[2019-11-01] How Many More Birthdays Until Bitcoin Wins?

[Lucius]

How Many More Birthdays Until Bitcoin Wins?

Bitcoin just turned 11 and it’s worth looking at what this technology has achieved. First, some context.

Facebook is 14 while Twitter is 13. Linux is 28. The World Wide Web – the network you’re reading this on – is 30. TCP/IP is about 44 years old, depending on whom you ask.

If you’re into a bitcoin, you’re most likely 18 to 34 years old, according to pollsters at the Global Blockchain Business Council. And you probably joined the bitcoin party about five years ago and own some fraction of or even a full coin. Some of you own many, many more.

Read more : https://www.coindesk.com/how-many-more-birthdays-until-bitcoin-wins


The author himself acknowledges in one section that it is not fair to compare Bitcoin with all these things, because it is still something unique and completely different from everything else. But it is in human nature to look for answers, even when there is not much logic in something.

When I read people's comments in this forum and in some other places, some think that Bitcoin should have already achieved some goals, and thus already lost the chance for long-term success. Yet 11 years of existence is a very small period of time, and I think it will take at least that much longer to see the real picture of Bitcoin.

Self-moderated to prevent spam/please read the article before commenting.

[1713934879]

1713934879

[1713934879]

1713934879

[1713934879]

1713934879

[1713934879]

1713934879

[buwaytress]

They sure know how to cover a lot of bases, I ticked just 1 box in that list of categories of what I probably am. I don't use Twitter nor Facebook, either so can't really compare, but this is basically one way of asking if the Lindy effect comes into play... with every birthday, the less likely it is Bitcoin will die (or lose?).

It is a matter of time, after all. But some questions, some of us have the answers to. Like "When will we be using bitcoin daily?". That time's come for me already. Surely many others on this forum.

[hugeblack]

I think Satoshi has answered such a question.

"I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume." -- Satoshi

The word win is a generic term, what is your definition of win? Most of the comparable services " Twitter, Facebook, and so on"  did not flourish until they were centralized and controlled by governments.

Will the same happen with bitcoin? If it does, Bitcoin will have no meaning because its intrinsic value is decentralized.

The lesson is that the possibility of remittances away from banking systems has been technically proven.
If BTC does not succeed, we will create new currencies that do not need central banks (libra or any semi-crypto coins.)

[gentlemand]

I'm glad he acknowledged it's a dumb comparison because it is one. They do also acknowledge it's human nature to make the comparison.

Everyone's going to have a different version of what winning means. In plenty of ways it already has gone further than anyone could possibly have hoped for in the time it has considering the nature of its origins.

Interesting that he picked up on the valley of death thing which I think is very relevant but rarely mentioned. Comes a time when the expectations of existing speculators won't be met and you'd hope some more measured usage would be there to meet that drop in interest. That's possibly the biggest challenge in it moving forward in a timely manner.

[bbc.reporter]

However, bitcoin has already won. People are using it as an investment, for drugs, for gambling and from it, other coins has been created.

Also, the internet is 30 and bitcoin is only 11 years old? As a speculative investment, bitcoin's potential is still very far, I reckon. If John McAfee gave his prediction 10 more years the risk that he might eat his own penis would be very small hehehe.

It is an article looking for a reaction.

[CryptoBry]

The author himself acknowledges in one section that it is not fair to compare Bitcoin with all these things, because it is still something unique and completely different from everything else. But it is in human nature to look for answers, even when there is not much logic in something.

When I read people's comments in this forum and in some other places, some think that Bitcoin should have already achieved some goals, and thus already lost the chance for long-term success. Yet 11 years of existence is a very small period of time, and I think it will take at least that much longer to see the real picture of Bitcoin.

Comparing Bitcoin to Facebook is really not logical. Anybody can just open a Facebook account because it is free and Facebook is an advertising machine that is where revenues are coming from and the same thing can't be said about Bitcoin. These days, to get hold of a fraction of Bitcoin most likely you need to buy them not unless your boyfriend would be kind enough to give you some on your first anniversary.

Bitcoin is a big paradigm shift affecting traditional financial and monetary platforms and that is why there will be people (many of them can be so powerful) who are not in favor of it gaining the upper hand. In other words, Bitcoin is seen by many of those in power to be a big threat that is why either they regulated the many activities related to Bitcoin or if they don't like the heat they just ban its use and trade.

I know that there are those who can be feeling like disappointed that things are not happening fast with Bitcoin but this should have been expected right from the very start. Change will never happen overnight and we must be prepared to continue helping the fight by not giving up ourselves.

Happy 11th Bitcoin birth anniversary to us all!

[hatshepsut93]

You will argue that it’s unfair to compare bitcoin to all of those things. But bitcoin is both a financial instrument and a technical product. It is, like a startup, a work in progress, an alpha product that may graduate to beta with a little more time. It is a good idea that needs another summer or two to germinate.

Bitcoin is absolutely not like a startup or a tech product, those things can and do fail when they don't make profit, but Bitcoin doesn't have any centralized operational costs, users themselves maintain the database, and mining is designed to be profitable 100% of the time. It's very hard for Bitcoin to fail, for that to happen, all people should stop using it. The only realistic threat to Bitcoin is another currency that is far superior to it, but in 11 years no coin came even close to challenging Bitcoin.

[Kakmakr]

I think people think like that, because they compare Bitcoin to Facebook <14 years> and Twitter <13>    Also, these companies have been successful for many years now, so Bitcoin being at 11 years, should have already shown a lot more promise. 

We should actually compare Bitcoin to other payment options, like PayPal / SWIFT / Credit cards to have a fair comparison. Bitcoin is not a Social media platform, it is an alternative payment option and also a commodity in a way. <So you can compare it to things like fiat currencies that are traded on Forex or even Gold & Silver investment options.> 

[gentlemand]

We should actually compare Bitcoin to other payment options, like PayPal / SWIFT / Credit cards to have a fair comparison.

I don't think that makes much sense either. All they are are payment rails run by corporations. There's no such thing as 'adoption' with them and no ownership or education required.

There's never been anything like it before. It's being made up as it goes along. No one know where it's going and how long its journey will be. I'll be intrigued to see what's compared to Bitcoin in the decades to come.

[BitHodler]

I don't think that makes much sense either.  

Nowadays it makes no sense anymore because the base layer has been crippled. It was always advertised as a payment tool that's fast and cheap to function as alternative to PayPal and other financial services.

The sentiment within this community was clearly focused on payments, then it shifted to store of value because that's all Bitcoin has left currently. It's the sad reality unfortunately.

Bitcoin has failed in the payment department but won in the store of value department. I would have preferred to see Bitcoin win in both departments but things are as they are. It's too late for that now.

[error08]

Hard to say as bitcoin relatively expensive, complicated for average joes and not stable to be used in daily life.
For a rough proxy, CoVenture Research says there are “11.2 million bitcoin addresses that hold at least .001 BTC,” or about $9 worth.
we are missing a big segment of Bitcoin users.
This data doesn't represent bitcoin users as the survey mentioned; one address can be an exchange and one person can hold millions of addresses
an exchange such as coinbase has more than 30 million users in July 2019, just in one exchange, if we add one excahnge that represent a country, just imagine how much bitcoin users around the world.
Although bitcoin has millions of users, still it can't sompared to facebook or twitter in term of daily use. The main problem to be solved is price manipulation, becausse bitcoin is still in the early phase of adoption, let it spread widely among the users, hopefully over time it will more resistant to manipulation, I'll bet in 10-15 years later.

[Carlton Banks]

Nowadays it makes no sense anymore because the base layer has been crippled.

if the ship is sinking (in your eyes), just jump off and start swimming to the lifeboats. I heard there's a 'bumper base layer' lifeboat out there, and you don't have to swim far.

so why are you still here? are you trying to save everyone else, too?

[1Referee]

The sentiment within this community was clearly focused on payments, then it shifted to store of value because that's all Bitcoin has left currently. It's the sad reality unfortunately.

You know why people focus on store of value instead of payments and whatnot? It's because they have started to understand that Bitcoin is too precious to spend.

I am clueless as to why you think it's the sad reality. It has been like this for several years now, so why has it become a problem for you just recently? If payments we're so important to people, they would have switched to 1001 different altcoins, but that's not happening. I think you've watced a few too many of Roger Ver's videos.

[BitHodler]

Why doesn't it surprise me that perma bulls are so combative? I'm here because there is value to extract from Bitcoin as store of value, which I don't see elsewhere in the crypto space. Is that enough reason to be here?

I also don't watch video's of Roger Ver. It's just my honest opinion that I think crippling the base layer isn't right. All it takes is another mania to highlight how limited Bitcoin is.... perfect marketing for scams such as Bcash.

[gentlemand]

All it takes is another mania to highlight how limited Bitcoin is.... perfect marketing for scams such as Bcash.

And imagine how catastrophic one decisive move against a centralised Bitcoin would be. If it were as weak as BSV or BCH things would be looking seriously dicey.

I'll favour 'crippling'/caution for now.

[Carlton Banks]

I'm here because there is value to extract from Bitcoin as store of value, which I don't see elsewhere in the crypto space. Is that enough reason to be here?

that means the market doesn't agree with your technology review upthread. it (the market) may be wrong though.

But you're sticking with Bitcoin? Ok, so you don't have any confidence in your opinion, glad we sorted that out

[BitHodler]

And imagine how catastrophic one decisive move against a centralised Bitcoin would be. If it were as weak as BSV or BCH things would be looking seriously dicey. 

Why do you think that small blocks prevent it from being centralized? Nothing changes if the block size was upped to say 5MB.... just because the block size is 5MB doesn't mean it's going to be used in full every 10 minutes.

I'll favour 'crippling'/caution for now.

Noted.

that means the market doesn't agree with your technology review upthread. it may be wrong though.

But you're sticking with Bitcoin? Ok, so you don't have any confidence in your opinion, glad we sorted that out

You are the prime example of an empty headed perma bull. Glad you confirmed that again.

[gentlemand]

Why do you think that small blocks prevent it from being centralized? Nothing changes if the block size was upped to say 5MB.... just because the block size is 5MB doesn't mean it's going to be used in full every 10 minutes.

The more demanding it is to run the more people will fall away. It may not matter now but it certainly will down the line.

But that ignores the most dangerous bit. Any block size upping will require a hard fork and at this stage I don't see how that can happen in a smooth and unified manner. I think it's too late now. Dunno what the answer is but I'd prefer to see a living Bitcoin with a lid on it that forces people to find solutions than one blown apart.

[Carlton Banks]

Any block size upping will require a hard fork and at this stage I don't see how that can happen in a smooth and unified manner. I think it's too late now.

I take the "dynamic goldilocks" view on this. 4MB blocks (the entirety of which is not currently easy to use, 2-3MB is more realistic given today's way of using Bitcoin) is enough to compete against the competition when you factor everything in, given today's level of adoption. It's not necessarily wrong to say that's not enough, but blocks are nowhere near full today, so clearly the 4MB increase has bought some time. And as Bitcoin may continue in a positive feedback loop of increasing relevance, I don't think it will be as hard to find the level of unanimity needed to make infrequent step changes to maximum blocksize/weight, even though it will likely always be debated and argued over pretty pugnaciously. So it can only change when it's absolutely necessary. This is a good thing. And that may include the possibility that 4MB will always be enough, it depends on what can be done with that much transaction space (current techniques for efficient usage of 4MB suggest it is enough in the medium term, but not in the long term. That is subject to new innovations, of course)

The prevailing view is that it's best for the network to under-provide, given the background conditions (i.e. the health of the internet itself). Because if the conditions become worse (i.e. something happens to the internet that makes it harder to use), then at least we weren't maxing out usage of the internet as of the previous good conditions. This means Bitcoin could survive if the internet goes backwards in usability, and it's impossible to rule that out for all sorts of reasons. Payment channels (i.e. Lightning) would handle this particularly well, the blockchain itself could completely grind to a halt, and the comparatively less demanding requirements of a channel network could function more easily than the base layer. In a scenario like that, I can imagine people cursing even the present-day 4MB block limit as the internet gradually returned to it's previous state of health.

I'd prefer to see a living Bitcoin with a lid on it that forces people to find solutions than one blown apart.

The devs are broadly taking all this into account with their approach:

• Reducing the resources (RAM, CPU, bandwidth) needed to run a Bitcoin node
• Making network level attacks (e.g. the various ways to split Bitcoin into two or more partitioned networks) harder to perform
• Increasing the utility of the space in blockchain blocks (there are all sorts of angles to take)
• Adding fallback modes/infrastructure to mitigate attacks or outages (e.g. redundant network code written differently, or 2nd layer payment rails etc)

There are multiple initiatives going on right now to address all the above. None of it will be enough, it's an eternal cat and mouse game. Every new paradigm begets a new method of attack, despite any ground gained. But Bitcoin has gained and held ground, and continues to do so.


Take a look at Bittorrent; endlessly attacked in all sorts of ways, and yet the developers keep innovating, and the bittorrent network is bigger, tougher and more usable than ever.

[1Referee]

just because the block size is 5MB doesn't mean it's going to be used in full every 10 minutes.

Perhaps, but we have enough evidence to counter that argument at the same time.

I'm pretty sure that a lot of people still remember how Veriblock just dumped a bunch of data into the Bitcoin blockchain for its own personal business model. By upping the block size we'll see them come back, and have more of the same type of businesses trying to leverage the cheap immutable storage that Bitcoin offers just to sell others some crappy products.

We only have one shot at bringing the world financial freedom with Bitcoin, lets not have that shot wasted.