Global adoption — A ridiculous term

[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

[1714871713]

1714871713

[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.