Bitcoin can only be a gold 2.0, nothing more

[Imaginary Entity]

I hope this post gets shot down and I am 'proved' wrong. I have been a supporter of Bitcoin for a few years but....

It is becoming apparent that Bitcoin will only ever fulfill the role as gold 2.0, and that is... a Currency of Last Resort.

It is a currency of last resort because it is so inefficient. I rack my brain daily to 'conjure up' a use case (that I can test) that relied on Bitcoin and has a preferable outcome when compared to regular fiat and 3rd party services.

The ways in which Bitcoin is similar to gold - expensive to purchase with your wages (ie. spreads, exchange fees, bank transfer fees etc.), very limited on who will accept as payment (most vendors unwilling to accept due to the same reasons/ ie. expensive when changing back to fiat) and slow to transfer (debatable one).

I don't even think drug dealers are using Bitcoin that much. When the EU calculated the UKs GDP to figure how much the UK should pay into the EU, they took into account how the illegal drugs trade is worth to the UK (I kid you not! Story http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10861170/Drugs-and-prostitution-add-10bn-a-year-to-UK-economy.html). They calculated it to be worth £4.4 Billion. The UK is only a small country so I'm sure that if you add Europe and the US we're talking tens of Billions. How much of that is going through the Bitcoin network I guess we'll never know - I would like to see the stats if they are available as to how much of the Bitcoin network transactions are the exchanges and how much is individuals or smaller firms.


So what is Bit[Suspicious link removed]d for? It's inaccessible, expensive to acquire and has limited appeal. It has been an excellent investment over the past few years (like gold ) but I can't help but think that when our banks administer their own blockchain currencies that offer efficiency and with that efficiency comes additional use-cases that really work.

I feel that this competition is coming up fast and if Bitcoin wants to be anything more that a fringe currency for the ultra-paranoid then it had better get a lick on!

[1713991122]

1713991122

[warpio]

Except BTC is 1000 times easier to transfer and move around with you than gold or any other hard assets are.

[HabBear]

I hope this post gets shot down and I am 'proved' wrong. I have been a supporter of Bitcoin for a few years but....

It is becoming apparent that Bitcoin will only ever fulfill the role as gold 2.0, and that is... a Currency of Last Resort.

By definition referring to Bitcoin as "gold 2.0" implies you believe it'll be an upgrade, better than gold.

As for your currency of last resort comment, that may be its reality on the currency front. I think Bitcoin's real use is in store of value, it's a new asset class and it'll be better than gold. And Bitcoin is a lot more scarce that gold.

The existing gold in the world equals 5,820,203,717 ounces (the standard amount for a single gold coin, and IMO the right measure of comparison for Bitcoin). SOURCE: http://www.numbersleuth.org/worlds-gold/

And we all know there will be at some point close to 21,000,000 bitcoins.

Where do you see Bitcoin's competition? Other alt cryptos? Litecoin hasn't been able to take it over...do think ETH will?

[Viviyang]

It is true fact that bitcoin is more like gold as it is good for investment and for real life currency still it has more to develop and more over all country government should accept it to become unique currency of this world

[digaran]

Nothing more as if any currency is something more than a currency? you want use case right, then how about when world powers issue unfair sanctions on countries such as mine, while someone like me has nothing to do with politics BS and pissing contest.
I'm not supporting terrorists and doing no illegal business but international banking systems are to busy to provide me with their services so I use bitcoin and support it's growth to a point where I can just use bitcoin for everything.
Bitcoin has no claim whatsoever on what it is than what people want it to be.

[mrcash02]

Your points don't make sense. Bitcoin can be bought with your wage or less than that, you don't need to buy 1 BTC or 2 BTCs to buy Bitcoins. You can buy 100000 satoshis and you you are already buying Bitcoins.

The adoption is low because Bitcoin is new, started few years ago and it's a innovative technology, things like this takes more time until become popular, for me it's going well and normal. Bitcoin potential will work on long term. Think big, Crypto Currency is a new step in the society evolution, everyone using this won't want to stop using.

[Yakamoto]

I've been thinking that it is incredibly likely that Bitcoin was intended to be a way to store wealth as opposed to a way that users could transfer money back and forth quickly like fiat is.

While it is possible to set up the Bitcoin framework so that it is faster, it does take away from some of the functionality of it all, meaning it might not be worth it.

[KyriosCluster]

The idea of Litecoin is to use it for daily transactions and small amount of money transfer, while Bitcoin is the save haven.
This will also solve the problem of the capped blocksize of Bitcoin when less transaction are done on the BTC Blockchain but on the Litecoin.

[HabBear]

Your points don't make sense. Bitcoin can be bought with your wage or less than that, you don't need to buy 1 BTC or 2 BTCs to buy Bitcoins. You can buy 100000 satoshis and you you are already buying Bitcoins.

The adoption is low because Bitcoin is new, started few years ago and it's a innovative technology, things like this takes more time until become popular, for me it's going well and normal. Bitcoin potential will work on long term. Think big, Crypto Currency is a new step in the society evolution, everyone using this won't want to stop using.

Your points don't make sense. What does "Bitcoin is new, started few years ago, and it's a innovative technology" have to do with whether the OP thinks BTC is comparable to gold or worth of using as a currency? The features of bitcoin will not change with greater adoption or more time in existence. They are today what they will be tomorrow.

The idea of Litecoin is to use it for daily transactions and small amount of money transfer, while Bitcoin is the save haven.
This will also solve the problem of the capped blocksize of Bitcoin when less transaction are done on the BTC Blockchain but on the Litecoin.

I think Litecoin has faded away for this exact reason - it doesn't provide any benefit or alternative to bitcoin. The idea that it's cheaper to own 1 Litecoin than 1 Bitcoin doesn't make Litecoin any easier to transact with, in fact it's less valuable to own because it's harder to transact with Litecoin! Bitcoin is useable down to the hundred millionth of a bitcoin, the satoshi, so flexibility for the currency to adapt to any level of buying and spending is not the problem.

[Seansky]

Well I really do agree with OP's point that bitcoin can only be a gold 2.0 since it is a great thing to invest into but not a great thing to use in daily life and it can be hard in some countries to convert bitcoin to fiat with low fees. On some countries though, it can be used for daily payments because of low charge in converting to fiat but it will still remain gold 2.0 despite that since sometimes it takes time to transfer bitcoin unless it will speed up, it will always be gold 2.0.

[mrcash02]

Your points don't make sense. Bitcoin can be bought with your wage or less than that, you don't need to buy 1 BTC or 2 BTCs to buy Bitcoins. You can buy 100000 satoshis and you you are already buying Bitcoins.

The adoption is low because Bitcoin is new, started few years ago and it's a innovative technology, things like this takes more time until become popular, for me it's going well and normal. Bitcoin potential will work on long term. Think big, Crypto Currency is a new step in the society evolution, everyone using this won't want to stop using.

Your points don't make sense. What does "Bitcoin is new, started few years ago, and it's a innovative technology" have to do with whether the OP thinks BTC is comparable to gold or worth of using as a currency? The features of bitcoin will not change with greater adoption or more time in existence. They are today what they will be tomorrow.

The ways in which Bitcoin is similar to gold - expensive to purchase with your wages (ie. spreads, exchange fees, bank transfer fees etc.), very limited on who will accept as payment (most vendors unwilling to accept due to the same reasons/ ie. expensive when changing back to fiat) and slow to transfer (debatable one).

He said BTC is limited on who accepts it as payment method, for now it's true. And I said currently few persons accept BTC because it's a new currency, it takes much time to make many people start using this, it's not overnight. The features of Bitcoin will change the adoption rates, if the features are good and interesting, more people will join it. Don't misrepresent what I said to look clever to your campaign manager.

[Doms]

Well I really do agree with OP's point that bitcoin can only be a gold 2.0 since it is a great thing to invest into but not a great thing to use in daily life and it can be hard in some countries to convert bitcoin to fiat with low fees. On some countries though, it can be used for daily payments because of low charge in converting to fiat but it will still remain gold 2.0 despite that since sometimes it takes time to transfer bitcoin unless it will speed up, it will always be gold 2.0.

The future is not certain with bitcoin and all other virtual currencies. With all the advancements we are seeing with technology and the new ways in which payment systems are developed, bitcoin might be more than that in the future if it continues to make progress and if people are attracted to migrating to pure online transactions.

[asriloni]

The idea of Litecoin is to use it for daily transactions and small amount of money transfer, while Bitcoin is the save haven.
This will also solve the problem of the capped blocksize of Bitcoin when less transaction are done on the BTC Blockchain but on the Litecoin.

But you just use altcoin if you're sending it to the exchange site, and the important thing if everyone was thinking about the stability of the coin. in this time the price of litecoin is dropping for a lot and does it make sense to use litecoin rather than bitcoin for directly?

[Dudeperfect]

I think even though people are looking as an investment towards bitcoin, it is still the medium of exchange for most of the users. Yes we should admit the fact there are very few merchants who are accepting bitcoin at this moment as compared to VISA or Paypal or other options of payment but considering the potential of bitcoin, I think it’s the technology which new and even in that case the growth of bitcoin is amazing so I see the optimistic picture for cryptocurrencies as a whole in next few years.

[Hydrogen]

Two of the main arguments against bitcoin I've read are.

1) Bitcoin transactions are slow.
2) Bitcoin is electricity intensive, inefficient and wasteful.

I never understood how bitcoin was supposedly slow in contrast to traditional banking methods of moving money when bitcoin transfers might take 2-3 hours tops. Bank wire transfers could take 2-3 days tops. Bitcoin already seems much faster than wire transfers. I don't know if its fair for bitcoin to receive so much criticism in terms of transaction time.

The electricity issue is also non crucial. Many nations have an electricity surplus. Especially with advances in solar and wind energy the cost and availability of electricity seem to be improving worldwide, possibly to a degree which nullifies criticism against bitcoin's power consumption.

In the USA some states have such a high surplus of available electricity that they no longer offer payments to those who install grid tied solar panels on their home as the available pool of electricity is already too high. With that much surplus of electricity the argument against bitcoins high electricity consumption seems null and void.

I'm not certain it is fair to compare bitcoin and gold. Some claim bitcoin is worthless and fiat, with no intrinsic value. Although I wonder sometimes if the same analysis could be made of gold. Could it be said that gold is merely a strange type of yellow metal with no more intrinsic value than any other type of metal? The value people place on things like gems, precious metals and crypto could be sentimentally based to some degree.

I don't know if bitcoin is gold 2.0. But it might be fair to say btc is the next evolution of money & as mammals evolved and thrived making other life forms obsolete and extinct, so perhaps bitcoin might represent a superior evolution which eventually phases out currency dinosaurs like the euro and dollar.

[Mbah Slamet]

I think still further, although bitcoin very profitable, but we should be aware that there is no country that approved the bitcoin as payment that aligned with a legitimate and legal money. Gold is an investment that will surely be accepted anyone and anywhere, thus making comparison of gold and bitcoin is a different matter.

[Xester]

I hope this post gets shot down and I am 'proved' wrong. I have been a supporter of Bitcoin for a few years but....

It is becoming apparent that Bitcoin will only ever fulfill the role as gold 2.0, and that is... a Currency of Last Resort.

It is a currency of last resort because it is so inefficient. I rack my brain daily to 'conjure up' a use case (that I can test) that relied on Bitcoin and has a preferable outcome when compared to regular fiat and 3rd party services.

The ways in which Bitcoin is similar to gold - expensive to purchase with your wages (ie. spreads, exchange fees, bank transfer fees etc.), very limited on who will accept as payment (most vendors unwilling to accept due to the same reasons/ ie. expensive when changing back to fiat) and slow to transfer (debatable one).

I don't even think drug dealers are using Bitcoin that much. When the EU calculated the UKs GDP to figure how much the UK should pay into the EU, they took into account how the illegal drugs trade is worth to the UK (I kid you not! Story http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10861170/Drugs-and-prostitution-add-10bn-a-year-to-UK-economy.html). They calculated it to be worth £4.4 Billion. The UK is only a small country so I'm sure that if you add Europe and the US we're talking tens of Billions. How much of that is going through the Bitcoin network I guess we'll never know - I would like to see the stats if they are available as to how much of the Bitcoin network transactions are the exchanges and how much is individuals or smaller firms.


So what is Bit[Suspicious link removed]d for? It's inaccessible, expensive to acquire and has limited appeal. It has been an excellent investment over the past few years (like gold ) but I can't help but think that when our banks administer their own blockchain currencies that offer efficiency and with that efficiency comes additional use-cases that really work.

I feel that this competition is coming up fast and if Bitcoin wants to be anything more that a fringe currency for the ultra-paranoid then it had better get a lick on!

Bitcoin has only a small percentage compared to fiat currency in circulation since it has not yet reached being in the mainstream. Bitcoin is still young and it has a long way to go before it finally reaches mainstream. If it reaches the mainstream then the total market cap for bitcoin will also reach tens of billions of dollars or possibly more. Let us not be impatient it will take time for bitcoin to reach that market cap and we will be there when the conditions are finally met.

[Kemarit]

I hope this post gets shot down and I am 'proved' wrong. I have been a supporter of Bitcoin for a few years but....

It is becoming apparent that Bitcoin will only ever fulfill the role as gold 2.0, and that is... a Currency of Last Resort.

For me, Bitcoin is still not a currency, only a commodity, because of
its need to be stable over time to be considered as currency.

It is a currency of last resort because it is so inefficient. I rack my brain daily to 'conjure up' a use case (that I can test) that relied on Bitcoin and has a preferable outcome when compared to regular fiat and 3rd party services.

The ways in which Bitcoin is similar to gold - expensive to purchase with your wages (ie. spreads, exchange fees, bank transfer fees etc.), very limited on who will accept as payment (most vendors unwilling to accept due to the same reasons/ ie. expensive when changing back to fiat) and slow to transfer (debatable one).

Bitcoin is not expensive to purchase, as compare to gold. You can buy
it in any exchanges. If vendors are unwilling to accept, you can have
a lot of options i.e. paypal. So again, bitcoin can co-exist with fiat
and other modes of payment in an online transaction.

I don't even think drug dealers are using Bitcoin that much. When the EU calculated the UKs GDP to figure how much the UK should pay into the EU, they took into account how the illegal drugs trade is worth to the UK (I kid you not! Story http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10861170/Drugs-and-prostitution-add-10bn-a-year-to-UK-economy.html). They calculated it to be worth £4.4 Billion. The UK is only a small country so I'm sure that if you add Europe and the US we're talking tens of Billions. How much of that is going through the Bitcoin network I guess we'll never know - I would like to see the stats if they are available as to how much of the Bitcoin network transactions are the exchanges and how meuch is individuals or smaller firms.

I don't know if we have stats like this. But I'm also interested to one.

So what is Bit[Suspicious link removed]d for? It's inaccessible, expensive to acquire and has limited appeal. It has been an excellent investment over the past few years (like gold ) but I can't help but think that when our banks administer their own blockchain currencies that offer efficiency and with that efficiency comes additional use-cases that really work.

We'll have to see this. Again bitcoin is not accessible, and not expensive and has limited appeal.
Yes, its an excellent investment for long term but the risk are high.

[deisik]

Two of the main arguments against bitcoin I've read are.

1) Bitcoin transactions are slow.
2) Bitcoin is electricity intensive, inefficient and wasteful.

I never understood how bitcoin was supposedly slow in contrast to traditional banking methods of moving money when bitcoin transfers might take 2-3 hours tops. Bank wire transfers could take 2-3 days tops. Bitcoin already seems much faster than wire transfers. I don't know if its fair for bitcoin to receive so much criticism in terms of transaction time

Wire transfers will soon become obsolete

If you need instant payments you may want to use card-to-card transfers which are as instant as it gets. You may have to pay a fee but with wire transfers you have to pay almost the same fee anyway, so it doesn't make any significant difference. On the other hand, Bitcoin transaction fees are growing in dollar terms quite in line with Bitcoin price itself, therefore the fees may be quite comparable in size to fiat transfers unless you are transferring dizens of bitcoins, of course. But in the latter case the fiat fees will be likely limited as well

[manselr]

I hope this post gets shot down and I am 'proved' wrong. I have been a supporter of Bitcoin for a few years but....

It is becoming apparent that Bitcoin will only ever fulfill the role as gold 2.0, and that is... a Currency of Last Resort.

It is a currency of last resort because it is so inefficient. I rack my brain daily to 'conjure up' a use case (that I can test) that relied on Bitcoin and has a preferable outcome when compared to regular fiat and 3rd party services.

The ways in which Bitcoin is similar to gold - expensive to purchase with your wages (ie. spreads, exchange fees, bank transfer fees etc.), very limited on who will accept as payment (most vendors unwilling to accept due to the same reasons/ ie. expensive when changing back to fiat) and slow to transfer (debatable one).

I don't even think drug dealers are using Bitcoin that much. When the EU calculated the UKs GDP to figure how much the UK should pay into the EU, they took into account how the illegal drugs trade is worth to the UK (I kid you not! Story http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10861170/Drugs-and-prostitution-add-10bn-a-year-to-UK-economy.html). They calculated it to be worth £4.4 Billion. The UK is only a small country so I'm sure that if you add Europe and the US we're talking tens of Billions. How much of that is going through the Bitcoin network I guess we'll never know - I would like to see the stats if they are available as to how much of the Bitcoin network transactions are the exchanges and how much is individuals or smaller firms.


So what is Bit[Suspicious link removed]d for? It's inaccessible, expensive to acquire and has limited appeal. It has been an excellent investment over the past few years (like gold ) but I can't help but think that when our banks administer their own blockchain currencies that offer efficiency and with that efficiency comes additional use-cases that really work.

I feel that this competition is coming up fast and if Bitcoin wants to be anything more that a fringe currency for the ultra-paranoid then it had better get a lick on!

The only way that bitcoin (or any other existing crypto) can compete against the centralized payment networks like VISA and Paypal is by second layer solutions such as the lightning network.

So onchain transactions are gold 2.0, and that is enough to make it worth $100,000+

Offchain transactions on the lightning network for a global fast cheap usage drive it to $1,000,000+ easy

Stop dreaming with a coin that will have global onchain cheap fast transactions.

[Mometaskers]

You can't rush sell gold bullion. You can quickly encash bitcoin if needed. Even jewelries are easier to convert to cash in case of an emergency. It is also way easier to acquire and hold compared to gold. I'm not dissing gold though, IMHO anyone who can afford gold should probably buy some of it, it's just bitcoin is more, um, fluid as compared to precious metals. You can use bitcoin to store your savings while also being able to use it to buy pizza or cake.

[eternalgloom]

I see what you're saying and I partially agree with you, but it's not too late for change.
It's still possible that there will be new features to Bitcoin that make it viable as a payment method or currency.

And I certainly hope that's will be the case.

[_nur]

no bitcoin will never be gold 2.0

bitcoin is bitcoin,gold is gold... duh

[Hydrogen]

Wire transfers will soon become obsolete

If you need instant payments you may want to use card-to-card transfers which are as instant as it gets. You may have to pay a fee but with wire transfers you have to pay almost the same fee anyway, so it doesn't make any significant difference. On the other hand, Bitcoin transaction fees are growing in dollar terms quite in line with Bitcoin price itself, therefore the fees may be quite comparable in size to fiat transfers unless you are transferring dizens of bitcoins, of course. But in the latter case the fiat fees will be likely limited as well

I question whether instant payments are mission critical issues and whether they deserve high priority status.

If it is true that people deliberately spam bitcoin transactions with low transfer fees to sabotage legitimate bitcoin transactions.

It could naturally follow that these forums are spammed by people who exaggerate the importance of instant payments to give us the false notion that instant payments are a critical issue in need of attention.

To some degree bitcoin's transaction speed could be a factor of its security features the same way encrypted wifi connections are generally slower the more secure they are.

If that is true, there could be some social engineering at work in terms of people investing a good deal of time and effort into exaggerating the need for instant bitcoin transactions, possibly to push for bitcoin's security features being relaxed in order to suit some agenda.

It makes zero difference to me if bitcoin transactions are instant or take time to confirm.

I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of bitcoin users were indifferent to the time it takes for btc to confirm transactions.

[Imaginary Entity]

Wire transfers will soon become obsolete

If you need instant payments you may want to use card-to-card transfers which are as instant as it gets. You may have to pay a fee but with wire transfers you have to pay almost the same fee anyway, so it doesn't make any significant difference. On the other hand, Bitcoin transaction fees are growing in dollar terms quite in line with Bitcoin price itself, therefore the fees may be quite comparable in size to fiat transfers unless you are transferring dizens of bitcoins, of course. But in the latter case the fiat fees will be likely limited as well

I question whether instant payments are mission critical issues and whether they deserve high priority status.

If it is true that people deliberately spam bitcoin transactions with low transfer fees to sabotage legitimate bitcoin transactions.

It could naturally follow that these forums are spammed by people who exaggerate the importance of instant payments to give us the false notion that instant payments are a critical issue in need of attention.

To some degree bitcoin's transaction speed could be a factor of its security features the same way encrypted wifi connections are generally slower the more secure they are.

If that is true, there could be some social engineering at work in terms of people investing a good deal of time and effort into exaggerating the need for instant bitcoin transactions, possibly to push for bitcoin's security features being relaxed in order to suit some agenda.

It makes zero difference to me if bitcoin transactions are instant or take time to confirm.

I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of bitcoin users were indifferent to the time it takes for btc to confirm transactions.

Thanks for your comment.
I'd just like to say that I'm not sponsored and don't believe I've been swayed into one side of the BigBlock/SmallBlock debate.

My reasons for wanting 'as frictionless/cheap as possible' transactions is totally selfish and personal. I envisaged Bitcoin to be a way in which we/I could vote with our money. Being able to  quickly and with minimal effort change our 'vote', therefore having maximum control over the vote that we have.
To me, investing is like giving something my seal-of-approval. I invest in a project/asset because I believe in its values or its importance but the only way to invest currently is on a big-scale, paying through a 3rd party service.

I'd like to see micro-investing in diverse/decentralized things a possibility (<$10) - without the fees cutting into it to much.


Maybe Bitcoin adds more value to the world as a 'store of value and marker of property' for troubled people and regions and not as a cheap, micro-payment system system for the more wealthy?