Will mainstream users care about the difference?

[bbc.reporter]

Assuming that they can receive and send their money quickly and conveniently with ecash, I speculate that they will never care about the difference between centralized and decentralized.

Would this not hurt bitcoin as a currency? Would this not only encourage bitcoin to be used as a speculative investment? How about mainstream adoption?



The governor of the People’s Bank of China praised recent tests of its national digital currency at the Hong Kong Fintech Week conference on Monday.

As reported by Bloomberg, Yi Gang said the pilot program, which has spanned multiple Chinese cities this year, has proven successful.

Over 4 million transactions totaling more than 2 billion yuan ($299 million) have been conducted using the digital yuan, Yi said.

Financial services in remote areas have been bolstered by new technologies, the governor explained, including microloans and risk management, which plays into how the China is looking to spread the digital currency.

Read in full https://www.coindesk.com/pboc-governor-says-successful-digital-yuan-trials-have-transacted-299m

[Lorence.xD]

If centralized has the verisimilitude features as decentralized currency, it will not make really much of a difference to any average person. But if they were to value their privacy which will surely not be present with the centralized one, I think that will be the deciding  difference. Personally, I would not care that much as long as it is convenient, efficient and low transaction fee.

[Darker45]

Assuming that they can receive and send their money quickly and conveniently with ecash, I speculate that they will never care about the difference between centralized and decentralized.

I share your view. Most people are not critical of how the monetary system works. Other simply don't bother while the rest have so much to think about on a daily basis that they couldn't care less whether the money they are using is centralized or decentralized. Hell, they probably don't even know what decentralized in the realm of money means. I am certain that, at least in my country, 99% of the population don't know the bases on which money is created.

Would this not hurt bitcoin as a currency? Would this not only encourage bitcoin to be used as a speculative investment? How about mainstream adoption?

Bitcoin is already hurt as a currency not only because it has evolved more into a speculative asset over the years but also because of certain factors such as fees and confirmation time. I guess Bitcoin will eventually become a sort of an exclusive currency to those who seriously care about decentralization, financial freedom, and perhaps privacy.

I'm afraid the mainstream adoption that we will see in the future is not that the majority of the people in the world are using Bitcoin but that Bitcoin becomes a widely recognized alternative.

[bbc.reporter]

If centralized has the verisimilitude features as decentralized currency, it will not make really much of a difference to any average person. But if they were to value their privacy which will surely not be present with the centralized one, I think that will be the deciding  difference. Personally, I would not care that much as long as it is convenient, efficient and low transaction fee.

Bitcoin is not private, however.

In any case, that was not the question. I was also speculating that if the government regulators did not charge and imprison people behind centralized coins like Tether, would decentralization matter for our daily digital transactions?

[maydna]

I agree with @bbc.reporter said that they would never care about the difference between centralized and decentralized. It happens to people who use digital money on their mobile phones from third-party apps. Once people feel that what they use can give them comfortable, they will not try to ask why they need to verify their account.

But I still believe that bitcoin can be mainstream if people hear the sound of bitcoin in many places, and they will try to use bitcoin, even for just the investment side and not use for payment systems.

I just wonder when the mainstream adoption will happen globally, especially the bank sounding the contactless banking, and they suggest people use cashless for the transaction.

But perhaps, bitcoin can be used for internet transactions and online investment as we know that the internet grows fast than a few years ago. So that can make people use bitcoin as an investment only.

[FinneysTrueVision]

Centralized systems don't have scaling issues which makes them more convenient for the average person to use. They will not immediately care about decentralization, censorship resistance, or having a store of value until traditional financial systems fail them in some way or another.

[hatshepsut93]

Assuming that they can receive and send their money quickly and conveniently with ecash, I speculate that they will never care about the difference between centralized and decentralized.

Would this not hurt bitcoin as a currency? Would this not only encourage bitcoin to be used as a speculative investment? How about mainstream adoption?

People already could spend money quickly and conveniently, central bank coins bring nothing new to the table. The biggest revolution of the recent years was Google Pay, it freed people from the need of carrying their payment cards, risk losing them or forgetting them at home, managing multiple cards, etc. If consumers can already pay instantly with their smartphones, why should they switch to a new method that offers the same, but is not widely adopted?

Central bank coins need to become big enough to be viewed as serious competitors of Bitcoin, until it actually happens it's to early to worry about them.

[pooya87]

Assuming that they can receive and send their money quickly and conveniently with ecash, I speculate that they will never care about the difference between centralized and decentralized.

why speculate when you can look at reality?
if it didn't matter to people then trillions of dollars wouldn't have been transferred between customers and merchants using bitcoin so far.
of course not everyone understands the benefits of a decentralized censorship resistant currency, but we are not talking about every single person. most people do care about it.

[mk4]

Assuming that they can receive and send their money quickly and conveniently with ecash, I speculate that they will never care about the difference between centralized and decentralized.

Would this not hurt bitcoin as a currency? Would this not only encourage bitcoin to be used as a speculative investment? How about mainstream adoption?

True. But isn't it how it is already? Not sure how this ecash think would hurt bitcoin as it's already the case that a lot of people don't care about bitcoin and prefer using PayPal/online banking/etc because they don't care(and might not even know the difference) between centralized and decentralized.

[Lorence.xD]

Bitcoin is not private, however.

In any case, that was not the question. I was also speculating that if the government regulators did not charge and imprison people behind centralized coins like Tether, would decentralization matter for our daily digital transactions?

In my country, most people prefer ecash kinds of apps for their daily transaction, I guess in the case of my country, the decentralization did not matter at all. It is testimonial though so it might not hold a weight when a proper study is conducted.

[witcher_sense]

Even here, on bitcointalk forum, most people consider bitcoin just a speculative investment. What they do is consistently speculate on decentralized currency to get profit in centralized. This is the reason they praise PayPal and its pseudoadoption of bitcoin, it allows them to speculate without even touching cryptocurrency. Of course, banks and states encourage such behavior and aren't going to educate people on how to escape the trap. Will mainstream users care about the difference? I'd say they will not know the difference, they will not be allowed to ever find it out.

[avikz]

My answer is no! Mainstream users will look for convenience  and nothing else! They don't care about the centralized and decentralized and look for convenience and less fees! Personally in my country, the government has developed a technology called UPI and now even street vendors are using mobile wallet. If someday I leave my wallet at home, I can still pay for whatever I need and even withdraw money from ATM - all without any fees! Definitely it has a daily spending limit, but that spending limit is too high for a common human.

So unless I want to do some shady deals that involves black money, there is no good reason for using bitcoin. Apologies for this harsh word! Bitcoin seems good for investment but not for daily expenses!

[mk4]

So unless I want to do some shady deals that involves black money, there is no good reason for using bitcoin. Apologies for this harsh word! Bitcoin seems good for investment but not for daily expenses!

I get what you're saying, but It's really not as bad as you think it is. I've been using my bitcoin since 2016 to pay for legitimate online services; just because I really dislike PayPal and I'd like to not use their platform as much as possible due to privacy reasons(same with using credit/debit cards).

Also, there's something about knowing that you actually have 100% control over your money. PayPal can lock up my funds, same with my bank, but with bitcoin? Nope. Self-sovereignty is something I don't want to get rid of.

[davis196]

We should welcome any form of competition(even the CBDCs),because with more competition comes improvement.
Having more competition will put some pressure over the Bitcoin Core developers to improve Bitcoin Core and make it even more user-friendly than before.
Mainstream users care only about convenience,not about privacy or decentralization.The majority of them will stick with debit/credit cards.We should raise awareness about the benefits of Bitcoin and try to educate more mainstream users.This is the only thing we could do.

[btcsmlcmnr]

People have demand on something fast, cheap and convenient.

They don't care much about centralization or decentralization. They don't care about risk of hacks if they store money on exchanges. They don't care about 51% attacks (altcoins have faster transaction speed than bitcoin but risk of attacks like Ethereum Classic is higher).

About the cryptocurrency or digitalized currency back by fiat and governments (centralized), I think they don't care of its centraliztion. What most of people care of is profits. Where they can get profit they will go with it. Most of them join crypto market as consequence of opportunities it brings to get profit.

https://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-classic-blockchain-subject-to-yet-another-51-attack

[pooya87]

They don't care much about centralization or decentralization. They don't care about risk of hacks if they store money on exchanges. They don't care about 51% attacks (altcoins have faster transaction speed than bitcoin but risk of attacks like Ethereum Classic is higher).

that's true but i wouldn't say it is "most people" because it really isn't specially in the long run. there are times like 2017 when there is a lot of bitcoin price rise and a ton of shitcoin pumps that attracts a large number of this type of people who care about profit making but the market purges itself as soon as the shitcoin dumping season started and bitcoin bubble burst. the remaining people are those who care about the decentralization and security and never touch shitcoins such as ethereum.

[molsewid]

Assuming that they can receive and send their money quickly and conveniently with ecash, I speculate that they will never care about the difference between centralized and decentralized.

Would this not hurt bitcoin as a currency? Would this not only encourage bitcoin to be used as a speculative investment? How about mainstream adoption?

Most people in my country that I know don't care about the difference between centralized and decentralized as long as their payment mode is quick and reliable.

Bitcoin has a lot of difference in e-cash, and I think this wouldn't hurt bitcoin. People still adopt it because they will see many opportunities to earn, not like e-cash that only use for transactions only.

[daarul50]

Assuming that they can receive and send their money quickly and conveniently with ecash, I speculate that they will never care about the difference between centralized and decentralized.

Would this not hurt bitcoin as a currency? Would this not only encourage bitcoin to be used as a speculative investment? How about mainstream adoption?

Most people in my country that I know don't care about the difference between centralized and decentralized as long as their payment mode is quick and reliable.

Bitcoin has a lot of difference in e-cash, and I think this wouldn't hurt bitcoin. People still adopt it because they will see many opportunities to earn, not like e-cash that only use for transactions only.

For now we are all agree that everybody in mainstream world has no awarness about the urgency of decentralized finance.
But as time goes by i think there is a hugr chance people will do aware about that, the needs of decentralized finance will reach the climax at some point and that is the moment they realized that the centralized finance must be leave away.
I dont know when it is. But the time will surely come.

[witcher_sense]

What most of people care of is profits. Where they can get profit they will go with it. Most of them join crypto market as consequence of opportunities it brings to get profit.

The problem here is that mainstream people fail to understand that in order to get desirable profit, they don't necessarily have to choose between centralized and decentralized ways of obtaining it.

The former way implies profits in centralized, inflationary currency. This way for those who have a high time preference. They prefer to consume and not to save and are used to instant gratification. Centralized currency is perfect for them because it rewards them for impatience.

The latter way implies profits in decentralized deflationary currency - bitcoin. Where profits mean a slow increase in bitcoin's purchasing power. This way for those who have a low time preference. They prefer to save their wealth and postpone consumption and can easily delay their gratification. These people are hodlers of bitcoin. They get rewarded for patience.

So, in order to get profits, you don't have to choose between two types of currency, you should decide what is more important for you: your present or your future.

[GreatArkansas]

Assuming that they can receive and send their money quickly and conveniently with ecash, I speculate that they will never care about the difference between centralized and decentralized.

Would this not hurt bitcoin as a currency? Would this not only encourage bitcoin to be used as a speculative investment? How about mainstream adoption?

Most people in my country that I know don't care about the difference between centralized and decentralized as long as their payment mode is quick and reliable.
(...)

For me, Bitcoin will stay. I also wonder why people only care for profits is also because they are thinking or treating Bitcoin as a store of value just like gold or silver, which it is really profitable (as long as they bought on low and sell at high).
I can consider these centralized currencies or cryptocurrency are just altcoins, alternatives of Bitcoin.