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

[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