An analysis on how Bitcoin gets to 1 billion users

[franky1]

The current implementation of LN is not necessarily going to be the best. The current devs are working on improving it, and there is no reason why they should be given a monopoly on improving L2 implementations.

people that use buzzwords of L2. "ontop" "Skin" "layer"
are trying to push the psychological(subliminal) imagination that LN and other altnets are bitcoin2.0 or are above bitcoin(better then bitcoin).. EG layer/skin analogy being the protective layer that saves the fruit inside from going bad

try to avoid these psychological subliminal words to fake trust that LN is the best and better option than bitcoin.

bitcoin is the MAIN NET the actual blockchain. bitcoins never leave the blockchain. these altnets are not more secure or more trusted then bitcoin..
call them bridged networks or sub networks or altnetworks. because thats what they are

LN is definitely not meant to be confused to be thought of as bitcoin 2.0.. LN is not even something solely functional feature for only bitcoin. its an altnet that can be used for multiple currencies it bridges between

[tadamichi]

people that use buzzwords of L2. "ontop" "Skin" "layer"
are trying to push the psychological(subliminal) imagination that LN and other altnets are bitcoin2.0 or are above bitcoin(better then bitcoin).. EG layer/skin analogy being the protective layer that saves the fruit inside from going bad

try to avoid these psychological subliminal words to fake trust that LN is the best and better option than bitcoin.

Idk where you got that from, never heard anyone claim/ push that lightning is better than bitcoin. It’s simply a way to transfer bitcoin off-chain, which is legitimate. That’s it.

Idk why this much hate for lightning tbh, sure it’s not perfect, but fine for certain use cases. And more beneficial than not having it. If you have a way to scale the chain without getting centralized, go ahead, I’ll listen.

[kryptqnick]

I think the report is quite comprehensive and compares many things that humanity adopted and how fast it happened. While it might look like a failure that we're still so low in terms of the percentage of people using Bitcoin, these things do take time sometimes, and it's possible that decades are needed till be can truly talk about global adoption. It also means that Bitcoin hasn't failed yet in terms of global adoption and we might see 1 billion users or more within our livetimes. I am not sure it's going to happen, but I think it might, and I'd be happy to stick around to see it. That being said, Bitcoin curve over 10 years seems very different from those of top technologies, so perhaps the prognosis is too optimistic after all.

[BIT-BENDER]

I don’t know if those statistics and data are correct, because I believe is just an estimate and we definitely have more than that amount of bitcoin Holders/Users. There are some underground Bitcoin users that or just dormant holders but even if we haven’t yet reached one billion holder/Users at the moment I doubt if this would take long before we reach that figure.

[franky1]

I don’t know if those statistics and data are correct, because I believe is just an estimate and we definitely have more than that amount of bitcoin Holders/Users. There are some underground Bitcoin users that or just dormant holders but even if we haven’t yet reached one billion holder/Users at the moment I doubt if this would take long before we reach that figure.

if we are talking about actual holders of bitcoin with actual UTXO signing privilege to actually make a transactions on the actual bitcoin network..
well you just have to count the UTXO as the max amount of potential holders ..

obviously some users have more then 1 UTXO to their name so there are less people than the UTXO count

as for other people that are using balance in centralised exchanges.. or altnet tokens representing something.. well its a simple "not their key, not their coin."

there might be many suggested 'hundreds of millions' of people with 'wallets' and custodial balance, and altnet tokens.
but there are a massive difference between bitcoin holders vs central service balance/altnet token users

i know some will say even if you have a altnet token or a centralised exchange balance your "still a bitcoiner" but thats for a lengthy debate (emphasis on holders using the bitcoin network)

[bbc.reporter]

it assumes that the rate of adoption will not slow down.

The rate may actually speed up since we are still at the bottom of the S curve.

It also does not mention that technically bitcoin cannot accomodate 1 billion users to use it every day for their transactions without causing the network to increase fees and price out many users.

Reaching 1 billion adoption is different from having 1 billion users using bitcoin every day. Not to mention that 1 billion (~12%) according to the chart would be reached around 2030 which is still far in the future and by then LN will have grown more and the on-chain capacity should have been increased.
It's not like tomorrow we are going to see 1 billion users!

If the argument is based on the model of the S curve, yes rate of adoption always speeds up. However, what I am questioning is based on reality, it has been 10 years and we are still on the bottom of the S curve? We cannot assume that it can occur based on the model because if it can, is there an argument for altcoins to also increase in rate of adoption only because it existed? Please be reminded that Bitcoin is not only a technology, it is also a medium for finance.

In any case, sorry for being skeptical on this.

[yazher]

IMO, I believe that the 30.8 Million net Bitcoin users are already a huge achievement of the crypto industry. But making it a Billion users is a big task to do, but it's not impossible because as the technology is improving the adoption will continue to increase on a year-to-year basis thats why we should continue to support the Bitcoin to make that one Billion target users a reality, nevermind those competitors. After all, they have also the interest to protect so they gonna hate, But one thing is for sure they cannot destroy Bitcoin.

More good news and mainstream media positive news but it seems that's not possible because of the banks will obviously oppose when they see their competitors gaining lots of investors. The people that are in this field really need to work to explain to the people they know what's bitcoins all about and how would it be a huge help for our money freedom. That's what makes people stick to it when they know exactly the point of having bitcoins as your assets because they really like when they have total control of their money rather than the banks who might gonna close any day from now.

[pooya87]

If the argument is based on the model of the S curve, yes rate of adoption always speeds up.

Not always, it only speeds up until we reach mass adoption then it slows down and plateaus.

However, what I am questioning is based on reality, it has been 10 years and we are still on the bottom of the S curve?

That is how new technologies are adopted, the more different from what they are replacing they are the slower their adoption is going to be. On top of that we have a lot of FUD by the heads of the corrupt existing financial systems that has slowed the adoption down even more.

is there an argument for altcoins to also increase in rate of adoption only because it existed?

No simply because adoption happens based on utility not hype. Altcoins are all hyped up without any real utility. History has also proved that they always dump and eventually disappear. You can take a look at how the list of "top" altcoins were 9 years ago and how many of those "top" coins exist today!

[davis196]

Bitcoin simply isn't convenient enough for every day use. Some people (including myself) could say that Bitcoin wasn't designed for every day usage(despite what Satoshi was claiming in the whitepaper). The expectation of 1 billion daily Bitcoin users will never happen in reality and there's nothing wrong with that.
Nobody is saying that Bitcoin is supposed to be the number 1 global currency. I would be perfectly fine, even if Bitcoin never becomes truly mainstream.
I don't think that anyone could verify the accuracy of this statistical data, but 30 million people seems like a pretty good number for a 12 year old technology.
BTC reaching 1 billion active users seems more like a fantasy, rather than an achievable goal.

[bbc.reporter]

If the argument is based on the model of the S curve, yes rate of adoption always speeds up.

Not always, it only speeds up until we reach mass adoption then it slows down and plateaus.

However, what I am questioning is based on reality, it has been 10 years and we are still on the bottom of the S curve?

That is how new technologies are adopted, the more different from what they are replacing they are the slower their adoption is going to be. On top of that we have a lot of FUD by the heads of the corrupt existing financial systems that has slowed the adoption down even more.

is there an argument for altcoins to also increase in rate of adoption only because it existed?

No simply because adoption happens based on utility not hype. Altcoins are all hyped up without any real utility. History has also proved that they always dump and eventually disappear. You can take a look at how the list of "top" altcoins were 9 years ago and how many of those "top" coins exist today!

If it is not always, is there a chance that it would not be adopted by 1 billion by 2030 similar to what the article was implying?

Also, arguable if all altcoins have no utility. It can be argued that platforms similar to Ethereum and Binance smartchain has more utility than Bitcoin. The argument against these platforms are they are centralized, however, Ethereum can also be argued that it has enough decentralization to protect against government censorship.