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

[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.