Bitcoin: The Social Phenomenon

[k@suy]

It's really an awkward thing when people say Bitcoin hasn't stored a value which is really a ridiculous thing, It's not that thing that they have any belief on this system it's just the lack of communication, I think if they get proper knowledge about Bitcoin and it's growth then they might be passionate to this profitable platform if Bitcoin and cryptocurrency would get more accepted then the proper education based on blockchain system should be spread out, without proper education, nothing can be changed, so we should pay heed on the route of our society, I am sure it will work.

We can think of the ways through which we can create awareness among people about this grand technology. We can spread information to our family members, friends. We can also use social media as a biggest tool for creating awareness, by sharing our positive experiences. This will make people aware about the value of Bitcoin, they will stop believing on rumors and random posts and will come forward to invest in this market.

introducing people closest to you might be better because we can monitor them when it is already running in the industry, besides introducing this technology we can also control them so they are not trapped in fraudulent projects and keep them safe in the industry.

Actually now I am doing my own agenda in promting bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and even the trading industry in other people closest to me. I am showing to them how my work here goes on and also how my earnings are possible here. I even teach them also how to trade and do just like what I am doing right now which is posting. I am glad to say that from the people around me 4 of them are already here in the crypto world because of me.

[LeGaulois]

...

...

Even if a day the price goes down to 1 buck you will still see me here and I will still use Bitcoin. I refer to Bitcoin because I'm not interested in altcoins (except maybe 1 or 2 privacy-centric cryptocurrencies), I think I can say I'm an altcoin racist, but the problem is the same with any cryptocurrency btw. I've probably already said it earlier, but I'd like to see the price going down to $1 a day, they will leave and we'll see the real users, the ones who continue to use it because they have a real use for it (other than trading/investing I mean).

I'm at 2 fingers to tell you Bitcoin was better before but I admit it's exaggerating. After all the ecosystem is bigger, more development, etc. But the mentality changed a lot for sure and maybe this is exactly my problem finally.

What bothers me is the regulations and they create it because people started to use it as investments, helped with the stupid ICOs, shitcoins ect so they, the govt., treat is like any other investment (capital gains tax,...) Isn't it funny to see governments refusing to consider Bitcoin as a currency but when it's time to tax it and collect money they have no problem, they just invent some new categories like crypto-assets, etc.

In results we see KYC here, KYC there, KYC everywhere, of course, it doesn't stop me to send money to a friend without to rely on a 3rd party but it also restricts me to use some things. Stupid AML directives with the fake excuse of illegal activities etc. If one day we will be able to buy our bread at the baker's and pay for it with bitcoins, we will have to provide our identity card if this continues. KYC!

Consumers and merchants, no need to rush and to be worried ok, but 10 years already and beside some e-commerces, not much. What I want is to be able to pay the supermarket with bitcoins, to pay the electricity, the water, the butcher, the baker...

[JayJuanGee]

...

...

Even if a day the price goes down to 1 buck you will still see me here and I will still use Bitcoin. I refer to Bitcoin because I'm not interested in altcoins (except maybe 1 or 2 privacy-centric cryptocurrencies), I think I can say I'm an altcoin racist, but the problem is the same with any cryptocurrency btw. I've probably already said it earlier, but I'd like to see the price going down to $1 a day, they will leave and we'll see the real users, the ones who continue to use it because they have a real use for it (other than trading/investing I mean).

That whole vision seems unrealistic, and like some pie in the sky attempt to suggest that your perception of use case(s) is superior than other people.  It is like failing/refusing to accept the world for what it is and trying to prescribe some kind of a pure moral reason for bitcoin.  That is not the way of the world.

 

I'm at 2 fingers to tell you Bitcoin was better before but I admit it's exaggerating. After all the ecosystem is bigger, more development, etc. But the mentality changed a lot for sure and maybe this is exactly my problem finally.

Maybe you have troubles accepting the world?

yeah, I have certain people that I don't want to hang around, but I am not despising their existence.  As bitcoin grows, there are likely going to be all kinds of reasons and use cases built on top of it that is not even morally acceptable to either of us, but there is a certain inability to dictate the use of bitcoin or the community of bitcoin because the cat is out of the bag, and people can largely do whatever they like with it.. to the extent that they can get it to work for their particular situation/need.

What bothers me is the regulations and they create it because people started to use it as investments, helped with the stupid ICOs, shitcoins ect so they, the govt., treat is like any other investment (capital gains tax,...) Isn't it funny to see governments refusing to consider Bitcoin as a currency but when it's time to tax it and collect money they have no problem, they just invent some new categories like crypto-assets, etc.

Governments are still trying to wrap their ideas around what to do with it exactly, and there is some anticipation in the design of bitcoin for these kinds of matters, whether considered as an attack upon bitcoin or otherwise, there are incentive systems in bitcoin, and governments may be forced into a kind of role to build its systems around bitcoin when they try various techniques that are having difficulties harnessing the power of bitcoin.

In results we see KYC here, KYC there, KYC everywhere, of course, it doesn't stop me to send money to a friend without to rely on a 3rd party but it also restricts me to use some things. Stupid AML directives with the fake excuse of illegal activities etc. If one day we will be able to buy our bread at the baker's and pay for it with bitcoins, we will have to provide our identity card if this continues. KYC!

Sure, many bitcoiners share your concerns, and sure, there are development that try to figure out ways to have a variety of options, but ultimately, I agree with you that KYC seems to be becoming more widespread, and whether if that kind of KYC/AML is going to meaningfully damper bitcoins growth is to be seen, but it does seem like a kind of natural reaction for governments to try to figure out whatever tools that they can to try to keep bitcoin in some kind of check.. successful or NOT is still to be seen.. seems like it is going to be an ongoing dance, or maybe wacamole so there are likely going to be advantages to some kinds of options within... having a variety of tools and attempting to know about them... Of course, a lot of people would like to have really small transactions to be exempt from accounting, and I believe lightning is built to attempt to accomplish that, and if the government has trouble controlling lightning  they might NOT be able to get people to comply with reporting super small transactions because they are almost meaningless anyhow, and no one wants to have to report how they paid for their coffee and smaller transactions like that, if those kinds of transactions become more feasible and widespread on lightning and or other 2nd/3rd layer systems.

Consumers and merchants, no need to rush and to be worried ok, but 10 years already and beside some e-commerces, not much. What I want is to be able to pay the supermarket with bitcoins, to pay the electricity, the water, the butcher, the baker...

I think that there are some options to attempt to pay with bitcoin, but not too many want to pay with bitcoin these days.  If the price goes up more then they might want to pay during a bubble, and with time, I would think that more merchants might want to get bitcoin or get involved in bitcoin but sure, we are not necessarily there at the moment.   Many of us likely noticed too that when we are in a bitcoin hype-period, people get really crazy in their desire to get bitcoin... Of course, so far it is not lasting, but it is NOT totally fleeting either, because there might be some desires for some to get bitcoin that is greater than the desire for some current HODLers to spend it.. but if the price goes shooting up, then more HODLers will be inspired to shave off some of their holdings, and maybe even to shave off all of their BTC holdings.

[nullius]

I appreciate the dialectic here.  This thread waxes Socratic.  LeGaulois, JayJuanGee, I think you both have pieces of the truth that should be synthesized together.

You know that I am a Bitcoin idealist, deadset against KYC, with a general scorn for mere speculation.  What LeGaulois is saying, must be said!  Most of the few who are even capable of thinking on that level, are too timid to actually think through these points—let alone speak about them.  After all, you don’t want to be smeared as “evil” with all insinuations of the Four Horsemen of the Cryptopalypse.  Sacrebleu.  And to criticize empty speculation?  Simple greed will deter most people from thinking that through with any wisdom whatsoever.

However:

That whole vision seems unrealistic,

I have learned by hard personal experience, self-defeating principles are ipso facto wrong principles.  The aphorism that “all that is necessary for evil to win is for the good to do nothing” is oft deadly incorrect in practice:  Those who are “good” in their minds let loose all the ills of the world, when their own “good” principles stop “good” from winning.  If you do that that to yourself, then by the inexorable law of cause and effect, you are in substance fighting for your declared enemies!

In particular, principles which deny reality are never noble.  The world cannot simply be wished into being a better place.

It is necessary to be pragmatic in service of higher principles.  I do not posit that “the ends justify the means”, insofar as means which contradict their purported ends do turn you into what you purport to oppose.  However, at least minimally acceptable means that do not outright contradict the ends can be the key to success, i.e., to not giving victory as a gift to all you claim you despise.

By its nature as a thing born to move the world, Bitcoin unavoidably has before it a long struggle against a world that does not want to be moved.  And...

Maybe you have troubles accepting the world?

For my part, I do not passively “have trouble” accepting the world:  I actively reject the world as it is.  That is why I seek to change it for the better—by means that will actually work.

The answer is LeGaulois’ idealism plus JayJuanGee’s realism.  The former guides the latter’s high-level design goals, and the latter guides the former’s low-level implementation.

Now, how can that be done in practice?  What practical, positive actions can be done to grow the “everybody’s agreement” of the Bitcoin social phenomenon, while not only avoiding, but actively resisting unacceptable compromise of Bitcoin principles?


Edited to add, because this is the Internet:  I know that for the sake of rhetorical clarity, I have perforce simplified both the “idealistic” and “realistic” positions to make my point.  Obviously, if JayJuanGee (replete with his Bitcoin maximalist signature) were not a Bitcoin idealist, or if LeGaulois were not a realistic thinker, then we would not be having this discussion at all.

[JayJuanGee]

I appreciate the dialectic here.  This thread waxes Socratic.  LeGaulois, JayJuanGee, I think you both have pieces of the truth that should be synthesized together.

You know that I am a Bitcoin idealist, deadset against KYC, with a general scorn for mere speculation.  What LeGaulois is saying, must be said!  Most of the few who are even capable of thinking on that level, are too timid to actually think through these points—let alone speak about them.  After all, you don’t want to be smeared as “evil” with all insinuations of the Four Horsemen of the Cryptopalypse.  Sacrebleu.  And to criticize empty speculation?  Simple greed will deter most people from thinking that through with any wisdom whatsoever.

However:

That whole vision seems unrealistic,

I have learned by hard personal experience, self-defeating principles are ipso facto wrong principles.  The aphorism that “all that is necessary for evil to win is for the good to do nothing” is oft deadly incorrect in practice:  Those who are “good” in their minds let loose all the ills of the world, when their own “good” principles stop “good” from winning.  If you do that that to yourself, then by the inexorable law of cause and effect, you are in substance fighting for your declared enemies!

In particular, principles which deny reality are never noble.  The world cannot simply be wished into being a better place.

It is necessary to be pragmatic in service of higher principles.  I do not posit that “the ends justify the means”, insofar as means which contradict their purported ends do turn you into what you purport to oppose.  However, at least minimally acceptable means that do not outright contradict the ends can be the key to success, i.e., to not giving victory as a gift to all you claim you despise.

By its nature as a thing born to move the world, Bitcoin unavoidably has before it a long struggle against a world that does not want to be moved.  And...

Maybe you have troubles accepting the world?

For my part, I do not passively “have trouble” accepting the world:  I actively reject the world as it is.  That is why I seek to change it for the better—by means that will actually work.

The answer is LeGaulois’ idealism plus JayJuanGee’s realism.  The former guides the latter’s high-level design goals, and the latter guides the former’s low-level implementation.

Now, how can that be done in practice?  What practical, positive actions can be done to grow the “everybody’s agreement” of the Bitcoin social phenomenon, while not only avoiding, but actively resisting unacceptable compromise of Bitcoin principles?


Edited to add, because this is the Internet:  I know that for the sake of rhetorical clarity, I have perforce simplified both the “idealistic” and “realistic” positions to make my point.  Obviously, if JayJuanGee (replete with his Bitcoin maximalist signature) were not a Bitcoin idealist, or if LeGaulois were not a realistic thinker, then we would not be having this discussion at all.

I personally am NOT really trying to do anything to change bitcoin.  Sure I talk about it a lot and I participate in these various forum threads and tell other people about it from time to time in real life, but overall I attempt to take a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach to bitcoin.  I also found a way to participate in, invest in and learn about it over the last 6 years of my involvement.

 Sure there are a variety of people finding different roles in bitcoin, and still to discover bitcoin.  Surely, we are a bunch of nerds relative to the whole population that have not even entered into understanding bitcoin yet.... yeah, maybe they heard the word, "bitcoin", but they have little to no clue about it and have not taken any mindshare or financial share into it.

 Even though LeGaulois denies being any kind of alt coin supporter or bitcoin naysayer in that regard, I do frequently perceive those who are complaining that bitcoin is not used enough or is being used in the wrong ways to be influenced by the multitude of negative talking-points that come out of various altcoin camps, suggesting that bitcoin is deficient in various ways, but surely their true agenda is to pump their coins in various ways in order to fill in for bitcoin's various deficiencies.  LeGaulois denies being part of that particular group, so I don't mind taking him at his word in that regard.

In the end, I don't really know any answers to your questions nullius because ultimately a variety of people are going to find a variety of use cases for bitcoin and develop upon it over the years from their own perspective whether enlightened or dumb or base, and each of us will choose the extent to which we find value in participating in bitcoin, whether that is for present or future use cases or just speculation on those... and we balance our investment (psychological and financial) into bitcoin according to those perceptions.. which also of course, pertains to our own particulars, too... such as cashflow, investment into other assets, view of bitcoin as compared with other assets, timeline, risk tolerance, and our skills and time available to manage or learn about our investment.

[DooMAD]

In results we see KYC here, KYC there, KYC everywhere, of course, it doesn't stop me to send money to a friend without to rely on a 3rd party but it also restricts me to use some things. Stupid AML directives with the fake excuse of illegal activities etc. If one day we will be able to buy our bread at the baker's and pay for it with bitcoins, we will have to provide our identity card if this continues. KYC!

Sure, many bitcoiners share your concerns, and sure, there are development that try to figure out ways to have a variety of options, but ultimately, I agree with you that KYC seems to be becoming more widespread, and whether if that kind of KYC/AML is going to meaningfully damper bitcoins growth is to be seen, but it does seem like a kind of natural reaction for governments to try to figure out whatever tools that they can to try to keep bitcoin in some kind of check.. successful or NOT is still to be seen.. seems like it is going to be an ongoing dance, or maybe wacamole so there are likely going to be advantages to some kinds of options within... having a variety of tools and attempting to know about them... Of course, a lot of people would like to have really small transactions to be exempt from accounting, and I believe lightning is built to attempt to accomplish that, and if the government has trouble controlling lightning  they might NOT be able to get people to comply with reporting super small transactions because they are almost meaningless anyhow, and no one wants to have to report how they paid for their coffee and smaller transactions like that, if those kinds of transactions become more feasible and widespread on lightning and or other 2nd/3rd layer systems.

I can see why it's best to prepare for all contingencies, but I've yet to hear any governments proposing ID checks for everyday physical fiat cash payments (tobacco/alcohol/etc aside) and would expect fierce resistance from the general public if they ever did.  So it would be a rather impressive double standard to apply an ID requirement to bitcoin payments in such a fashion.  Naturally, the only sensible course of action open to us would be to resist if they did try to do it.  Even if principles weren't a factor, it would be far too intrusive and bothersome to be worthwhile implementing.  I don't think retailers would be supportive of it either, because it would be a lot of extra effort on their part.

Out of interest, where are people currently seeing all this KYC?  I've only noticed it on exchanges and I rarely use those nowadays.  Is it really "everywhere"?  Or was that more of an embellishment to make us consider the slippery slope argument?

[vapourminer]

It’s scary that banks can impose an unwritten law of their own, with no accountability and no appeal, just by closing people’s accounts.  Bitcoin stops that.

I have experience living without a bank account.  It’s very difficult:  You can’t use money normally, and you are shut out of many opportunities.  That can impoverish you, and it can keep you in poverty.  Bitcoin takes away the power of unaccountable corporations to shut down people’s lives on a whim, just because they don’t like them.

i also have lived with no bank account for a few years (finical irresponsibility on my part 100%). and it does suck indeed. so much you have no access to, and things like having to race to the bank on which the check was drawn before it closes (hourly bank hours designed so working stiffs have a hard time accessing it unless taking time out of the work day specifically for that, hard to do depending on the jobsite and if someone can cover you) to turn into cash on as you have to go to that bank that it was drawn on.. and if you didnt make it in time while they were open... raman noodles? i wish. i might not even have gas to get home to eat that..

i could go on and on to argue that a bank account is practically 100% needed to operate in this world (my part anyway). and of course its a GREAT tool to keep people in debt. it sure held me down pretty well, but thats on me.

interestingly enough, it was bitcoin that taught me about sound money, central banks etc. of course i have bank accounts now and all the stuff associated with it. no real choice here. but i also have bitcoin now. gamechanger.

i suppose in some ways you need to be poor and unbanked to understand and i have been. being poor, on a scale of 1-10,  is maybe a 3. educational, but not fun. prefer not to be there again.

[JayJuanGee]

In results we see KYC here, KYC there, KYC everywhere, of course, it doesn't stop me to send money to a friend without to rely on a 3rd party but it also restricts me to use some things. Stupid AML directives with the fake excuse of illegal activities etc. If one day we will be able to buy our bread at the baker's and pay for it with bitcoins, we will have to provide our identity card if this continues. KYC!

Sure, many bitcoiners share your concerns, and sure, there are development that try to figure out ways to have a variety of options, but ultimately, I agree with you that KYC seems to be becoming more widespread, and whether if that kind of KYC/AML is going to meaningfully damper bitcoins growth is to be seen, but it does seem like a kind of natural reaction for governments to try to figure out whatever tools that they can to try to keep bitcoin in some kind of check.. successful or NOT is still to be seen.. seems like it is going to be an ongoing dance, or maybe wacamole so there are likely going to be advantages to some kinds of options within... having a variety of tools and attempting to know about them... Of course, a lot of people would like to have really small transactions to be exempt from accounting, and I believe lightning is built to attempt to accomplish that, and if the government has trouble controlling lightning  they might NOT be able to get people to comply with reporting super small transactions because they are almost meaningless anyhow, and no one wants to have to report how they paid for their coffee and smaller transactions like that, if those kinds of transactions become more feasible and widespread on lightning and or other 2nd/3rd layer systems.

I can see why it's best to prepare for all contingencies, but I've yet to hear any governments proposing ID checks for everyday physical fiat cash payments (tobacco/alcohol/etc aside) and would expect fierce resistance from the general public if they ever did.  So it would be a rather impressive double standard to apply an ID requirement to bitcoin payments in such a fashion.  Naturally, the only sensible course of action open to us would be to resist if they did try to do it.  Even if principles weren't a factor, it would be far too intrusive and bothersome to be worthwhile implementing.  I don't think retailers would be supportive of it either, because it would be a lot of extra effort on their part.

Out of interest, where are people currently seeing all this KYC?  I've only noticed it on exchanges and I rarely use those nowadays.  Is it really "everywhere"?  Or was that more of an embellishment to make us consider the slippery slope argument?

I don't necessarily know of all of the KYC instances, but there is a term called "shotgun KYC" in which exchanges all of a sudden will require some level of KYC for all customers who had not previously been KYC'd in order to withdraw or even to continue to use the exchange.  Has caused a lot of resentment in various circles of BTCtalk (also required on shitcoin exchanges)

[CarnagexD]

As much as I find myself thrilled by Bitcoin, I could not, for example, 2 years ago explain why it was worth $20,000 when it was months ago not, when I valued it as much.

Nor can I explain how people are willing to buy supposedly rare items online that can possibly still be manufactured without anyone being able to tell the difference (I'm thinking diamonds here).

Which is why we ideally need to steer the conversation with the general public more towards the tangible benefits they can gain from actually using Bitcoin, rather than the fiat money they may or may not make speculating with it.

The only "reason" prices move like they do is that markets are fickle and traders are seemingly quite susceptible to hype and FOMO.  It doesn't really make a lot of sense and it's certainly not very easy to explain to the uninitiated masses in simple terms.

Most people nowadays think of bitcoin as a get rich scheme. Which is definitely not true and much more, a toxic way to describe bitcoin. So we shouldn't capitalize on bitcoin's profitability when we are recommending its usage to people who are interested on it. They might get disappointed and in the end pull out their investments which will hurt bitcoin. Instead, focus on the benefits that bitcoin has like portability and lower transaction fees

[jameshugo17]

Bitcoin is not just an investment tool that opens the door to wealth. Bitcoin is a new technology. A new economic model needs to be created. Blockchain offers a very important system. Bitcoin advertised this. A new transfer network may spread.

[dimastegar]

The presence of Bitcoin as cryptocurrency has indeed become a real social phenomenon. Without us knowing, Bitcoin has almost been adopted by many people of the world. Even now, many people want to have Bitcoin because of its good value.

[DevilSlayer]

In results we see KYC here, KYC there, KYC everywhere, of course, it doesn't stop me to send money to a friend without to rely on a 3rd party but it also restricts me to use some things. Stupid AML directives with the fake excuse of illegal activities etc. If one day we will be able to buy our bread at the baker's and pay for it with bitcoins, we will have to provide our identity card if this continues. KYC!

Sure, many bitcoiners share your concerns, and sure, there are development that try to figure out ways to have a variety of options, but ultimately, I agree with you that KYC seems to be becoming more widespread, and whether if that kind of KYC/AML is going to meaningfully damper bitcoins growth is to be seen, but it does seem like a kind of natural reaction for governments to try to figure out whatever tools that they can to try to keep bitcoin in some kind of check.. successful or NOT is still to be seen.. seems like it is going to be an ongoing dance, or maybe wacamole so there are likely going to be advantages to some kinds of options within... having a variety of tools and attempting to know about them... Of course, a lot of people would like to have really small transactions to be exempt from accounting, and I believe lightning is built to attempt to accomplish that, and if the government has trouble controlling lightning  they might NOT be able to get people to comply with reporting super small transactions because they are almost meaningless anyhow, and no one wants to have to report how they paid for their coffee and smaller transactions like that, if those kinds of transactions become more feasible and widespread on lightning and or other 2nd/3rd layer systems.

I can see why it's best to prepare for all contingencies, but I've yet to hear any governments proposing ID checks for everyday physical fiat cash payments (tobacco/alcohol/etc aside) and would expect fierce resistance from the general public if they ever did.  So it would be a rather impressive double standard to apply an ID requirement to bitcoin payments in such a fashion.  Naturally, the only sensible course of action open to us would be to resist if they did try to do it.  Even if principles weren't a factor, it would be far too intrusive and bothersome to be worthwhile implementing.  I don't think retailers would be supportive of it either, because it would be a lot of extra effort on their part.

Out of interest, where are people currently seeing all this KYC?  I've only noticed it on exchanges and I rarely use those nowadays.  Is it really "everywhere"?  Or was that more of an embellishment to make us consider the slippery slope argument?

I don't necessarily know of all of the KYC instances, but there is a term called "shotgun KYC" in which exchanges all of a sudden will require some level of KYC for all customers who had not previously been KYC'd in order to withdraw or even to continue to use the exchange.  Has caused a lot of resentment in various circles of BTCtalk (also required on shitcoin exchanges)

That is the annoying part of most of the exchanges, in order for you to deposit or withdraw more; you need to pass the requirements in the specific level of KYC. Most of the exchanges have level 4 where you can have unlimited withdrawal and deposits in your funds. But for me it is a threat to my identity and I really against in KYC. Our identity should be protected and that is why I do not like KYC.

[DooMAD]

That is the annoying part of most of the exchanges, in order for you to deposit or withdraw more; you need to pass the requirements in the specific level of KYC. Most of the exchanges have level 4 where you can have unlimited withdrawal and deposits in your funds. But for me it is a threat to my identity and I really against in KYC. Our identity should be protected and that is why I do not like KYC.

My hope is, the more exchanges who introduce prohibitive KYC, the sooner the incentive arises for people simply stop using them and find ways to simplify and encourage the use of peer-to-peer trading.

The adage always goes that "necessity is the mother of invention" and this is clearly something we need.  Exchanges are a throwback to legacy finance.  Something we reverted to out of habit.  Except it's a bad habit that we need to break.  We're supposed to be disrupting middlemen, not creating them.  In the grand scheme of things, I don't see exchanges as a significant part of Bitcoin's future.  I have a suspicion they're going to force themselves out of the equation by becoming too cumbersome to actually use.  Architects of their own demise.  The moment peer-to-peer trading becomes the easier option, the average user will simply avoid exchanges and it'll solely the most dedicated full-time speculators that will still use those platforms.

[Gozie51]

From the topic, I think the social media has more role to play in addition to what they have done already. The social media has a way to put out message that can catch the interest of populace and I think this is important. If bitcoin is having a good representation in the media, no doubt we are going to be above the adoption rate we are now.

[LeGaulois]

By saying the KYC, I wanted to generalize. And nope, it's not just about the exchange platforms asking you to give your ID card, etc
AML, banks restrictions, big data, proof of funds, laws created to either limit you or something else... When I first started using Bitcoin, around the MtGox collapse, if we would have been asked for a KYC verification and had to give our ID, we would have laughed very hard.
Illegal activities using cryptocurrencies, this excuse is fake like Santa Claus is.

By the way, speculating and investing isn't really the same thing


The philosophical question: is the finance industry at the service of society?

I believe in order to see Bitcoin adopted massively the population needs to change its mindset about money, how we use it and how the finance works nowadays. Because there are fundamental dysfunctions in with consequences economic, social and societal. If we reproduce the same errors then we will just duplicate the same problems, another disguise but the same shit, instead of to be with fiats it will be with crypto.
 
Or maybe Bitcoin will be the 'tool' that will make the population changing, in case of a monetary reset or something like that.

By accepting to be regulated, it's already the beginning of the reproduction of the same errors. I would like to remind you how many times we have read here "Sir, regulations will help the mass adoption and institutional money"
Institutional money, oh man we don't need that, we don't need regulations, Bitcoin has been doing well without.

[JayJuanGee]

By saying the KYC, I wanted to generalize. And nope, it's not just about the exchange platforms asking you to give your ID card, etc
AML, banks restrictions, big data, proof of funds, laws created to either limit you or something else...
Illegal activities using cryptocurrencies, this excuse is fake like Santa Claus is.

By the way, speculating and investing isn't really the same thing


The philosophical question: is the finance industry at the service of society?

I believe in order to see Bitcoin adopted massively the population needs to change its mindset about money, how we use it and how the finance works nowadays. Because there are fundamental dysfunctions in with consequences economic, social and societal. If we reproduce the same errors then we will just duplicate the same problems, another disguise but the same shit, instead of to be with fiats it will be with crypto.
 
Or maybe Bitcoin will be the 'tool' that will make the population changing, in case of a monetary reset or something like that.

By accepting to be regulated, it's already the beginning of the reproduction of the same errors. I would like to remind you how many times we have read here "Sir, regulations will help the mass adoption and institutional money"
Institutional money, oh man we don't need that, we don't need regulations, Bitcoin has been doing well without.

Just because regulation exists, that does not mean that people are advocating for it.

Of course, there are various forum of bitcoin and practices that are cumbersome and anti-thetical to bitcoin. but there is so much that any of us can do about systems that are built and the willingness of people to use them. 

Just take, for example, people getting into bitcoin and keeping their coins on exchanges, how are you going to stop that?  There needs to be other options in order to incentivize people to use the other options.. Also, remember local bitcoins?  Hard to use local bitcoins anymore, so are other direct systems developing?  Maybe ones that are NOT as good, but there are some developing and likely to continue to develop.

You can assert that speculation and investing are NOT the same until you are blue in the face, but the fact of the matter comes down to actual practices, thinking of people and ways in which people might get into bitcoin rather than getting stuck on definitional assertions that don't mean much of anything, except some academic or theoretical claim regarding how a word should properly be used - which means diddly squat to me.

In the end, bitcoin gives you an option that you can choose or choose NOT to involve yourself into it, and you can choose whether you want to use it or hold it and if so, how you want to accomplish those.  Decisions regarding involvement in bitcoin are going to vary, and sure there still remains some technical difficulties too, and maybe if the lady in the small village hears that she can buy $10 of bitcoin per week and store it on her phone in her lightning wallet, it will keep value better than her local currency, and she should be able to use it one year later or several weeks later, she might be willing to buy a bit of it to have, just in case it might come useful to her in the future.  Of course, user-friendliness is helpful and also possibly having a friend who has already done it can show her how to do it, too.  That can be considered using it, but it could also be considered storing it for future use, and choices like that are going to vary - and might also depend upon what kinds of other value storage and/or transactional options are available to her.

[Rengga Jati]

People who disagree with each other about everything else, can agree about Bitcoin.  That is what gives Bitcoin its value:  Everybody wants Bitcoin, no matter what their opinions about anything else!  And that is what makes Bitcoin immune to financial censorship.

One of the reasons may be because Bitcoin was created at the right time. I mean Satoshi created the Bitcoin once Fiat (dollars) was in decreased performance. So, people understand that Bitcoin has something to improve that situation and present hope for a better future word financial.

But the Bitcoin social movement cannot be duplicated.  It exists because everybody agrees on Bitcoin.

Indeed. Bitcoin trend around the world was happening naturally and massively. It is something rarely happens and surprisingly even many governments refuse it but in fact, more people are interested in using Bitcoin. I know some have the intention to be rich but others may think to support a new revolution in world financial or economy. However, finally, all join together even if having different purposes.

[BuNga_cute]

I think that bitcoin is extraordinary, because many countries don't support bitcoin and there are some countries that prohibit circulation
bitcoin. Doesn't make bitcoin weak. What exists today after a decade is getting stronger and more popular. It's not apart from the role of
social media which is very massive. Especially youtube, tweeter and facebook make bitcoin very phenomenal. Moreover people who are
tired of fiat inflation increases, making bitcoin increasingly in demand.

[Wind_FURY]

Do you think that something as phenomenal as bitcoin in the financial sphere is waiting for us in the future?

Bitcoin is in the financial sphere... and bitcoin is the thing that you have been waiting for.  If you are trying to refer to some other nonsense such as defi phoney baloney then you should be considering that those systems are better built upon bitcoin, to the extent that they are going to be secure.

But why wasn't anything built on top of Bitcoin? I believe it was because the Core developers wanted the blockchain to be as "basic" as possible, and because accommodating them required hard forks. Wasn't that the reason why Vitalik founded Ethereum? Because he can't build the things he wanted on top of Bitcoin?

[atjiat]

Maybe I can’t express myself with clever words, using professional terms and phrases, but I can say with the words of a simple layman who can understand a little how beneficial Bitcoin is for humanity.  I am one of those people who negatively regard the poor professionalism of governments and the manipulations of all officials during the leadership of their countries.  First of all, I pay attention to the economic decline and inflation, which affects a simple person.  I believe that creating a deficit in the state budget, the government will put into circulation too much money that is not confirmed by gold reserves.  In this case, Bitcoin would be much more profitable for people, because of its limited amount.  Perhaps because of this, the US is opposed to bitcoin.