitcoin has other properties like hard to forge, easy to store, etc.
But widespread use is one of the most important factors.

Could you just read the previous post?

Why would people use Bitcoin as a store of value when other cryptos
could also offer high security and better utility?  How would the security
even be able to compete?

Could you just read the previous post?
Bitcoin = best security
other coin= day a day currency

And why do we have to give up usefulness and low fees at all?

This is not 2011. Expect 7.5 billion people to start using btc. Do you prefer none of them using it, so you can send your peanuts for free?

Most people who advocate that Bitcoin "shouldn't be coffee money"
are naively (or intentionally) buying into the narrative that Bitcoin
should not be peer to peer cash like Satoshi envisioned, but should
be a settlement network like Blockstream/Core developers want.

Do you feel better not respecting other opinions?

The only reason someone ever needs to argue that "Bitcoin shouldn't
be coffee money" is to justify high fees, which in turn is an excuse
to interfere in the free market between miners and users by
artificially constraining the transaction suppply with a blocksize cap.

As said, maybe you should just read previous posts
The main feature of btc and the innovation it brings is not paying a coffee.
Noone has ever stopped you from paying a coffee.
Do you understand that?

Even if you believe in all the 'threats to decentralization' from
bigger blocks (which I consider largely to be false), you should
have the honesty to admit that you want Bitcoin to be a high fee
settlement network and not peer to peer cash.

I honestly have to admit that you are a low quality manipulator...
Dont worry, someday you will see the big picture.
I'll sum it up for you

7.5 billion people on earth
more than 1k cryptocurrencies in 2017
You can pay your coffee in all of them
We all agree one of them is the most valuable and trustworthy

I have a different view of the topic you have posted here. I will not take bitcoin as gold 2.0 and also not as an instrument to save or transfer. Yes, they do have some similarity but most they are different from each other and their uses are also different.

Gold is a tangible asset and bitcoin is not. That's the basic difference. Bitcoin's value is very very dynamic, which creates ample opportunities to trade. However, gold price is not dynamic like bitcoin. That is the reason why people is using gold for generations to safeguard their savings. You can make ornaments with gold but you can't do anything with bitcoin apart from purchasing something.

People will want something with stable price to safeguard their savings. Bitcoin doesn't fill that bill. Bitcoin can be used as an investment to fetch a higher return than any other conventional return, but with a higher amount of risk. So lets take bitcoin as it is, lets not be confused it with gold and its properties.

That's actually a good take on it to be completely honest. Got me thinking a bit and you're actually pretty spot-on.
While you're very right about people wanting more tangible assets, I'm curious if the current and coming generations are still going to view PMs as safeguards for their wealth (like their parents and generations before them) or if they're going to start pushing towards more digital and "technological" assets, for different reasons.
Personally I don't think there's any better feeling than having some gold or silver in the hand, but that differs for people. Especially considering so many millennials are so poor, I doubt there'll be any major form of PM investing due to a simple lack of income.

you can foresee the moving to a digital world but you fail to undestand how wealth is created and you think the millenials wont create value.
Maybe in your country the millenials are so in debt but
1) that's not like that in every country of the world
2) Most of the millenials are in asia

http://www.generations.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/global_millennial_comparison_pdf__1_page_.png
(sorry says invalid image)

The trend to the digital world can be seen in newspapers, tv and now banks too. Young people dont visit the banks they make all the transaction throught internet

I agree with op that bitcoin is a good investment but only for time being. But bitcoin should not be compared with gold. Both are different. Gold has two uses . It can be used as an investment as well as for ornamental purpose. Whatever happen gold has got its own value. But bitcoin is not like that. If tomorrow any genius software engineer develop something better than bitcoin, everybody will leave bitcoin behind. You cannot predict its price.

That's true. But not sure about someone creating something better that bitcoin. You can see devs everyday "creating something better than bitcoin"
Network effect is so big in btc.
Bitcoin has 4 million fulltime salesmen. It's hard to compete with that.

I agree with op that bitcoin is a good investment but only for time being. But bitcoin should not be compared with gold. Both are different. Gold has two uses . It can be used as an investment as well as for ornamental purpose. Whatever happen gold has got its own value. But bitcoin is not like that. If tomorrow any genius software engineer develop something better than bitcoin, everybody will leave bitcoin behind. You cannot predict its price.

That's true... Bitcoin is more risky than gold investment. Technology is always being improved, and even faster than before. In the future someone can creates a better Crypto-Currency which can replaces Bitcoin with many advantages convincing big holders to migrate to the new currency lefting the Bitcoin. It can happen and as you said, we can't predict it and it's price.

Gold is material, Bitcoin is virtual, the safest way to keep wealthy is by keeping material stuff, especially when we are talking about gold or any other precious metal/jewel/mineral.

Same as previous post

That's true. But not sure about someone creating something better that bitcoin. You can see devs everyday "creating something better than bitcoin"
Network effect is so big in btc.
Bitcoin has 4 million fulltime salesmen. It's hard to compete with that.

[1715491951]

1715491951

[1715491951]

1715491951

[1715491951]

1715491951

[1715491951]

1715491951

[1715491951]

1715491951

[1715491951]

1715491951

[jonald_fyookball]

Because is the first SCARCE digital good?
 

First mover advantage and the network effect won't last forever.  They are already being seriously eroded by competitors like Ethereum.

Bitcoin = best security

For now, yes.  But take away the ability to conduct small transactions, and demand will drop, leading to lower prices, which leads to lowered mining revenue , which leads to lowered security... which in turn leads to even less demand.
 

Most people who advocate that Bitcoin "shouldn't be coffee money"
are naively (or intentionally) buying into the narrative that Bitcoin
should not be peer to peer cash like Satoshi envisioned, but should
be a settlement network like Blockstream/Core developers want.

Do you feel better not respecting other opinions?
 

You're allowed to intentionally buy into that narrative.  Do you admit that you do?

[lorylore]

I agree with op that bitcoin is a good investment but only for time being. But bitcoin should not be compared with gold. Both are different. Gold has two uses . It can be used as an investment as well as for ornamental purpose. Whatever happen gold has got its own value. But bitcoin is not like that. If tomorrow any genius software engineer develop something better than bitcoin, everybody will leave bitcoin behind. You cannot predict its price.

That's true... Bitcoin is more risky than gold investment. Technology is always being improved, and even faster than before. In the future someone can creates a better Crypto-Currency which can replaces Bitcoin with many advantages convincing big holders to migrate to the new currency lefting the Bitcoin. It can happen and as you said, we can't predict it and it's price.

Gold is material, Bitcoin is virtual, the safest way to keep wealthy is by keeping material stuff, especially when we are talking about gold or any other precious metal/jewel/mineral.

Although gold is physical and btc you cant even touch it, what really give the value of gold to be of such result now? Why the others dont have the same treatment as how the gold works? Because all these are just the perceived values, the society decide the price and it shall be. Similarly, btc is not physical but there are demands for it and there are supply for it. So how do we judge the price of btc, we will just leave it to the open market to buy or sell btc. Hopefully, people are more willing to try out btc.

[d5000]

Gold has value because of their users, the same as btc.
For gold is easier because it has been used by previous generations.
[...]
Limited offer (21M BTC) and demand is just 1% of world population.
Bitcoin is yet to be adopted by 99%.
Who's gonna sell now when we all know that is still to be adopted by 99%.
[...]
The difference with LTC is the user base. + Network effect.

It's simply not mandatory that Bitcoin will be adopted by the 99% (it's actually more 99,8%, as the user base of BTC is estimated to be less than 10 million). It could also be LTC, ETH or whatever that captures the remaining 99%. Or no cryptocurrency at all.

Bitcoin has an advantage because of its network effect. But this advantage will decrease if high fees prevent the usage as a currency. I don't consider current fees too high, but in the future if nothing is done they will be too high (50cent to 1 USD should be the limit). My preference would be heterogeneous scaling solutions (see the answer below to jonald_fyookball).

To have value, something must not only be scarce but be useful.

Yep, fully agree.

And why do we have to give up usefulness and low fees at all?

Most people who advocate that Bitcoin "shouldn't be coffee money"
are naively (or intentionally) buying into the narrative that Bitcoin
should not be peer to peer cash like Satoshi envisioned, but should
be a settlement network like Blockstream/Core developers want.

The problem is that the math is against infinite on-chain scalability. We need a form of "off-chain" capacity or "sharding", so not all nodes have to validate all transactions.

Sidechains with a decentralized two-way-peg and LN should, together, be enough to scale up to hundreds of millions or even billions of users. LN for the coffee, sidechains for larger buys and smart contracts, and on-chain transactions for big transfers and as the base for the sidechain pegs.

[jonald_fyookball]

Gold has value because of their users, the same as btc.
For gold is easier because it has been used by previous generations.
[...]
Limited offer (21M BTC) and demand is just 1% of world population.
Bitcoin is yet to be adopted by 99%.
Who's gonna sell now when we all know that is still to be adopted by 99%.
[...]
The difference with LTC is the user base. + Network effect.

It's simply not mandatory that Bitcoin will be adopted by the 99% (it's actually more 99,8%, as the user base of BTC is estimated to be less than 10 million). It could also be LTC, ETH or whatever that captures the remaining 99%. Or no cryptocurrency at all.

Bitcoin has an advantage because of its network effect. But this advantage will decrease if high fees prevent the usage as a currency. I don't consider current fees too high, but in the future if nothing is done they will be too high (50cent to 1 USD should be the limit). My preference would be heterogeneous scaling solutions (see the answer below to jonald_fyookball).

To have value, something must not only be scarce but be useful.

Yep, fully agree.

And why do we have to give up usefulness and low fees at all?

Most people who advocate that Bitcoin "shouldn't be coffee money"
are naively (or intentionally) buying into the narrative that Bitcoin
should not be peer to peer cash like Satoshi envisioned, but should
be a settlement network like Blockstream/Core developers want.

The problem is that the math is against infinite on-chain scalability. We need a form of "off-chain" capacity or "sharding", so not all nodes have to validate all transactions.

Sidechains with a decentralized two-way-peg and LN should, together, be enough to scale up to hundreds of millions or even billions of users. LN for the coffee, sidechains for larger buys and smart contracts, and on-chain transactions for big transfers and as the base for the sidechain pegs.

I would say let the free market decide.  Remove artificial limits that impact supply/demand like the blocksize and let people choose whether they want to pay a miner to include their transaction in a block, or an LN hub to route a payment.  

Would you agree?  If not, why not?

[Rw13enlib88]

Because is the first SCARCE digital good?
 

First mover advantage and the network effect won't last forever.  They are already being seriously eroded by competitors like Ethereum.

Bitcoin = best security

For now, yes.  But take away the ability to conduct small transactions, and demand will drop, leading to lower prices, which leads to lowered mining revenue , which leads to lowered security... which in turn leads to even less demand.
 

Most people who advocate that Bitcoin "shouldn't be coffee money"
are naively (or intentionally) buying into the narrative that Bitcoin
should not be peer to peer cash like Satoshi envisioned, but should
be a settlement network like Blockstream/Core developers want.

Do you feel better not respecting other opinions?
 

You're allowed to intentionally buy into that narrative.  Do you admit that you do?

1) You mean ETH or ETC?  Don't make me laught

2) You don't get the whole picture. Do you understand what is going on out of crypto space? Do you understands that we're less than 0,1% into the cryptos...
How the fuck demand will drop? lol

3) Low quality manipulator 
lol
Keep fudding kid

Gold has value because of their users, the same as btc.
For gold is easier because it has been used by previous generations.
[...]
Limited offer (21M BTC) and demand is just 1% of world population.
Bitcoin is yet to be adopted by 99%.
Who's gonna sell now when we all know that is still to be adopted by 99%.
[...]
The difference with LTC is the user base. + Network effect.

It's simply not mandatory that Bitcoin will be adopted by the 99% (it's actually more 99,8%, as the user base of BTC is estimated to be less than 10 million). It could also be LTC, ETH or whatever that captures the remaining 99%. Or no cryptocurrency at all.

Bitcoin has an advantage because of its network effect. But this advantage will decrease if high fees prevent the usage as a currency. I don't consider current fees too high, but in the future if nothing is done they will be too high (50cent to 1 USD should be the limit). My preference would be heterogeneous scaling solutions (see the answer below to jonald_fyookball).

To have value, something must not only be scarce but be useful.

Yep, fully agree.

And why do we have to give up usefulness and low fees at all?

Most people who advocate that Bitcoin "shouldn't be coffee money"
are naively (or intentionally) buying into the narrative that Bitcoin
should not be peer to peer cash like Satoshi envisioned, but should
be a settlement network like Blockstream/Core developers want.

The problem is that the math is against infinite on-chain scalability. We need a form of "off-chain" capacity or "sharding", so not all nodes have to validate all transactions.

Sidechains with a decentralized two-way-peg and LN should, together, be enough to scale up to hundreds of millions or even billions of users. LN for the coffee, sidechains for larger buys and smart contracts, and on-chain transactions for big transfers and as the base for the sidechain pegs.

Not my point of view.
Yes having to high fees won't help to be adopted by new people.
But you don't need to be using it everyday to make it useful.
It must fullfill a need. And that need can be storing value in the long term.

True is the bigger the user base, the more stable is gonna be, but saying it must be used in the day a day by the whole world is not true.
The whole world needs to agree on what gives value to bitcoin and it's being scarce and the most trustable network.

Don't get me wrong, the better the technology, the more we all profit from using it, but expecting 2billions coffee to be paid in btc everyday (and that's just the first coffee/purchase of the day) is too much.

I would say let the free market decide.  Remove artificial limits that impact supply/demand like the blocksize and let people choose whether they want to pay a miner to include their transaction in a block, or an LN hub to route a payment. 

Would you agree?  If not, why not?

You mean to hard fork?
That would be the end of bitcoin as the main digital currency.
No new people will join cryptos if it's already hard enought to understand bitcoin and now they have to choose which one is gonna be the winner in 10 years.

They will wait until the fight is over or just get into another coin

Leadership is needed. Also long term view.

[d5000]

I would say let the free market decide.  Remove artificial limits that impact supply/demand like the blocksize and let people choose whether they want to pay a miner to include their transaction in a block, or an LN hub to route a payment.  

Would you agree?  If not, why not?

I agree to the phrase "let the free market decide", but the free market can also decide to stay with a blocksize limit. Nobody can force a participant to use a "unlimited" client.

Not my point of view.
Yes having to high fees won't help to be adopted by new people.
But you don't need to be using it everyday to make it useful.
It must fullfill a need. And that need can be storing value in the long term.

True is the bigger the user base, the more stable is gonna be, but saying it must be used in the day a day by the whole world is not true.
The whole world needs to agree on what gives value to bitcoin and it's being scarce and the most trustable network.

But how do you force "the whole world" to use Bitcoin, and only Bitcoin, as "digital gold" if it has only a few use cases?

I agree that the "feature to pay everyday for your coffee" seems not important at the first glance. But if another coin can provide it, then it has an usability advantage over Bitcoin.

The crucial question is if the first-mover advantage is strong enough to counter the "usability advantage" of other coins. I think if the usability advantage is big enough then a switch of many BTC users to another coin is pretty probable. And miners can simply jump to the best coin (OK, it's not that easy taking into account all the different PoW algorithms, but in principle it's possible).

And once another coin is getting stronger, Bitcoin exposes itself to a growing risk of "short-selling attacks" (accompanied by "Bitcoin is dead, cannot be used for nothing, etc." posts in this forum ) If it has low liquidity because of low usage (only as "gold") then it is more vulnerable as less people will have open buy orders at exchanges.

The "killer feature" of Bitcoin is, for me, international remittances. That doesn't need super-low fees, but its advantage to Western Union and similar services would be nil if the fees rise to 5$/transaction. In the next bubble, if no scalability solution is found and we stay with 1 MB, this price is not far away.

[Rw13enlib88]

But how do you force "the whole world" to use Bitcoin, and only Bitcoin, as "digital gold" if it has only a few use cases?

I agree that the "feature to pay everyday for your coffee" seems not important at the first glance. But if another coin can provide it, then it has an usability advantage over Bitcoin.

The crucial question is if the first-mover advantage is strong enough to counter the "usability advantage" of other coins. I think if the usability advantage is big enough then a switch of many BTC users to another coin is pretty probable. And miners can simply jump to the best coin (OK, it's not that easy taking into account all the different PoW algorithms, but in principle it's possible).

And once another coin is getting stronger, Bitcoin exposes itself to a growing risk of "short-selling attacks" (accompanied by "Bitcoin is dead, cannot be used for nothing, etc." posts in this forum ) If it has low liquidity because of low usage (only as "gold") then it is more vulnerable as less people will have open buy orders at exchanges.

The "killer feature" of Bitcoin is, for me, international remittances. That doesn't need super-low fees, but its advantage to Western Union and similar services would be nil if the fees rise to 5$/transaction. In the next bubble, if no scalability solution is found and we stay with 1 MB, this price is not far away.

Not force but people will understand the smartest decision is to hold btc and not other coins.

All the time the cryptos user base has grown it has been in a short perior of time. what makes the price to fly (to the moon). In this short period of time, people joins the cryptospace and think they can make more money on alts (all look almost the same, so why buy the most expensive one?).

After that short period of time, the user base stops growing (until the tech is ready/useable for the next segment of population to adopt it) and is in that moment that price starts going down.

Since the price depends a lot in the % real holders/speculators, bitcoin is the one holding best it's value and that makes people realize that bitcoin is the best asset to hold for the long term.


(i know it's not needed but just for enjoyment)

[The One]

The only way to do this is by all agreeing that BTC is Gold 2.0

We dont need a new technology to pay the coffee.
 

As soon as I see this, I smell an agenda.

To have value, something must not only be scarce but be useful.  You talk
about the users, but unless users can have fast cheap transactions
then why is it useful in the first place?

Yes Bitcoin has other properties like hard to forge, easy to store, etc.
But widespread use is one of the most important factors.

Why would people use Bitcoin as a store of value when other cryptos
could also offer high security and better utility?  How would the security
even be able to compete?

And why do we have to give up usefulness and low fees at all?

Most people who advocate that Bitcoin "shouldn't be coffee money"
are naively (or intentionally) buying into the narrative that Bitcoin
should not be peer to peer cash like Satoshi envisioned, but should
be a settlement network like Blockstream/Core developers want.

The only reason someone ever needs to argue that "Bitcoin shouldn't
be coffee money" is to justify high fees, which in turn is an excuse
to interfere in the free market between miners and users by
artificially constraining the transaction suppply with a blocksize cap.

Even if you believe in all the 'threats to decentralization' from
bigger blocks (which I consider largely to be false), you should
have the honesty to admit that you want Bitcoin to be a high fee
settlement network and not peer to peer cash.

Got it in one. I suspect some trolls here have altcoins and hoping BTC usefullness is limited so their altcoins rises in value.

[d5000]

Not force but people will understand the smartest decision is to hold btc and not other coins.

All the time the cryptos user base has grown it has been in a short perior of time. what makes the price to fly (to the moon). In this short period of time, people joins the cryptospace and think they can make more money on alts (all look almost the same, so why buy the most expensive one?).

After that short period of time, the user base stops growing (until the tech is ready/useable for the next segment of population to adopt it) and is in that moment that price starts going down.

Since the price depends a lot in the % real holders/speculators, bitcoin is the one holding best it's value and that makes people realize that bitcoin is the best asset to hold for the long term.

What you say is true until now, because altcoins have few-to-no use cases and so its almost-exclusive use is speculation. For example, if you today want to send money from the US to India (a typical remittance destination), it's difficult to use other cryptocoin that's not Bitcoin. In the US or other industrialized countries, there are multiple altcoin buyers and sellers, but in the typical remittance destination countries (mostly third-world) you will find nobody or some few that do it at a very unattractive price.

Now imagine the following scenario: A company offers to buy and sell LTC in India for an attractive price, because it thinks LTC with LN will have a lot of potential and sees growth potential. That's only a small step, but it can have quite interesting consequences.

Imagine now an user wants to send 50 $ from the US to India. He sees that with BTC he would have pay 1$ (2%) of fees if he wants a quick confirmation (he wants that, because he can't afford a loss due to volatility). But he googles and finds the company that recently opened and offers LTC/INR exchange for good rates, and with LTC he would only have to pay 0,01$ of fees and even then, the confirmation would be faster.

What would happen? If he's risk averse he could still use bitcoin, but maybe he thinks, "let's try it" and uses Litecoin.

Now this user does that several times without problems and thinks: "Mmh, LTC is worth only 1/20 of the BTC price, but for me, it's more usable. And they offer LN if their blocks get full. Isn't that a good investment?"

And here a positive-feedback circle starts and LTC begins to near Bitcoin's market cap. That could have extra consequences (BTC holders panic and sell because they fear a crash because of its decreasing advantage over other coins), but one thing is clear: in this scenario, there is no universal agreement anymore that BTC is the "only one crypto" worth an investment.

LTC is only an example (I chose it because of the recent news about Segwit) but that scenario could happen with most well-maintained altcoins out there. So for BTC to conserve its advantage, it should not ignore the competition of other coins and never depend on the "digital gold" use case only.

[timerland]

I dont think that bitcoin may be called as a "gold 2.0".
I dont see any really common things that bitcoin and gold have, except that some of the people are using it for investing purposes, and do speculation on both of the assets.

But bitcoin is not something that price is going up during the crisis, because gold usually behaves like that.

When there is a threat of some kind of war, the gold is becoming usually more expensive because the demand is higher than usual. It can rise up the price in particular country.

[jonald_fyookball]

snip

You completely avoided or didn't understand my questions.

I asked if you admit that you want Bitcoin to be a settlement network instead of peer-to-peer cash.
(Don't think too hard about it, its not that complicated of a question.)

And by free market, I meant remove the blocksize limit.  Let on chain and off chain compete freely.

[bitcoindusts]

I dont think that bitcoin may be called as a "gold 2.0".
I dont see any really common things that bitcoin and gold have, except that some of the people are using it for investing purposes, and do speculation on both of the assets.

But bitcoin is not something that price is going up during the crisis, because gold usually behaves like that.

When there is a threat of some kind of war, the gold is becoming usually more expensive because the demand is higher than usual. It can rise up the price in particular country.

They are both good as store of value.  Bitcoin due to its nature to increase in price is a good way of storing value.  Aside from that the rarity of Bitcoin and how it is mined is based on gold rarity and how it is mined.  So I guess with this, I believe that BTC is gold 2.0 ( digital gold)

[equator]

I dont think that bitcoin may be called as a "gold 2.0".
I dont see any really common things that bitcoin and gold have, except that some of the people are using it for investing purposes, and do speculation on both of the assets.

But bitcoin is not something that price is going up during the crisis, because gold usually behaves like that.

When there is a threat of some kind of war, the gold is becoming usually more expensive because the demand is higher than usual. It can rise up the price in particular country.

They are both good as store of value.  Bitcoin due to its nature to increase in price is a good way of storing value.  Aside from that the rarity of Bitcoin and how it is mined is based on gold rarity and how it is mined.  So I guess with this, I believe that BTC is gold 2.0 ( digital gold)

What you said is correct, bitcoin is more good like investment just like we do gold as investment, but in bitcoin the price will always increase in long term till their are so many good news pour, and more country accept the digital currency.

[BisonPoint]

It is also a money 2.0,
But I would rather call it storage of value (and that is what bitcoin really is).
It is an amazing invention, and it will hold the value better than any stock, bond, gold, or money.
But I believe it is still in its infancy, and we are still not fully aware of its potential.
In its current state it’s still volatile and unpredictable, but once price settles down in more calm range it will become mainstream asset.