If not a "store of value" or "medium of exchange" ...

[thirdprize]

then what is bitcoin?  A solution in search of a problem?

[1715032363]

1715032363

[1715032363]

1715032363

[1715032363]

1715032363

[1715032363]

1715032363

[migws]

then what is bitcoin?  A solution in search of a problem?

At first, Bitcoin was a way of confronting a centralized economy; now it is a way of earning thousands of traders and investors. Bitcoin is losing value as people forget the true purpose of the coin

[thirdprize]

then what is bitcoin?  A solution in search of a problem?

At first, Bitcoin was a way of confronting a centralized economy; now it is a way of earning thousands of traders and investors. Bitcoin is losing value as people forget the true purpose of the coin

Correct.  It it loses a third of its value in six months then ... it is not a good medium for investors or shopkeepers.

[gentlemand]

Those who aren't treating it like a speculative toy are treating it like an asset.

It's a long way from being an established store of value. I don't really think it'll ever be a medium of exchange in common use.

The virtues it has of being extremely hard to corrupt, impossible to confiscate, portable anywhere and requiring no one's permission are unique. That's plenty of solutions to problems right there.

[mk4]

Bitcoin could either be any of these, or all-together:

• Store of value
• Medium of exchange
• Speculative investment

That's what's actually good about it. No one decides what it's solely for. Different people have different needs. Not because maybe bitcoin is useless for you as a store of value because you're probably somewhere like in the US, but it doesn't mean it's useless for someone in an economically fucked up country like Venezuela. But at the same time, you think bitcoin is useless and isn't worth crap? Then go short it. It's simple as that. That's how open markets work.

[Darker45]

then what is bitcoin?  A solution in search of a problem?

In search of a problem? Really? We are on exactly opposite poles on this. I don't think you are sensitive enough of the problems pervading our society right now. I am seeing a lot of problems trying to get solved.

Do you think it is not a problem when you release all your personal information to the banks and the government agencies?

Do you think it is all right for these institutions to have control over you, and your life, and whatever you earn and spend for, and so on?

Is it not a problem if the central banks print billions worth of money out of thin air?

Do you not see it as a problem when the majority of government transactions are completely concealed from the public?

Do you not care that the value of what we call money right now is completely under the dictation of a few people up there?

[thirdprize]

Do you think it is not a problem when you release all your personal information to the banks and the government agencies?

Do you think it is all right for these institutions to have control over you, and your life, and whatever you earn and spend for, and so on?

Is it not a problem if the central banks print billions worth of money out of thin air?

Do you not see it as a problem when the majority of government transactions are completely concealed from the public?

Do you not care that the value of what we call money right now is completely under the dictation of a few people up there?

Apart from point three, in what way does Bitcoin fix these problems?  Cash is untraceable.  Every time you send or spend bitcoin you leave a part of the spiders web of where that money has been and where it is going.  Just because it isn't a bank account doesn't mean that you can't be traced.  You buy something, then they have your name and address.  You transfer money, then they presumably know who you are and why?  Who would you trust more, dark web markets and mixers or the government?  Silly question really.

[franky1]

bitcoin is a store of value. as it first needs to be a store of value to then be a medium of exchange.
by this i mean if having no value, people wont want to exchange it.

but people dont understand where the value comes from or what the value(financial) and values(function/feature) are

here is what a few people cant agree on.
some people just think that it has no purpose/function and is just a store of value.
this is usually the case in most peoples towns where they cant use bitcoin(as bitcoin, not converted) to buy food, rent, etc
this is where people need to do things in their towns to actually ask their local shops to try accepting bitcoin.
bitcoin is not some complex AI that can get on a plane or phone and talk to everyons local shops. people that actually want to use bitcoin locally need to actually be involved in getting retailers to adopt bitcoin


some people just think its value($) is based on being higher than the last person that bought it
by this i mean the common sense is when someone buys an asset they are reluctant to sell at a loss, so if everyone bought at $10k then they would all have the common sense to want to sell for $10,001+ and thus there would not be any/much orders below $10k
..

but what people dont realise is that the PRICE.. is NOT the VALUE($)
what people forget, dont know or dont understand is that when people buy btc they are not buying it 'at value'', same as gold. they are not buying it at value, they are buying it at a spot PRICE which is above value. and hoping value increases to ventually be abl to sell at a profit

imagine it like an iceburg in the ocean. people think that price and value is the tip of the iceburg. what they dont realise is the bit underwater is the value, holding it up. and the bit above the water(the iceburgs tip) is the price, which is speculative that can melt down or frost up, depending on the weather, environment.

then people need to know what builds up the value part.
yes over time its the acquisition costs. such as if it cost $9kto make btc. and after many months of speculative trading eventually the majority of trader have bought btc above $9 then the waterline becomes $9k knowing most wont sell below it unless it became cheaper to mine it blow $9k or those buying early on at cheap can sell for less at a profit.
eventually though, even when those early buyers sell, the next buyer has a higher line than previous people. so eventually the water line rises....

now to the main point.
too many stupid and gready people do not care about btc's values(function/features) and just care about it as a buy low sell high. but if btc only became speculative with no underlying values, nothing holding it up above a waterline.. then it will just sink. as thats what things like ponzi's are. things with no purpose done just to get a new person to buy for more than the last person.
in short.if people actually care about btc we should be caring about keeping bitcoins features and functions alive. not passing the value/valus off to some other network and using bitcoin as just a store. because if so, then yes that store would sink as it has nothing holding it up but vapour

[LeGaulois]

It shouldn't be a problem, the government has already all the information needed, what else? Your bank's statement history? They're not allowed in 99% of the countries, it's called financial privacy.

Otherwise, I agree with your points, unfortunately, most people involved in Bitcoin do not care about it. No matter what they say, Vires In numeris etc, etc, it's fake. They're interested only about the speculating side and don't even understand the basics. If a day BTC value goes to $20 you will see nobody anymore 

then what is bitcoin?  A solution in search of a problem?

At first, Bitcoin was a way of confronting a centralized economy; now it is a way of earning thousands of traders and investors. Bitcoin is losing value as people forget the true purpose of the coin

Correct.  It it loses a third of its value in six months then ... it is not a good medium for investors or shopkeepers.

Ah, you are the type of person who believes the success of Bitcoin can only be measured by its value. I would prefer to see the price as low as $1 and massively accepted than a $50k price but almost nobody using it, expect bizarre businesses

[Bountyhonter]

An anonymous programmer created a peer-to-peer, decentralized, mathematically scare, self-regulating, cryptographically secure, tamper-proof digital currency based on open-source software. Give the skeptics a break, bitcoin sounds straight out of a science fiction novel.

[gentlemand]

It was a great idea, but it has no future.

Pack it up, ladies. The verdict we've been waiting for has finally been delivered.

Speaking for myself at least I'll give it another 10 or so years but you're welcome to bail whenever you fancy.

[cr1776]

It was a great idea, but it has no future.

I heard similar on slashdot in July 2010 when it was around $0.10.   You are 9 years too late with the FUD.

[hatshepsut93]

then what is bitcoin?  A solution in search of a problem?

Different people have different opinions about what Bitcoin is, but in reality Bitcoin is easily both and more, because the whole point of Bitcoin is that people are free to use it however they like, without anyone else telling them what to do. I like the phrase "a solution in search of a problem", but it's not about Bitcoin, it's about blockchain technology and altcoins. They need to find a problem to justify existence, but Bitcoin doesn't have such need.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

A solution in search of a problem?

Ah, I used to hear that phrase on the old JREF forum when the skeptics would discuss bitcoin.  Frankly, I always agreed with them on that.  There's no way in hell a rational person would go out of his/her way to buy bitcoin in order to spend it on something that could easily be purchased with fiat.  But that's as far I'll go with that.  Because things aren't priced in bitcoin and people don't earn their paychecks in bitcoin, it's a lousy currency, aka "medium of exchange".  The average citizen has no trouble using a debit card, cash, or their smartphone to pay for things and also has little need for anonymity when paying for goods or services.

Bitcoin could be a store of value if it ever achieved stability.  As it is right now, it's an asset to be invested in.  It certainly could be a good currency if fiat ever failed. 

The few times I've spoken to fellow human beings about crypto and have felt compelled to describe its advantages, I've always mentioned that it's a form of money that's global, bank-less, government-less, and pseudo-anonymous.  If you're asking about its utility, I'd say it's great for paying for things from merchants that can't accept credit cards.  That could be crap on the dark or clear web.  It's also an excellent form of money for gambling with online casinos.

Bitcoin is far from useless.  Back before I discovered it (and I was late to the party), I voiced many of the same concerns.  I had to overcome some pretty extreme skepticism about it and I figured it was destined to go to $0.  It hasn't, and it's been about 5 years now since it crossed my radar.

[pereira4]

<...>

Incidentally, those that actually studied the fundamentals and knew what were doing since the early ages, were the ones that got the highest rewards in return. So on the big picture, knowledge pays. Someone that has heard Bitcoin on CNBC and saw how some idiot bought a lambo with it, may want to take a gamble, but chances are they will panic sell at a loss.

Off these people, a small % actually do research, and become long term holders, because that is what you become once you understand the fundamentals.

Bitcoin is essentially a set of rules, open and transparent, while being the opposite of a democracy, while remaining decentralized-inmutable at its core. THAT is what gives it value, everything else added on top is just an extra, that may or not last. Some people never grasp this even after years of being around here.

[franky1]

while being the opposite of a democracy,

bitcoin meant to be democratic, where individuals had equal choice and its the combined majority choice that chooses what rules should be.
the opposite of democracy is tyranny. which as you know bitcoin is becoming(core dominance).

but we need to fight against that, fight against those lead devs that only want btc to be store of value, fight against those that love high fee's when high fee's are not and will never be needed. and fight against devs who dont want competition/choice/freedom

[Duzter]

It doesn't need to be either store of value nor medium of exchange. From the use cases of bitcoin it is completely a multipurpose asset that has got varied usability. If someone prefer it to be a store of value, then it serves as a store of value. The same gets used as a medium of storage and further as a investment, trading asset, gambling token, etc. So we can't restrict bitcoin within two usage of store of value or medium of exchange.

[franky1]

It doesn't need to be either store of value nor medium of exchange. From the use cases of bitcoin it is completely a multipurpose asset that has got varied usability. If someone prefer it to be a store of value, then it serves as a store of value. The same gets used as a medium of storage and further as a investment, trading asset, gambling token, etc. So we can't restrict bitcoin within two usage of store of value or medium of exchange.

to even be a 'multipurpose asset' it needs to be both a store of value and a medium of exchange.
as i explained before if it holds no value people wont exchange it as its worthless.
and for people bing able to functionally exchange it. whilst able to do so affordably makes it a medium of exchange.
which by very definitions givs it a multipurpose.

trying to say it doesnt need to be. means your suggesting cutting out its purpose thus cutting out the very thing you describe it as, a multipurpose asset.
you cant have on without the other and you definetly cant say its multipurpose i your saying it should only have one purpose

by this. what i mean to say is by very definition and minimal function bitcoin does and should always be the minimum of both store of value and medium of exchange. as to its other utilities, they can be variable

[squatter]

then what is bitcoin?  A solution in search of a problem?

Bitcoin is money -- that's the bottom line. Some forms of money are better than others at specific functions, but all fit both categories (store of value and medium of exchange) to varying degrees.

Bitcoin's divisibility, portability, durability, fungibility and the difficulty of counterfeiting all make it an excellent medium of exchange. It just hasn't been widely adopted as that. Even the Federal Reserve banks can acknowledge it is a medium of exchange, though:

To be an effective medium of exchange, money must be acceptable in exchange for goods and services. Bitcoin can be used as a medium of exchange for a limited number of goods. Bitcoin's credibility as a medium of exchange was enhanced when Richard Branson accepted Bitcoin from the Winklevoss twins for a ride on his spacecraft. While the number of companies that accept payment in Bitcoin has been growing, these transactions still represent a tiny part of the economy.

The store of value discussion is a bit more complex. On one hand, Bitcoin has historically retained its purchasing power extraordinarily well -- one of the best performing assets of our time. On the other hand, it clearly lacks the stability that some people feel is necessary to qualify it as an SOV. This should be expected in the bootstrapping phase.

[boyptc]

It was a great idea, but it has no future.

Oh come on, accept the fact that there's still a lot of things that bitcoin can show us in the future.

Have you sold your stack already?

[Darker45]

Do you think it is not a problem when you release all your personal information to the banks and the government agencies?

Do you think it is all right for these institutions to have control over you, and your life, and whatever you earn and spend for, and so on?

Is it not a problem if the central banks print billions worth of money out of thin air?

Do you not see it as a problem when the majority of government transactions are completely concealed from the public?

Do you not care that the value of what we call money right now is completely under the dictation of a few people up there?

Apart from point three, in what way does Bitcoin fix these problems?

I guess you also agree with me on my 5th point?

Cash is untraceable. 

How do you spend cash? It is either you pay it yourself which means your face is exposed to the whole public, or through someone else which is basically the same, or through cards whose companies they came from have complete information about you.

Every time you send or spend bitcoin you leave a part of the spiders web of where that money has been and where it is going.  Just because it isn't a bank account doesn't mean that you can't be traced.  You buy something, then they have your name and address.  You transfer money, then they presumably know who you are and why?  

Well, good luck to them! They can't even trace a handful of individuals stealing billions of USD in BTC from duly registered exchanges. A wider adoption means millions and millions of people, each one with several addresses. 

Who would you trust more, dark web markets and mixers or the government?  Silly question really.

And it therefore deserves an equally silly answer. In terms of shady deals I would rank it this way:
surface web ==> deep web ==> dark web ==> government deals 

It shouldn't be a problem, the government has already all the information needed, what else? Your bank's statement history? They're not allowed in 99% of the countries, it's called financial privacy.

What is called financial privacy is a myth, that is, if we talk of the government not aware of our bank's history. A little suspicion and they are too quick to subject you to some questions, information updates, verification process, and so on, if not outright freezing of account.

Financial privacy is only real if we talk of how exactly the government spend our taxes, how they liquidate them, how they determine how much money they print, etc. 

[pooya87]

based on your comments it seems like you have never been affected by any of the "problems" that is why you don't see them and think there is no problem in first place. but there is. the banks screwing people over every day, governments have their hands in people's pockets, restricting them, controlling and censoring them, and a lot more. bitcoin simply solved a ton of such problems by simply being a decentralized currency. now i can send money from anywhere in the world to anywhere in the world without needing to jump through hoops or be restricted/blocked because of crazy governmental rules, sanctions,....

[Wind_FURY]

bitcoin is a store of value. as it first needs to be a store of value to then be a medium of exchange.
by this i mean if having no value, people wont want to exchange it.

I'm not trolling, OK? But I believe we debated about this before, and you said that Bitcoin should be a medium of exchange first to be valuable, and that because of small blocks, Bitcoin cannot be a medium of exchange. Or am I confused?

[jaocoincrypto18]

Bitcoin can be both as it will just depend to crypto users on how they will prepared to use it but mostly used it as an investments to earn more fiat rather than just an ordinary currency that can be use on normal spending.

[LbtalkL]

then what is bitcoin?  A solution in search of a problem?

At first, Bitcoin was a way of confronting a centralized economy; now it is a way of earning thousands of traders and investors. Bitcoin is losing value as people forget the true purpose of the coin

Correct.  It it loses a third of its value in six months then ... it is not a good medium for investors or shopkeepers.

This is precise but that's how cryptocurrency works it is volatile no one can predict where it goes. But, I'm quite confident its value will rise soon.
Having the nature of bitcoin in being decentralized is good enough no one control even government and banks and available to almost everyone in the world.

[thirdprize]

What is called financial privacy is a myth, that is, if we talk of the government not aware of our bank's history. A little suspicion and they are too quick to subject you to some questions, information updates, verification process, and so on, if not outright freezing of account.

Financial privacy is only real if we talk of how exactly the government spend our taxes, how they liquidate them, how they determine how much money they print, etc. 

Crypto is going that way.  The exchanges have the connections between real people and their addresses.  I'm sure if you took Coinbases database and cross referenced it with any dark Web markets customer database you would get a load of matches. 

[franky1]

bitcoin is a store of value. as it first needs to be a store of value to then be a medium of exchange.
by this i mean if having no value, people wont want to exchange it.

I'm not trolling, OK? But I believe we debated about this before, and you said that Bitcoin should be a medium of exchange first to be valuable, and that because of small blocks, Bitcoin cannot be a medium of exchange. Or am I confused?

being a medium of exchange of value. and being a medium of exchange are talking about two different things.
one being physically able to pass to different owners. and the other being the desire to accept is as a payment for goods or services.

the main smart community know to be a medium of exchange of value for goods and services means that it first needs to have value.

take for instance 2009-2010.
bitcoin functionally could pass between owners. but no one valued it at any $ value. it wasnt until it started costing people money to mine it and someone wanted a pizza for it that it then became a medium of exchange of value for goods and services... because guess what. someone put a value to it and another person agreed it was worth a couple pizzas for that and then the exchange for goods and services started

[hv_]

bitcoin is a store of value. as it first needs to be a store of value to then be a medium of exchange.
by this i mean if having no value, people wont want to exchange it.

I'm not trolling, OK? But I believe we debated about this before, and you said that Bitcoin should be a medium of exchange first to be valuable, and that because of small blocks, Bitcoin cannot be a medium of exchange. Or am I confused?

It must be 'easy' exchangable to get value at all - if u cannot transfer, nobody wants it / can handle it -> useless

Bitcoin should be P2P cash - per definition.  so it should be free to transfer

[Niya]

Because of many things (high fees, long confirmation time, lack of many merchants accept it, etc.) Bitcoin isn't a medium of exchange, yet. The majority of BTC users are just traders, speculators or long term holders.

[mk4]

People call it a store of value, but anything that loses that much % is an extremely bad store of value.

Not much of a good of a store of value for economically healthy countries. Think more of economically-wrecked countries as of now.

Speculative Investment : Sure, but due to the price drop after the 20k bubble, not a good investment.

Yea, and that sort of "bubble" isn't the first time it's happened with bitcoin. It just took time for a new ATH.

Medium of exchange : Due to it's volatility, a poor medium of exchange.

Same as my first point.

Yeah , Bitcoin just kinda sucks.

That's debatable. Probably for some people yes, for now. You don't expect a very young asset to be stable in price without a centralized authority. We going to need a lot of time and liquidity for bitcoin to be stable in price. It's just a matter of 'when' in my opinion.

[Findingnemo]

then what is bitcoin?  A solution in search of a problem?

Bitcoin is definitely a medium of exchange with the high volatile price,it may sounds awful now but in future the things will changes.And bitcoin is definitely better medium of exchange than those inflative paper money.

Solution can be found only after bitcoin investors treat it as currency over trading asset.

[buwaytress]

bitcoin functionally could pass between owners. but no one valued it at any $ value. it wasnt until it started costing people money to mine it and someone wanted a pizza for it that it then became a medium of exchange of value for goods and services... because guess what. someone put a value to it and another person agreed it was worth a couple pizzas for that and then the exchange for goods and services started

Not trolling or picking arguments, and I'm hardly an economist, but someone putting a value to Bitcoin doesn't make it a store of value, not automatically, does it?

From what I understand or remember, the very first exchange that sold Bitcoin (or bought it) assigned a dollar value to it based on the estimated cost to produce 1 unit (in terms of electricity consumed to mine it).

So while pizza day was the recognised exchange of goods for bitcoin, it was still a rather vague assignment of value.

[Turk Ace]

For me, it seems like a little bit of both. I see it more like stocks but the "stocks" have their own value and can be traded directly for other "stocks"(coins/tokens) without first going to fiat then back to "stocks" again.
Basically like stocks you can trade directly and some companies and places accept these ''stocks" since they can sell them when they please or even trade them again to anyone else willing to take bitcoin or crypto as payment options.

[squatter]

freedom : No , you are solely dependent on the rich elite to process transactions

What would you prefer, a network secured by CPU miners? Bitcoin is orders of magnitude more secure than that. We're only dependent on the rational mining incentive baked into the protocol. Miners want fees; we pay them to secure our transactions. The fee market is basic proof that it works.

privacy   : No, Public Blockchain, 3rd parties are required to obstruct view

What's your basis for comparison? Bank accounts? Credit cards? And what about CoinJoin?

[franky1]

Not trolling or picking arguments, and I'm hardly an economist, but someone putting a value to Bitcoin doesn't make it a store of value, not automatically, does it?

From what I understand or remember, the very first exchange that sold Bitcoin (or bought it) assigned a dollar value to it based on the estimated cost to produce 1 unit (in terms of electricity consumed to mine it).

So while pizza day was the recognised exchange of goods for bitcoin, it was still a rather vague assignment of value.

yes you are correct. just having a PRICE does not mean it has a store of VALUE. but again no one would exchange something that had no value, EG would you exchange your house for a jelly baby... no. because you dont value the jellybaby as much as the house.

i have a bag of dogs mess. just becaus i put a $10 price tag on it, doesnt mean the dogs mess is valued at $10

as for price vs value. they are not the same thing.
this is the most biggest thing people do not realise.
bitcoins price of $8000 at the moment is not its value

some that are used to gold investing know the spot PRICE is not  the gold value

the pizza thing was 2 pizzas for like 20k coins. so like $30 for 20k btc = 1btc=$0.0015 that was the price not the value.
value is the amount once you take away all the wishy washy stuff and get to the bare bones bottomline of it.. not th high, profitable price someone can charge
over simplified, its like the minimum the price has been in the last month would be the value, as no one wants to sell below it, so everyones agreeing they value it at such in that period.. where as the top/ATH price for the last month is not its value

in retail, the recommended retail price is not the value. the price is not the value, but the value is a discount or last low price it has been recently..
too many people foolishly think a price chart is a value, which is where they get confused and see last week bitcoin was $10k and is now $8k and think it lost alot of value. when infact the value could have always been this low and now the price is at value making it a very good price to buy at.

i personally have not treated the PRICE as value. i have done maths on mining costs and also the long term MINIMUM the coin sold for in a period and treated that as the value line

for instance in summer 2018 the PRICE went way above $6k. but i treated the value as being $5.8k before the autumn dip due to cheaper mining. so yea during summer when people were stupidly saying its gaining and losing value when it was above $6k i was still settled with valuing it at $5.8k and when the prices got close to $5.8k i said it was a good value price, and when it was way higher i said it was an inflated not so good valued price

[maianh09]

Bitcoin was created to replace Fiat, and it was Satoshi's idea to create Bitcoin. Bitcoin currently recognized in many countries and used as payment currency. In some countries where Bitcoin is banned, it has become a portfolio to help investors seek high returns every year.

[Darker45]

What is called financial privacy is a myth, that is, if we talk of the government not aware of our bank's history. A little suspicion and they are too quick to subject you to some questions, information updates, verification process, and so on, if not outright freezing of account.

Financial privacy is only real if we talk of how exactly the government spend our taxes, how they liquidate them, how they determine how much money they print, etc. 

Crypto is going that way.  The exchanges have the connections between real people and their addresses.  I'm sure if you took Coinbases database and cross referenced it with any dark Web markets customer database you would get a load of matches. 

In a way, yes. That is the cost of mainstreaming cryptocurrency perhaps? Exchanges, for example, cannot always be on the run. They will have to somehow find a place to settle down and do their business. That means they will have to undergo all kinds of registrations and approvals and regular audits. And by going through all of them, they are submitting themselves to the system, to the existing laws. They simply cannot say no. And so they are now asking KYC, other verification, and set up limits.

It seems to me that if we stick to the real essence of crypto, we'll have to go with DEx and perhaps even avoid the main road. 

[Wind_FURY]

bitcoin is a store of value. as it first needs to be a store of value to then be a medium of exchange.
by this i mean if having no value, people wont want to exchange it.

I'm not trolling, OK? But I believe we debated about this before, and you said that Bitcoin should be a medium of exchange first to be valuable, and that because of small blocks, Bitcoin cannot be a medium of exchange. Or am I confused?

It must be 'easy' exchangable to get value at all - if u cannot transfer, nobody wants it / can handle it -> useless

Bitcoin should be P2P cash - per definition.  so it should be free to transfer

But if no one wants to hold it, no one would accept it as a medium of exchange. "Medium of exchange" is not only for its sake. It also has to be a store of value, for later use as a medium of exchange.

[hv_]

bitcoin is a store of value. as it first needs to be a store of value to then be a medium of exchange.
by this i mean if having no value, people wont want to exchange it.

I'm not trolling, OK? But I believe we debated about this before, and you said that Bitcoin should be a medium of exchange first to be valuable, and that because of small blocks, Bitcoin cannot be a medium of exchange. Or am I confused?

It must be 'easy' exchangable to get value at all - if u cannot transfer, nobody wants it / can handle it -> useless

Bitcoin should be P2P cash - per definition.  so it should be free to transfer

But if no one wants to hold it, no one would accept it as a medium of exchange. "Medium of exchange" is not only for its sake. It also has to be a store of value, for later use as a medium of exchange.

We know, it is chicken & egg.

But Bitcoin is fully digital / electronic

So it MUST be the cheapest and easy medium of exchange - it's purely intuitive and it is even TOP LEVEL ADVERTISED as the NEW  e-cash

so what is the issue ? BTC is not  Bitcoin and money any more - it cannot be a store of value for its only sake  

[teosanru]

then what is bitcoin?  A solution in search of a problem?

It is a medium of Exchange but just not quite the mainstream one. Which means Bitcoin was originally created for this purpose but even the creators never thought of the deflationary problem of bitcoin which will lead to increase and fall in its prices so sharply. Unfortunately due to this reason Bitcoin today is nothing but a trading commodity. Cryptocurrencies these days are not doing anything good than just helping people trade a living out of them. Even in the phase of extreme bearishness people have found their way out to trade by using the Futures and shorting them. So all in all today BTC's 70% use is merely as a trading commodity.

[Wind_FURY]

bitcoin is a store of value. as it first needs to be a store of value to then be a medium of exchange.
by this i mean if having no value, people wont want to exchange it.

I'm not trolling, OK? But I believe we debated about this before, and you said that Bitcoin should be a medium of exchange first to be valuable, and that because of small blocks, Bitcoin cannot be a medium of exchange. Or am I confused?

It must be 'easy' exchangable to get value at all - if u cannot transfer, nobody wants it / can handle it -> useless

Bitcoin should be P2P cash - per definition.  so it should be free to transfer

But if no one wants to hold it, no one would accept it as a medium of exchange. "Medium of exchange" is not only for its sake. It also has to be a store of value, for later use as a medium of exchange.

We know, it is chicken & egg.

But Bitcoin is fully digital / electronic

So it MUST be the cheapest and easy medium of exchange - it's purely intuitive and it is even TOP LEVEL ADVERTISED as the NEW  e-cash

so what is the issue ? BTC is not  Bitcoin and money any more - it cannot be a store of value for its only sake  

I would say yes to all of that, if the technical solution was as easy as increasing the block size to increase transaction throughput, BUT without preventing the network from scaling out.

[hv_]

bitcoin is a store of value. as it first needs to be a store of value to then be a medium of exchange.
by this i mean if having no value, people wont want to exchange it.

I'm not trolling, OK? But I believe we debated about this before, and you said that Bitcoin should be a medium of exchange first to be valuable, and that because of small blocks, Bitcoin cannot be a medium of exchange. Or am I confused?

It must be 'easy' exchangable to get value at all - if u cannot transfer, nobody wants it / can handle it -> useless

Bitcoin should be P2P cash - per definition.  so it should be free to transfer

But if no one wants to hold it, no one would accept it as a medium of exchange. "Medium of exchange" is not only for its sake. It also has to be a store of value, for later use as a medium of exchange.

We know, it is chicken & egg.

But Bitcoin is fully digital / electronic

So it MUST be the cheapest and easy medium of exchange - it's purely intuitive and it is even TOP LEVEL ADVERTISED as the NEW  e-cash

so what is the issue ? BTC is not  Bitcoin and money any more - it cannot be a store of value for its only sake  

I would say yes to all of that, if the technical solution was as easy as increasing the block size to increase transaction throughput, BUT without preventing the network from scaling out.

Bitcoin was designed to be digital - it does not need artificial barriers - it can do, what computers can do - so let it do - it is honest by design

[buwaytress]

i personally have not treated the PRICE as value. i have done maths on mining costs and also the long term MINIMUM the coin sold for in a period and treated that as the value line

Me neither, although I have to say for practical purposes most of my mind's occupation is with price, since I need to sell my btc or use it to pay for stuff but I get what you mean here.

And that's why I am constantly reminded of how the price was first established, on a cost of generating. I daresay it's super difficult to (accurately) estimate what it costs now but I've always felt that price is a lot higher up than the cost and miners do that so they can weather out the periods when price is below the cost.

So I generally can have an idea about price and cost. Value? That's more philosophical for me =)

[hotmom]

Bitcoin is an opportunity that you can implement in different ways depending on your goals and objectives

[squatter]

privacy   : No, Public Blockchain, 3rd parties are required to obstruct view

What's your basis for comparison? Bank accounts? Credit cards? And what about CoinJoin?

Cash spent between individuals is not recorded at every turn,
and there is no public records to track.

Cash isn't spendable electronically, over the internet. That was one of the primary purposes of Bitcoin according to the whitepaper.

Privacy coins can accomplish that while obfuscating transaction data, but there are drawbacks as well -- as Zcash or Monero users will tell you. In terms of auditing the fixed supply, Bitcoin's transparency is a feature.

[Wind_FURY]

bitcoin is a store of value. as it first needs to be a store of value to then be a medium of exchange.
by this i mean if having no value, people wont want to exchange it.

I'm not trolling, OK? But I believe we debated about this before, and you said that Bitcoin should be a medium of exchange first to be valuable, and that because of small blocks, Bitcoin cannot be a medium of exchange. Or am I confused?

It must be 'easy' exchangable to get value at all - if u cannot transfer, nobody wants it / can handle it -> useless

Bitcoin should be P2P cash - per definition.  so it should be free to transfer

But if no one wants to hold it, no one would accept it as a medium of exchange. "Medium of exchange" is not only for its sake. It also has to be a store of value, for later use as a medium of exchange.

We know, it is chicken & egg.

But Bitcoin is fully digital / electronic

So it MUST be the cheapest and easy medium of exchange - it's purely intuitive and it is even TOP LEVEL ADVERTISED as the NEW  e-cash

so what is the issue ? BTC is not  Bitcoin and money any more - it cannot be a store of value for its only sake  

I would say yes to all of that, if the technical solution was as easy as increasing the block size to increase transaction throughput, BUT without preventing the network from scaling out.

Bitcoin was designed to be digital - it does not need artificial barriers - it can do, what computers can do - so let it do - it is honest by design

  You're trolling.

Newbies, in reality there are barriers to scaling. It can't scale on-chain without centralizing the network, and giving up some of its actual value proposition, which is censorship-resistance.

[ardentvolcanoes]

Bitcoin can be both as it will just depend to crypto users on how they will prepared to use it but mostly used it as an investments to earn more fiat rather than just an ordinary currency that can be use on normal spending.

Most users cater Bitcoin as store of value assets that gives opportunities to earn after. The chance that bring inside this market changes the mindset of investors instead of real usage as a token for payment transaction they are holding to make a good benefit and earn big profits.

You need to understand the concept and allow yourself to analyze your decision making.

[NathanJB]

bitcoin is a store of value. as it first needs to be a store of value to then be a medium of exchange.
by this i mean if having no value, people wont want to exchange it.

I'm not trolling, OK? But I believe we debated about this before, and you said that Bitcoin should be a medium of exchange first to be valuable, and that because of small blocks, Bitcoin cannot be a medium of exchange. Or am I confused?

It must be 'easy' exchangable to get value at all - if u cannot transfer, nobody wants it / can handle it -> useless

Bitcoin should be P2P cash - per definition.  so it should be free to transfer

But if no one wants to hold it, no one would accept it as a medium of exchange. "Medium of exchange" is not only for its sake. It also has to be a store of value, for later use as a medium of exchange.

We know, it is chicken & egg.

But Bitcoin is fully digital / electronic

So it MUST be the cheapest and easy medium of exchange - it's purely intuitive and it is even TOP LEVEL ADVERTISED as the NEW  e-cash

so what is the issue ? BTC is not  Bitcoin and money any more - it cannot be a store of value for its only sake  

I would say yes to all of that, if the technical solution was as easy as increasing the block size to increase transaction throughput, BUT without preventing the network from scaling out.

Bitcoin was designed to be digital - it does not need artificial barriers - it can do, what computers can do - so let it do - it is honest by design

  You're trolling.

Newbies, in reality there are barriers to scaling. It can't scale on-chain without centralizing the network, and giving up some of its actual value proposition, which is censorship-resistance.

That is precisely the reason why scalability remains a problem as far as the Bitcoin network is concerned. And this problem will get more and more serious as Bitcoin is getting the adoption and actual utility as a mode of exchange that everyone is dreaming of.

Segwit provided a solution, a little solution, a temporary one, to the gigantic problem of scalability. But as more and more people adopt Bitcoin, the problem will arise once again.

Lightning network is another solution to this big problem. But, as mentioned, "It can't scale on-chain without centralizing the network."

There we go! There is a real barrier in there.

[hv_]

bitcoin is a store of value. as it first needs to be a store of value to then be a medium of exchange.
by this i mean if having no value, people wont want to exchange it.

I'm not trolling, OK? But I believe we debated about this before, and you said that Bitcoin should be a medium of exchange first to be valuable, and that because of small blocks, Bitcoin cannot be a medium of exchange. Or am I confused?

It must be 'easy' exchangable to get value at all - if u cannot transfer, nobody wants it / can handle it -> useless

Bitcoin should be P2P cash - per definition.  so it should be free to transfer

But if no one wants to hold it, no one would accept it as a medium of exchange. "Medium of exchange" is not only for its sake. It also has to be a store of value, for later use as a medium of exchange.

We know, it is chicken & egg.

But Bitcoin is fully digital / electronic

So it MUST be the cheapest and easy medium of exchange - it's purely intuitive and it is even TOP LEVEL ADVERTISED as the NEW  e-cash

so what is the issue ? BTC is not  Bitcoin and money any more - it cannot be a store of value for its only sake  

I would say yes to all of that, if the technical solution was as easy as increasing the block size to increase transaction throughput, BUT without preventing the network from scaling out.

Bitcoin was designed to be digital - it does not need artificial barriers - it can do, what computers can do - so let it do - it is honest by design

  You're trolling.

Newbies, in reality there are barriers to scaling. It can't scale on-chain without centralizing the network, and giving up some of its actual value proposition, which is censorship-resistance.

If u are losing on arguments, u go name calling?

Nope, scaling means real scaling, and not little ( by little Joe, little RasPI,...)

Miners have done this step already, they have invested and installed high tech level network over the past years, in a still enough decentral way, and that is as industrial grade scaling has to be done for global networks,
Nothing new.

It stays decentral enough over time cause competition is maximum open and everyone can build high level efficient mining equipment and join every time, that will challenge any monopoly over long term. Perfect open rotation.

Little joe RasPI pies were never ever of relevance, they only run their wallet clients, when miners run the server farms, as Satoshi designed it.

Meh

[franky1]

You're trolling.

Newbies, in reality there are barriers to scaling. It can't scale on-chain without centralizing the network, and giving up some of its actual value proposition, which is censorship-resistance.

gotta love that comedy.
so developers say no to developing onchain scaling.. sniff sniff, smells like they are censoring community needs/desires
technically it is possible, but politically devs just say no with some lame trumpesq excuses
'2015: hard drives will fill up fast if we had 2mb'
'2015: we want segwit and it will use 4mb bloat but not achieve 4x scaling, dont worry hard drives will be fine'

so developer fan boys pretending it will centralise the network,.. sniff sniff, dang that smell is getting stronger
sorry but bitcoin runs on a raspbery pi which is a multitude x slower than a standard computer. thus standard computers can handle more. so dont even try to re-start the myth of 'servers'

windy, did you not forget the censorship of 2017 that threw people off the network for not complying to cores demands.

time for you to add 'censorship' to the list or things you need to independently research.
but i will say this, you are a comedian. your comments make me laugh often. but thats no excuse, as even comedians research the topics they want to joke about

[Viper1]

Bitcoin is an experiment at creating decentralized digital cash. That's it, but people have gotten so blinded by it's exchange rate etc they forget that. Given that however, has it been a success, a failure or is the jury still out on it? IMO, with the direction it's been going, after a few more halvings and the inevitable consolidation in mining starts to occur, the decentralized aspect will fail unless they make some sort of significant changes. Let's not even talk about how as time progresses, it becomes more and more like the mainstream financial sector with the governments taking more "control" of it through regulation. Not like it matters what it is or isn't or whether it will succeed or fail. Just enjoy making money from it for as long as you can and you can stop worrying about all that.

[franky1]

Bitcoin is an experiment at creating decentralized digital cash.

oh we have another comedian. hmm but thats an old joke i heard that experiment joke before.

an experiment is a test, waiting for a result, whereby when the test is over something else can be tested and no harm done. whereby its not the solution but just a game/playing around trying to look for something.

sorry but bitcoin is not a test. not an experiment. its an actual thing that exist and is being used by common people every day.

the reason your joke is old is because the punchline is that the developers want to do what they want and if it fails they want to walk away as if they done nothing wrong.

seems the last two comedians are reading from the reddit jokebook circa 2014. i think its time they update their material

[Viper1]

Bitcoin is an experiment at creating decentralized digital cash.

oh we have another comedian. hmm but thats an old joke i heard that expriment joke before.

an experiment is a test, waiting for a result, whereby when the test is over something else can be tested and no harm done. whereby its not the solution but just  game/playing around trying to look for something.

sorry but bitcoin is not a test. not an experiment. its an actual thing that exist and is bing used by common people.

the reason your joke is old is because the punchline is that the developers want to do what they want and if it fails they want to walk away as if they done nothing wrong.

seems the last two comedians are reading from the reddit jokebook circa 2014. i think its time they update their material

I knew you'd respond. I'm not going to get into a discussion with you about this as you're not worth the effort. Carry on with your opinion though, it's clear many people have bought into the same belief.

[Digitalbitcoin]

We can say it a digital asset, and due to limited supply price will be sure skyrocket in coming future.

And that's why it comes up with both concepts, as a store of value and at the same time medium of exchange.

Bitcoin is not a joke so take it seriously.

[NoBanThx]

Title: Re: If not a "store of value" or "medium of exchange" ...
It says what it is in the first sentence of the white paper brother, a peer to peer electronic cash

Meaning it is a stand alone medium of exchange, kind of like usd,euro or yen (just not run by a country *centralized*, but by all willing participants *decentralized*)
So it is a decentralized, medium of exchange. (which people give a value)

bitcoin is a store of value. as it first needs to be a store of value to then be a medium of exchange.
by this i mean if having no value, people wont want to exchange it.

Yes but fiat has nothing to do with the equation.

I have apples and my neighbor has pizzarolls, We trade apples for pizzarolls every year without my apples or his pizzarolls fiat price in question, it is irrelevant.
Just like how the first bitcoin trade happened, I have traded him bitcoin for the pizzarolls before bitcoin even had a price.

The people create this value, so it will always have a value on what the trade agreement is between both parties.
The fiat price of bitcoin could go to 0, bitcoin will still be traded for goods and services. That is how the first trade happened to begin with

[figmentofmyass]

technically it is possible, but politically devs just say no with some lame trumpesq excuses
'2015: hard drives will fill up fast if we had 2mb'
'2015: we want segwit and it will use 4mb bloat but not achieve 4x scaling, dont worry hard drives will be fine'

you're being disingenuous and you know it. you're ignoring the quadratic hashing problem. segwit specifically fixed this and expanded block space for transactions that don't worsen the problem. you also know this was done as a compromise so bitcoin could have bigger blocks but still allow for large-transaction use cases. the best of both worlds in other words, vs a crude sigops limit:

Removing the quadratic scaling of hashed data for verifying signatures makes increasing the block size safer. Doing that without also limiting transaction sizes allows Bitcoin to continue to support payments that go to or come from large groups, such as payments of mining rewards or crowdfunding services.
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/

[franky1]

technically it is possible, but politically devs just say no with some lame trumpesq excuses
'2015: hard drives will fill up fast if we had 2mb'
'2015: we want segwit and it will use 4mb bloat but not achieve 4x scaling, dont worry hard drives will be fine'

you're being disingenuous and you know it. you're ignoring the quadratic hashing problem. segwit specifically fixed this and expanded block space for transactions that don't worsen the problem. you also know this was done as a compromise so bitcoin could have bigger blocks but still allow for large-transaction use cases. the best of both worlds in other words, vs a crude sigops limit:

Removing the quadratic scaling of hashed data for verifying signatures makes increasing the block size safer. Doing that without also limiting transaction sizes allows Bitcoin to continue to support payments that go to or come from large groups, such as payments of mining rewards or crowdfunding services.
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/

1. not fixed. people can still use legacy transactions which still have the problem of bloating up a block
2. those wanting to bloat a block wont use segwit.
3. its like having a gun free neighbourhood but advertising it as removing all guns across the world and solving gun murders.. sorry advert doesnt meet reality
4. 'groups/crowds' dont deserve a whole block to themselves of only 5 tx's if people want to be paid it should be done as multiple batches. core dont want individuals to use bitcoin, they prefer large organisations to have access and let the other little people use other networks.
5. reducing the maxtxsigops limit is the most simplest solution. yet they wont.
6. even now they wont raise the baseblock because the quadratics is is not fixed.. wake up

[Wind_FURY]

bitcoin is a store of value. as it first needs to be a store of value to then be a medium of exchange.
by this i mean if having no value, people wont want to exchange it.

I'm not trolling, OK? But I believe we debated about this before, and you said that Bitcoin should be a medium of exchange first to be valuable, and that because of small blocks, Bitcoin cannot be a medium of exchange. Or am I confused?

It must be 'easy' exchangable to get value at all - if u cannot transfer, nobody wants it / can handle it -> useless

Bitcoin should be P2P cash - per definition.  so it should be free to transfer

But if no one wants to hold it, no one would accept it as a medium of exchange. "Medium of exchange" is not only for its sake. It also has to be a store of value, for later use as a medium of exchange.

We know, it is chicken & egg.

But Bitcoin is fully digital / electronic

So it MUST be the cheapest and easy medium of exchange - it's purely intuitive and it is even TOP LEVEL ADVERTISED as the NEW  e-cash

so what is the issue ? BTC is not  Bitcoin and money any more - it cannot be a store of value for its only sake  

I would say yes to all of that, if the technical solution was as easy as increasing the block size to increase transaction throughput, BUT without preventing the network from scaling out.

Bitcoin was designed to be digital - it does not need artificial barriers - it can do, what computers can do - so let it do - it is honest by design

  You're trolling.

Newbies, in reality there are barriers to scaling. It can't scale on-chain without centralizing the network, and giving up some of its actual value proposition, which is censorship-resistance.

If u are losing on arguments, u go name calling?

Did I call you names? No. Is that your way to end the debate? I said you're trolling.

Nope, scaling means real scaling, and not little ( by little Joe, little RasPI,...)

In the real world, by real, in this dimension, no one can go around the laws of physics.

Miners have done this step already, they have invested and installed high tech level network over the past years, in a still enough decentral way, and that is as industrial grade scaling has to be done for global networks,
Nothing new.

It stays decentral enough over time cause competition is maximum open and everyone can build high level efficient mining equipment and join every time, that will challenge any monopoly over long term. Perfect open rotation.

Because they had to specialize, or be left behind mining with inefficient hardware, and mine at a loss.

Little joe RasPI pies were never ever of relevance, they only run their wallet clients, when miners run the server farms, as Satoshi designed it.

Meh

Non-mining full nodes validate, they are as part of the network as the nodes the miners connect to. Some miners don't run their own full nodes anymore. Plus why would you tell everyone not to? Is that your whole debate for big blocks? "Because the community doesn't have to run their own full nodes"?

[franky1]

more comedy gold.
trying to say bitcoin cant scale because of physics..[facepalm]
scaling is about timely growth, which physics actually proves is possible.
whats not possible is huge single leap to an impossibly large number.

the reason i laugh is the core fan camp are the ones that keep throwing around the term 'gigabytes by midnight' meaning they are not talking about scaling they are trying to say those that want scaling 2,4,8,16,32.. dont want scaling but want 'gigabytes by midnight'

sorry windy but please do your research. physics actually proves that scaling is possible.
oh and one other thing. the numbers involved in the massive debate on the first step forward for scaling was just 2mb base.. which if you done some research is far far below the limits of modern/current computers. so please do your research and stop your false mantra of 'centralisation coz servers'

remember this. 50 years ago people got to the moon using computers that only had the power of what we now use in cheap plastic calculators you can buy from staples stores for $2.
we have moved on from back then. these days a phone the size of a calculator has more power than a dsktop PC from the millenium

please just stop repeating your friends comedy scripts like a bad standup with no original material. try to actually do some independant thinking

(here is a hint. by the time bitcoin needs the processing power of a current server.. that system when needed will be found in a smart phone that fits in your pocket.)
(here is another hint. ets take iphone 3, released in 2008 and available in 8gb,16gb,32gb.. iphone 11 available in 64,128,256
yep technology has not just improved x2,not x4, but yes x8)

[fiulpro]

I think it is somehow between investment + currency.

Since they makes worldwide transactions affordable plus makes the market more accessible for everyone.
Therefore it passes as a currency also you can also buy and sell certain things with Bitcoin.

The value of Bitcoins can be somehow taken as stocks therefore I think they are perfect investments.

[slaman29]

Because of many things (high fees, long confirmation time, lack of many merchants accept it, etc.) Bitcoin isn't a medium of exchange, yet. The majority of BTC users are just traders, speculators or long term holders.

High fees and long confirmation times aren't always a factor. Most of the time, I'm sending or receiving and merchants are happy to accept 0 confirmation even. Same as between me and most people. As long as you don't mind waiting for 1 confirmation to confirm things, payment is accepted. So I really don't get this thing about not being a medium of exchange.

Altcoins? Now there is where majority if not all are just speculators.

[Wind_FURY]

more comedy gold.
trying to say bitcoin cant scale because of physics..[facepalm]
scaling is about timely growth, which physics actually proves is possible.
whats not possible is huge single leap to an impossibly large number.

What have I been telling you? Bitcoin can't simply increase the block size without scaling in/centralizing the network. But users shouldn't run full nodes, so it's OK, right?

[franky1]

more comedy gold.
trying to say bitcoin cant scale because of physics..[facepalm]
scaling is about timely growth, which physics actually proves is possible.
whats not possible is huge single leap to an impossibly large number.

What have I been telling you? Bitcoin can't simply increase the block size without scaling in/centralizing the network. But users shouldn't run full nodes, so it's OK, right?

it can simply increase the blocksize actually.. todays technology is far more superier than the requirements of 1mb base
yes i said todays tech. oh and it only costs $50 for such tech

centralising the network?? how...  go on say that scripted joke, you know th one, the one your friend told you about servers..
..
my response: people will run full nodes on home devices
again
my response: people will run full nodes on home devices

here is a real tip for you
did you know at the millenium, people thought this device was science fiction

yet guess what by the time kids watching that sci-fi show grew to be adults it became reality


..
oh wait, i think i can predict the next joke of your comedy routine.
the joke about how you want/think very NEEDS to b a full node. but the punchline being you actually prefer people to move over to another network where users only use lite wallet and entrust "factories" to manage it.
its funny because its you and your friends that want centralisation. your even dad against competing dev teams

and another joke i predict from you will be trying to return to the joke about huge jumps in on go, to avoid talking about scaling and try to make it sound like people want huge leaps by midnight.. again please learn scaling, learn tech progression, learn the stats of how fast a block actually takes to be validated and relayed per peer... atleast try to research independantly

try to look into block propagation time (hint: its seconds not minutes to reach majority network)

[hv_]

bitcoin is a store of value. as it first needs to be a store of value to then be a medium of exchange.
by this i mean if having no value, people wont want to exchange it.

I'm not trolling, OK? But I believe we debated about this before, and you said that Bitcoin should be a medium of exchange first to be valuable, and that because of small blocks, Bitcoin cannot be a medium of exchange. Or am I confused?

It must be 'easy' exchangable to get value at all - if u cannot transfer, nobody wants it / can handle it -> useless

Bitcoin should be P2P cash - per definition.  so it should be free to transfer

But if no one wants to hold it, no one would accept it as a medium of exchange. "Medium of exchange" is not only for its sake. It also has to be a store of value, for later use as a medium of exchange.

We know, it is chicken & egg.

But Bitcoin is fully digital / electronic

So it MUST be the cheapest and easy medium of exchange - it's purely intuitive and it is even TOP LEVEL ADVERTISED as the NEW  e-cash

so what is the issue ? BTC is not  Bitcoin and money any more - it cannot be a store of value for its only sake  

I would say yes to all of that, if the technical solution was as easy as increasing the block size to increase transaction throughput, BUT without preventing the network from scaling out.

Bitcoin was designed to be digital - it does not need artificial barriers - it can do, what computers can do - so let it do - it is honest by design

  You're trolling.

Newbies, in reality there are barriers to scaling. It can't scale on-chain without centralizing the network, and giving up some of its actual value proposition, which is censorship-resistance.

If u are losing on arguments, u go name calling?

Did I call you names? No. Is that your way to end the debate? I said you're trolling.

Nope, scaling means real scaling, and not little ( by little Joe, little RasPI,...)

In the real world, by real, in this dimension, no one can go around the laws of physics.

Miners have done this step already, they have invested and installed high tech level network over the past years, in a still enough decentral way, and that is as industrial grade scaling has to be done for global networks,
Nothing new.

It stays decentral enough over time cause competition is maximum open and everyone can build high level efficient mining equipment and join every time, that will challenge any monopoly over long term. Perfect open rotation.

Because they had to specialize, or be left behind mining with inefficient hardware, and mine at a loss.

Little joe RasPI pies were never ever of relevance, they only run their wallet clients, when miners run the server farms, as Satoshi designed it.

Meh

Non-mining full nodes validate, they are as part of the network as the nodes the miners connect to. Some miners don't run their own full nodes anymore. Plus why would you tell everyone not to? Is that your whole debate for big blocks? "Because the community doesn't have to run their own full nodes"?

There are no "non- mining full nodes". This is some creative non sense that u just repeat.

U try to teach ppl their e banking client can do much. Sure u can validate what ur bank s server calculated for u. As miners do for ur wallet. But u can only shout and run to miners if ur client cannot follow the protocol.

Nice trolling from u though

[figmentofmyass]

you're ignoring the quadratic hashing problem. segwit specifically fixed this and expanded block space for transactions that don't worsen the problem. you also know this was done as a compromise so bitcoin could have bigger blocks but still allow for large-transaction use cases. the best of both worlds in other words, vs a crude sigops limit:

Removing the quadratic scaling of hashed data for verifying signatures makes increasing the block size safer. Doing that without also limiting transaction sizes allows Bitcoin to continue to support payments that go to or come from large groups, such as payments of mining rewards or crowdfunding services.
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/

not fixed. people can still use legacy transactions which still have the problem of bloating up a block

which is why legacy transactions are still subject to the same limit as before segwit. this is not a problem at 1MB base block size. it's also not a problem for linearly scaling sigops---thus the compromise to increase block size for linearly scaling sigops.

those wanting to bloat a block wont use segwit.

so what? as long as we don't increase the base block size, this isn't a problem. and they'll pay a hefty price for the trying too: legacy transactions cost >40% more than bech32 segwit transactions. the fee market punishes would-be spammers.

'groups/crowds' dont deserve a whole block to themselves of only 5 tx's if people want to be paid it should be done as multiple batches.

i disagree. this should be a free market mechanism to whatever extent possible. if they are willing to outbid other users, they should be able to get their transactions confirmed first.

[franky1]

you're ignoring the quadratic hashing problem. segwit specifically fixed this and expanded block space for transactions that don't worsen the problem. you also know this was done as a compromise so bitcoin could have bigger blocks but still allow for large-transaction use cases. the best of both worlds in other words, vs a crude sigops limit:

Removing the quadratic scaling of hashed data for verifying signatures makes increasing the block size safer. Doing that without also limiting transaction sizes allows Bitcoin to continue to support payments that go to or come from large groups, such as payments of mining rewards or crowdfunding services.
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/

not fixed. people can still use legacy transactions which still have the problem of bloating up a block

which is why legacy transactions are still subject to the same limit as before segwit. this is not a problem at 1MB base block size. it's also not a problem for linearly scaling sigops---thus the compromise to increase block size for linearly scaling sigops.

those wanting to bloat a block wont use segwit.

so what? as long as we don't increase the base block size, this isn't a problem. and they'll pay a hefty price for the trying too: legacy transactions cost >40% more than bech32 segwit transactions. the fee market punishes would-be spammers.

'groups/crowds' dont deserve a whole block to themselves of only 5 tx's if people want to be paid it should be done as multiple batches.

i disagree. this should be a free market mechanism to whatever extent possible. if they are willing to outbid other users, they should be able to get their transactions confirmed first.

1. if you knew the tech you would know keeping 1mb base and just saying the weight can grow wont actually increase transactions, as even segwit transactions need to sit in the base, thus are so they are also restricted.
EG base 1mb weight 32mb.. transactions still around average 2500 a block even if all segwit. what your not realising is the weight is for bloated signature/scripts.. not new transactions

2. by expanding base to 2mb but without reducing the sigops limits. people can do quadratic signing exploits. sigops need reducing. and its not even complex to do, nor does it need a hardfork to reduce sigops. it can be as a standard release

3. i presume by your preference to not see sigops limit reduced, you are for the mindset of never ever expanding the base block which means never expanding the transaction count per block..

4. so imagine fiat, with a country doing a bankrun. imagine thousands of people turn up to a bank branch wanting their funds withdrawn but the bank says. sorry folks not today as walmart cam along and used up all of our transfer allotments.
do you really think people will think thats fair and just walk home happy. do you think a decentralised payment network should be designed in preference to centralised custodians,,

seems to me you dont care about bitcoins ethos and purpose you just sound like someone that just wants to let core do as they please and screw the community that may actually want to use btc as a medium of exchange

and that word "free market" you core fanboys seen to really love reading them out dated core speaches and reciting their buzzwords.. please atleast find some new material. that "free market" chestnut has been around for years and its convincing no one

[dnprock]

Bitcoin will have some mix use as Store of Value and Medium of Exchange. Based on its features, I think it'd be 80-90% Store of Value. Some people think Bitcoin as a speculative asset. But if you look at the daily trading volume, it's about less than 1% of coin supply. So very few coins are being used for trading. Most of the coins sit as Store of Value.

SoV handicaps Bitcoin. It doesn't work very well as a Medium of Exchange. This is an area that needs new ideas. I outline the problem in the below article. I believe we need a parallel chain that has constant inflation rate.

https://bitflate.org/post/2019/08/26/bitcoin-missing-link-to-the-world.html

[cahbagus555]

then what is bitcoin?  A solution in search of a problem?

If it's not a store of value or a medium of exchange, then bitcoin can be categorized as a commodity or digital asset. Even gold has been categorized as a commodity even though we know that gold has been known for thousands of years as the safest asset

[qwertyup23]

then what is bitcoin?  A solution in search of a problem?

Many conventional investors view bitcoin as something that has no inherent and innate value. Compared to land, fiat, or any other item, bitcoin solely exists on the internet which the store of value depends on how much people are willing to pay for it. Just like gold which tends to be compared with cryptocurrencies, the price may be determined by the law of supply and demand.

People are forgetting the purpose on why bitcoins were created. The value is not the coin itself but the technology on where it runs- the blockchain. With its implementation and application, it revolutionizes payment transactions by eliminating the need for a third-party consensus in handling transactions. Everything is made transparent in a public ledger.

[UsernameBitcoin]

They also forget the fact that virtually all money today it's just that , virtual. if they believe in virtual money, and they accept virtual money at their stores and retail locations, then why wouldn't investors and institutions accept Bitcoin, which is essentially a better form, I'm more secure form of the fairy virtual money they already except.

[figmentofmyass]

if you knew the tech you would know keeping 1mb base and just saying the weight can grow wont actually increase transactions, as even segwit transactions need to sit in the base, thus are so they are also restricted.

segwit increases throughput to the extent that witness data is removed from the base block. this is why most blocks are now 1-1.5MB instead of <1MB.

2. by expanding base to 2mb but without reducing the sigops limits. people can do quadratic signing exploits. sigops need reducing.

that would only be true if we needed to increase base block size to 2MB. there is no need; you are inventing it.

i presume by your preference to not see sigops limit reduced, you are for the mindset of never ever expanding the base block which means never expanding the transaction count per block..

i want to restrict block size to force fees higher. if block space isn't limited, bitcoin's economic model of a hard capped supply simply doesn't work. i would never want to sacrifice long term economic viability of the protocol for short term throughput gains.

plus a hard fork to increase the base block size would undoubtedly result in a blockchain split. schnorr signature aggregation incentives may justify another another soft fork segwit-style increase. that may be a reasonable compromise down the road.

[Wind_FURY]

You're trolling.

Newbies, in reality there are barriers to scaling. It can't scale on-chain without centralizing the network, and giving up some of its actual value proposition, which is censorship-resistance.

gotta love that comedy.
so developers say no to developing onchain scaling.. sniff sniff, smells like they are censoring community needs/desires

Who's censoring? How can it be censored? There's a person out there who is saying his coin is Bitcoin for crying out loud. He has bitcoin.com, /r/btc, and had the @bitcoin Twitter account promoting that his coin is Bitcoin.

Community needs/desires? You make it look like that the WHOLE community wanted big blocks. Plus you said that Bitcoin "bilaterally split" into Core and Cash. Which one does the community want/the market want?

more comedy gold.
trying to say bitcoin cant scale because of physics..[facepalm]
scaling is about timely growth, which physics actually proves is possible.
whats not possible is huge single leap to an impossibly large number.

What have I been telling you? Bitcoin can't simply increase the block size without scaling in/centralizing the network. But users shouldn't run full nodes, so it's OK, right?

it can simply increase the blocksize actually.. todays technology is far more superier than the requirements of 1mb base
yes i said todays tech. oh and it only costs $50 for such tech

centralising the network?? how...  go on say that scripted joke, you know th one, the one your friend told you about servers..
..
my response: people will run full nodes on home devices
again
my response: people will run full nodes on home devices

Not when the network increases its block size whenever a demanding minority wants, preventing it from scaling out, increasing costs.

For decentralization, Bitcoin's main value proposition, static node requirements are better for the network eventually.

There are no "non- mining full nodes". This is some creative non sense that u just repeat.

U try to teach ppl their e banking client can do much. Sure u can validate what ur bank s server calculated for u. As miners do for ur wallet. But u can only shout and run to miners if ur client cannot follow the protocol.

The UASF begs to differ, and to see that it started as the minority that the majority followed.

[hv_]

You're trolling.

Newbies, in reality there are barriers to scaling. It can't scale on-chain without centralizing the network, and giving up some of its actual value proposition, which is censorship-resistance.

gotta love that comedy.
so developers say no to developing onchain scaling.. sniff sniff, smells like they are censoring community needs/desires

Who's censoring? How can it be censored? There's a person out there who is saying his coin is Bitcoin for crying out loud. He has bitcoin.com, /r/btc, and had the @bitcoin Twitter account promoting that his coin is Bitcoin.

Community needs/desires? You make it look like that the WHOLE community wanted big blocks. Plus you said that Bitcoin "bilaterally split" into Core and Cash. Which one does the community want/the market want?

more comedy gold.
trying to say bitcoin cant scale because of physics..[facepalm]
scaling is about timely growth, which physics actually proves is possible.
whats not possible is huge single leap to an impossibly large number.

What have I been telling you? Bitcoin can't simply increase the block size without scaling in/centralizing the network. But users shouldn't run full nodes, so it's OK, right?

it can simply increase the blocksize actually.. todays technology is far more superier than the requirements of 1mb base
yes i said todays tech. oh and it only costs $50 for such tech

centralising the network?? how...  go on say that scripted joke, you know th one, the one your friend told you about servers..
..
my response: people will run full nodes on home devices
again
my response: people will run full nodes on home devices

Not when the network increases its block size whenever a demanding minority wants, preventing it from scaling out, increasing costs.

For decentralization, Bitcoin's main value proposition, static node requirements are better for the network eventually.

There are no "non- mining full nodes". This is some creative non sense that u just repeat.

U try to teach ppl their e banking client can do much. Sure u can validate what ur bank s server calculated for u. As miners do for ur wallet. But u can only shout and run to miners if ur client cannot follow the protocol.

The UASF begs to differ, and to see that it started as the minority that the majority followed.

I hope u remember how the voting / signaling for segwit worked. Even that without the 2x promise it d ve never ever happened.

Uasf is sooo lol and shows u re all in for trolling

[xabre]

then what is bitcoin?  A solution in search of a problem?

At first, Bitcoin was a way of confronting a centralized economy; now it is a way of earning thousands of traders and investors. Bitcoin is losing value as people forget the true purpose of the coin

Next few year maybe bitcoin is business to get much profit, first time bitcoin as currency with using purchase payment lke PayPal or Payza maybe become business next few years later.

[Thanasis]

then what is bitcoin?  A solution in search of a problem?

At first, Bitcoin was a way of confronting a centralized economy; now it is a way of earning thousands of traders and investors. Bitcoin is losing value as people forget the true purpose of the coin

Next few year maybe bitcoin is business to get much profit, first time bitcoin as currency with using purchase payment lke PayPal or Payza maybe become business next few years later.

Bitcoin is not paypal,its medium of exchange only but with its speculative nature people find opportunities to make money and making in million in no time by manipulating the prices if they have enough capital for it but one thing is we can't expect this to happen forever,we may have forex like trading only when people adopted to crypto currencies in the vast payment places.

[flyingplows]

But Bitcoin IS a medium of exchange and especially a store of value these modern times. An medium or an instrument of trade and speculation also. It's a hope for a better global monetary system  

[jostorres]

We can say it a digital asset, and due to limited supply price will be sure skyrocket in coming future.

And that's why it comes up with both concepts, as a store of value and at the same time medium of exchange.

Bitcoin is not a joke so take it seriously.

The bitcoin community is failing because we are only seeing bitcoin as digital asset alone which will serve as store of value while what we should have embraced it more on is the use of it as medium of exchange, because when it comes to digital asset, there is no way that bitcoin can be exchanging hands, it is only going to be staying in our wallet because we are keeping it for future growth and with this.

There is no way that we can be seeing more of demands of bitcoin, but if we use it as means of exchange, I think that it will create more demands for bitcoin, and we already know the principle of an increased value, which is the law of demand and supply, the more that there is demand of bitcoin as against the supply, then the value will keep appreciating till it reaches its peak, so holding it alone will not help, but while holding, we also have to endeavor to also spend it.

[Mulann2]

I would say more of store of value at least for now because that's the main aim why many buy btc, people buy btc not to be use as medium of exchange because of it's volatility but to store it for a much higher price before selling,
And as for problem solving that is not very applicable to many who buy btc.

[Eric Cartman]

Bitcoin is a protocol, nothing more, nothing less. It has made to mimic gold in some features, but it is a thing on itself now.

You can use it as you please, so it can work as store of value, medium of exchange and many other things

[Wind_FURY]

You're trolling.

Newbies, in reality there are barriers to scaling. It can't scale on-chain without centralizing the network, and giving up some of its actual value proposition, which is censorship-resistance.

gotta love that comedy.
so developers say no to developing onchain scaling.. sniff sniff, smells like they are censoring community needs/desires

Who's censoring? How can it be censored? There's a person out there who is saying his coin is Bitcoin for crying out loud. He has bitcoin.com, /r/btc, and had the @bitcoin Twitter account promoting that his coin is Bitcoin.

Community needs/desires? You make it look like that the WHOLE community wanted big blocks. Plus you said that Bitcoin "bilaterally split" into Core and Cash. Which one does the community want/the market want?

more comedy gold.
trying to say bitcoin cant scale because of physics..[facepalm]
scaling is about timely growth, which physics actually proves is possible.
whats not possible is huge single leap to an impossibly large number.

What have I been telling you? Bitcoin can't simply increase the block size without scaling in/centralizing the network. But users shouldn't run full nodes, so it's OK, right?

it can simply increase the blocksize actually.. todays technology is far more superier than the requirements of 1mb base
yes i said todays tech. oh and it only costs $50 for such tech

centralising the network?? how...  go on say that scripted joke, you know th one, the one your friend told you about servers..
..
my response: people will run full nodes on home devices
again
my response: people will run full nodes on home devices

Not when the network increases its block size whenever a demanding minority wants, preventing it from scaling out, increasing costs.

For decentralization, Bitcoin's main value proposition, static node requirements are better for the network eventually.

There are no "non- mining full nodes". This is some creative non sense that u just repeat.

U try to teach ppl their e banking client can do much. Sure u can validate what ur bank s server calculated for u. As miners do for ur wallet. But u can only shout and run to miners if ur client cannot follow the protocol.

The UASF begs to differ, and to see that it started as the minority that the majority followed.

I hope u remember how the voting / signaling for segwit worked. Even that without the 2x promise it d ve never ever happened.

Uasf is sooo lol and shows u re all in for trolling

You're clearly trying too hard to mislead the readers by acting like that. But if you believe it's making me angry, it's not. I'm very happy to reply with the facts for everyone to read.

Newbies, learn your history, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/long-road-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality

[hv_]

You're trolling.

Newbies, in reality there are barriers to scaling. It can't scale on-chain without centralizing the network, and giving up some of its actual value proposition, which is censorship-resistance.

gotta love that comedy.
so developers say no to developing onchain scaling.. sniff sniff, smells like they are censoring community needs/desires

Who's censoring? How can it be censored? There's a person out there who is saying his coin is Bitcoin for crying out loud. He has bitcoin.com, /r/btc, and had the @bitcoin Twitter account promoting that his coin is Bitcoin.

Community needs/desires? You make it look like that the WHOLE community wanted big blocks. Plus you said that Bitcoin "bilaterally split" into Core and Cash. Which one does the community want/the market want?

more comedy gold.
trying to say bitcoin cant scale because of physics..[facepalm]
scaling is about timely growth, which physics actually proves is possible.
whats not possible is huge single leap to an impossibly large number.

What have I been telling you? Bitcoin can't simply increase the block size without scaling in/centralizing the network. But users shouldn't run full nodes, so it's OK, right?

it can simply increase the blocksize actually.. todays technology is far more superier than the requirements of 1mb base
yes i said todays tech. oh and it only costs $50 for such tech

centralising the network?? how...  go on say that scripted joke, you know th one, the one your friend told you about servers..
..
my response: people will run full nodes on home devices
again
my response: people will run full nodes on home devices

Not when the network increases its block size whenever a demanding minority wants, preventing it from scaling out, increasing costs.

For decentralization, Bitcoin's main value proposition, static node requirements are better for the network eventually.

There are no "non- mining full nodes". This is some creative non sense that u just repeat.

U try to teach ppl their e banking client can do much. Sure u can validate what ur bank s server calculated for u. As miners do for ur wallet. But u can only shout and run to miners if ur client cannot follow the protocol.

The UASF begs to differ, and to see that it started as the minority that the majority followed.

I hope u remember how the voting / signaling for segwit worked. Even that without the 2x promise it d ve never ever happened.

Uasf is sooo lol and shows u re all in for trolling

You're clearly trying too hard to mislead the readers by acting like that. But if you believe it's making me angry, it's not. I'm very happy to reply with the facts for everyone to read.

Newbies, learn your history, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/long-road-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality

No prove that proof of raspi did anything. Just simply PoSM

Mislead newbees to finance ur dumb btc ponzi.

Sane ppl know all that or find it out in a day of due dilligence

[Wind_FURY]

You're trolling.

Newbies, in reality there are barriers to scaling. It can't scale on-chain without centralizing the network, and giving up some of its actual value proposition, which is censorship-resistance.

gotta love that comedy.
so developers say no to developing onchain scaling.. sniff sniff, smells like they are censoring community needs/desires

Who's censoring? How can it be censored? There's a person out there who is saying his coin is Bitcoin for crying out loud. He has bitcoin.com, /r/btc, and had the @bitcoin Twitter account promoting that his coin is Bitcoin.

Community needs/desires? You make it look like that the WHOLE community wanted big blocks. Plus you said that Bitcoin "bilaterally split" into Core and Cash. Which one does the community want/the market want?

more comedy gold.
trying to say bitcoin cant scale because of physics..[facepalm]
scaling is about timely growth, which physics actually proves is possible.
whats not possible is huge single leap to an impossibly large number.

What have I been telling you? Bitcoin can't simply increase the block size without scaling in/centralizing the network. But users shouldn't run full nodes, so it's OK, right?

it can simply increase the blocksize actually.. todays technology is far more superier than the requirements of 1mb base
yes i said todays tech. oh and it only costs $50 for such tech

centralising the network?? how...  go on say that scripted joke, you know th one, the one your friend told you about servers..
..
my response: people will run full nodes on home devices
again
my response: people will run full nodes on home devices

Not when the network increases its block size whenever a demanding minority wants, preventing it from scaling out, increasing costs.

For decentralization, Bitcoin's main value proposition, static node requirements are better for the network eventually.

There are no "non- mining full nodes". This is some creative non sense that u just repeat.

U try to teach ppl their e banking client can do much. Sure u can validate what ur bank s server calculated for u. As miners do for ur wallet. But u can only shout and run to miners if ur client cannot follow the protocol.

The UASF begs to differ, and to see that it started as the minority that the majority followed.

I hope u remember how the voting / signaling for segwit worked. Even that without the 2x promise it d ve never ever happened.

Uasf is sooo lol and shows u re all in for trolling

You're clearly trying too hard to mislead the readers by acting like that. But if you believe it's making me angry, it's not. I'm very happy to reply with the facts for everyone to read.

Newbies, learn your history, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/long-road-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality

No prove that proof of raspi did anything. Just simply PoSM

You say "no proof", but you cannot disprove the movement. Segwit activation through the initiative of the UASF is proof enough.

Mislead newbees to finance ur dumb btc ponzi.

Cannot be taken seriously, especially from a person who misleads everyone, and say that "Craig Wright is Satoshi". You have lost.

Sane ppl know all that or find it out in a day of due dilligence

[Leonardo7]

Bitcoin is a medium of exchange, a store of value, a currency that gives back power to the people by ensuring individual control of their money. Unlike we currently  with the fraudulent operation of traditional bank.

[hv_]

You're trolling.

Newbies, in reality there are barriers to scaling. It can't scale on-chain without centralizing the network, and giving up some of its actual value proposition, which is censorship-resistance.

gotta love that comedy.
so developers say no to developing onchain scaling.. sniff sniff, smells like they are censoring community needs/desires

Who's censoring? How can it be censored? There's a person out there who is saying his coin is Bitcoin for crying out loud. He has bitcoin.com, /r/btc, and had the @bitcoin Twitter account promoting that his coin is Bitcoin.

Community needs/desires? You make it look like that the WHOLE community wanted big blocks. Plus you said that Bitcoin "bilaterally split" into Core and Cash. Which one does the community want/the market want?

more comedy gold.
trying to say bitcoin cant scale because of physics..[facepalm]
scaling is about timely growth, which physics actually proves is possible.
whats not possible is huge single leap to an impossibly large number.

What have I been telling you? Bitcoin can't simply increase the block size without scaling in/centralizing the network. But users shouldn't run full nodes, so it's OK, right?

it can simply increase the blocksize actually.. todays technology is far more superier than the requirements of 1mb base
yes i said todays tech. oh and it only costs $50 for such tech

centralising the network?? how...  go on say that scripted joke, you know th one, the one your friend told you about servers..
..
my response: people will run full nodes on home devices
again
my response: people will run full nodes on home devices

Not when the network increases its block size whenever a demanding minority wants, preventing it from scaling out, increasing costs.

For decentralization, Bitcoin's main value proposition, static node requirements are better for the network eventually.

There are no "non- mining full nodes". This is some creative non sense that u just repeat.

U try to teach ppl their e banking client can do much. Sure u can validate what ur bank s server calculated for u. As miners do for ur wallet. But u can only shout and run to miners if ur client cannot follow the protocol.

The UASF begs to differ, and to see that it started as the minority that the majority followed.

I hope u remember how the voting / signaling for segwit worked. Even that without the 2x promise it d ve never ever happened.

Uasf is sooo lol and shows u re all in for trolling

You're clearly trying too hard to mislead the readers by acting like that. But if you believe it's making me angry, it's not. I'm very happy to reply with the facts for everyone to read.

Newbies, learn your history, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/long-road-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality

No prove that proof of raspi did anything. Just simply PoSM

You say "no proof", but you cannot disprove the movement. Segwit activation through the initiative of the UASF is proof enough.

Mislead newbees to finance ur dumb btc ponzi.

Cannot be taken seriously, especially from a person who misleads everyone, and say that "Craig Wright is Satoshi". You have lost.

Sane ppl know all that or find it out in a day of due dilligence

Nope

The only kick for activation came from the 2x promise / NYA.

Wanting to ignore this makes u full retard ponzi scammer.



This is proof

[Wind_FURY]

Nope

The only kick for activation came from the 2x promise / NYA.

Was the community represented in the NYA? No, running full nodes rejecting "2X" did.

Wanting to ignore this makes u full retard ponzi scammer.

This is proof

Not proof, troll harder.

Newbies, listen to HV, and learn. The hard way.

[hv_]

Nope

The only kick for activation came from the 2x promise / NYA.

Was the community represented in the NYA? No, running full nodes rejecting "2X" did.

Wanting to ignore this makes u full retard ponzi scammer.

This is proof

Not proof, troll harder.

Newbies, listen to HV, and learn. The hard way.

Learning is mostly a hard way. All is proof of work. Bitcoin does teach u this in a very nice and strict way.

Everybody needs to do own reseach as much as possible also to find out that Bitcoin is a perfect tool to store the truth and enables trust and honesty in the internet where this was missing before.

This is also the reason why there is a need to put permanently work into keeping the protocol clean , stable and on purpose. Put all efforts and work for onchain scaling cause this is the only true place for the ultimative truth.

All ur little changers of that do not want this and have other agendas off truth by wanting off chain crap which is not Bitcoin but the old crap we had before. It is normal that closed minds work such retarded, fall back into their old home they knew and scam others by stealing the name of Bitcoin.

I m here ONLY for that real Bitcoin.

If it is clean and simple as a Singularity must be, its use and value is infinite.


Learn

[thirdprize]

Isn’t POW going to kill the planet with its waste of electricity?

[mersal]

Isn’t POW going to kill the planet with its waste of electricity?

Electricity used by all the miners might be less than the electricity wasted to air condition all the banks in the world.Already lot more harmful things were done by humans against nature so don't consider miner as serious disaster to this world.

[minersday]

from the information provided by Bitcoin's whitepaper, bitcoin was meant to be an alternative version of physical fiat that has no central organization or authority controlling the amount people can send and receive. But for some reasons, it is now seen as a store of value rather than a medium of exchange. To some people, it is a medium of exchange and others, an asset to invest in.

[bouren]

then what is bitcoin?  A solution in search of a problem?

currently it is being used as both a store of value and a medium of exchange. People use it as an investment for reaping higher profits which means it is a store of value while some other tech freaks have been using it as a medium of exchange for payments online through coinpayments and bitpay which means it is both. but yes it was made to be used as a medium of exchange only.

[Alert31]

For me bitcoin is digital asset which can be use to earn profit through trading or exchange. Also it is a medium of exchange because there are stores now where you can buy goods and services in exchange of bitcoin.

[hv_]

Isn’t POW going to kill the planet with its waste of electricity?

Lol. Nope. It will save the world from stupid gold / PM mining that is really killing the planet.

And printing paper money

And running many central it depts

And many more true onchain scaling bitcoin can do for safe IT tasks.

Even get chips run more efficient is a good outcome of PoW and open compatition

[suzanne5223]

For me bitcoin is digital asset which can be use to earn profit through trading or exchange. Also it is a medium of exchange because there are stores now where you can buy goods and services in exchange of bitcoin.

The part of profit earning was not the reason why bitcoin was created for bitcoin is a sign of democracy and it was the currency which serve as the right alternative to give every individual liberation from economic slow down which the government was unable to fix.

[squatter]

Isn’t POW going to kill the planet with its waste of electricity?

I'll bite. How much energy do you think the gold mining industry consumes? Some estimates say Bitcoin constitutes just a small fraction of the costs entailed by gold mining: Bitcoin Uses a Lot of Energy, But Gold Mining Uses More



If only people didn't need money -- then we wouldn't need Bitcoin or gold.

[iMark]

For me bitcoin is digital asset which can be use to earn profit through trading or exchange. Also it is a medium of exchange because there are stores now where you can buy goods and services in exchange of bitcoin.

The part of profit earning was not the reason why bitcoin was created for bitcoin is a sign of democracy and it was the currency which serve as the right alternative to give every individual liberation from economic slow down which the government was unable to fix.

I think so, the core of bitcoin creation is decentralized currency right? of course Satoshi definitely wants to make a currency where one can freely spend without pressure and restrictions from the government. Freedom is the essence of the creation of bitcoin. while profit is an unplanned goal I think, who knows the price of bitcoin will explode and become this high and profitable for many people?

[Wind_FURY]

Nope

The only kick for activation came from the 2x promise / NYA.

Was the community represented in the NYA? No, running full nodes rejecting "2X" did.

Wanting to ignore this makes u full retard ponzi scammer.

This is proof

Not proof, troll harder.

Newbies, listen to HV, and learn. The hard way.

Learning is mostly a hard way. All is proof of work. Bitcoin does teach u this in a very nice and strict way.

Everybody needs to do own reseach as much as possible also to find out that Bitcoin is a perfect tool to store the truth and enables trust and honesty in the internet where this was missing before.

This is also the reason why there is a need to put permanently work into keeping the protocol clean , stable and on purpose. Put all efforts and work for onchain scaling cause this is the only true place for the ultimative truth.

All ur little changers of that do not want this and have other agendas off truth by wanting off chain crap which is not Bitcoin but the old crap we had before. It is normal that closed minds work such retarded, fall back into their old home they knew and scam others by stealing the name of Bitcoin.

I m here ONLY for that real Bitcoin.

If it is clean and simple as a Singularity must be, its use and value is infinite.


Learn

Hahaha. From you?

Learn, and research what? That Bitcoin Cash SV is the "real Bitcoin"? That Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto? That on-chain scaling, without scaling the network in, is technically doable?

[figmentofmyass]

I m here ONLY for that real Bitcoin.

If it is clean and simple as a Singularity must be, its use and value is infinite.

Learn

Hahaha. From you?

Learn, and research what? That Bitcoin Cash SV is the "real Bitcoin"? That Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto?

if you had done your research you'd know that craig wright has handwritten, coffee stained originals of the whitepaper. rusty staples and all. this irrefutable evidence will be coming out in court!

[Xxmodded]

then what is bitcoin?  A solution in search of a problem?

At first, Bitcoin was a way of confronting a centralized economy; now it is a way of earning thousands of traders and investors. Bitcoin is losing value as people forget the true purpose of the coin

Many people have own opinion about what is bitcoin, but for me bitcoin is the way how to increase money more by investing or trading, I don't mind bitcoin become legal or not at the future or bitcoin become most interested payment by many investor, look ahead with bitcoin could get chance for profit is enough for me.

[Wind_FURY]

I m here ONLY for that real Bitcoin.

If it is clean and simple as a Singularity must be, its use and value is infinite.

Learn

Hahaha. From you?

Learn, and research what? That Bitcoin Cash SV is the "real Bitcoin"? That Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto?

if you had done your research you'd know that craig wright has handwritten, coffee stained originals of the whitepaper. rusty staples and all. this irrefutable evidence will be coming out in court!

Hahaha! The desperation of those trolls.

The design-decision taken by Bitcoin Cash SV alone is evidence that Craig Wright is acting a Borat-like, reality-TV character to troll the community.

Weather data on the blockchain.

[Darooghe]

We have to be very careful to suggest bitcoin as an investment instrument. Bitcoin as an investment instrument is damaging Bitcoin as a payment method. If it is never anything other than an investment in the eyes of the majority of the world, then in my opinion, it's failed, regardless of the USD value. it's a kind of money. payment systems require money and money is useless if it has zero payment systems. Money is "the communication of value". A currency is the medium by which value is communicated. It's senseless to have more than one currency in the long term. The reasons we do currently are many and varied, but it is inevitable that this will eventually be seen as a relic of the past.

[ice098]

Bitcoin is an asset that can also be compared to our currency, the only differences of it  are the value of of the coin, it has a huge value than the currencies in the market as well as the other coins in the trading market, it is also a virtual currency it doesn't have a paper wallet but still it has a great value . it is a better investment too, but for me, a kind of long term investment since each year the value of it differs.

[reality18]

then what is bitcoin?  A solution in search of a problem?

Bitcoin is dynamic and based on the user’s needs will determine the function or definition of Bitcoin. Bitcoin can be considered as an investment hence an individual may purchase BTC, hold patiently for some period of time for the price to rise and sell to make profit. In the view of this, Bitcoin is considered as a store of value. Others may consider it as a medium of exchange when the individual use BTC to purchase goods and services online. Shops that accept Bitcoin as payment include overstock.com and newsegg.

[Wind_FURY]

then what is bitcoin?  A solution in search of a problem?

Bitcoin is dynamic and based on the user’s needs will determine the function or definition of Bitcoin. Bitcoin can be considered as an investment hence an individual may purchase BTC, hold patiently for some period of time for the price to rise and sell to make profit. In the view of this, Bitcoin is considered as a store of value. Others may consider it as a medium of exchange when the individual use BTC to purchase goods and services online. Shops that accept Bitcoin as payment include overstock.com and newsegg.

I believe you are separating the inseparable. You can save Bitcoin, and you can spend Bitcoin. It's the same as any other forms of "money", we save it now, so we can spend it later.

[Astvile]

then what is bitcoin?  A solution in search of a problem?

Bitcoin is made to be a currency said by the team who developed it but users have found different uses of bitcoin, from a store of value, investment, ways to earn thousands in just a day and more. Bitcoin really is flexible and have a general-purpose in our life, we just need to utilize one at a time depending on our needs.

[Kyraishi]

I m here ONLY for that real Bitcoin.

If it is clean and simple as a Singularity must be, its use and value is infinite.

Learn

Hahaha. From you?

Learn, and research what? That Bitcoin Cash SV is the "real Bitcoin"? That Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto?

if you had done your research you'd know that craig wright has handwritten, coffee stained originals of the whitepaper. rusty staples and all. this irrefutable evidence will be coming out in court!

Can't wait to see the Bitcoin whitepaper draft written in a couple coffee stained pieces of paper from 10 years ago. What a joke, Craig Wright is just scrambling to delay the inevitable now and it's getting sad to watch.

As for this thread, it's answered its own question - it was created to decentralize our money and make sure people are able to use money without the government's prying eyes.

[NavI_027]

Bitcoin is made to be a currency said by the team who developed it but users have found different uses of bitcoin, from a store of value, investment, ways to earn thousands in just a day and more. Bitcoin really is flexible and have a general-purpose in our life, we just need to utilize one at a time depending on our needs.

But whether you deny it or not, seeing bitcoin or any cryptocurrency as a form of investment never gone in your list . Let's be honest, most of us (and I'm not hypocrite to deny it) see it as an opportunity where you can earn money. Anonymity? Fast? That is not the most liked attribute of btc but the double V — Value and Volatility. If we able to attain a mass adoption then maybe that's the right time where we can more obviously feel the other features which btc can offer .

[cutesgirl]

You can added list of payment can be use with bitcoin or altcoin, your store will be many costumer every day because they want to try how easy and funny payment using bitcoin or altcoin, talking about value accepted bitcoin can make you get much profit if you can control your bitcoin assets when have to sell and when have for holding.

[Ailmand]

I think it vaires on the user, some people are investing their money in bitcoin to be used as an investment tool and profit. The numbers who are using bitcoin as an investment tool is high since most people are not an expert in technology. Some invest in crypto for convenience, thus using them as a medium of exchange, and some are interested on it because of technology. So, I guess it can be any of it depending on the user.

[alexsandria]

I think it could be both, or it could be even none of those, depending on the person. You can treat it as a store of value, a medium of exchange, or both, or neither of the two because you treat it as a speculative investment. And that's the beauty of it. No one decides who will it be. It depends on the person.

[pixie85]

I think it could be both, or it could be even none of those, depending on the person. You can treat it as a store of value, a medium of exchange, or both, or neither of the two because you treat it as a speculative investment. And that's the beauty of it. No one decides who will it be. It depends on the person.

I don't get why it could not be. I'm waiting for some evidence to support the claim that Bitcoin isn't a good store of value. The only way you can lose on Bitcoin is when you buy on top of one of the bubbles and then sell when it falls. If you buy and forget or buy and wait knowing it will bounce back you will make money.

Most stores of value don't gain value as fast as bitcoin. They hold it which is still better than fiat which loses it.

[bounceback]

besides that bitcoin is also often called basically bitcoin is a virtual currency in the internet world for online transactions that do not facilitate shipping and do not use bank services, and bitcoin uses a peer to peer (P2P) system with such a system that it transacts easily and safely for other countries bitcoin users.

[Wind_FURY]

Some trolls spreading propaganda made from the bitcoin.com website, owned by Bitcoin Cash leader, Roger Ver.

Saving and spending are inseparable. You save now, to spend later.

[hv_]

Some trolls spreading propaganda made from the bitcoin.com website, owned by Bitcoin Cash leader, Roger Ver.

Saving and spending are inseparable. You save now, to spend later.

same pattern all over, if you cannot dispute with arguments - simply call other trolls 

happy days

[CLS63]

then what is bitcoin?  A solution in search of a problem?

Bitcoin is the combination of them. It is a store of value. People invest in Bitcoin like they invest in e.g. gold. People use it as a medium of exchange. So, I think we don't need to search for just one meaning that explains Bitcoin thoroughly.

[Edraket31]

then what is bitcoin?  A solution in search of a problem?

Bitcoin is the combination of them. It is a store of value. People invest in Bitcoin like they invest in e.g. gold. People use it as a medium of exchange. So, I think we don't need to search for just one meaning that explains Bitcoin thoroughly.

Yes, but for some people it there opportunity to invest at, they are using Bitcoin as a way to earn passive income especially those who are earning for short term. But, the true role and vision of crypto is to change the banking system and to make transactions faster and easier, without any hustle going to bank always.

[yulionoo]

bitcoin was created in 2008 when the world was experiencing a monetary crisis. and in my opinion the purpose of the creation of bitcoin is to overcome this economic crisis. but over time bitcoin has rapidly developed into an investment tool, a store of value and can also be used for payment tools. but not all countries allow payment instruments.

[Wind_FURY]

Some trolls spreading propaganda made from the bitcoin.com website, owned by Bitcoin Cash leader, Roger Ver.

Saving and spending are inseparable. You save now, to spend later.

same pattern all over, if you cannot dispute with arguments - simply call other trolls 

happy days

What dispute? That "a money" is a store of value, before it's a medium of exchange? That saving, and spending also inseparable?