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.

[1714038862]

1714038862

[1714038862]

1714038862

[1714038862]

1714038862

[1714038862]

1714038862

[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.