Global adoption — A ridiculous term

[BlackHatCoiner]

If you search for it, you'll realize that there isn't a standard definition for the “global adoption”. Bitcoiners tend to use it in their sentences as a way to describe Bitcoin's adoption by everyone on every part of the planet, hence “global”.

The same people who believe in the so-called “global adoption” are the ones that see Bitcoin as a currency and believe in its “noble principles”. While I do get their enthusiasm, I think this is very much missing the point. Sad truth, but Bitcoin can't have a global adoption same like computers or internet had decades ago and I state this from an economic aspect. You should just think about it. The more users this thing has, the more the speculation. Not sure why it's being passed from forum members, but it does look like a pyramid scheme with utilities to me. Early adopters/investors get the chance to be included in the peak of the pyramid and earn more long-term. Overtime, I don't believe that it'll remain steady, it will probably reach millions of dollars.

What I want to mean in this topic is that the problem doesn't come from the fact that the majority sees it as an investment. The issue becomes clear if you notice its hierarchical structure. I'll quote myself to prevent re-writing a childish example:

(In the system below, 100 fresh bitcoins are brought into circulation every day.)

Let's assume that once upon a time, on an island, there were 100 people with 100 mushrooms in total and each one of them had 10 bitcoins, willing to use it as a currency. This means that each mushroom costs 10 BTC since there are 1000 BTC in total. But, hey, the next day, there are 1000 newcomers bringing 1000 mushrooms and they are also willing to use Bitcoin as a currency. But, unfortunately, there are only 1100 bitcoins in circulation which means that each mushroom now costs 1.1 BTC. Same thing would happen if that little community gained 10,000 new mushroom-farmers the next day. Every mushroom would cost 0.12 BTC.

It is justified for a Bitcoiner to want global adoption; he's becoming richer. But, it's tiring seeing it repeatedly represented as the solution to the modern financial system. It surely satisfies a lot, don't get me wrong. I personally believe that if you want to buy something from other side of the planet, Bitcoin is your greatest option. There are many other reasons why you should use Bitcoin concerning privacy and third party prevention, but please, global adoption believers. Stop displaying it as the world's deliverer, because absently, you're doing this to increase your future wealth.

That's why I call it ridiculous.

[1714866613]

1714866613

[1714866613]

1714866613

[1714866613]

1714866613

[1714866613]

1714866613

[NeuroticFish]

It surely satisfies a lot, don't get me wrong. I personally believe that if you want to buy something from other side of the planet, Bitcoin is your greatest option.

You're right about the wealth, although I would not expect all those who preach "global adoption" actually own significant amount of satoshi.
But the part I've quoted is imho something that shows a problem in your logic: if we want Bitcoin be the "greatest option" for buying "something from other side of the planet", we kinda need global adoption. I can tell that without much wider adoption than now you won't be able to buy much from my side of the planet, amongst many other places 

[CryptocurencyKing]

I have a view to this effect that is somehow on the contrary. Its not about the accumulation of wealth as early starters though, this would result eventually but, its about the idea that makes bitcoin more suitable fir the term which you have named this thread "Global Adoption". Its more like a wish, a wish that we hope would come true someday if we continue to persevere.

Sometime ago, I heard there were talks of the whole of Europe using one European currency. Fiat has had attempts of coming up with something that unites all currencies as one but then, it is an idea hindered by boundaries and this would mean the death to one side of the market which is the foreign exchange #Forex. Which won't be appreciated by the government of any nation.

These are a few issues with the fiat that bitcoin has come to solve. First, its got no boundaries, don't have a finite form, its rate is determined by presiding market condition and it remains the same everywhere. These are a few reasons why it feels appropriate and not about the wealth.

[kaggie]

Let's assume that once upon a time, on an island, there were 100 people with 100 mushrooms in total and each one of them had 10 bitcoins, willing to use it as a currency. This means that each mushroom costs 10 BTC since there are 1000 BTC in total. But, hey, the next day, there are 1000 newcomers bringing 1000 mushrooms and they are also willing to use Bitcoin as a currency. But, unfortunately, there are only 1100 bitcoins in circulation which means that each mushroom now costs 1.1 BTC. Same thing would happen if that little community gained 10,000 new mushroom-farmers the next day. Every mushroom would cost 0.12 BTC.

Hierarchical structures don't stop global adoption of anything. There are 2,000ish billionaires in a world of 7,000,000,000 people. And this number is only getting more hierarchical thanks to the benefits that early adopters of pre-inflated cash get as cash gets inflated.

If anything, bitcoin has a better chance than other crypto with more concentrated distributions to become 'globally adopted'.

Bitcoin rises because of speculation, but the more speculation there is, the harder speculation becomes. It takes increasing amounts of cash to change its speculation. Speculation tends to stabilise, as people cash out when they have reached their 'moon' as you put it with your example. The person who was early eventually loses power in such a system after the system stablises at some value, because they can only cash out.

In your example, there are a limited number of people who can come to the island with their mushrooms, which should be devalued with infinite mushrooms using any currency anyways. That is supply and demand economics.

[Hydrogen]

If you search for it, you'll realize that there isn't a standard definition for the “global adoption”.

The basic theory behind bitcoin mass adoption goes something like this.

Each bitcoin carries 8 decimal places. 1 bitcoin is 1.00000000. This format defines bitcoin's potential for future growth. As the value of bitcoin increases, transactions will move further to the right of the decimal point.

Fundamentals of supply and demand suggest demand can be measured by the total number of end users an application has. If demand is a factor of user base size. Demand could be expected to grow steadily on a path to global mass adoption. Which would in turn inflate bitcoin's price.

Effects of increased investment and speculation are not clearly defined. There is a potential for elevated volatility. And a potential for increased speculation having a balancing and stabilizing effect.

What bitcoin HODL mass adopters are most concerned with is bitcoin's price rising due to an increase in demand. Caused by growth of its user base.

[mk4]

When people say they want "global adoption", I assume they just mean that they basically just want people worldwide to use it. Adoption is a spectrum, so I'm really not sure if most people literally meant "everyone".

As for people wanting global adoption solely to pump their bags, I mean sure these people exist; as with any other investment! But there are also people out there who are genuinely passionate about sound money and sovereignty as well! And probably some people who are motivated by both. I don't think it's far to categorize 100% of the Bitcoiners into the "I'm only in it for the money" category.

Anyway, +1 for unpopular opinion. Brave.

[electronicash]

adoption i guess has some sort of a degree. somehow today Bitcoin reaches the mainstream media already. but it may really not be adopted by everyone. its the blockchain i guess that will be adopted. the last update I've read was that the stock market will soon be tokenized, a kinda migration.

it's gradual just like the internet. back in 1998 i use to just go out and rent on a computer cafe to access my email and send email to my uncle. now i can just tap my phone. the phones are everywhere today, some don't know how to use computers but they easily can use phones.




image source. https://www.finyear.com/Is-Cryptocurrency-the-Future-of-Money_a41914.html

[verita1]

I remember spending the sats that I earned each week. I looked at it that it was fine from the nature of why bitcoin was created. All I had to do was ask the owner of the supermarket to allow me to pay for my groceries with bitcoin. I tried several times but my attempts were unsuccessful because the supermarket owner had no idea how bitcoin could work for him.
As bitcoin gained more popularity last year, I stopped spending it and decided to save it for the future of my underage nephew and niece.

Why call global adoption ridiculous? If bitcoin can be available to everyone, I say it in perspective focusing from a small investor to the largest investors, the return on investment will be fair.

My investment will be among the group of small investors, of course I would be making more money than if I saved it in any bank in my country.

[Obito]

They're thinking of the scale of the adoption, how big it should be or something like that. What do you propose to name it? Also your claim of reduction in purchasing power of bitcoin for mushroom doesn't work that way I think, if that was the case then the value of bitcoin will probably go up because it has to be divided equally among the economy to keep a steady circulation.

[pooya87]

If you search for it, you'll realize that there isn't a standard definition for the “global adoption”. Bitcoiners tend to use it in their sentences as a way to describe Bitcoin's adoption by everyone on every part of the planet, hence “global”.

You are overthinking everything these days.
Reaching "global adoption" which I prefer calling "mass adoption" simply means at least some people from any part of the world have adopted bitcoin. Not just in one country or a handful of countries like the developed countries while the rest remain unaware of bitcoin.

Sad truth, but Bitcoin can't have a global adoption same like computers or internet had decades ago and I state this from an economic aspect.

Both have "global adoption" just at different levels depending on the location. For example you can find computers and internet in Africa the same way you can find it in America.

The more users this thing has, the more the speculation.

Actually the more users means more stability because if we get more speculators who do day trading the market gets more packed and the order books aren't so thin so that one or two whales could dump into to crash the price that easily. The effects of both manipulation and panic sells decrease.

Early adopters/investors get the chance to be included in the peak of the pyramid and earn more long-term.

You don't "earn" anything by being early. You just increase your purchasing power as the deflationary currency you own gains more value.

~ that the majority sees it as an investment.

You can't claim to know what the majority sees and your reference can't be the vocal people on the internet who keep posting about price and bitcoin as an investment. For all you know the "majority" who see bitcoin as a currency don't like screaming about it on the internet.

(In the system below, 100 fresh bitcoins are brought into circulation every day.)

Let's assume that once upon a time, on an island, there were 100 people with 100 mushrooms in total and each one of them had 10 bitcoins, willing to use it as a currency. This means that each mushroom costs 10 BTC since there are 1000 BTC in total. But, hey, the next day, there are 1000 newcomers bringing 1000 mushrooms and they are also willing to use Bitcoin as a currency. But, unfortunately, there are only 1100 bitcoins in circulation which means that each mushroom now costs 1.1 BTC. Same thing would happen if that little community gained 10,000 new mushroom-farmers the next day. Every mushroom would cost 0.12 BTC.

Well in real world (after reaching mass adoption) the equilibrium doesn't just break that easily, specially not by 1000%. The new adopters coming in or new coins being created won't be enough to disrupt it.

[uneng]

For early adopters, to increase their wealth through bitcoin is just a consequence of all the benefits the digital currency brings to us. Like you said, bitcoin is great to transact worldwide between two individuals from very distant countries, it's a powerful tool to escape failed national currencies constant devaluation, it's a bridge between your money and investments which wouldn't be disponible through traditional currencies for the average joe.
And for me the greatest advantage of bitcoin is the accessibility it guarantees to its adopters. With bitcoin I can work online and be directly paid without bureaucratic third party platforms asking for documents and taking a lot of time to accept it or freezing funds for nothing. Bitcoin has its advantages and I really would like to see global adoption, so other people could also enjoy these opportunities. Moreover, coins need to be spread among more hands to make decentralization works more efficiently.

[iamsheikhadil]

I get what you are trying to imply, the way Bitcoin is presented as a solution for all global financial problems is really ridiculous and so complicated and obviously the investors see their own selfish profits afterall. But the thing is, can there be such a inequality of goods? Like in your example, can there be 100 mushrooms and then 10000 mushrooms imported? Will the people who will bring mushrooms with them won't also bring much btc with them? Also, there are lots of other factors that will prevent Bitcoin or any form of crypto to be used as default global payment anyways!

[o_e_l_e_o]

The issue becomes clear if you notice its hierarchical structure. I'll quote myself to prevent re-writing a childish example:

And yet, if everyone in the world who owns bitcoin was only interested in holding it in their own wallet because it might be worth more in the future, and never spent it, sold it, traded it, gambled it, used it, transacted with it, etc., then it would be worth nothing.

Bitcoin is a currency first and foremost. Global adoption is not going to achieved due to global speculation as you focus on; it will be achieved due to global use. In places like Venezuela where they are experiencing hyperinflation of their fiat currency, bitcoin is already vital tool and currency for the average person not just to protect their wealth, but to be able to survive.

Each bitcoin carries 8 decimal places. 1 bitcoin is 1.00000000. This format defines bitcoin's potential for future growth. As the value of bitcoin increases, transactions will move further to the right of the decimal point.

This is not a hard limit. More decimal places can be introduced if required, and Lightning already works with 11 decimal places with the smallest unit being the milli-satoshi.

[kryptqnick]

I agree that there are big problems with defining global adoption, so we should always try to specify what we mean before providing opinions. If global adoption is about Bitcoin being available and having users around the world, then we already reached global adoption. If we mean that global adoption is when you have options to spend your Bitcoin on various goods and services, we're also already there. If, however, we're talking about a significant amount of people (out of the world population) using Bitcoin, we're nowhere near global adoption as it's used by 2% of the population at best.
Meanwhile, I disagree that Bitcoin cannot be adopted as much as computers or the Internet because not enough time has passed to make such statements. Speculation doesn't mean impossibility of adoption. Your example with the mushrooms shows that it's possible to divide Bitcoins over more people, IMO, so adoption can happen. Some will easily sell their holdings when the price feels right for them.

[dkbit98]

If you search for it, you'll realize that there isn't a standard definition for the “global adoption”. Bitcoiners tend to use it in their sentences as a way to describe Bitcoin's adoption by everyone on every part of the planet, hence “global”.

Listen, dollar is not used globally by all people, but it is, or at least it was recognized as asset for global trading and online payment, even if everyone knows it is backed by nothing and has unlimited supply but it had global adoption.
Gold is also adopted globally and many people are wearing gold on their bodies as yewerely yet almost nobody today is using gold purchasing any items.
Global adoption for bitcoin does not mean that every human being on planet will use Bitcoin all the time, but it can be used as backup asset, for trading between countries and for larger transfers all around the world.
If we are talking about using Bitcoin for everyday small purchases than that is only possible with some second layer solution, but I really don't consider this to be a global adoption of Bitcoin.

And yet, if everyone in the world who owns bitcoin was only interested in holding it in their own wallet because it might be worth more in the future, and never spent it, sold it, traded it, gambled it, used it, transacted with it, etc., then it would be worth nothing.

Bunch of people own gold, they don't trade with it or do anything, most of it is stored in some boxes collecting dust, yet I don't see gold doing bad comparing with fiat.

This is not a hard limit. More decimal places can be introduced if required, and Lightning already works with 11 decimal places with the smallest unit being the milli-satoshi.

True, but can you really spend single satoshi or milli.satoshi onchain?
I can imagine this will be even harder in future.

[20kevin20]

I think you get this wrong, at least for my own definition of global adoption. But I think global adoption itself is like impossible without accepting the fact that a lot of corps will use Bitcoin to their own advantage, making "decentralization" and "freedom" useless for the users accessing their platforms. For example, global adoption imo means PayPal's acceptance too. But PayPal's acceptance means I, as their user, have to hold my money in a custodial account.

That defeats Bitcoin's purpose of being a free currency if I use it incorrectly. Yes, I know: you can still use BTC freely even if you have those platforms existing, and even if your gov bans Bitcoin. They can't stop it, they can just move it to the underground markets. But still, by using it incorrectly, we're defeating its true purpose!

For me, global adoption is not only about the money. I don't care how much a Bitcoin will be as much as I care about it continuing to be a free, decentralized, globally-accepted payment system. I'd lie however if I said I don't care about making money.. The thing is, if you take Apple stocks as an example, some people who've joined them in early saw a future in Apple's existence. Whoever of the early investors who is still holding their stocks today is rich - does that make it a pyramid scheme? It doesn't! The early birds are at the highest profit, while we've seen Apple's success too late. I think this is perfectly natural and fair and we still are early birds ourselves even today. You cannot create a system that is 100% fair, and this is the fairest way of wealth distribution we can have imo. Without the very early birds, we couldn't have reached today's price. What if nobody ever really had an interest in Bitcoin? Why wouldn't the earlier ones deserve more money since they're part of the ones who made Bitcoin what it is today?

About those people repeatedly talking about global adoption - the idea itself isn't bad at all, but you have to remember that people will always care about their own wallets first before the rest. These guys will promote and advertise whatever thing they get into, hoping for their message to go across the world and somehow magically make their investment pump. Humans are greedy, and you can't change that.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Bunch of people own gold, they don't trade with it or do anything, most of it is stored in some boxes collecting dust, yet I don't see gold doing bad comparing with fiat.

But even if every person in the world decided they didn't want gold anymore, there would still be a demand for gold for microchips, circuits, machinery, chemistry, jewellery, etc. If every person in the world decided they didn't want bitcoin anymore, then bitcoin would have no purpose. Bitcoin's purpose is to a be a currency, and the constant price rise in terms of fiat is exactly because you can use it to buy goods and services.

True, but can you really spend single satoshi or milli.satoshi onchain?
I can imagine this will be even harder in future.

At the moment obviously not, but should we ever reach the "global adoption" phase of bitcoin being the primary currency of a significant proportion of the global population, then I will imagine we will have forked to add several more decimal places long before then. We can't have the dust limit being 294 sats being the smallest you can send when 294 sats is equivalent to >$10.

[BITCOIN4X]

When people say they want "global adoption", I assume they just mean that they basically just want people worldwide to use it. Adoption is a spectrum, so I'm really not sure if most people literally meant "everyone".

You're probably right about what people mean in term of adoption. But at the same time they ignore the interest of government who want bitcoin to gain tight control so it is clear that global adoption will be very difficult. Maybe the current use of the word "global" is not appropriate because the government doesn't want it, but it is still possible for us to enjoy mass adoption as adoption increases day by day.

Despite all that, it is possible that global adoption is being used by some for their long-term investment interest. While we still have countries that are less friendly with bitcoin as a mean of payment.

[BlackHatCoiner]

if we want Bitcoin be the "greatest option" for buying "something from other side of the planet", we kinda need global adoption.

It really depends in the services/products you're buying. I was referring to trusted internet services. The term “irreversible” is being brought to the community as something good, and it is, indeed, in a way. You transactions are resistant, but is the third party really unneeded on a purchase? If, let's say, someone wants to rip me off, shouldn't I have a third party to protect me somehow? What about the taxes? Payees could avoid paying the same taxes they were paying when they used a payment method that required a financial institution.

These are the first thoughts that come to my mind, if Bitcoin was globally adopted as a currency.

It takes increasing amounts of cash to change its speculation. Speculation tends to stabilise, as people cash out when they have reached their 'moon' as you put it with your example.

But, the adoption isn't increasing. As you said, there are people that cash out. They buy bitcoins to gain profit. They may agree with Bitcoin's philosophy, but they're in just for their fiat gains.

How can you characterize the speculation steadier when a guy makes a tweet and the price goes 5% down?

In your example, there are a limited number of people who can come to the island with their mushrooms, which should be devalued with infinite mushrooms using any currency anyways. That is supply and demand economics.

Yes, but on a healthily operating state, the currency would be inflated analogously to remain the mushrooms' price same. But, on Bitcoin, everything's fixed.

I don't think it's far to categorize 100% of the Bitcoiners into the "I'm only in it for the money" category.

I might wasn't clear enough. I was referring just to the global adoption believers, not to all the Bitcoiners.

You are overthinking everything these days.

I'm a confirmed “overthinker”. 

You don't "earn" anything by being early. You just increase your purchasing power as the deflationary currency you own gains more value.

So you do earn; value. And besides that, by being early you get the chance to mine more bitcoins than the ones a decade later.

You can't claim to know what the majority sees and your reference can't be the vocal people on the internet who keep posting about price and bitcoin as an investment. For all you know the "majority" who see bitcoin as a currency don't like screaming about it on the internet.

I don't claim, no one knows for sure, but I can make my own assumptions. Although, I have to tell you that if you believe in the depths of Bitcoin as a currency, you should wish that the speculators are more than the users. If these fluctuations happened and the investors were the minority, imagine how fluctuating it'd be oppositely.

And yet, if everyone in the world who owns bitcoin was only interested in holding it in their own wallet because it might be worth more in the future, and never spent it, sold it, traded it, gambled it, used it, transacted with it, etc., then it would be worth nothing.

The key word here is “if”. The holders rely on the global adoption and despite that, we've already said that it's useful. I may hold an amount of BTC, but it satisfies me for oversea transactions.

[o_e_l_e_o]

You transactions are resistant, but is the third party really unneeded on a purchase?

I will always prefer to trade without a third party who is spying on my transactions, adding that information to a variety of databases, and selling it to any number of third parties.

If, let's say, someone wants to rip me off, shouldn't I have a third party to protect me somehow?

Most of the time you perform a credit card charge back, the credit card company refund you from their own funds and then pursue the seller to try to recover their losses. If the seller is bankrupt, was fake/anonymous, in another country, manages to evade them, etc., then they never recover that money. There is no reason that if bitcoin was adopted globally that some companies offering "buyer's insurance" or something similar wouldn't pop up.

And besides that, by being early you get the chance to mine more bitcoins than the ones a decade later.

Everyone on this forum had the exact same opportunity to mine bitcoin in the early days. Just because some did and most did not does not make it a pyramid scheme.

The holders rely on the global adoption and despite that, we've already said that it's useful.

Yes, that's my point. Without a use case it is worthless. There is nothing wrong with wanting to hold bitcoin as a long term hedge against failing fiat currencies, but if you want it to outperform fiat then it needs to have a use case as a currency.

[buwaytress]

Just one of scores of ridiculous terms used in practically every manifesto and "white paper" since Bitcoin. Pretty certain most people using them know the ridiculousness of them.

Mass adoption. Global adoption. Decentralization. Critical mass. Internet of value. Disruptive tech. Democratized money. Sovereign finance.

The shit remarkably devoid from the 9 pages actually describing Bitcoin.

[Sterbens]

Global adoption is just a term that comes out of its users. I prefer to call it ambition to fulfill satisfaction and display the wealth of Bitcoin.
fulfillment of commercial needs and it only gives a high desire value for the social status that he wants to be considered as a rich person.
Bitcoin has been a means of multiplying finances from one decade to another. but in the end if it continues, then gradually Bitcoin is just like a stopover and will be abandoned forever.
On the other hand, we don't think so, because our ambition is not just to fulfill our needs. we still want Bitcoin to exist as a function of paper money. and make it a global transaction tool.

[teosanru]

An excellent point and very well written. Global Adoption can be from two standpoints, one is regulatory adoption that all countries or at least most of the countries decide to use cryptos as the only legal tender and they decide to forgo their traditional fiats, this option seems unlikely as no country would want to lose power by themselves, a few friendly countries might do it but no way the big guns are going to scrap their own fiats, but yes they might allow cryptos to coexist which too to me looks unlikely.

The second meaning of global adoption is from a personal perspective. Basically, every person on Earth or at least most of them thinks of Bitcoin as a valuable thing something like Gold. Not talking about its investment value but if tomorrow there is an apocalypse, chances are only people holding gold would be able to buy anything. Bitcoin has to reach up to this level, which too seems unlikely at least in the next 30-40 years.

But the catch now is what I have written in a lot of posts before too. That if everyone starts considering bitcoin merely as a store of value and something to Invest, it will lose the utility it was made for which means it's value is a hoax, whereas if a person starts to spend their bitcoin the price cannot go up for an infinite time It eventually will plateau at a point.

[famososMuertos]

Well, you're trying to cross the street and you think it's the right thing to do because you just need to get to the other side.

That is, you will have your reasons for crossing, no one criticizes them but not everyone can follow you, at least not everyone. And those who stay don't have to be fools, maybe those fools are watching fools cross.

Making it clear from the above that there are no absolute points of view as to what adoption is, I can tell you and I have mentioned it before, adoption is coming late for ordinary people, but because of their ignorance or their little ability to access goods / assets that by culture they do not manage at their disposal but do so by imposition.

The above is just a part of what adoption really means, we must add the judicial, governmental, etc. and perhaps the most difficult the ideological level.

Now the reality of the large bitcoin holders cannot be covered with a finger, but the same happens with the Fiat or to give it a name the $ for example.

With bitcoin if you want to have more depends on you, with the $ that there are many millionaires has never implied that new ones arise, in fact, of the list of the 500 richest in the United States at least half started with a minimum capital.

[o_e_l_e_o]

one is regulatory adoption that all countries or at least most of the countries decide to use cryptos as the only legal tender and they decide to forgo their traditional fiats, this option seems unlikely as no country would want to lose power by themselves

Funny you should mention that, with the news coming out a few hours ago of El Salvador being the first country in the world to propose to recognize bitcoin as legal tender. I agree very few countries, if any, will give up their fiat monetary system, but that's not to say bitcoin cannot also be accepted as legal tender in all these countries, especially given that bitcoin is already being accepted by traders and merchants in these countries.

Not talking about its investment value but if tomorrow there is an apocalypse, chances are only people holding gold would be able to buy anything.

No chance. In an apocalyptic event such as a meteor strike, nuclear war, massive solar flare, etc., then all monetary systems will be worthless. People will barter for food, clean water, shelter, medicines, fuel, and weapons primarily. Fiat, bitcoin, precious metals, etc., will all be equally worthless.

[lixer]

What I want to mean in this topic is that the problem doesn't come from the fact that the majority sees it as an investment. The issue becomes clear if you notice its hierarchical structure. I'll quote myself to prevent re-writing a childish example:

Yup, no doubts I do have the same thoughts as you, and I feel that it is not going to be completely adopted by everyone. We are still have going to have the conventional currencies, the USD, Euro, Pounds and the rest of them are going to be there as the base currency we use. Then we will also have bitcoin, which will be widely adopted for sure. There are going to be more stores in future that will be accepting bitcoin more than they have now. So that’s a plus, but it’s not going to be the only thing we will have. And there are even going to be lots of altcoins that will come out by then that will be really good enough.

[sapnu]

It might be considered ridiculous not only because it is not yet possible but also because it is almost trying to remove the essence of bitcoin. Privacy and decentralization of the coin might get removed or disregarded as the global adoption takes place. Indeed some may benefit but generally, all of us will suffer if ever that happens. Maybe we could not stop it someday as technology continues to improve but still for now, let us stop pushing it through as the solution the world needs. There are still a lot of ways for the world to keep on surviving without asking for the help of a digital currency.

[Ozero]

one is regulatory adoption that all countries or at least most of the countries decide to use cryptos as the only legal tender and they decide to forgo their traditional fiats, this option seems unlikely as no country would want to lose power by themselves

Funny you should mention that, with the news coming out a few hours ago of El Salvador being the first country in the world to propose to recognize bitcoin as legal tender. I agree very few countries, if any, will give up their fiat monetary system, but that's not to say bitcoin cannot also be accepted as legal tender in all these countries, especially given that bitcoin is already being accepted by traders and merchants in these countries.

Not talking about its investment value but if tomorrow there is an apocalypse, chances are only people holding gold would be able to buy anything.

No chance. In an apocalyptic event such as a meteor strike, nuclear war, massive solar flare, etc., then all monetary systems will be worthless. People will barter for food, clean water, shelter, medicines, fuel, and weapons primarily. Fiat, bitcoin, precious metals, etc., will all be equally worthless.

It is unlikely that we will ever wait for the global adoption of cryptocurrency by states and their bodies. Most likely, a decentralized cryptocurrency will be the lot of ordinary people and partly of business structures. Governments will use their central bank stablecoins instead of cryptocurrencies.
El Salvador does not have its own currency. The dollar is used there as money. Therefore, they can use Bitcoin without any problems. However, almost all full-fledged states have their own currency and they will never give up on it. At the same time, cryptocurrency may well walk in society along with the currency of states.

[dkbit98]

It is unlikely that we will ever wait for the global adoption of cryptocurrency by states and their bodies.

You can see what happened with El Salvador could happen with many more countries around the world, and there is nothing ridiculous about that adoption, but Bitcoin is all about separation of money from state.
Why not having more than one currency in country and you let the citizens decide what they want to use legaly, not charging them ridiculously high taxes like now.
Let's see what country will accept Bitcoin as legal tender next and then we can talk more about global adoption.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Why not having more than one currency in country and you let the citizens decide what they want to use legaly, not charging them ridiculously high taxes like now.

Because they cannot control it. It's that simple. Are you sure that every other country will behave same like El Salvador did?

I hope they all adopt it and maximize this global adoption, because I have bitcoins.

Let's see what country will accept Bitcoin as legal tender next and then we can talk more about global adoption.

There's a difference between adopting Bitcoin and legalizing it. Yes, you can make it legal to use Bitcoin, but will there be places to use it, you know like... locally? It could surely provide a great way to purchase from the other side of the Earth, but locally, it'd be better to use your nation currency. It's faster, it costs less to make a transaction, you don't have to dedicate some hundreds of hours understanding how it works and it'd be better for you to spend it now, rather than keep it.

[pooya87]

I don't claim, no one knows for sure, but I can make my own assumptions. Although, I have to tell you that if you believe in the depths of Bitcoin as a currency, you should wish that the speculators are more than the users. If these fluctuations happened and the investors were the minority, imagine how fluctuating it'd be oppositely.

I actually think that people in both groups (people who see bitcoin as a currency vs those seeing it as an investment) are growing at all times but the ratio differs based on when in the 4-year cycle we are in.
If we consider the cycle to start from the bubble burst, first year is the big drop and a long bear market, second year is accumulation and small rises, third year is bigger rises and build up of momentum, and forth year is the massive rises and the eventual bubble.
In year 1 and 4 we have more speculators due to the high volatility but in year 2 and 3 due to most stability (less profit to be made by traders) we have the least number of speculators and more "believers".

[AicecreaME]

Global adoption is the common term used by the users not because it will be literally used by everyone, but because it will be available to the most part of the world. Global adoption has its pros and cons. Bitcoin's adoption would lead to bigger community that will benefit most users because there will be more investors pumping the market. On the other hand, this may also cause to a situation wherein the government would try their chance to regulate it.

Personally, I want bitcoin to be mass adopted so that many people can be aware and benefit. You see, bitcoin has so many features that central banks don't have such as having decentralize nature, anonymity, high security, and so on. In addition, it is a good investment vehicle and a medium of exchange as well. I want other people to experience what I enjoy, but of course, only if they want to.

Regarding the issue about those people pushing global adoption for additional wealth, I just want to say that not everyone is like that. Sure, there are people using the opportunity of pushing bitcoin's adoption for their own benefit, but it shouldn't bother you much. It's not as if they are stealing something. They are just promoting and utilizing their resources. I think it's a win-win scenario as long as they're transparent to the future users (that will be generated from global adoption) about the risks. After all, it's not always about the money alone.

[Shenzou]

I think that global adoptation and mainstream use of the bitcoin as a day to day currency is hard to achieve, and that is due to the fact of  it being decentrelized and uncontroled meaing that the price will always be constantly changing at any time, so a guy who owns a shop could sell a product that is worth 10$ and the next week finds himself with only 5$, for somone who is earning more than enough and wants to invest in bitcoin he could start accepting as a apyment method in his business but from somone who his trying to make a living it would hard, at least this early.

[Yatsan]

Global adaption will be a really hard thing to be achieved since not all can acquire or can be able to use the full functionality of Bitcoin to become part of their daily lives. It seems to be a near to impossibility term for the adaption of Bitcoin. It can be at least be alter into "massive adaption" since it seems to fit the reality that not all can adapt into using it but many can be able to still do it.

[o_e_l_e_o]

On the other hand, this may also cause to a situation wherein the government would try their chance to regulate it.

That ship has sailed. Governments around the world are already trying to regulate it, force more invasive KYC on bitcoin users than on fiat users, tax it more aggressively than fiat, demand exchanges hand over customer data, employ blockchain analysis companies to track you, and so on.

so a guy who owns a shop could sell a product that is worth 10$ and the next week finds himself with only 5$

If bitcoin did reach global adoption, then any price swings would be minimal. With such a huge amount of liquidity, anyone could dump a huge amount of coin on the market without dropping the price, and with billions of users then the small number of idiots who listen to tweets from the likes of Elon Musk would be very much in the minority. And at least with bitcoin you know at some point the value will almost certainly go up again, as opposed to accepting fiat where you know it will only ever go down.

[dkbit98]

Are you sure that every other country will behave same like El Salvador did?

I am not sure in anything but what I can see is that other countries from South America like Panama, Brasil, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Mexico, are following exactly what El Salvador did, and more countries from other parts of the world will follow.
People don't understand that global adoption doesn't mean that you will be able to buy coffee or beer with Bitcoin, but you will use as back up especially when current fiat currencies crash and burn in near future.

There's a difference between adopting Bitcoin and legalizing it. Yes, you can make it legal to use Bitcoin, but will there be places to use it, you know like... locally? It could surely provide a great way to purchase from the other side of the Earth, but locally, it'd be better to use your nation currency. It's faster, it costs less to make a transaction, you don't have to dedicate some hundreds of hours understanding how it works and it'd be better for you to spend it now, rather than keep it.

Better ask Venezuela, Nigeria and other countries that had hyperinflation can they buy something with their local currencies, they are faster and you can use them to warm up if you are freezing in winter.
Bitcoin will never be used as main currency in any country, just like you are not using gold or silver to buy anything (you could do it unofficially) but they still value more than fiat and paper money.

[ShowOff]

If bitcoin did reach global adoption, then any price swings would be minimal. With such a huge amount of liquidity, anyone could dump a huge amount of coin on the market without dropping the price,

Sorry @o_e_l_e_o, I don't really understand how bitcoin will have a relatively stable price/ the price drop to a minimum when it reach global adoption while we know that bitcoin price is quite volatile long ago. So far I only know that every bitcoin sold in large quantities will affect the price quickly and the price will drop temporarily.

Bitcoin will never be used as main currency in any country, just like you are not using gold or silver to buy anything (you could do it unofficially) but they still value more than fiat and paper money.

In my opinion, this opinion may be quite relevant to the condition and habit of the people who use the payment system. Even though bitcoin is legalized, it will not be the main mean of payment/ currency used by people anywhere and can be equated with gold or other valuable that have been legalized as a mean of payment before.

[BlackHatCoiner]

People don't understand that global adoption doesn't mean that you will be able to buy coffee or beer with Bitcoin, but you will use as back up especially when current fiat currencies crash and burn in near future.

This is what I explain in the first sentence of the OP. There's no standard definition for global adoption; anyone can assume their own.

Better ask Venezuela, Nigeria and other countries that had hyperinflation can they buy something with their local currencies, they are faster and you can use them to warm up if you are freezing in winter.

Look, I get you, I'm just not quite convinced that a digital commodity with a hierarchical structure and with a very volatile market price can be used as a medium of exchange. I find LN really cool as a solution to the scaling issue, but there are lots of people believing that due to its existence, it can be globally adopted as a medium of exchange.

Then, there are people like you and me who see it more as a long-term store of value.

Sorry @o_e_l_e_o, I don't really understand how bitcoin will have a relatively stable price/ the price drop to a minimum when it reach global adoption while we know that bitcoin price is quite volatile long ago. So far I only know that every bitcoin sold in large quantities will affect the price quickly and the price will drop temporarily.

o_e_l_e_o probably takes it for granted that the island will someday stop having newcomers. In that case, it'd surely be less volatile.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Sorry @o_e_l_e_o, I don't really understand how bitcoin will have a relatively stable price/ the price drop to a minimum when it reach global adoption while we know that bitcoin price is quite volatile long ago. So far I only know that every bitcoin sold in large quantities will affect the price quickly and the price will drop temporarily.

The bitcoin market is still relatively tiny, and smaller markets are more volatile. At present, a single large investor can move the price enough to trigger a bunch of stop losses and set off a large cascade resulting in a significant price shift. If we ever reach the point where a majority of people in the world are using bitcoin, then the relative power of any single user falls enough that this is no longer possible. Sure, we will still have price fluctuations, but a fluctuation of $100 a day when the price is $100,000 doesn't really matter compared to the same fluctuation at the price of $1000. Plus if we ever reach the point that bitcoin is the dominant global currency, then people will stop thinking of bitcoin in terms of how much fiat it is worth and simply think of 1 BTC = 1 BTC.

There's a great discussion from Andreas Antonopoulos about this in 2 minutes starting here: https://youtu.be/6IDzpvmGzxo?t=2520

o_e_l_e_o probably takes it for granted that the island will someday stop having newcomers. In that case, it'd surely be less volatile.

Not necessarily. If you have 1000 people using bitcoin and 1000 more arrive, then that is a huge shock to the system. If you have a billion people using bitcoin and 1000 more arrive, it makes no difference at all.

[topbitcoin]

From what i see, some people always think global adoption is bitcoin be used as payment. We can see if a person create thread about it, it always directly to aim about it and maybe bitcoin replace fiat. Global adoption, is only when people know and use bitcoin no matter what it will be used. As investment for example, it is already considered global adoption because people all over the world can use bitcoin as much as they want.

[Slow death]

The same people who believe in the so-called “global adoption” are the ones that see Bitcoin as a currency and believe in its “noble principles”. While I do get their enthusiasm, I think this is very much missing the point.

and how would that be to miss the point? if there are not many people all over the world using bitcoin as a means of payment then we are doomed to use bitcoin just to do Hodl and trade on exchanges

Sad truth, but Bitcoin can't have a global adoption same like computers or internet had decades ago and I state this from an economic aspect.

bitcoin is already used in almost every country in the world, I believe that in each country there is someone who has bitcoin and over time the number of people in each country who will be using bitcoin will be greater

[dimox]

many people know bitcoin, want it to be global adoption. so, every tail in this world can do, or fill their economy (not only for currency, but economy too). but, its really hard for this knowledge be global adoption. to many obstacle, to many hole to meet by this thought.

From what i see, some people always think global adoption is bitcoin be used as payment. We can see if a person create thread about it, it always directly to aim about it and maybe bitcoin replace fiat. Global adoption, is only when people know and use bitcoin no matter what it will be used. As investment for example, it is already considered global adoption because people all over the world can use bitcoin as much as they want.

and this is good one, if global adoption just for people in the world use bitcoin. we assume not all people, but many people in the world.

[LUCKMCFLY]

Global adoption is difficult, but if people like the US White House tech advisor who has approximately $ 5M in BTC, it is something that catches the eye of anyone and also invites them to trust the technology and the great development of BTC in the world of the market, making BTC the economy that best suits people by being deflationary in nature:

White House Tech Advisor Holds Up to $5M in Bitcoin

According to reports, Wu holds between $1 and $5 million in Bitcoin and as much as $250,000 in the Chinese crypto storage platform Filecoin. Politico confirmed that the financial disclosure was provided by the Brown Institute for Media Innovation at Columbia University, which requested the document from the White House.

The advisor has not always been enamored with BTC, calling it a bubble and questioning its worth in an article he wrote for the New York Times in 2017.

Source: https://beincrypto.com/white-house-tech-advisor-holds-5m-bitcoin/

It is interesting to know that these people think that way when talking about BTC, although it is a topic that for many is not very well known, it tends to attract their attention, and knowing that people like these have BTC gives them more confidence.

[Dewi Aries]

Not resist price increase is a lot of people aim with this currency. Sometimes i can't wonder what will people do if bitcoin really be adopted as global currency or maybe whatever they want it to be  because to replace fiat itself is already hard. If me, in my opinion actually what happen to bitcoin we do support as much as we can, if only can hold then hold, if can tell other people but not only what is good point but risk behind it so that people can know about bitcoin better is ok too.

[BlackHatCoiner]

@o_e_l_e_o, I'm quoting you from another thread, to avoid getting off-topic there.

Ok then. What about if they compromise your wallet software to reuse the same k value (or use a k value from a small range that is known to the attacker)? Few people even know what a k value is or how it is used - fewer still would be able to verify it is being generated deterministically and not using a predetermined value.

Speaking of “few”;

I really wonder, though, if after all, we truly want to replace the traditional banking system with this one, knowing that it won't be handled by the average user same like in terms of security. We know that the average user human will not be responsible for his own wealth, but we feel like we have to get rid of the dollar and replace it with something that can't be controlled by a central authority located in the society where people can be assisted, but rather, forces them to be responsible for something they weren't before. I'm still curious why that necessity...

I hope we both agree that there is a chaos about lightning network right now and that there are believers whose thought is replacing the current fiat with Bitcoin due to this convenience.

[Hamphser]

Not resist price increase is a lot of people aim with this currency. Sometimes i can't wonder what will people do if bitcoin really be adopted as global currency or maybe whatever they want it to be  because to replace fiat itself is already hard. If me, in my opinion actually what happen to bitcoin we do support as much as we can, if only can hold then hold, if can tell other people but not only what is good point but risk behind it so that people can know about bitcoin better is ok too.

Im already out on that motive on replacing fiat completely because its really an impossible thing to happen because as long government do exist then theres no way that fiat could be overtaken or replaced. Centralization would remain and stay as long they do exist.

Although adoption is indeed on the move and it isnt really a ridiculous term because if we do try to look at it on how far we had progressed out then
we can really say that theres really improvement over a decade.

It is just it didnt really able to reach out on what we do anticipate nor expect which is not actuall surprising at all because of some characteristics
on where bitcoin does have.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I really wonder, though, if after all, we truly want to replace the traditional banking system with this one, knowing that it won't be handled by the average user same like in terms of security.

All the average user really needs to know is that they should verify their software, store their seed phrase on paper, and maybe buy a reputable hardware wallet. They do not need to know how to verify k values, or even what k values are. They do not need to know the majority of things we have been discussing to be able to use bitcoin securely and safely. How many people do you think could change the head gasket on their car, or even identify what the head gasket is? Not many, and yet billions of people safely drive a car every day.

We know that the average user human will not be responsible for his own wealth, but we feel like we have to get rid of the dollar and replace it with something that can't be controlled by a central authority located in the society where people can be assisted, but rather, forces them to be responsible for something they weren't before.

Because they should at least have that choice.

Allow me to use another analogy. In the field of medicine, until fairly recently we would practice what is termed "paternalistic medicine". This is the idea that the doctor/physician knows best, and the patient should simply do as they are told. The patient comes with a problem, the doctor diagnoses it, prescribes the best treatment, and the patient does as they are instructed.

There are a lot of problems with this approach. Let's say I'm treating someone for cancer. Invasive surgery and chemotherapy gives the best chance of survival, so that's what the patient should do, no questions asked. But what if the patient doesn't want to spend months or years essentially bedridden and dealing with the side effects of chemo, and would rather live their remaining time to the full? The patient has no autonomy here. An authority figure has simply dictated what they must do.

Now we are moving towards what we call shared decision making. Now the physician presents the patient with options - we could do this, or we could do that, or we could do nothing at all. What's important to you, the patient? The patient takes responsibility for their own health. Some patients may not want to do this, and that's fine. They can opt to go back to the doctor telling them what they should do. But at least that is a conscious decision on their part and hasn't just been dictated to them. At least they had the choice.

Now, if a person wants to opt out of financial autonomy and trust a third party to store their wealth, then that is their choice. But it needs to be a choice, and not just dictated to them from some government authority figure.

[BlackHatCoiner]

How many people do you think could change the head gasket on their car, or even identify what the head gasket is? Not many, and yet billions of people safely drive a car every day.

I don't know where you live, but in my country, there are lots of traffic-related deaths every year, which makes me think that the global adoption of car driving wasn't a wise choice. If your society is “full” of arrogant people and the state isn't known for their national health system, then global adoption may be dangerous. Fortunately, the number of deaths seems to be decreasing, but there are much more cases where the drivers suffered from serious accidents.

I'm not sure if comparing the global adoption of Bitcoin with car's driving is proper; they are two distinct things where in driving we become responsible for our own transport and in Bitcoin for our own wealth. Just like someone could predict that the average human will face car accidents, I predict that the average human will lose money.

Now, if a person wants to opt out of financial autonomy and trust a third party to store their wealth, then that is their choice. But it needs to be a choice, and not just dictated to them from some government authority figure.

I guess that you don't want to replace the fiat system, but having it as a second option. Okay, agreed; I myself want to sometime buy a Big Tasty from McDonalds using the lightning network just to feel cool.

But, I should have bolded that word; there are people who believe that it'll replace it, not that it'll be optional. Are these Bitcoiners “imaginators” of an anarchic society or not?

Besides that, did anybody ask the sellers? Yes, it needs to be a choice, but the sellers don't have any; if the buyer says so, they have to accept it. Isn't this dictation? Can't the seller be an average human who is unaware of technology? Who has no idea what's a block chain and disagrees with not having a third party?

Where there dictations with any of the previous global adoptions?

[crwth]

This topic made me think about how much every person benefits when they are the first to establish or acquire it. I guess it's the same for everything. When a person develops or builds a company, it could go the same route. Many people use it, and they could go public and be speculated by people about their value. It's always going to be centralized somehow, and you cannot go and justify being equal because they did the hard work initially. They usually deserve it.

With the part of global adoption, it's going to make it even more scarce. Increase in value, essentially. I guess the better word for that is "selfish." Self increase in wealth in which almost everyone in the world wants.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Just like someone could predict that the average human will face car accidents, I predict that the average human will lose money.

There is literally nothing in the world which is 100% safe. Yes, people will lose money through carelessness with bitcoin, but people also lose money through carelessness with fiat. My point is that you do not need to have a deep technical understanding of a technology to be able to use it safely. People drive cars, use mobile phones, use the internet, cook with microwaves, use power tools, and loads of other potentially dangerous things every day without understanding how these devices work at a technical level.

But, I should have bolded that word; there are people who believe that it'll replace it, not that it'll be optional.

Maybe it will. But such is the beauty of bitcoin - if someone does not want financial autonomy for some reason, then there are plenty of third parties which will store their coins for them, just like a fiat bank.

Besides that, did anybody ask the sellers? Yes, it needs to be a choice, but the sellers don't have any; if the buyer says so, they have to accept it. Isn't this dictation?

Not at all. If the seller doesn't want to accept bitcoin, that's their choice. If they lose out on a customer because of it, then that's the customer's choice.

[BlackHatCoiner]

My point is that you do not need to have a deep technical understanding of a technology to be able to use it safely. People drive cars, use mobile phones, use the internet, cook with microwaves, use power tools, and loads of other potentially dangerous things every day without understanding how these devices work at a technical level.

My point is that cars, mobile phones, internet, microwaves, power tools and other technological inventions became globally adopted, because they were found useful by the average human. They later became a necessity in each house hold. The purpose of Bitcoin is to make the third-party unneeded; I'm pretty much certain that the majority of the house holds out there don't feel the same need like I do.

Maybe it will. But such is the beauty of bitcoin - if someone does not want financial autonomy for some reason, then there are plenty of third parties which will store their coins for them, just like a fiat bank.

If someone doesn't want financial autonomy, he/she has no reason in being forced to use something that is not centralized under the control of a central authority. How can you convince him moving into it while fiat satisfies him with the same benefits?

[o_e_l_e_o]

My point is that cars, mobile phones, internet, microwaves, power tools and other technological inventions became globally adopted, because they were found useful by the average human.

In time, yes. When computers were first bring built, a lot of industry leaders thought there would be zero market for them, with quotes like "a world market for maybe 5 computers" or that "one machine would suffice for the whole country".

The purpose of Bitcoin is to make the third-party unneeded; I'm pretty much certain that the majority of the house holds out there don't feel the same need like I do.

Most governments are on a steady path towards more surveillance, more control, and more oppression, while all fiat is on a steady path to excessive inflation and devaluation. Bitcoin is only becoming more popular as time goes on.

If someone doesn't want financial autonomy, he/she has no reason in being forced to use something that is not centralized under the control of a central authority. How can you convince him moving into it while fiat satisfies him with the same benefits?

No one is forcing anyone. If they want to constantly lose their purchasing power by holding fiat long term, then they are of course free to do so.

[BlackHatCoiner]

~

Nice counter-arguments.

So, I guess that you imagine it being globally adopted in this decade (?). It's already been 11 years since its start and some serious adoption has begun, even from a government. There are lots of things built upon it right now and the main one is IMO the LN. Who knows, the world may suddenly or slowly switch to Bitcoin. The CBDCs will probably affect it.

I found a nice thread predicting this decade brazenly: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5342510

I feel great the I came into Bitcoin a decade later; I'd, probably not hate it, but surely consider it an experiment.

[o_e_l_e_o]

So, I guess that you imagine it being globally adopted in this decade (?).

Depends what you mean by globally adopted. I think it already is globally adopted to a degree, in that it is being used in every country in the world. If you mean become the dominant world currency, then absolutely not. There are far too many powerful people and institutions which depend on fiat to continue to enrich themselves to let bitcoin take over that quickly.

We are heading in the right direction, and fiat is becoming hilariously devalued, but it will take much longer than 10 more years I would think.

It's already been 11 years since its start and some serious adoption has begun, even from a government. There are lots of things built upon it right now and the main one is IMO the LN.

Lightning is great, and combined with Taproot has a lot more potential improvements, but it is not ready for global adoption yet, as I seem to remember we discussed in another thread. Even just onboarding the majority of the population with a single Lightning channel each would take years of block space. We need developments like Eltoo and Channel Factories to be well established long before we can reach a that stage with Lightning.