Bitcoin will NOT surpass traditional methods of payment. Convince me.

[CopyCatApp]

I've been for cryptocurrencies from when I first heard about it and got involved back in 2013. There are some pros to having Bitcoin as the future method of payment however there are some cons too.

It would be interesting to see why you think Bitcoin (or other cryptocurrencies) will surpass traditional methods of payment (Cards, Bank transfers, payment gateways etc.). Or if you think they have no future please share why.

Some of my concerns:

• Ever since a few people have made a fortune from the massive spike in prices, it's attracted a lot of traders and day traders. Not a bad thins but it's clear to me that easily 90% of cryptocurrency users are just traders with no intensions of using the currencies. Hence the rise in a lot of exchanges (a lot of which look the same).
• All it takes is 51%. Although for a coin such as BTC would be very expensive to attack the network it's still possible.
  
  Here's my insane scenario:
  
  100 top banks from across the world don't like the threat BTC has on their business so they all join together to buy compute power, take over the network and cause havoc. I estimate it would cost around $2,000,000,000 (2 Billion USD). This is very expensive but what's $20,000,000 (20 million USD) to a top bank? That's an investment to help protect their business.
• Speed: BTC is known to be slow to confirm a single transaction (approx 10 mins). ETH is faster (approx 15 seconds). I believe (correct me if i'm wrong) that if you cut down block times it slowly starts to make a decentralised system more centralised.

Food for thought..

[1714907119]

1714907119

[blckhawk]

It's either:

1. They buy power from existing rigs. However, the price is not the only thing they'll need to consider, but also if these pools would cooperate with them and sell them their service. Or,

2. They buy their own nodes, which they would need to make 101% of the current network node size, which would be too much expensive compared to the benefit they'll gain.

[dimonstration]

There will always have a solution if it will have a mass adoption. At first the government will be needing an implementation notice or announcement that may businesses provides necessary materials needed to speed the transactions. As I'm using BTC more on payment s now than Banks. It might need more improvement but in my area it's quite good to use now as payment and investment solutions.

[CopyCatApp]

It's either:

1. They buy power from existing rigs. However, the price is not the only thing they'll need to consider, but also if these pools would cooperate with them and sell them their service. Or,

2. They buy their own nodes, which they would need to make 101% of the current network node size, which would be too much expensive compared to the benefit they'll gain.

Those are some good points. In regards to being too expensive, is it fair to say that a company would spend any amount to save their companies business? So let's bump that spend to $100,000,000 (100 million USD) per top bank. Budget of $100,000,000,000 (10 Billion USD).

Banks such as HSBC have been fined 1.9 Billion USD and it hasn't hurt them. 100 million USD isn't going to do much to their profits.
J.P Morgan gets fined every 2-3 years averaging over 100 million USD.
Barclays similar amount to J.P Morgan.


Bank   Fines:

Bank of America   $76.1 Billion USD
JPMorgan Chase   $43.7 Billion USD
Citigroup           $19 Billion USD
Deutsche Bank   $14 Billion USD
Wells Fargo   $11.8 Billion USD
RBS                   $10.1 Billion USD
BNP Paribas   $9.3 Billion USD
Credit Suisse   $9.1 Billion USD
Morgan Stanley   $8.6 Billion USD
Goldman Sachs   $7.7 Billion USD
UBS   $6.5 Billion USD


Keep in mind that fines are Banks having to forfeit money "involuntary".

Imagine how much they'd spend to stay in business.

[Mallyx]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

[pooya87]

It would be interesting to see why you think Bitcoin (or other cryptocurrencies) will surpass traditional methods of payment (Cards, Bank transfers, payment gateways etc.).

why does it matter?
bitcoin was never created to "surpass" or replace anything. it is an alternate option that works in an entirely different way (in short decentralized) and the goal has always been to keep it that way not to compete with or replace anything.

Or if you think they have no future please share why.

that is an entirely different discussion which has nothing to do with your main subject. not replacing traditional methods doesn't mean complete failure and no future.

the rest of your arguments regarding 51% attack, speed,... are already discussed in dozens of other topics.

[Mpamaegbu]

Sadly, I am one of those who strongly believe that "Bitcoin will NOT surpass traditional methods of payment." It's commonsense to note that the tech behind Bitcoin or cryptocurrency is embedded in the internet, electricity and knowledge of the tech world. More than half of the world's population is still illiterate and can't have a handle on this Bitcoin tech.

[Eclipse26]

I'm also in the position that Bitcoin is not here to surpass traditional payments. It's more of an alternative to the traditional methods of payment. If they don't want the traditional one, they can use cryptocurrency as an option.
Looking at the different factors, Bitcoin is at the early stage and it has no power to surpass traditional payment as of now. We need to consider the technological capabilities, the government, and the people.

[xvids]

Why do people keep on insisting that Bitcoin would surpass or be the only payment method?
It is very different from traditional payment method and it could never replace it.
It could be used as a payment method but it could only be an option not the top priority since the fluctuation would affect both the seller and the buyer.

[Cimmy_revenger]

the strength of the crypto community is stronger than the money held by conventional banks.
Conventional banks move from money and assets of customers, without customers, the bank will not function properly.
but that doesn't apply to bitcoin.

[Heisenberg_Hunter]

It would be interesting to see why you think Bitcoin (or other cryptocurrencies) will surpass traditional methods of payment (Cards, Bank transfers, payment gateways etc.).

Bitcoin was created to have a decentralized version of fund transaction between one user to another user on the internet without having a middleman or a trusted financial institution. They are an alternative to Bank Transfers while Cards and Payment Gateways are still possible with bitcoin and we cannot categorize them as traditional methods of payment. The primary idea is to prevent banks and centralized financial institutions in playing a role in our transactions on the internet. As like people tend to use fiat money even after the introduction of Credit and Debit Cards and the same goes with bitcoin. Bitcoin will stay as well as fiat money would stay here. It is upto the marketplaces or stores to accept bitcoin or not.

A common scenario favoring the usage of bitcoin is like : We tend to buy goods from market and pay using Debit or Credit Cards. What if there tends to be a problem with Card machine and there is a withdrawal from your account and there is no sign of deposit to the merchant account? What if you didn't get your money back? I have experienced this and got back my money only after providing evidence in Bank the next day. With Bitcoin, all you need is just a transaction ID and with providing that, merchant would let you go with your purchased goods.

Or if you think they have no future please share why.

We are in the initial stages of the development of something like a virtual currency and it would significantly take time to reach the goal of being used by merchants. People who would go with supporting the government and the plans they are undertaking, would always speak against bitcoin. They would never support the technology even if the technology tends to overtake the current banking system.

Speed: BTC is known to be slow to confirm a single transaction (approx 10 mins). ETH is faster (approx 15 seconds). I believe (correct me if i'm wrong) that if you cut down block times it slowly starts to make a decentralised system more centralised.

10 years into the technology and are we in need of rapid developments? Not many are still really aware of bitcoin and if many become aware, we would see a rise in developer count and significant developments would take place. Aren't we aware of Lightning Network and other scalability options? We can always have a hard fork and increase the scalability, but with the community support and through a soft fork or off-chain payments, I don't think we would face scalability issues in future.

[Sahyadri]

Bitcoin as a currency would have scalability as an issue. Increased number of transactions lead to network congestion which in turn makes the network slower and expensive. Thus, not really viable for day to day transactions. So yeah, Bitcoin becoming a payment mode is not really viable and can't match the ease and speed of the present payment modes.

[Youghoor]

The real intention of Satoshi Nakamoto for Bitcoin was to introduce a new way of making financial transactions with more freedom and no third party involvement in the transaction. Personally, i don't really think Bitcoin was developed to surpass the existing traditional methods of payment. It was meant to be an alternative method of payment for people who do not want third party involvement in their transactions. But failed to achieve this due to the way people see Bitcoin. Bitcoin is now an asset rather than a digital currency for payment of goods and services.

[ReiMomo]

Yes, I believed. Bitcoin will not surpass the traditional payment method unless if this will be centralized and the government will have control over it. But the fact, they dont have any authority to control bitcoin that's why this will not be able to use as to replace the traditional fiat.
But I believed that Bitcoin is the alternative way in methods of payment. And now that is proven because there are mass adoption of bitcoin and it is almost worldwide currency and it is dollar base price.

[Jet Cash]

Current methods of payment include Gold, Silver, Cash, digital fiat, SDRs, Bills of Exchange, bearer bonds, and other instruments. Bitcoin is just the latest one to be added to the list. They all have their own use cases,strengths and weaknesses,but the 21 million cap, and the 10 min average block generation time was included by the creators to ensure that it could never become the dominant payment method.

[affandi]

I believe in bitcoin technology, I believe bitcoin has provided many benefits to every user. but I'm not sure bitcoin is able to surpass the performance of traditional currencies, because bitcoin still has some shortcomings such as fluctuating prices, expensive transaction fees, not all countries accept its presence, and there are still others. don't compare bitcoin with traditional payment methods anymore, let them walk side by side, because they have advantages and disadvantages of each.

[LogitechMouse]

There are some pros to having Bitcoin as the future method of payment however there are some cons too.

Any currency have pros and cons. The first currency that the old people used is their items. They did the barter or trading of goods and other things and it has pros and cons too. After that the people created a coin and it has too and until now, the current that we are using right now which is fiat has pros and cons too. This goes with Bitcoin too. It also has pros and cons too .

It would be interesting to see why you think Bitcoin (or other cryptocurrencies) will surpass traditional methods of payment (Cards, Bank transfers, payment gateways etc.). Or if you think they have no future please share why.

At first place, Satoshi didn't said in the whitepaper that "it will surpass traditional methods of payment etc." It is stated that Bitcoin is just a new payment system and completely digital money and it has been created so that middleman will be removed in the transaction. It is stated here.

I don't see Bitcoin surpassing the traditional payments right now but if it will, it must solve the problems that is occurring on Bitcoin especially the scalability of it and the fees. If this has been solved then MAYBE, more and more people will use it

[Eternad]

I believe in bitcoin technology, I believe bitcoin has provided many benefits to every user. but I'm not sure bitcoin is able to surpass the performance of traditional currencies, because bitcoin still has some shortcomings such as fluctuating prices, expensive transaction fees, not all countries accept its presence, and there are still others. don't compare bitcoin with traditional payment methods anymore, let them walk side by side, because they have advantages and disadvantages of each.

They can surpass it terms of conveniency, in my country mobile banking, over the Counter banking and bills payment were too hard to do due to limited stafs or counter that took long lane before you will be accommodated. Unlike in crypto it's on our hands. The only needed first is the proper application that will allow typical stores to accept btc, a portal or wallet app will do.

[hatshepsut93]

Some of my concerns:

• Ever since a few people have made a fortune from the massive spike in prices, it's attracted a lot of traders and day traders. Not a bad thins but it's clear to me that easily 90% of cryptocurrency users are just traders with no intensions of using the currencies. Hence the rise in a lot of exchanges (a lot of which look the same).
• All it takes is 51%. Although for a coin such as BTC would be very expensive to attack the network it's still possible.
  
  Here's my insane scenario:
  
  100 top banks from across the world don't like the threat BTC has on their business so they all join together to buy compute power, take over the network and cause havoc. I estimate it would cost around $2,000,000,000 (2 Billion USD). This is very expensive but what's $20,000,000 (20 million USD) to a top bank? That's an investment to help protect their business.
• Speed: BTC is known to be slow to confirm a single transaction (approx 10 mins). ETH is faster (approx 15 seconds). I believe (correct me if i'm wrong) that if you cut down block times it slowly starts to make a decentralised system more centralised.

It's true that trading is the most popular use right now, but it doesn't mean that it will keep being that way forever. It's just an observation, not a prediction.

As for 51% attack - it's not about just amassing hash power, you also need to constantly burn electricity to sustain it, which is why Bitcoin is so resilient. It's really not a big threat to Bitcoin thanks to how it was designed.

Speed - Lightning network takes care of it. And you comparison with ETH or other shitcoins is wrong, because 1 confirmation in Bitcoin has different amount of security than 1 confirmation in ETH.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

it's clear to me that easily 90% of cryptocurrency users are just traders with no intensions of using the currencies.

I agree with you there, and I'm not one who would argue that bitcoin is ever going to surpass fiat currency.  Ever.  Not unless people start getting their paychecks in bitcoin and items are priced in terms of bitcoin--and neither of those things shows any sign of happening.

But here's the thing: bitcoin could be used as money if you needed to use it as such.  Thus, even if you're an investor it has that added value.  If you're tired of hanging on to it, you could always spend it.  There are plenty of merchants that sell some pretty interesting stuff for bitcoin, and big merchants at that.  Overstock and Newegg are two that come to mind.  I don't think the fact that bitcoin is mostly a thing that gets traded instead of spent has much effect on its importance or utility.

Ultimately, bitcoin doesn't need to replace any established payment methods or currencies.  It can peacefully (and profitably) co-exist alongside all the rest of them.  I never saw it as being in competition with fiat.