Does Bitcoin Need To Scale

[Ozero]

In fact, the normal scalability of the cryptocurrency, which allows transactions to be performed without undue delays, is, first of all, the convenience in using the cryptocurrency. A cryptocurrency that is less slow in transaction than bitcoin probably no longer exists. Therefore, to raise the question of whether it is necessary to increase the scaling of bitcoin, this means whether we need a bitcoin that will be convenient to use. In my opinion, the conclusion is obvious.

[1715071789]

1715071789

[1715071789]

1715071789

[1715071789]

1715071789

[1715071789]

1715071789

[$crypto$]

Bitcoin is a very important asset for those who will do a large scale in the long run for the HOLD they will think that volatility will be high at the same time later and this is a matter of time where assets will be safe in safer storage.

But on a scale, people certainly have their own goals about the assets in HOLD that they do to cover liquidity with funds that cannot be drawn in for a long time.

There are also their daily traders just to increase the volume that occurs in the market so that this will add higher liquidity and bitcoin will become more trusted by investors.

[famososMuertos]

I think that scalability must be oriented to satisfy all users. Regardless of particular needs or usage trends.

Today with bitcoin we are in that stage of execution, the technological one, perhaps stuck thinking about how we improve (scalability) the Bitcoin.  when at this time, it really isn't necessary.

GB.

[Naida_BR]

Bitcoin is a very important asset for those who will do a large scale in the long run for the HOLD they will think that volatility will be high at the same time later and this is a matter of time where assets will be safe in safer storage.

But on a scale, people certainly have their own goals about the assets in HOLD that they do to cover liquidity with funds that cannot be drawn in for a long time.

There are also their daily traders just to increase the volume that occurs in the market so that this will add higher liquidity and bitcoin will become more trusted by investors.

There are many people who want to use Bitcoin for making purchases and daily transactions.
This way Bitcoin needs to scale. It is the most known cryptocurrency and people want this to be used for their transactions are it is the easiest converted crypto to fiat and fiat to crypto.

[DooMAD]

I think that scalability must be oriented to satisfy all users. Regardless of particular needs or usage trends.

Okay, but what does that actually mean in practice?  I sincerely doubt there's a specific amount of scaling which can please everyone.  Someone is always going to moan that the balance is wrong somehow.  People talk about it like it's the simplest thing in the world, but it's actually a really complex issue.

[inoes]

Bitcoin is a very important asset for those who will do a large scale in the long run for the HOLD they will think that volatility will be high at the same time later and this is a matter of time where assets will be safe in safer storage.

But on a scale, people certainly have their own goals about the assets in HOLD that they do to cover liquidity with funds that cannot be drawn in for a long time.

There are also their daily traders just to increase the volume that occurs in the market so that this will add higher liquidity and bitcoin will become more trusted by investors.

There are many people who want to use Bitcoin for making purchases and daily transactions.
This way Bitcoin needs to scale. It is the most known cryptocurrency and people want this to be used for their transactions are it is the easiest converted crypto to fiat and fiat to crypto.

until now BTC is still the most trusted coin with evidence of holding> 60% of all scalability. but will this last long? maybe I will answer "no". many problems faced by BTC such as speed, reward, and usage. the conclusion is that for now BTC is worth considering, but for the next few years there will be other crypto that need to be taken into scale.

[Hydrogen]

Attempt at better defining this topic.

Most long term investments are defined in terms of low daily volatility and incremental long term growth. As opposed to the polar opposite of those things.

Long term holdings are usually not attached to merchant solutions allowing for thousands of transactions per second like credit cards. You'd likely never expect to hear a HODL'er of real estate, gold or 401K's complain about not being able to utilize their long term holdings to buy a cup of coffee, due to a lack of real time transactional speed.

To some degree the "bitcoin must scale" paradigm claims btc should become more like a short term traded asset, with higher short term transactional volume and greater volatility. Which might be comparable to implementing a credit card scheme off of a 401k account.

Bitcoin's deflationary model however could be better suited towards producing value through lower volatility and a lower transactional volume. Which could be more appealing to long term investors who prefer investing their capital in safer markets defined by lower volatility rates.

In a sense, bitcoin tries to be a jack of all trades. When it might be better suited to being a specialized HODL master of one. With a profile closer to what one would expect from long term HODL assets. There's a counter argument here which says bitcoin's long term emphasis is a best of both worlds, a benefit rather than a hindrance. I'm not trying to prove things one way or the other. Only interested in hearing what others might say on the topic.

[slapper]

The contradiction does not exist inside bitcoin. Everyone can utilize bitcoin benefit either long term investors or a day trader. Thats what makes bitcoin different from other assets in the world. Despite the highly volatile, people can see the advantages that lie behind bitcoin. Moreover, price is not the only thing which seduces people. The security and the decentralization are also what people are looking for. In the world full of scammer and robbers, the blockchain system is the solution reducing most of the bad parts of this world. This technology is being developed for many years. The combination of tech and asset has brought us a new dimensional investment stronger than anything in this world.

There are still many years ahead to know whether bitcoin will continue to survive or not. But in my opinion, bitcoin will be used and utilized in most parts of the world in the near future. No one can deny the assistance of the cryptocurrency.

[exstasie]

Most long term investments are defined in terms of low daily volatility and incremental long term growth.

What kind of assets are you talking about? Stocks? Gold?

Gold seems comparable to BTC in terms of supply dynamics and speculative nature. It's also known to be quite volatile. In a similar manner, I see Bitcoin retaining high volatility while also enjoying long term growth.

Bitcoin's deflationary model however could be better suited towards producing value through lower volatility and a lower transactional volume. Which could be more appealing to long term investors who prefer investing their capital in safer markets defined by lower volatility rates.

Bitcoin's deflationary model causes hoarding, I get that, but why would it cause lower volatility? If anything, I would think the opposite, since Bitcoin's relative scarcity produces thin, illiquid markets that are easily moved by big buys and sells.

[bitgolden]

When looking at the fees right now it needs to scale and definitely looks like there needs to be scaled. Look at the exchanges, they are right now doing around 0.0005 on average and that is about 6-7 dollars and that is just way too much and takes about 30-60 minutes as well. That is why I believe there needs to be some sort of situation where people should be able to pay a lot less.

If they could find a way to drop that to something like 0.00005 and add another zero there, that would be around 60-70 cents instead of 6-7 dollars and even though that is still not "cheap" at least it prevents it from being expensive.

People may think dropping the price to 10% of what it is right now could be hard but remember we have also dropped it a ton with segwit as well, so why not do the same once more to drop it again?

[Hydrogen]

Bitcoin's deflationary model causes hoarding, I get that, but why would it cause lower volatility? If anything, I would think the opposite, since Bitcoin's relative scarcity produces thin, illiquid markets that are easily moved by big buys and sells.

Imagine if the US mint reduced fiat production capacity by 50% today. And by another 50% four years from now. Similar to bitcoin's halving reducing rewards for miners. Halving introduces scarcity which could promote long term HODL growth.

One of the questions with bitcoin volatility is to what degree mining dumps cause it. Miners have a steady stream of crypto which could allow them to set price. If they coordinated to dump high or dump low they could move the price and determine volatility. Crypto mining being centralized in china, could give them some control in determining not only price but also its relative stability over time.

Reward halvings could diminish this capacity, which could reduce volatility as mining dumps gradually became smaller in scope.

When looking at the fees right now it needs to scale and definitely looks like there needs to be scaled. Look at the exchanges, they are right now doing around 0.0005 on average and that is about 6-7 dollars and that is just way too much and takes about 30-60 minutes as well. That is why I believe there needs to be some sort of situation where people should be able to pay a lot less.

Scaling doesn't guarantee the cost of fees will decline.

In the past, miners produced blocks that were only 10% to 50% full to create artificial scarcity in transaction capacity. To drive the cost of transactions up. Similar to how metals industries like aluminum manipulate supply in markets. They also create artificial scarcity to drive prices up.

Bitcoin charges "6-7 dollars" for transactions, that banks and others would charge $20 to $50+ for BTW.

[erikoy]

Over  a period of time and due to a high transaction of bitcoins there will be a difference in it of course and it will need bitcoin to scale to get back to its original supply. Some were possibly losses and this made bitcoin market price too high. Due to transaction which left little amount of bitcoin in wallet and the numbers holding bitcoin arou d the world then this could be a mere reason for bringing bitcoin to scale. In case of transactions there are miners that collect some of it as transaction fee but it will be accumulated and then it will depend on the miners if to sell bitcoin back or not.

[exstasie]

One of the questions with bitcoin volatility is to what degree mining dumps cause it. Miners have a steady stream of crypto which could allow them to set price. If they coordinated to dump high or dump low they could move the price and determine volatility. Crypto mining being centralized in china, could give them some control in determining not only price but also its relative stability over time.

Reward halvings could diminish this capacity, which could reduce volatility as mining dumps gradually became smaller in scope.

Newly mined BTC, especially after this last halving, has a much smaller effect on the market than existing holders. There are more than 18.5 million BTC in existence and 2.6+ million BTC deposited on exchanges right now. 27K BTC per month from miners pales in comparison.

I agree that miners have less and less effect on price over time. The fundamental issue of volatility though has more to do with the lack of available BTC and fiat on spot exchange order books.

[seagates]

Bitcoin dont need to scale if we will assume bitcoin as store of value. However, we need much higher TPS if btc will be payment method

[DooMAD]

Bitcoin dont need to scale if we will assume bitcoin as store of value. However, we need much higher TPS if btc will be payment method

That's likely too simplistic an overview.  If BTC couldn't be used as a payment method, would that have a negative impact on the value?  If a 2.5g gold bar could be spent as a currency at your local supermarket, would gold then potentially have a greater value as a commodity?  Until we know the answers to those questions (and we likely never will), then it's potentially wrong to assume that Bitcoin doesn't need to scale to remain a store of value.

[exstasie]

Bitcoin dont need to scale if we will assume bitcoin as store of value. However, we need much higher TPS if btc will be payment method

That's likely too simplistic an overview.  If BTC couldn't be used as a payment method, would that have a negative impact on the value?  If a 2.5g gold bar could be spent as a currency at your local supermarket, would gold then potentially have a greater value as a commodity?  Until we know the answers to those questions (and we likely never will), then it's potentially wrong to assume that Bitcoin doesn't need to scale to remain a store of value.

My take is it's not one or the other, store of value vs. payment method. Any form of money is both, to differing degrees.

Without some minimum level of transaction liquidity (spending and acceptance as payment) Bitcoin can't really have value. Anything that effectively can't be bought or sold (liquidated) is worthless.

Now, what that minimum level is, I really don't know. What I do know is we can't plan for a "network" where no is transacting, and I am very thankful that not every BTC user is a hoarder.

[amishmanish]

This assumption and narrative of Bitcoin being a long-term store of value has never felt cool to me. I understand that the security, cost of ownership and ease of transaction make it a very good candidate similar to Gold. Yet, bitcoin is also supposed to be the mainstay of a decentralized economy. The major hurdles in that path are regulatory as well as the apprehension about exploitation of its pseudonymous nature by maleficent entities. That is the hurdle that the community needs to cross to build confidence about this transaction medium which is decentralized, borderless and allows people to earn a new form of money not being eaten away by inflation.

To get there, scaling,  in terms of transaction speed and capacity is wholly important.

[el kaka22]

The reason why volatility would get lower and lower is the fact that there will be more people buying and selling while there is less to be sold and bought, those are two different things. Just because there is more right now on the market doesn't mean it is bought and sold a lot, liquidity was low just a month ago (now that there is bull it went up again) but as you can see since it has good amount of it on the market it still had low liquidity.

With same reasoning, you can remove millions of bitcoin from the market, but as long as there are 100x more people buying and selling what is left, that means the liquidity will be high and when the liquidity is high big movements like selling 10k bitcoins or buying 100 million dollars worth of bitcoins will not really change the price all that much.

[exstasie]

This assumption and narrative of Bitcoin being a long-term store of value has never felt cool to me. I understand that the security, cost of ownership and ease of transaction make it a very good candidate similar to Gold. Yet, bitcoin is also supposed to be the mainstay of a decentralized economy.

It's not supposed to be anything. Bitcoin is whatever the market (users) says it is. If the market mostly uses it as a speculative gold-like asset, so be it.

I also think the decentralization and store of value narratives go hand in hand. To be a store of value, we need a sustainable mining incentive. That means fee revenue needs to rise over time. The only way to reliably do that is to limit block space. Conveniently, this is also what needs to be done to maintain decentralization of nodes and miners.

[Police Indo]

This assumption and narrative of Bitcoin being a long-term store of value has never felt cool to me. I understand that the security, cost of ownership and ease of transaction make it a very good candidate similar to Gold. Yet, bitcoin is also supposed to be the mainstay of a decentralized economy.

It's not supposed to be anything. Bitcoin is whatever the market (users) says it is. If the market mostly uses it as a speculative gold-like asset, so be it.

I also think the decentralization and store of value narratives go hand in hand. To be a store of value, we need a sustainable mining incentive. That means fee revenue needs to rise over time. The only way to reliably do that is to limit block space. Conveniently, this is also what needs to be done to maintain decentralization of nodes and miners.

full of risk to invest in BTC, only because it is the first coin with a limited  of stock, and the largest transaction volume in cryptocurrency is the consideration of selecting this coin as an asset that is considered valuable. if one day is worthless, then the only thing that is considered to hold it is "as a collection".