The purpose of Bitcoin

[TheQuin]

I was just reading this article in this months The Spectator https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/why-cryptocurrencies-are-the-answer/ and there it was in the last sentence of the first paragraph:

The craze for cryptocurrency can be explained by a host of factors: the allure of getting rich quick; the attraction of off-the-grid accountancy for malefactors like tax evaders and drug dealers (though Bitcoin is traceable); the glamour of the new. Despite blockchain currencies’ wild volatility thus far, I’d still posit that the more underlying attraction is to a reliable store of value. Bitcoin investors may not recognise their motivation as such, but the impulse behind computer-generated currency is revolutionary: to take the production and control of money away from government.

This was exactly the motivation I had had back in 2012 when I first became involved, but it is far too easy to lose sight of that over time. This is about taking back control of money from those that have devalued it so recklessly over the last century. As the article goes on to point out both the US Dollar and the Britsh Pound are now worth 1/100th of what they were 100 years ago.
I find it interesting and unusual that a mainstream publication like The Spectator actually gets what this is all about.

[1714842541]

1714842541

[1714842541]

1714842541

[1714842541]

1714842541

[franky1]

bitcoin lost that ethos of taking control of money

i too had your mindset when i too started in 2012.

but the politics of a certain dev team and their ambition to intensionally hike the fee's up have priced bitcoin out of the daily us money market. and now bitcoin is just a speculation asset with little to no real world function.

in short it flipped out of the money market and now in the stock market, as a close analogy as you can get.
no one wants to swap shares to buy a coffee. re certifying a share to a new owner costs too much

[bakerlisa510]

The main purpose of Bitcoin was to make a currency which is controlled by the people or the users itself. But now bitcoin is used just as a gambling token.

[TheQuin]

bitcoin lost that ethos of taking control of money

i too had your mindset when i too started in 2012.

but the politics of a certain dev team and their ambition to intensionally hike the fee's up have priced bitcoin out of the daily us money market. and now bitcoin is just a speculation asset with little to no real world function.

in short it flipped out of the money market and now in the stock market, as a close analogy as you can get.
no one wants to swap shares to buy a coffee. re certifying a share to a new owner costs too much

I may be just a natural optimist but I see this as a temporary phase of Bitcoins development. I do see Lightning Network as the best scaling solution and Bitcoin is well ahead of everyone else in developing that. The high transaction fees now are in main due to the increase in value having overtaken the technical development. I think it was a mistake that Segwit2x was not backed by the whole community as it probably would have been a good compromise solution to get us through this period until LN is fully ready.

BTW, thanks for being the only person to comment that actually read the OP and not just the title.

[franky1]

bitcoin lost that ethos of taking control of money

i too had your mindset when i too started in 2012.

but the politics of a certain dev team and their ambition to intensionally hike the fee's up have priced bitcoin out of the daily us money market. and now bitcoin is just a speculation asset with little to no real world function.

in short it flipped out of the money market and now in the stock market, as a close analogy as you can get.
no one wants to swap shares to buy a coffee. re certifying a share to a new owner costs too much

I may be just a natural optimist but I see this as a temporary phase of Bitcoins development. I do see Lightning Network as the best scaling solution and Bitcoin is well ahead of everyone else in developing that. The high transaction fees now are in main due to the increase in value having overtaken the technical development. I think it was a mistake that Segwit2x was not backed by the whole community as it probably would have been a good compromise solution to get us through this period until LN is fully ready.

BTW, thanks for being the only person to comment that actually read the OP and not just the title.

LN is another bitcoin ethos losing scheme.
research multisig/smart contracts
then review LN technically, not optimistically... its an eye opener

then when you actually look at LN you will see that people will need to transfer funds into a co-owned address with a counter party.
which is pretty much like depositing funds into a walmart giftcard to then spend funds at walmart and whereby walmart can then act as your banker if you wanted to spend your walmart funds at any other merchant(with extra fees added for that privilege)

LN is banking 2.0.

other issues are that although its said to be dirt cheap tx fee's inside LN, ALL LN proposals are more infavour of the hubs/counterparties making money out of being hubs/counterparties/service providers by means of charging a fee.

oh and may you not forget to get your funds into a LN channel you need to do a onchain transaction.  and as such it will still cost a lot just to deposit into a LN channel. much like having to pay a few dollars just to use paypal.. yet in the real world paypal are not stupid enough to charge people just to deposit with them

there are many, many other issues with LN. but in short its not the scaling solution.. its a off chain service to avoid the headaches of bitcoin by compromising your funds into no longer permissionless controlled account.

p.s i lost my optimism when blockstream took over the reigns after 2014.. bitcoins ethos has not been the same since then
.. yes i spelled reigns intentionally because the devs think they are the new head of state

[TheQuin]

then when you actually look at LN you will see that people will need to transfer funds into a co-owned address with a counter party.
which is pretty much like depositing funds into a walmart giftcard to then spend funds at walmart and whereby walmart can then act as your banker if you wanted to spend your walmart funds at any other merchant(with extra fees added for that privilege)

LN is banking 2.0.

other issues are that although its said to be dirt cheap tx fee's inside LN, ALL LN proposals are more infavour of the hubs/counterparties making money out of being hubs/counterparties/service providers by means of charging a fee.

The difference as I see it is that there will be little barrier to anyone setting up a hub. All these hubs will be interlinked with channels between them so you can set up a channel to any one of them and still have access to the whole network. That level of competition is going to have a significant impact on what level of fees anyone is able to charge.

oh and may you not forget to get your funds into a LN channel you need to do a onchain transaction.  and as such it will still cost a lot just to deposit into a LN channel. much like having to pay a few dollars just to use paypal.. yet in the real world paypal are not stupid enough to charge people just to deposit with them

That's a fair point, there will still be a transaction fee to open or close a channel.

there are many, many other issues with LN. but in short its not the scaling solution.. its a off chain service to avoid the headaches of bitcoin by compromising your funds into no longer permissionless controlled account.

p.s i lost my optimism when blockstream took over the reigns after 2014.. bitcoins ethos has not been the same since then
.. yes i spelled reigns intentionally because the devs think they are the new head of state

It's a level two network that is complementary to the existing network, not a replacement. I think it will have an impact in making small retail purchases possible. Time will tell if I'm right or wrong, but if it fails then another crypto will take over. The ethos of Bitcoin will live on whatever happens to Bitcoin itself.

[dothebeats]

Bitcoin has since declined on the utility and I feel like it's nothing more than an investment vehicle nowadays and doing transactions with it would only be a pain and a waste of money. Back in 2014, I immediately thought that bitcoin would always be better than the banks, fiat and the currently existing payment systems because of its efficiency, cost and most especially, the trust-less system. However gradually it declined, and has only been a money-making machine for the devs who direct any developments they make to their own interests (hi blockstream).

Bitcoin is in a losing battle in terms of its features. Value is up, yes, but what about the fundamentals and such that took it to where it is now?

[franky1]

The difference as I see it is that there will be little barrier to anyone setting up a hub. All these hubs will be interlinked with channels between them so you can set up a channel to any one of them and still have access to the whole network. That level of competition is going to have a significant impact on what level of fees anyone is able to charge.

to be hub you need to have connected to many channels.
this means depositing funds into MANY addresses to open such channels and have enough funds to act as a provider(hubs are for rich guys)

also to be a successful hub you need to be listed as part of LN's DNS seed (routing table).

..
that said we both agree its not a replacement for bitcoin. its just a third party service. thus does not actually alleviate bitcoins situation. infact when a hub needs to close its channels, it will be a blanket bomb effect because to ensure the hubs many channels tally onchain. it will ned to close them all simultaneously and with a large enough onchain fee for each of those tx's to ensure block acceptance

think of it this way. at the moment the blocks can only handle around 2500 tx's. which means when its time to close a hubs channels. that hub better not have connections to more than 2500 customers, otherwise there will be a bottleneck.

and yes hubs will need to close channels because funds will need to move. to refill the channels
EG

if A connects to B which connects to C
if A wants to use B as the hub to pay C for a coffe each day

A+B have a channel and both fund it
B+C have a channel and both fund it

so day 1
channel1      |     channel2
A:0.001        |     B:0.001
B:0.001        |     C:0.001

so day 2 - a pays b in channel 1 .. and then B separately uses B's channel2 funds to pay C.. the funds of channel 1 dont physically touch C. its B that does the borrowing for A
channel1       |     channel2
A:0.0009       |     B:0.0009
B:0.0011       |     C:0.0011

so day 10 - a pays b in channel 1 .. and then B separately uses B's channel2 funds to pay C.. the funds of channel 1 dont physically touch C. its B that does the borrowing for A
channel1       |     channel2
A:0.0000       |     B:0.0000
B:0.002         |     C:0.002

A in channel one has nothing left.
B in channel two has nothing left. thus B will need to close channels to settle up

now imagine it if B was paypal with thousands of customers not just 2

stil unsure about the need to close channels.
imagine you had a $30 walmart giftcard.
your wife gives you $10 CASH and says she wants to buy stuff at walmart with your giftcard.
your wife the next week gives you another $10 cash, same again

your wife cannot just keep handing you $10 forever and just use the walmart card. at som point you will have $30 CASH in one hand and a walmart card of $0 balance so you will need to refill the giftcard with the cash. which involves closing and reopening channels

[TheQuin]

Value is up, yes, but what about the fundamentals and such that took it to where it is now?

That's the whole point of the article I linked to in the OP. "to take the production and control of money away from government." It's a response to the constant devaluation of fiat that has taken place over the last 100 years. In that purpose, it is succeeding.

[poor-yorik]

I was just reading this article in this months The Spectator https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/why-cryptocurrencies-are-the-answer/ and there it was in the last sentence of the first paragraph:

The craze for cryptocurrency can be explained by a host of factors: the allure of getting rich quick; the attraction of off-the-grid accountancy for malefactors like tax evaders and drug dealers (though Bitcoin is traceable); the glamour of the new. Despite blockchain currencies’ wild volatility thus far, I’d still posit that the more underlying attraction is to a reliable store of value. Bitcoin investors may not recognise their motivation as such, but the impulse behind computer-generated currency is revolutionary: to take the production and control of money away from government.

This was exactly the motivation I had had back in 2012 when I first became involved, but it is far too easy to lose sight of that over time. This is about taking back control of money from those that have devalued it so recklessly over the last century. As the article goes on to point out both the US Dollar and the Britsh Pound are now worth 1/100th of what they were 100 years ago.
I find it interesting and unusual that a mainstream publication like The Spectator actually gets what this is all about.

Personally, I think it is mostly the get-rich-quick thing. But even though I agree with the part you emphasized about taking control over money from the government hands, control over Bitcoin is still or already in the hands of the few. So how is it different in this department?

[TheQuin]

Personally, I think it is mostly the get-rich-quick thing. But even though I agree with the part you emphasized about taking control over money from the government hands, control over Bitcoin is still or already in the hands of the few. So how is it different in this department?

It's different because it is not in the hands of the few. When there is any proposed change in the network we all have the choice to go along with it or to fork off. It is completely in the hands of the majority. The emphasized part was referring to governments running the printing presses and devaluing our money. There are no few in a position to do that to Bitcoin.

[franky1]

I talked about everything with my family and my friends. I think it should be done because I want my family and friends to also get success. They were all surprised because I showed them what I had, for them it was impossible but I again reminded that I got all this after I got to know cryptocurrencies. It's like a dream, but it's all happening. I know the first time people know cryptocurrencies they will think weird and feel this is impossible, believe me when we manage to find the best way to introduce cryptocurrencies then that will make us contribute to increase the use of cryptocureencies in the world. As more people are acquainted with Cryptocurrencies it will make progress and profit for everyone.

personally i have made mega profit from btc, but to me its the ethos i cared much more about. and here is how i seen it

imagine it like housing
you lived in an apartment complex with an over protective maintenance guy, named the 'gov' who loved coming into your apartment at his leisure under the pretence of fixing the plumbing/electrics as a service he provides as part of you living in his building.
you then hear about this new thing.. its called a detached self contained house. great you move out of the complex and get your own house

now here is the rub. you now realise that there is a toll road at your suberb/block.. $5 everytime you wanna come in or out. you also find out that your plumbing is costly too. the house loses all its utility and desire to use. but you hold onto it anyway purely for its real estate value.

but after a few years although millions of people are holding onto houses that cost a bomb just to enter, and have no utilities, the demand for housing is still there because the real estate values are booming. and people think they can get rich just holding onto empty houses

eventually though. people realise that all the houses are functionally useless and cost more than other living conditions.

in short. bitcoins value is now only speculative real estate boom.. not real living in independent comfort value.

[tumokatok]

I was just reading this article in this months The Spectator https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/why-cryptocurrencies-are-the-answer/ and there it was in the last sentence of the first paragraph:

The craze for cryptocurrency can be explained by a host of factors: the allure of getting rich quick; the attraction of off-the-grid accountancy for malefactors like tax evaders and drug dealers (though Bitcoin is traceable); the glamour of the new. Despite blockchain currencies’ wild volatility thus far, I’d still posit that the more underlying attraction is to a reliable store of value. Bitcoin investors may not recognise their motivation as such, but the impulse behind computer-generated currency is revolutionary: to take the production and control of money away from government.

This was exactly the motivation I had had back in 2012 when I first became involved, but it is far too easy to lose sight of that over time. This is about taking back control of money from those that have devalued it so recklessly over the last century. As the article goes on to point out both the US Dollar and the Britsh Pound are now worth 1/100th of what they were 100 years ago.
I find it interesting and unusual that a mainstream publication like The Spectator actually gets what this is all about.

which became one of the bitcoin goals to make it easy for trading to make easy online transactions and no government regulations restricting their engagement.

[TheQuin]

personally i have made mega profit from btc, but to me its the ethos i cared much more about. and here is how i seen it

I read your points about LN, TBH I'm relatively new to learning about it so I'm not getting into the technical arguments of whether or not it can succeed.

To me, the ethos is still there and I have the belief that technical solutions will be found to make it functional whether that is LN or whatever comes next. There's just too much to be gained from doing it for someone not to. It may even be the case that it isn't Bitcoin in the end but another coin not yet invented, but I'm convinced that the future is a cryptocurrency that takes back control of the supply of money from government.

[LeGaulois]

I had this mindset as well but to be honest I am less optimist.

It was created to take back the control of money without the need for a trusted third party (the financial institutions) but instead, it's used to speculate. It can't be used for the daily needs and so can't be mass adopted. Thanks to the dev team(/sarcasm). As well when you see AXA investing in Bitcoin, you can start to smell the fire. I won't be surprised if in a near future another cryptocurrency takes the throne.

I see another problem also: with all the regulations from governments taking place (taxes, bans, restrictions, etc...) the total control of money and the "be your own bank" slogan may be just out of the "dream" to a certain extent. If at the end of the chain there are governments, it is useless.
I still see a huge potential for cryptocurrencies because Fractional Reserve Banking is Obsolete and the technologies behind cryptos are still valuable.

I am not sure if this is a good comparison but look GNU/Linux. First came Debian, it wasn't perfect, it wasn't easy to use for the mass, but to help Ubuntu came, with improvements etc, Then from Ubuntu came the other forks, and the story goes on... What I mean is, GNU/Linux learned and improved with time and the community, etc. Maybe, cryptocurrencies are still too young for our dream.

[franky1]

personally i have made mega profit from btc, but to me its the ethos i cared much more about. and here is how i seen it

I read your points about LN, TBH I'm relatively new to learning about it so I'm not getting into the technical arguments of whether or not it can succeed.

To me, the ethos is still there and I have the belief that technical solutions will be found to make it functional whether that is LN or whatever comes next. There's just too much to be gained from doing it for someone not to. It may even be the case that it isn't Bitcoin in the end but another coin not yet invented, but I'm convinced that the future is a cryptocurrency that takes back control of the supply of money from government.

the government has laws.
such as taxes needing to be paid in fiat (legal tender)
wages being measured in fiat (minimum wage law)
court, parking, other fines being paid in fiat (legal tender)

its not as simple as just introducing a new currency and the government gives up. after all rationally.. the euro has been around a few decades now and yet americans still use the dollar..
yep thats right. just having a currency that many countries recognise, does not mean governments are toppled
 because the US government dont want the euro as a legal tender in the US even if its a currency that has utility and recognition in many countries.

bitcoin has lost its utility and so people wont adopt it for buying coffee, or sandwiches. and until the devs actually implement a fee formulae again that punishes people for spamming every 10 minutes via high fee's and rewards people who only spend once or twice a day with low fee's.. bitcoin will remain just a speculation real estate/domain squatting scheme.

yes crypto's as a whole has potential as an alternative choice to sit beside fiat, but bitcoin as it stands right now has no chance...
and crypto as a whole and bitcoin will not topple the governments legal tender laws. both crypto and bitcoin will just be a secondary currency to sit alongside fiat, not topple it.
much like deciding to open an EU bank account so you can choose to buy things with Euro around the world while still using dollars in the US

[hatshepsut93]

then when you actually look at LN you will see that people will need to transfer funds into a co-owned address with a counter party.
which is pretty much like depositing funds into a walmart giftcard to then spend funds at walmart and whereby walmart can then act as your banker if you wanted to spend your walmart funds at any other merchant(with extra fees added for that privilege)

LN is banking 2.0.

other issues are that although its said to be dirt cheap tx fee's inside LN, ALL LN proposals are more infavour of the hubs/counterparties making money out of being hubs/counterparties/service providers by means of charging a fee.

Lightning "hubs" is a myth created by big blockers to misguide noobs into thinking that LN is some centralized system like Visa. In reality anyone can open channels with anyone, it is peer-to-peer just like Bitcoin itself, and it is trustless - you don't "deposit" your funds and lose control over them like it happen with banks, you can always close the channel and get your coins back to your address, because Lightning funds and transaction are real Bitcoins, they are not some tokens or giftcards. There's no reason why Lightning Network should have big hubs, because anyone who is currently running a full node, which is thousands of home users, can also run a Lightning node and collect fees.

At the same time, it is big blockers who want to have a small centralized network of big full node hubs while most users are connected with SPV clients, because no one can afford to run a full node with gigabyte blocks.

[TheQuin]

I won't be surprised if in a near future another cryptocurrency takes the throne.

That is quite possible but if it does happen I think it is still quite far off in the future.

I see another problem also: with all the regulations from governments taking place (taxes, bans, restrictions, etc...)

Governments have been very slow to recognise the nature of the threat. Things are going to get interesting when they do.

the total control of money and the "be your own bank" slogan may be just out of the "dream" to a certain extent. If at the end of the chain there are governments, it is useless.
I still see a huge potential for cryptocurrencies because Fractional Reserve Banking is Obsolete and the technologies behind cryptos are still valuable.

This is what I was really getting at, that dream is still alive and that article really reminded me of it yesterday. I've always had doubts whether it will succeed but just about convinced myself that it will in the end.

I am not if this is a good comparison but look GNU/Linux. First came Debian, it wasn't perfect, it wasn't easy to use for the mass, but to help Ubuntu came, with improvements etc, Then from Ubuntu came the other forks, and the story goes on... What I mean is, GNU/Linux learned and improved with time and the community, etc. Maybe, cryptocurrencies are still too young for our dream.

It is a very good comparison. It doesn't really matter if it has the Bitcoin name at the end of it all, there will be many forks and always some will give improvements and others fail. This is very early days indeed and this journey has a long way to go.

@ franky1
That's part of the point of it being a store of wealth currency. Yes, you will always have to exchange some to pay your taxes but the person selling you a coffee, new car or a house will probably be delighted to take the currency that will hold its value over the fiat one.

[franky1]

Lightning "hubs" is a myth created by big blockers to misguide noobs into thinking that LN is some centralized system like Visa. In reality anyone can open channels with anyone, it is peer-to-peer just like Bitcoin itself, and it is trustless - you don't "deposit" your funds and lose control over them like it happen with banks, you can always close the channel and get your coins back to your address, because Lightning funds and transaction are real Bitcoins, they are not some tokens or giftcards. There's no reason why Lightning Network should have big hubs, because anyone who is currently running a full node, which is thousands of home users, can also run a Lightning node and collect fees.

At the same time, it is big blockers who want to have a small centralized network of big full node hubs while most users are connected with SPV clients, because no one can afford to run a full node with gigabyte blocks.

1. you have been reading too much of the reddit propaganda.. with your "gigabyte blocks" falsehood
2. you have not read the technicals of LN and just the promotional material

3. even core devs have now admitted that 8mb blocks was always safe and that 4mb blocks are ultra safe. hense why they are allowing 4mb 'weight'
yet they still refuse real legacy utility of the blockchain for 2mb... think about that..
4. LN is not trustless. and yes you do have to put funds into a new address and yes that new address is no longer permissionless because it needs you AND the counterparty to agree.
5. you need run some rational scenarios in your head about the functionality of LN. but only do this after you have read the technicals.
6. oh and stay away from reddit. its propaganda heaven

[eann014]

The main purpose of Bitcoin was to make a currency which is controlled by the people or the users itself. But now bitcoin is used just as a gambling token.

Not all people uses bitcoin as a gambling token. In my case bitcoin has a big purpose in my life. It can help me a lot in life, I can have an extra income to have profit because of bitcoin. I can easily encash everytime I want and I need. Especially during emergency. I can save some of my income so this is very helpful for me. Bitcoin has a very big purpose.

[Tristan1337]

Bitcoin is like a runaway ponzi/HYIP scheme without the guys at the top.

So basically it just keeps going up and up, until something screws up somewhere and people lose confidence in it, then the bubble can pop.

It did have more usage before the governments got involved, like franky1 pointed out, but not as much anymore. Now it's more a ponzi/HYIP/bubble.

[franky1]

@ franky1
That's part of the point of it being a store of wealth currency. Yes, you will always have to exchange some to pay your taxes but the person selling you a coffee, new car or a house will probably be delighted to take the currency that will hold its value over the fiat one.

the real estate was a store of wealth........ until 2007/8
and people wont b delighted to sell coffee a new car or a house if accepting that payment is:
higher than fiat
involves using a service that is the same counterparty authorisation control as fiat

many are already asking why buy bitcoin to buy coffee and the retailer just converts it back to fiat.
bitcoin has lost its utility.

now its just like real estate scandal of hanging onto vacant properties purely waiting for the price boom. or like domain squatting hoping someone will buy your domain at a higher price than you bought it for. even it the domain doesnt come with any webstorage/function

.. as for the first part of your post to the other person.
just making a currency that people love is not enough. millions of people love the euro because they can USE IT in many countries without needing to exchange it when going from lets say france to belgium to germany. but this does not mean the euro has toppled america, or africa, or china or australia. because those governments have laws.

its not citizens just using a currency that changes things. its the laws. and governments will not simply rip up legal tender laws

[franky1]

Bitcoin is like a runaway ponzi/HYIP scheme without the guys at the top.

So basically it just keeps going up and up, until something screws up somewhere and people lose confidence in it, then the bubble can pop.

It did have more usage before the governments got involved, like franky1 pointed out, but not as much anymore. Now it's more a ponzi/HYIP/bubble.

i think of it more like the real estate bubble, than a full outright ponzi scheme. but yea things have changed since 2014, not for the better
and yes even real estate bubble can be seen to some as a ponzi scheme even when a house has a real function

[Tristan1337]

Bitcoin is like a runaway ponzi/HYIP scheme without the guys at the top.

So basically it just keeps going up and up, until something screws up somewhere and people lose confidence in it, then the bubble can pop.

It did have more usage before the governments got involved, like franky1 pointed out, but not as much anymore. Now it's more a ponzi/HYIP/bubble.

i think of it more like the real estate bubble, than a full outright ponzi scheme. but yea things have changed since 2014, not for the better
and yes even real estate bubble can be seen to some as a ponzi scheme even when a house has a real function

Yes, i agree. Basically it's value is not so much based on what it could do/be. But mostly what it's price could be in the future.

[stephylarde]

The purpose of bitcoin in my opinion is the investment as well as a tool transactions of various goods and services just bitcoin digital currency.

Most likely, the purpose of bitcoin is like a cash for the internet users. It is a concurrence network that permits a new payment structure and completely a digital currency money that is powered by the bitcoin users with no central authority at all.

Bitcoin is the most transparent way to send funds directly to those in need. And the purpose of Bitcoin is to produce a currency independent of any central authority, transferable electronically, more or less instantly, with very low transaction fees.

[MakeMoneyBtc]

Bitcoin was obviously created to be used as a new payment method and to be different than banks and reduce all the fees while making transactions faster and trustworthy As we can see , right now bitcoin is used only as an investment to make profit from it and it is not used at all as a payment method.

I dont think this situation is going to change pretty soon. Bitcoin will remain just a making money method for long time because people are making dozens of money through it.

[TheQuin]

the real estate was a store of wealth........ until 2007/8

That's not really a valid comparison. Real estate could never be classed as currency.

and people wont b delighted to sell coffee a new car or a house if accepting that payment is:
higher than fiat
involves using a service that is the same counterparty authorisation control as fiat

I have already acknowledged that there are technical challenges before we get there. I'm talking about whether that original purpose of Bitcoin still exists.

many are already asking why buy bitcoin to buy coffee and the retailer just converts it back to fiat.
bitcoin has lost its utility.

Obviously, noone would buy Bitcoin just to buy a coffee. Again this is about the future, the theoretical ideal. The point is to buy Bitcoin with however much fiat you can and then spend that as and when. Holding the Bitcoin shields you from the devaluation of fiat. Same from the retailer's point of view, they would only need to convert to pay taxes.

.. as for the first part of your post to the other person.
just making a currency that people love is not enough. millions of people love the euro because they can USE IT in many countries without needing to exchange it when going from lets say france to belgium to germany. but this does not mean the euro has toppled america, or africa, or china or australia. because those governments have laws.

its not citizens just using a currency that changes things. its the laws. and governments will not simply rip up legal tender laws

It's nothing to do with loving the currency, it's about having a currency nobody has the power to systematically devalue. The EUR is just as bad as the USD from that perspective so there would be no reason for anyone outside of a country where it is legal tender to use it. Bitcoin or something similar does have an advantage over whatever the local fiat currency is and as of yet, there is no law prohibiting its use in most countries.

 

[Empiretoken]

     Anybody can come up any publication about the negative side of Bitcoin or Cryptocurrency in general
     but the truth is that people need to take charge of their finance and thats what cryptocurrency has made possible.

[lili song]

For me bitcoin help more people in the world, unemployment and people have a problem with financial. For myself purpose of bitcoin is great.
Bitcoin can also make transactions easy and fast to pay, and the price every year is up. So for investors bitcoin still profitable.

[achsan fauzy]

I think, one of the main goals of bitcoin is to make it easier everyone to transact their money without the help of the bank, or any other party.

[oaz7t]

According to me the main purpose of bitcoin was to transfer money online being anonymous and having no central authority over the transactions
but now a lot of people are buying bitcoins and holding them so that the prices rise and they can sell them for a profit
the transactions fees have also increased a lot

[LeGaulois]

It's a bit out of topic but since we are talking about the finance, governments, and take back the control... Check out this video when you have some free time.This guy is a goldmine
Worse than Useless: Financial Surveillance

In this talk, Andreas makes a connection between medical pseudoscience and modern financial totalitarian surveillance, as practiced by banks and state intelligence agencies. He explores the hidden externalities and moral hazards inherent in KYC/AML policies, disconnecting whole countries and even continents from the world economy. Why is it common sense that money laundering is the fundamental business of fully-licensed, regulated banks? Who runs the real "dark net"? He urges that before people try to fix things they should first be sure they're not making it worse.

So for investors bitcoin still profitable.

That's a problem, Satoshi didn't create Bitcoin as an investment but as a currency. It hurts Bitcoin, to a certain extent, to call it "investments"
If Satoshi wanted to create an investment he could have opened a bank and sold useless life insurances and other products that are usually found in it

[poor-yorik]

That's a problem, Satoshi didn't create Bitcoin as an investment but as a currency. It hurts Bitcoin, to a certain extent, to call it "investments"
If Satoshi wanted to create an investment he could have opened a bank and sold useless life insurances and other products that are usually found in it

But it is not that bad to have your coins to be worth over a dozen billion dollars, is it? And while Satoshi might have envisioned Bitcoin as a payment system, now that one bitcoin is worth almost $20,000, it still looks like a better idea than selling useless life insurances and similar stuff.

[Baby Dragon]

The main purpose of Bitcoin was to make a currency which is controlled by the people or the users itself. But now bitcoin is used just as a gambling token.

Not all people uses bitcoin in gambling. I think the main purpose of bitcoin is to help every nation to become successful.  It reduce poverty. Bitcoin help people to invest and gain profit and also bitcoin teach us to gain our knowledge in investing and trading to make our future become better.

[Bdstar]

I think Bitcoin has been made for the benefit of the human being, Normally, people want to transact by the regular currency but in this platform people usually faces a lot of difficulties such as fees and taxes without any benefit so Bitcoin is the platform which is controlled by the people or the users. I think Sotoshi made this blockchain system for this purpose where no control of a single authority.