Problem with mass adoption of Bitcoin

[Cyber_Alien]

I was chatting about Bitcoin's impact and effects with a few friends today. My friends discuss the impact that Bitcoin whales are having on the adoption of Bitcoin. In the coming years, according to Bitcoin experts, adoption will increase. He claimed that 3.7 million coins are lost, with the remaining coins being held on chains by early adopters.

He claimed that this specific set of people is seriously impeding the adoption of Bitcoin. As they have the ability to shock the entire system with sell/buy. Avoiding a centralized authority controlling the system is one of the issues that Bitcoin seeks to overcome. If there is a large demand and widespread adoption, a supply shock would then occur.

However, the issue is still present and may be more significant than the use of fiat money. Unless Bitcoin holding changes in any way. I believe the system should be changed such that each person is limited to holding a certain quantity of Bitcoin.

I think that this will hinder widespread adoption. What do all of you think?


Happy Christmas 🎄🎄

[1715320285]

1715320285

[1715320285]

1715320285

[1715320285]

1715320285

[1715320285]

1715320285

[Coin_trader]

Proper distribution of holdings will only happen when real adoption occurs. There’s no need to limit the holdings of each user since it will just suppress the freedom of holding Bitcoin. Those whale holders deserves to have that profit because they actually risk big on something they don’t guarantee profit during there early investment.

The real problem of Bitcoin mass adoption are the government and bankers that keeps slowing down Bitcoin growth through the laws that will regulate Bitcoin. Also the shit CEX that keeps doing shady trades to manipulate the Bitcoin price to pump and dump scheme.

[kryptqnick]

It's not known whether there truly is a small group of people that is able and actively engages in triggering major Bitcoin price shifts. I don't see enough evidence if it, and thus I don't believe it. Distribution is definitely uneven, but that's the way with any kind of wealth in the world, so it's a global challenge. Limiting the amount per person would be dystopian, as it limits the freedom of people to buy however much they want and requires linking all wallets to personal IDs to ensure  one person doesn't simply have several wallets to avoid the limit. I think that a way toward more equal distribution of  wealth, including Bitcoin, shouldn't be as restrictive.

[m2017]

I was chatting about Bitcoin's impact and effects with a few friends today. My friends discuss the impact that Bitcoin whales are having on the adoption of Bitcoin. In the coming years, according to Bitcoin experts, adoption will increase. He claimed that 3.7 million coins are lost, with the remaining coins being held on chains by early adopters.

He claimed that this specific set of people is seriously impeding the adoption of Bitcoin. As they have the ability to shock the entire system with sell/buy. Avoiding a centralized authority controlling the system is one of the issues that Bitcoin seeks to overcome. If there is a large demand and widespread adoption, a supply shock would then occur.

However, the issue is still present and may be more significant than the use of fiat money. Unless Bitcoin holding changes in any way. I believe the system should be changed such that each person is limited to holding a certain quantity of Bitcoin.

I think that this will hinder widespread adoption. What do all of you think?


Happy Christmas 🎄🎄

Well, how do you propose to change the current and existing system? Take bitcoins from whales and distribute to all other people? I know the sad experience of one country in which they decided to distribute material wealth in approximately the same way, and as a result, nothing good came of it.

It seems to me that the market itself will resolve and adjust this imbalance over time. In this system, and so everyone can have bitcoin or part of it. Especially when the price has dropped so low. So you seem to be worrying too much. Moreover, nothing can be changed, thanks to decentralization, and there is no special body capable of redistributing bitcoin in any other way.

[Upgrade00]

In the coming years, according to Bitcoin experts, adoption will increase. He claimed that 3.7 million coins are lost, with the remaining coins being held on chains by early adopters.

There are no Bitcoin experts and If you're going to give a report, you should include the source of that report.
Firstly, there are no groups of early adopters who own the bulk of bitcoins, the distribution of holders is spread among a wide range of adopters from early to late.
Also, the number of potentially lost bitcoins are unknown, everyone can only make conjectures to the amount.

Avoiding a centralized authority controlling the system is one of the issues that Bitcoin seeks to overcome. If there is a large demand and widespread adoption, a supply shock would then occur.

A supply shock is defined by many as "an unexpected event that changes the supply of a product or commodity". This cannot apply to Bitcoin as the amount of bitcoins in circulation and that would ever be in existence is public and cannot change.

However, the issue is still present and may be more significant than the use of fiat money. Unless Bitcoin holding changes in any way. I believe the system should be changed such that each person is limited to holding a certain quantity of Bitcoin.

I think that this will hinder widespread adoption. What do all of you think?

• That's a terrible idea for a decentralized currency. Limiting the amount that people can hold is creating a problem of itself, and would need the entire system to change to achieve that. Why fix something that isn't broken?

• I think we are already on the way to achieving wide spread adoption.

[maikrothaman]

I think that this will hinder widespread adoption. What do all of you think?

Whales, in my opinion, are not the primary deterrent to widespread adoption of bitcoin. I believe that cash is much more user-friendly and practical than bitcoin. Alternatively, once the cash is gone, cryptocurrencies like bitcoin (possibly privacy coins) will take its place.

[noorman0]

Lack of awareness and knowledge gaps across all levels of society hinder adoption. Admittedly, I think bitcoin experienced a slowdown in popularity at first. Bitcoin has to undergo a natural evolution into a high volatility asset first to get a lot of attention.
The biggest barrier to adoption right now is (regulation aside), not a few people who currently feel like they've missed the train when BTC hit ATH, and some FUD when the market is sick.

[Vaskiy]

I think that this will hinder widespread adoption. What do all of you think?

Whales, in my opinion, are not the primary deterrent to widespread adoption of bitcoin. I believe that cash is much more user-friendly and practical than bitcoin. Alternatively, once the cash is gone, cryptocurrencies like bitcoin (possibly privacy coins) will take its place.

Cash through its years and years of history have secured the position to be the user-friendly one and getting used even when more and more alternate gateways have got opened in the form of digital payments and cryptocurrencies. Cash to get out of usage is not gonna happen at the shortest or in the future.

[Yatsan]

Lack of awareness and knowledge gaps across all levels of society hinder adoption. Admittedly, I think bitcoin experienced a slowdown in popularity at first. Bitcoin has to undergo a natural evolution into a high volatility asset first to get a lot of attention.
The biggest barrier to adoption right now is (regulation aside), not a few people who currently feel like they've missed the train when BTC hit ATH, and some FUD when the market is sick.

Not awareness alone but I guess the world is not ready yet for this technology regarding volatile market value and especially for non-investors. Indeed Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are profitable but it won't always be on upside. There will always be time for downfalls in this market which is not something to be endured by all people. Think of this; salaries are in form of cryprocurrencies. Those who are earning minimum wage would be at risk of having not enough money during bearish market because of losses. And if it would coexist with fiat(which is more likely to happen), businesses wpuld be on the same situation. This dimply points out that people are not ready yet to risk for this industry.

[Ayers]

Lack of awareness and knowledge gaps across all levels of society hinder adoption. Admittedly, I think bitcoin experienced a slowdown in popularity at first. Bitcoin has to undergo a natural evolution into a high volatility asset first to get a lot of attention.
The biggest barrier to adoption right now is (regulation aside), not a few people who currently feel like they've missed the train when BTC hit ATH, and some FUD when the market is sick.

Lack of awareness or knowledge gap, the root cause of these problems is government, because of the government ban, spreading negative news about bitcoin makes people not want to learn about bitcoin. The biggest barrier to the mass adoption of bitcoin is none other than the government, as long as the government regulates and propagates bitcoin in a positive way, the problems you raise will quickly be solved. The government will still largely determine our perception because we live under their control.

[michellee]

The main hindrance to the adoption process is that people haven't been able to open up to something new and instead say something new is not good for them to do. They tend to spread lies to others who want to learn about that new thing.

The government must change the system but doesn't seem ready to do it because there is still a lack of knowledge about crypto, especially from the top to the lowest level. This makes many people still afraid to learn more about crypto, especially if more lies about crypto are spread to the public. Everyone must change their mindset. We need to open ourselves up to accept something and not immediately judge that it's bad.

[Pmalek]

He claimed that 3.7 million coins are lost, with the remaining coins being held on chains by early adopters.

All units are on the bitcoin blockchain and none of them are technically lost. What can be lost are the private keys that allow those coins to move. But no matter if the BTC is on an exchange, your mobile wallet, or a paper wallet, they are and will always be on the blockchain.

I believe the system should be changed such that each person is limited to holding a certain quantity of Bitcoin.
I think that this will hinder widespread adoption. What do all of you think?

What a terrible idea. You want to punish those who believed in this economy more than you do or because they entered the market with more money than you or long before you...

Bitcoin is freedom and allowing you to make your own decisions. If those decisions include buying millions of coins, then that's your right. If you don't want whales to own so many coins, don't sell them cheaply on the market whenever some bad news about bitcoin gets posted. Tell your friends and everyone you know. It's an open market, but no one can buy your coins if you don't want to sell them. Look at me right now not selling you my coins because I don't want to.

Bitcoin doesn't have restrictions. 

[crunck]

The biggest problem is still the government, if the government accepts it as legal and declares that bitcoin is a currency or a worth asset holding, then I believe all other problems will be solved.  Government is the biggest hurdle that bitcoin is facing, just solve the government, bitcoin will be widely accepted. But that possibility is improbable unless the government sees some interest in accepting bitcoin.

[mk4]

Price volatility will almost always make people stray away from bitcoin. But as the "whales" sell their bitcoin, the coins will simply just be redistributed — slowly but surely.

Take note: The number of people that buys bitcoin at least once can have huge spikes depending on market condition. But the number of people that will be convinced with the importance of bitcoin will be very slow and gradual.

[pooya87]

In the coming years, according to Bitcoin experts, adoption will increase.

Bitcoin adoption is always on the rise. The rate is changing and also the quality of it.
For example during the end of the bull markets when we are close to the peak the adoption is mostly lazy gamblers who think they can make a quick buck (ie. low quality adoption). During bear markets we get more people who believe in Bitcoin's principles rather than profit making (ie. high quality adoption).

He claimed that 3.7 million coins are lost, with the remaining coins being held on chains by early adopters.

Both of these statements are weak guesses since we have no way of measuring either one of these and the fact that everyone makes a guess that is wildly different from others proves these are very weak gueses!

He claimed that this specific set of people is seriously impeding the adoption of Bitcoin. As they have the ability to shock the entire system with sell/buy.

There are many different ways that bitcoin market could be affected and market manipulation is a very real challenge that we face. But it is not a specific set of people and they can't always get what they want. For example during 2017 we clearly saw many occasions where "whales" tried to go against the market (shorted bitcoin thinking it should dump) and lost millions of dollars hence failed to manipulate the market.

I believe the system should be changed such that each person is limited to holding a certain quantity of Bitcoin.
I think that this will hinder widespread adoption. What do all of you think?

You are right that this will hinder adoption (meaning it will prevent it) because people would dump such a currency that puts such a limit on how much of it they can own.

[so98nn]

Perhaps, there will never be mass adoption of the bitcoin hence we will never encounter the problem of running out of the bitcoins really. So technically speaking we will still have enough bitcoins (/Satoshi) to trade amongst us. Hodling, selling these processes will continue to improve over the time. There may be few forks along the way so it can shift users or investors temporarily to the other coins. In short there is always plenty of room which can sustain bitcoin and its usefulness over the period. Of course this can be challenged with counter debate but seems best possible scenario….

[The Cryptovator]

Limits do not apply to true decentralized cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin. Bitcoin adapted massively, but the market crashed incident that occurred. It will take time to regain investor confidence. Only whales can't help Bitcoin adapt. Institutional investors must adapt to Bitcoin. Whales only play with it; real adaptation requires large investors. I don't see any promising signs of a price recovery anytime soon. We'll have to see how the new year affects the crypto market.

[tjtonmoy]

Bitcoin is always growing and introducing new kind of use cases every day. Mass adoption does not come with a problem. People will still have traditional fiat currency for regular buy, sell of products. And if the people who hold a huge portion of bitcoin (not confirmed yet) decides to manipulate the market, then there will always be other people willing to do the opposite. Such as, pump in price by whales - people will sell. Dump in price by whales - people will buy.
And those who are holding for decades now, won't let go of their holdings. That's just how I see the market.

[Bitstar_coin]

~Avoiding a centralized authority controlling the system is one of the issues that Bitcoin seeks to overcome. If there is a large demand and widespread adoption, a supply shock would then occur.

It is impossible for BTC to overcome centralized authority since the market is open and free for everyone to buy as much btc as they can afford.
The problem with adoption is not just because the whales or centralized authorities have access to a large amount of btc to manipulate the market but also because the majority of investors (whether small or big) see btc as a speculative asset than an alternative currency. So what needs to change is peoples perception.

[serjent05]

He claimed that this specific set of people is seriously impeding the adoption of Bitcoin. As they have the ability to shock the entire system with sell/buy. Avoiding a centralized authority controlling the system is one of the issues that Bitcoin seeks to overcome. If there is a large demand and widespread adoption, a supply shock would then occur.

However, the issue is still present and may be more significant than the use of fiat money. Unless Bitcoin holding changes in any way. I believe the system should be changed such that each person is limited to holding a certain quantity of Bitcoin.

I think that this will hinder widespread adoption. What do all of you think?


Happy Christmas 🎄🎄

Your suggestion constitutes making the Bitcoin network centralized.  Making a limit on an individual's bitcoin holding is nothing but dictatorship.  This goes against the ideal of freedom, Bitcoin wanted to convey.  Bitcoin at its current state of distribution is almost perfect.  Besides, people who put more effort into Bitcoin are rewarded accordingly.  Your suggestion discourages extra effort and will most probably hinder the growth of Bitcoin because your idea caps the opportunity and capacity of every individual to acquire more Bitcoin.  You are removing the competition that gives life to the marketplace and the growth of Bitcoin price and value.

You wanted to avoid manipulation but instead, implement manipulation at its core. 

[indah rezqi]

Somehow I actually see the OP's idea centered, but maybe that's because I'm a bit paranoid. Since no authority can control bitcoins, it is of course a completely decentralized system. We are too stupid to allow ourselves to stay centered with rules and desires with guaranteed levels of security including price stability. This is definitely not true, in fact the market will not be controlled if no one is playing in it.

Bitcoin adoption has only been disrupted and hampered by government regulations, but of course there are several other points that could be justified and I might disagree if whale ownership is one of them.

[Obari]

Asking For a regulation is just like asking to make Bitcoin centralized and that will be defiling the main purpose and concept of Bitcoin creation.
There are people who will definitely have greater advantage on whatever area of life because they were the grassroot members who through thick and thin has believed in Bitcoin right from the very first year of inception up till now and might have taken time to accommolate a while lot of Bitcoin and even upto till now dey are still accommolating  and they shouldn't be blamed for that and there are also people who are still striving to buy more of Bitcoin from scratch and take advantage of ever bear market to buy more Bitcoin who are already aiming for greater amounts of Bitcoin in a certain period of time.

[panganib999]

There are a few people with a couple thousand bitcoin in their wallets which in any laymen defines them as a whale, however I don't think that is the case, with still millions and millions of bitcoin in circulation and mining one bitcoin only getting harder and harder, the power scale will once again tip to the general majority, not that it's in favor of the whales in the first place. Whales only have impact on a coin if its following is filled with daytraders and weakhands. As for bitcoin almost everyone here who owns one knows it's best not to be swayed into whatever bidding the whales call so I don't think they really impede anything.

[teosanru]

I was chatting about Bitcoin's impact and effects with a few friends today. My friends discuss the impact that Bitcoin whales are having on the adoption of Bitcoin. In the coming years, according to Bitcoin experts, adoption will increase. He claimed that 3.7 million coins are lost, with the remaining coins being held on chains by early adopters.

He claimed that this specific set of people is seriously impeding the adoption of Bitcoin. As they have the ability to shock the entire system with sell/buy. Avoiding a centralized authority controlling the system is one of the issues that Bitcoin seeks to overcome. If there is a large demand and widespread adoption, a supply shock would then occur.

However, the issue is still present and may be more significant than the use of fiat money. Unless Bitcoin holding changes in any way. I believe the system should be changed such that each person is limited to holding a certain quantity of Bitcoin.

I think that this will hinder widespread adoption. What do all of you think?


Happy Christmas 🎄🎄

Ofcourse yes, bitcoin early adopters or basically what people usually call the whales have stacks of btc purchased at very less prices. Obviously these have the power to manipulate the market in whichever direction they want. But the idea behind bitcoin is that the value of bitcoin shouldn't be pegged in anywhere infact the pricing of commodities should be in bitcoin itself. If this will happen even the whales won't be able to do anything as they won't be able to easily manipulate the value of bitcoin then.

[drwhobox]

The biggest problem is still the government, if the government accepts it as legal and declares that bitcoin is a currency or a worth asset holding, then I believe all other problems will be solved.  Government is the biggest hurdle that bitcoin is facing, just solve the government, bitcoin will be widely accepted. But that possibility is improbable unless the government sees some interest in accepting bitcoin.

It is also possible that bitcoin will change the financial sector, or it could remain anonymous, and decentralized. While mass adoption has often been seen as the ultimate goal of crypto, we may instead be planning for a future that allows those who value privacy and security to keep their preferred cryptocurrencies. I don't see any problem here for the government but as we all know that our traditional financial sector will come up with something unique to hinder the adoption.

[kamvreto]

The biggest problem is still the government, if the government accepts it as legal and declares that bitcoin is a currency or a worth asset holding, then I believe all other problems will be solved.  Government is the biggest hurdle that bitcoin is facing, just solve the government, bitcoin will be widely accepted. But that possibility is improbable unless the government sees some interest in accepting bitcoin.

It is also possible that bitcoin will change the financial sector, or it could remain anonymous, and decentralized. While mass adoption has often been seen as the ultimate goal of crypto, we may instead be planning for a future that allows those who value privacy and security to keep their preferred cryptocurrencies. I don't see any problem here for the government but as we all know that our traditional financial sector will come up with something unique to hinder the adoption.

what hinders adoption are some of the regulations implemented by each government. Different countries will have different regulations. the current traditional financial steering wheel is also well developed, Fiat also uses digital money to make transactions faster. As well as bitcoin which is a decentralized digital asset or not regulated by anyone, it is still the second digital currency after Fiat. Adoption will continue as long as the government supports cryptocurrencies without providing strict regulation. Governments don't like privacy and security, they need to be able to figure it all out.

[Moeda]

I believe the system should be changed such that each person is limited to holding a certain quantity of Bitcoin.

It is impossible for the system to limit someone from holding a certain amount of Bitcoin. Because this goes against the decentralized concept of Bitcoin. If the system restricts someone from holding a certain amount of Bitcoin, then it is more to the concept of centralization. The purpose of creating Bitcoin is to avoid the centralization that other financial methods use.

I think that this will hinder widespread adoption. What do all of you think?

In my opinion Bitcoin is one of the projects with very fast and widespread adoption compared to other projects. If we measure the age of Bitcoin, it has only reached 13 years and 11 months, or a week less than 14 years. But now Bitcoin users are spread all over the world. Even some countries have legalized the use of Bitcoin. Other data that we can make as a reference for the widespread use of Bitcoin is the speed at which the number of Bitcoins has been successfully mined. The remaining Bitcoins are less than 2 million Bitcoins. My estimate is that by 2027 all Bitcoin stocks that can be mined will be exhausted, until 2030 at the latest. Other data we can also compare exchanges by country, automatically, the use of Bitcoin will be widespread among the people in the work area of the exchange.

[Wexnident]

I reckon any dumps would only temporarily send the market into a change, especially if it has stabilized into the long term (enough to the point where people who accept it can reliably use it as currency without a huge fear of its volatility), and as time passes by, said changes would gradually have its impacts lessen as well imo. As for the proposed change, as others have said, there's really no negative connotation to apply it, heck it may only apply more negatives than the positives (if any) it could bring. I reckon it may kill the value and idea (which is freedom) of Bitcoin itself as well.

It's a problem, but it's also a problem that can be solved with time, so I don't think it's actually a problem we need to worry about at all.

[KennyR]

The biggest problem is still the government, if the government accepts it as legal and declares that bitcoin is a currency or a worth asset holding, then I believe all other problems will be solved.  Government is the biggest hurdle that bitcoin is facing, just solve the government, bitcoin will be widely accepted. But that possibility is improbable unless the government sees some interest in accepting bitcoin.

It is also possible that bitcoin will change the financial sector, or it could remain anonymous, and decentralized. While mass adoption has often been seen as the ultimate goal of crypto, we may instead be planning for a future that allows those who value privacy and security to keep their preferred cryptocurrencies. I don't see any problem here for the government but as we all know that our traditional financial sector will come up with something unique to hinder the adoption.

what hinders adoption are some of the regulations implemented by each government. Different countries will have different regulations. the current traditional financial steering wheel is also well developed, Fiat also uses digital money to make transactions faster. As well as bitcoin which is a decentralized digital asset or not regulated by anyone, it is still the second digital currency after Fiat. Adoption will continue as long as the government supports cryptocurrencies without providing strict regulation. Governments don't like privacy and security, they need to be able to figure it all out.

We can't expect every country to come up with regulations that are much supportive to the growth of cryptocurrency. Very few countries are liberal and majority haven't even reached a conclusion whether cryptocurrency usage is legal within the country or not. Adoption of bitcoin is happening good, but the same haven't brought big changes as things get accumulated in a specific region and not spread evenly. Mass adoption can be expected in the long run as it takes much time for bitcoin to  be perfectly positioned as the alternate to traditional financial system.

[CryptoSable]

The price of bitcoin is never in the hands of retail investors

[mindrust]

I think it is important to get our facts straight before making such assessments.

How do you define "bitcoin adoption"?

Let's say 50% of the population owns some satoshis but they only hold them, would you call that adoption? Or... This time it is only the 20% of the population owning bitcoin but this time they are using it actively to purchase stuff.

Which one would you call "real" adoption?

When you can answer this question, you can find your answer of your own question.

[Haunebu]

Firstly, did your friend really say this or is this your opinion? Secondly, this sort of arrangement is inevitable no matter how you try to change things up. Restricting BTC access is dumb and silly if you think about it.

Stuff like this won't hinder mass adoption. What would actually hinder it is constant negativity in various forms.

[davis196]

He claimed that this specific set of people is seriously impeding the adoption of Bitcoin. As they have the ability to shock the entire system with sell/buy. Avoiding a centralized authority controlling the system is one of the issues that Bitcoin seeks to overcome. If there is a large demand and widespread adoption, a supply shock would then occur.

They don't shock "the entire system". They shock the Bitcoin market. Learn to differentiate the Bitcoin blockchain from the Bitcoin market.
I actually don't believe that large BTC demand and widespread adoption are coming. Bitcoin cannot become a true global currency, that is being used by billions of people. I think that Bitcoin will remain a volatile financial asset used by risk taking investors to make speculative profits.
The crypto whales didn't cause the current crypto winter. Their ability to manipulate the Bitcoin price had decreased since 2017. I'm sure that at least 90% of all Bitcoin whales want a high Bitcoin price and a bull market, not the opposite.

[Kakmakr]

A massive whale tried this in the early days.... creating a huge "Sell" Wall..... but people stuck together and they slowly chipped away at it.. until it was destroyed. That only happened on one exchange, if I remember correctly ...and things went back to normal within a couple of days.

So the Bitcoin community are pretty resilient when it comes to things like that.... when we are faced with a challenge, we stand together and we ride it out and just continue driving forward.  

[Despairo]

Your friend is stupid for trusting those self proclaimed Bitcoin expert and you're also stupid by trusting your friends' opinion without doing any research first. It's true rich people and whales will hold huge amount of Bitcoin, but you need to know if Bitcoin price is currently $20,000 and there's a whales want to buy all of Bitcoin, the price of those 18 Million Bitcoin isn't $20,000 because each time he bought the coins, there's a people will not sell it for such price and will offer for higher price.

Which mean either whales are have huge amount Bitcoin or not, it will increase Bitcoin price.

[sunsilk]

Let's assume that there's really set of people or groups or what we call whales that are manipulating the market. We're all just talking about it with words but we can't prove it.

By the means of manipulation, we'll all agree that it's in the form of mass media. Those bad news and FUD that has been made through there, it's really the triggering factor that brings fear to most investors and holders of bitcoin.

[Fara Chan]

Actually holders of these whales deserve the benefits, because they take a big risk, and there is no need to limit the ownership of each user and Bitcoin holder. And I think it's the market itself that adjusts this imbalance. the real problem of this mass Bitcoin adoption comes from Governments slowing the growth of Bitcoin, and this lack of awareness about Bitcoin knowledge is also a barrier to Bitcoin adoption.

And there is also what happens among the general public, the government spreads negative news about Bitcoin, of course it hinders most people from knowing and learning about Bitcoin, the government plays a very important role in inhibiting the adoption of Bitcoin, but if the government participates in providing positive knowledge to the community, I believe the center of the problem this will be quickly and easily resolved.

[Poker Player]

Actually holders of these whales deserve the benefits, because they take a big risk, and there is no need to limit the ownership of each user and Bitcoin holder. And I think it's the market itself that adjusts this imbalance. the real problem of this mass Bitcoin adoption comes from Governments slowing the growth of Bitcoin, and this lack of awareness about Bitcoin knowledge is also a barrier to Bitcoin adoption.

I agree 100% on this. Without denying that there may be whales making certain moves based on their interests, the story of the OP sounds to me too much like the dominant discourse against the rich, which adapted to Bitcoin would come to say that they oppress the poor little holders who are victims. The way out according to this discourse: that a politician comes along, usually a socialist or even more to the left and tries to redistrubute, although with the Bitcoin they have a hard time.

[bitzizzix]

The biggest problem is still the government, if the government accepts it as legal and declares that bitcoin is a currency or a worth asset holding, then I believe all other problems will be solved.  Government is the biggest hurdle that bitcoin is facing, just solve the government, bitcoin will be widely accepted. But that possibility is improbable unless the government sees some interest in accepting bitcoin.

It is also possible that bitcoin will change the financial sector, or it could remain anonymous, and decentralized. While mass adoption has often been seen as the ultimate goal of crypto, we may instead be planning for a future that allows those who value privacy and security to keep their preferred cryptocurrencies. I don't see any problem here for the government but as we all know that our traditional financial sector will come up with something unique to hinder the adoption.

what hinders adoption are some of the regulations implemented by each government. Different countries will have different regulations. the current traditional financial steering wheel is also well developed, Fiat also uses digital money to make transactions faster. As well as bitcoin which is a decentralized digital asset or not regulated by anyone, it is still the second digital currency after Fiat. Adoption will continue as long as the government supports cryptocurrencies without providing strict regulation. Governments don't like privacy and security, they need to be able to figure it all out.

Volatility is another reason that scares a lot of people because there are opportunities for those who gain and lose, and nobody likes to lose their hard earned money and this being one part of the problem hindering adoption. And the reason for the volatility, is actually because they don't understand or have any knowledge of bitcoin.
and the main reason is probably still with government regulations and prohibitions, and this is what scares many people especially when they make bad news that is easy to believe because they are leaders of the country who must be obeyed.

[Mate2237]

Bitcoin can't be regulated since it is a decentralized asset. Therefore nobody can limit the number of bitcoin that will holdling by per person. As it is bitcoin need to be circulated in the whole world so that the value of it will be very high.

Why governments are afraid to adopt bitcoin as a legal tender in their Countries because they are afraid that bitcoin will collapse the Fiat currency.

[OcTradism]

Actually holders of these whales deserve the benefits, because they take a big risk, and there is no need to limit the ownership of each user and Bitcoin holder. And I think it's the market itself that adjusts this imbalance. the real problem of this mass Bitcoin adoption comes from Governments slowing the growth of Bitcoin, and this lack of awareness about Bitcoin knowledge is also a barrier to Bitcoin adoption.

Governments are part of Bitcoin adoption with each noise they make, each legislation they launch against Bitcoin. At the end, Bitcoin is strong and can not be killed and only grows bigger and have better adoption. When governments want to ban Bitcoin but failed, it helps more people know about Bitcoin. It is free marketing from governments for Bitcoin.

And there is also what happens among the general public, the government spreads negative news about Bitcoin, of course it hinders most people from knowing and learning about Bitcoin, the government plays a very important role in inhibiting the adoption of Bitcoin, but if the government participates in providing positive knowledge to the community, I believe the center of the problem this will be quickly and easily resolved.

Nowadays there are more resources to learn about Bitcoin from basics to advanced. People don't have to buy courses to learn. Education is important for Bitcoin adoption because with knowledge, they will have stronger belief in Bitcoin. They will be less affected by fuds and less panic react to market.

[Cyber_Alien]

Another issue with mass adoption is securities. Bitcoin is intended to be a secure asset storage system. However, the majority of the crypto sector is deviating from the Blockchain network's principle. For the past few years, security has been a major worry. As in the case of FTX, users no longer trust the system, and some users' funds have been stolen and lost.Some users even blame themselves for the theft of their funds. However, the main purpose of digital money is to assist users in finding it more dependable and trustworthy to utilize. I believe the user should not be held accountable for this. So, if there are security measures that are in place to combat the issue of theft and stolen funds. I believe people will begin to believe in these new developments.

[Yamifoud]

However, the issue is still present and may be more significant than the use of fiat money. Unless Bitcoin holding changes in any way. I believe the system should be changed such that each person is limited to holding a certain quantity of Bitcoin.

I think that this will hinder widespread adoption. What do all of you think?


Happy Christmas 🎄🎄

As we believe the system, therefore, there is nothing that needs to change either.
Adoption will continue to grow, and sooner or later many people will come out and invest in Bitcoin. Yet to see the influence of these whales and we think manipulation will somehow give influence the market trend. But never I see this could stop people from adopting Bitcoin as I believe that whales are not controlling the entire market but just a portion of it ( most likely in altcoins). It is possible they are not ready enough to take the risk and carry the volatility of Bitcoin makes them think that they will just lose their money if they push to do it.

[Jon_Hodl]

He claimed that this specific set of people is seriously impeding the adoption of Bitcoin. As they have the ability to shock the entire system with sell/buy. Avoiding a centralized authority controlling the system is one of the issues that Bitcoin seeks to overcome. If there is a large demand and widespread adoption, a supply shock would then occur.

Not an issue. How much bitcoin other people have doesn't matter. All that should matter to you is how much bitcoin that you have. Nobody can dilute how much bitcoin you have in relation to the total. Nobody can dilute how much bitcoin I have in relation to the total. The best way is to DCA. Buy bitcoin with a fixed purchase amount of fiat over a long period of time. As these "specific set of people" you're talking about, shock the entire system with buying and selling, the amount of bitcoin that you end up buying will change. The lower the price of bitcoin goes, the more sats you end up purchasing with your fixed buy. The higher the fiat price of bitcoin goes, the less bitcoin you end up purchasing.

However, the issue is still present and may be more significant than the use of fiat money. Unless Bitcoin holding changes in any way. I believe the system should be changed such that each person is limited to holding a certain quantity of Bitcoin.

I think that this will hinder widespread adoption. What do all of you think?

Again, how much bitcoin other people have is irrelevant. One of the most important features of Bitcoin is that nobody can dilute the amount of bitcoin that you have in relation to the total. If someone else has 100 BTC, you have 10 BTC, and I only have .1 BTC, nobody has the ability to reduce how much bitcoin any one of us has. If someone sells a large amount of Bitcoin, they only increase fiat purchasing power in relation to bitcoin. If someone buys a large amount of Bitcoin, they only increase my purchasing power of bitcoin in relation to fiat currency.

Don't worry about how much bitcoin other people have. Only focus on how much you have. Just stay humble and stack sats. It truly is the only way.

[crunck]

The biggest problem is still the government, if the government accepts it as legal and declares that bitcoin is a currency or a worth asset holding, then I believe all other problems will be solved.  Government is the biggest hurdle that bitcoin is facing, just solve the government, bitcoin will be widely accepted. But that possibility is improbable unless the government sees some interest in accepting bitcoin.

It is also possible that bitcoin will change the financial sector, or it could remain anonymous, and decentralized. While mass adoption has often been seen as the ultimate goal of crypto, we may instead be planning for a future that allows those who value privacy and security to keep their preferred cryptocurrencies. I don't see any problem here for the government but as we all know that our traditional financial sector will come up with something unique to hinder the adoption.

The government still controls everything, the government may not be able to stop bitcoin but they can stop you and us from using bitcoin with strict regulations. Government is the biggest barrier, bitcoin is nothing if the government really wants to stop it. They are still lenient with us by the regulations, if it's a ban I don't think you would go against their ban.

[kamvreto]

~snip~Mass adoption can be expected in the long run as it takes much time for bitcoin to  be perfectly positioned as the alternate to traditional financial system.

bitcoin journey is still long, it takes a lot of adjustments and development as well as research conducted in each country. being an alternative to the traditional financial system certainly requires a lot of improvement, adoption cannot be done easily there will be many pros and cons.

Volatility is another reason that scares a lot of people because there are opportunities for those who gain and lose, and nobody likes to lose their hard earned money and this being one part of the problem hindering adoption. And the reason for the volatility, is actually because they don't understand or have any knowledge of bitcoin.
and the main reason is probably still with government regulations and prohibitions, and this is what scares many people especially when they make bad news that is easy to believe because they are leaders of the country who must be obeyed.

volatility is a problem that can be solved with research and knowledge of why bitcoin has high volatility. it is undeniable that the volatility of bitcoin will provide both advantages and disadvantages. advantages for those who can make good use of it and losses for those who cannot learn the nature and characteristics of bitcoin. the government also needs to study and minimize the losses caused by this volatility, and each government implements the regulations they make for the safety and convenience of the public to transact and invest.

[Newlifebtc]

The information of Bitcoin has gone viral and everybody especially the use have known what is Bitcoin because it is like a self employment which everyone I like to invest in Bitcoin so bitcoin is well known everywhere and any place you go today and have a discussion of Bitcoin many people will like to give you a listening ear so understand what bitcoin is all about so I believe that Bitcoin is becoming a universal currency

[danadc]

The only problem that I always see for mass adoption is the war that there is against bitcoin in the news, they always talk bad about bitcoin and have very large audiences and what they do is that they hate bitcoin because they say that investment in bitcoin is not It is safe, and this information is paid a lot of attention by people who are of legal age or very old adults, the case of CNN is the one that does the most bad things by propagating bitcoin and that channel is widely watched by people in the world , especially those who are of Latin origin who always want to have front-line information is something that is detrimental.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I kinda have the feeling that your friend is concerned about oligarchy. I don't have a doubt that a Bitcoin standard is going to create oligarchs-- it will. That isn't a currency feature / bug. It's human nature. What matters is how will this oligarchy occur. A monetary system that is fundamentally tied with the state is perpetually proven to create oligarchs in an unfair manner advantageously speaking; we've built an alternative to that.

[Jon_Hodl]

I kinda have the feeling that your friend is concerned about oligarchy. I don't have a doubt that a Bitcoin standard is going to create oligarchs-- it will. That isn't a currency feature / bug. It's human nature. What matters is how will this oligarchy occur. A monetary system that is fundamentally tied with the state is perpetually proven to create oligarchs in an unfair manner advantageously speaking; we've built an alternative to that.

Well stated. The key difference with Bitcoin is that the oligarchs will actually have to provide some sort of value in order to get more bitcoin. They won't be able to rely on political connections like they do now.

The days of the Cantillon effect are numbered.

[justdimin]

Actually holders of these whales deserve the benefits, because they take a big risk, and there is no need to limit the ownership of each user and Bitcoin holder. And I think it's the market itself that adjusts this imbalance. the real problem of this mass Bitcoin adoption comes from Governments slowing the growth of Bitcoin, and this lack of awareness about Bitcoin knowledge is also a barrier to Bitcoin adoption.

Governments are part of Bitcoin adoption with each noise they make, each legislation they launch against Bitcoin. At the end, Bitcoin is strong and can not be killed and only grows bigger and have better adoption. When governments want to ban Bitcoin but failed, it helps more people know about Bitcoin. It is free marketing from governments for Bitcoin.

I feel like even a total 100% ban on crypto, including trading and even ownership, could still not kill bitcoin at all. I mean sure it could hurt it, wouldn't want that to happen if you asked me and I would rather see crypto flourish and grow bigger and El Salvador type of deals all around the world would make it so much bigger and I would rather have that.

But that doesn't mean that I would consider stop using bitcoin if my government stopped it. I mean the best thing to do right now is to promote it and tell our politicians to accept it and make it legal, but even if they ignore then I wouldn't stop, which proves that bitcoin is here forever.

[laurenB7742]

Why governments are afraid to adopt bitcoin as a legal tender in their Countries because they are afraid that bitcoin will collapse the Fiat currency.

I'm not sure if bitcoin could bring down the fiat empire if it were legal tender, but I think they don't accept bitcoin because they can't control it. Once it is out of control, the government can make neither profit from it nor manage its citizens. If the government does not manage the people, social evils will increase, and everything will get worse once it is not controlled.

You know, not everyone uses bitcoins for good, criminals will use bitcoins for their evil. There are many reasons not to accept a decentralized currency, not just the demise of fiat.

[libert19]

Why is it a problem? They Accumulate with their money, hold through these bear/bulls with all these hacks, scams.

If they are holding large amount since Bitcoin's inception, good for them, it's commendable feat.

Everyone has freedom to do what they do.

[mk4]

The price of bitcoin is never in the hands of retail investors

It's in the hands of every market participant in general — and yes, even retail investors. Let's not forget how retail-infested the 2017 bull run was.

[pooya87]

I kinda have the feeling that your friend is concerned about oligarchy. I don't have a doubt that a Bitcoin standard is going to create oligarchs-- it will. That isn't a currency feature / bug. It's human nature. What matters is how will this oligarchy occur. A monetary system that is fundamentally tied with the state is perpetually proven to create oligarchs in an unfair manner advantageously speaking; we've built an alternative to that.

The good news is that when it comes to bitcoin and its adoption, it has always been a free world from day one. In other words anybody could have become a whale for example by purchasing $1000 worth of bitcoin when it was only $0.01 which is worth ~$1.7 billion today. They were also free to ignore bitcoin and watch others adopt bitcoin and improve their financial situation.

[WatChe]

I kinda have the feeling that your friend is concerned about oligarchy. I don't have a doubt that a Bitcoin standard is going to create oligarchs-- it will. That isn't a currency feature / bug. It's human nature. What matters is how will this oligarchy occur. A monetary system that is fundamentally tied with the state is perpetually proven to create oligarchs in an unfair manner advantageously speaking; we've built an alternative to that.

The good news is that when it comes to bitcoin and its adoption, it has always been a free world from day one. In other words anybody could have become a whale for example by purchasing $1000 worth of bitcoin when it was only $0.01 which is worth ~$1.7 billion today. They were also free to ignore bitcoin and watch others adopt bitcoin and improve their financial situation.

The point is when bitcoin was 0.1$ not many took it seriously. There are stories wherelaszlo bought pizza for 10,000 bitcoinRe: Pizza for bitcoins?. If the merchant has taken care of that 10,000 BTC for few years, he could have availed good profit. Its only when bitcoin price rose to high levels, then the world started jumping into crypto.
Those who have invested in bitcoin when others took it forgranted are rightly whalesnow, IMHO.

[BlackHatCoiner]

The key difference with Bitcoin is that the oligarchs will actually have to provide some sort of value in order to get more bitcoin.

And oligarchy does not emerge after the proposed political change. It has already emerged before. Nobody forces the usage of bitcoin. If a council were to vote for a Bitcoin standard, they'd do it by the admission of the current group of oligarchs. If they don't like that, they're free to vote against. On the other hand, a fiat currency that supposedly thrives for democracy and prosperity requires from the voters to have faith; faith that the theory will be practice.

The good news is that when it comes to bitcoin and its adoption, it has always been a free world from day one.

That. Merchants (or at least, merchants who do make a little search about their payment methods) know it deep down. If it ever fails to be a practical currency in most countries, we'll all know why. Even though, I'm of the opinion that the current fiat standard will push them to alternatives. If not now, be it in the future. I do think it'll take a while to see some economic growth in the Southern Europe.

It works great from most Internet merchants years now. There was the need.

[cryptosize]

I do think it'll take a while to see some economic growth in the Southern Europe.

Why Southern specifically?

You think Northern Europe will have it easy when the euro eventually collapses?

If anything, we'll go back to ancient standards of living, where Southern Europe thrived (due to favorable climate conditions) and Northern Europe was a cold and inhospitable place (due to lack of technology/cheap energy/heating) for most people (like in the Vikings era).

Judging by the USA winter storm, there's a new ice age coming (too bad Greta fanatics expected "global warming" )...

[Abiky]

I was chatting about Bitcoin's impact and effects with a few friends today. My friends discuss the impact that Bitcoin whales are having on the adoption of Bitcoin. In the coming years, according to Bitcoin experts, adoption will increase. He claimed that 3.7 million coins are lost, with the remaining coins being held on chains by early adopters.

He claimed that this specific set of people is seriously impeding the adoption of Bitcoin. As they have the ability to shock the entire system with sell/buy. Avoiding a centralized authority controlling the system is one of the issues that Bitcoin seeks to overcome. If there is a large demand and widespread adoption, a supply shock would then occur.

However, the issue is still present and may be more significant than the use of fiat money. Unless Bitcoin holding changes in any way. I believe the system should be changed such that each person is limited to holding a certain quantity of Bitcoin.

I think that this will hinder widespread adoption. What do all of you think?


Happy Christmas 🎄🎄

I don't think this will hinder mainstream adoption of Bitcoin. Whales may hold a large amount of coins, but they won't be able to hold all 21m coins that will ever be mined. Coins that are lost, essentially add towards the value of Bitcoin in the long run. Besides, there are plenty of BTC left to mine before the 21m cap is reached. I'm pretty sure there are many people holding coins on their own, especially when Bitcoin is accessible to anyone with an Internet connection.

If there's ever an issue with the distribution of coins, developers could easily propose increasing the supply for the community's approval. But that would defeat Bitcoin's purpose of being a deflationary cryptocurrency. No one can predict the future, so we can only hope for the best. Just my opinion

[taufik123]

-snip-
If there's ever an issue with the distribution of coins, developers could easily propose increasing the supply for the community's approval. But that would defeat Bitcoin's purpose of being a deflationary cryptocurrency. No one can predict the future, so we can only hope for the best. Just my opinion

Increasing the supply of bitcoins will only give bitcoins new problems and the real purpose for bitcoins to be created will also be meaningless.

Satoshi Nakamoto created bitcoin and put a strict limit on the amount of bitcoin supply of only 21 million, it is a hard cap that will not increase and is the core proportion of bitcoin's value.

Bitcoin is protected from changing or adding to its amount by its incentive system and governance model. Thanks to bitcoin's proprietary architecture, the entities that control Bitcoin's rule set have a solid incentive to reject hard cap changes, while those who wish to change them have no ability to control the network.

Although adding supplies can be done with the approval of the community, it will not be that easy to do.

[Leviathan.007]

Proper distribution of holdings will only happen when real adoption occurs. There’s no need to limit the holdings of each user since it will just suppress the freedom of holding Bitcoin. Those whale holders deserves to have that profit because they actually risk big on something they don’t guarantee profit during there early investment.

The real problem of Bitcoin mass adoption are the government and bankers that keeps slowing down Bitcoin growth through the laws that will regulate Bitcoin. Also the shit CEX that keeps doing shady trades to manipulate the Bitcoin price to pump and dump scheme.

I'm not going to say that I do not agree with the bitcoin mass adoption but from what I can see every time we talk about the adoption of bitcoin in a country we can also see their government is asking people to pass KYC before making any transaction also they want their people to to pay tax for the investments they have and for the exchanges they do, this systems is actually same as the trdetiopan and cetralazed systems they already have in their country and that's gaist the bitcoin basics.

[qwertyup23]

It's not known whether there truly is a small group of people that is able and actively engages in triggering major Bitcoin price shifts. I don't see enough evidence if it, and thus I don't believe it. Distribution is definitely uneven, but that's the way with any kind of wealth in the world, so it's a global challenge. Limiting the amount per person would be dystopian, as it limits the freedom of people to buy however much they want and requires linking all wallets to personal IDs to ensure  one person doesn't simply have several wallets to avoid the limit. I think that a way toward more equal distribution of  wealth, including Bitcoin, shouldn't be as restrictive.

I definitely agree with your statement.

I also doubt that a group/entity can affect the price of BTC in the market even if they have majority of the coins on hand. They may manipulate the price at some point but the effects would not be that too much of a difference to the point that it will definitely disrupt the market. Like what you also mentioned, having a centralized authority which regulates the transaction of BTC contradicts to the very nature on why BTC was created in the first place.

Again, this is not what Satoshi imagined if this were to happen. Having the freedom to transact using BTC without the need of a central authority is the true gift of BTC and this should not be eliminated due to regulation from a central authority.

[GreatArkansas]

(....)

I'm not going to say that I do not agree with the bitcoin mass adoption but from what I can see every time we talk about the adoption of bitcoin in a country we can also see their government is asking people to pass KYC before making any transaction also they want their people to to pay tax for the investments they have and for the exchanges they do, this systems is actually same as the trdetiopan and cetralazed systems they already have in their country and that's gaist the bitcoin basics.

This is totally different from how Bitcoin works, these KYC things are centralized, you can always use Bitcoin without doing such things as KYC or any centralized related, you can send and receive Bitcoin.
Maybe what you mean is using some centralized services like cryptocurrency exchanges.

[Dzwaafu11]

Well I've nothing on mass adoption of bitcoin but if we are talking about it.. But the problem is how to persuade them  to always be active one the business, you know they always talk bad about bitcoin so do how did you think mass adoption of bitcoin will be easy people will see it as difficult thing.

[Artem Sereda]

It's not known whether there truly is a small group of people that is able and actively engages in triggering major Bitcoin price shifts. I don't see enough evidence if it, and thus I don't believe it. Distribution is definitely uneven, but that's the way with any kind of wealth in the world, so it's a global challenge. Limiting the amount per person would be dystopian, as it limits the freedom of people to buy however much they want and requires linking all wallets to personal IDs to ensure  one person doesn't simply have several wallets to avoid the limit. I think that a way toward more equal distribution of  wealth, including Bitcoin, shouldn't be as restrictive.

I definitely agree with your statement.

I also doubt that a group/entity can affect the price of BTC in the market even if they have majority of the coins on hand. They may manipulate the price at some point but the effects would not be that too much of a difference to the point that it will definitely disrupt the market. Like what you also mentioned, having a centralized authority which regulates the transaction of BTC contradicts to the very nature on why BTC was created in the first place.

Again, this is not what Satoshi imagined if this were to happen. Having the freedom to transact using BTC without the need of a central authority is the true gift of BTC and this should not be eliminated due to regulation from a central authority.

I think this is about CEX. Since this is the only thing that can be described.

[Abiky]

Increasing the supply of bitcoins will only give bitcoins new problems and the real purpose for bitcoins to be created will also be meaningless.

Satoshi Nakamoto created bitcoin and put a strict limit on the amount of bitcoin supply of only 21 million, it is a hard cap that will not increase and is the core proportion of bitcoin's value.

Bitcoin is protected from changing or adding to its amount by its incentive system and governance model. Thanks to bitcoin's proprietary architecture, the entities that control Bitcoin's rule set have a solid incentive to reject hard cap changes, while those who wish to change them have no ability to control the network.

Although adding supplies can be done with the approval of the community, it will not be that easy to do.

It's very unlikely Bitcoin will experience a change in supply sometime in the future. Developers are better off leaving it as is for the good of the project. Besides, there are quadrillion satoshis in existence. That's more than enough for the whole world to use. Things would've been worse if Bitcoin was only divisible to two units. Being highly-divisible, is what makes Bitcoin completely unique from Fiat.

The problem with mass adoption is not the supply, but rather governments becoming an obstacle against the cryptocurrency. They don't want people using it, especially when they can't control it. Decentralization is the antithesis of everything traditional Fiat currencies have stood for since their inception. I'd expect more opposition against Bitcoin because of the way it was designed. There would be no reason to worry about this, especially when the cryptocurrency lives on the Internet. People will eventually discover it, greatly contributing towards its adoption worldwide. Who knows what would be of Bitcoin 1-2 decades from now? Just my thoughts

[jostorres]

(....)

I'm not going to say that I do not agree with the bitcoin mass adoption but from what I can see every time we talk about the adoption of bitcoin in a country we can also see their government is asking people to pass KYC before making any transaction also they want their people to to pay tax for the investments they have and for the exchanges they do, this systems is actually same as the trdetiopan and cetralazed systems they already have in their country and that's gaist the bitcoin basics.

This is totally different from how Bitcoin works, these KYC things are centralized, you can always use Bitcoin without doing such things as KYC or any centralized related, you can send and receive Bitcoin.
Maybe what you mean is using some centralized services like cryptocurrency exchanges.

That is the biggest difference but it has become so intertwined with bitcoin world that people confuse them. I mean I am sure that majority of bitcoins are bought or sold in places that ask for KYC and that means the world knows most of the people who bought or sold crypto to begin with. That doesn't mean it's a must, you could do it without KYC and you could continue your life without being known, but that doesn't mean that it's not the common thing.

It used to be a bit more like nobody knew who had bitcoins, nowadays it's more like we rarely do not know who owns bitcoins and that difference definitely made some changes of conception and understanding of bitcoin.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Being highly-divisible, is what makes Bitcoin completely unique from Fiat.

Divisibility doesn't matter a lot, in comparison with fiat. It might do comparably with gold, but not with fiat; there are quadrillion of fiat cents as well.

The problem with mass adoption is not the supply, but rather governments becoming an obstacle against the cryptocurrency.

Pretty much that. The governments' loss is more intense than the citizens' benefit from switching to a Bitcoin standard (or just from expanding the adoption). If there was a big need for bitcoin, it'd have already been adopted globally. However, adoption increases by the years, which seems to me that the benefit is becoming more and more apparent.

[lizarder]

He claimed that this specific set of people is seriously impeding the adoption of Bitcoin. As they have the ability to shock the entire system with sell/buy. Avoiding a centralized authority controlling the system is one of the issues that Bitcoin seeks to overcome. If there is a large demand and widespread adoption, a supply shock would then occur.

That's why bitcoin is growing and developing today, because there is a buy/sell system running in it, allowing people to take a role in investing, while centralized authorities do not have access to the bitcoin travel system. The existence of supply and demand makes bitcoin continue to be in demand and used as a promising investment asset by many people.

While the adoption has been quite widespread, bitcoin has been used in various countries and is not only limited to the investment function, but the adoption of payments has also been enabled in various places at this time.

However, the issue is still present and may be more significant than the use of fiat money. Unless Bitcoin holding changes in any way. I believe the system should be changed such that each person is limited to holding a certain quantity of Bitcoin.

This looks so ridiculous if you know bitcoin as a decentralized currency, no one person or system can limit the amount of bitcoin ownership that people have, bitcoin is different from fiat currency so it is impossible to have a formula for limiting ownership.

Bitcoins in circulation are also public and recorded in a ledger that anyone can view, so there is no reason to limit the number of bitcoin holdings held to a certain amount, the concept you are trying to offer would seem confusing for a decentralized currency.

[uneng]

It's not known whether there truly is a small group of people that is able and actively engages in triggering major Bitcoin price shifts. I don't see enough evidence if it, and thus I don't believe it. Distribution is definitely uneven, but that's the way with any kind of wealth in the world, so it's a global challenge. Limiting the amount per person would be dystopian, as it limits the freedom of people to buy however much they want and requires linking all wallets to personal IDs to ensure  one person doesn't simply have several wallets to avoid the limit. I think that a way toward more equal distribution of  wealth, including Bitcoin, shouldn't be as restrictive.

I definitely agree with your statement.

I also doubt that a group/entity can affect the price of BTC in the market even if they have majority of the coins on hand. They may manipulate the price at some point but the effects would not be that too much of a difference to the point that it will definitely disrupt the market. Like what you also mentioned, having a centralized authority which regulates the transaction of BTC contradicts to the very nature on why BTC was created in the first place.

Again, this is not what Satoshi imagined if this were to happen. Having the freedom to transact using BTC without the need of a central authority is the true gift of BTC and this should not be eliminated due to regulation from a central authority.

It's true whales can manipulate the market, but they can do this only once, because once they drop a large number of bitcoins for sale, those coins will be immediately splitted among more investors, decentralizing the supply of bitcoins in the market. Actually, that is already happening since the beginning. In previous years, manipulation was so much powerful in crypto market than it is right now, because the more investors adopt bitcoin, the less influence whales will have to play with prices. It's the kind of issue which doesn't have an immediate solution. It's something which decreases progressively within time. It's a long process.

[romero121]

It is the governments that work against the adoption of bitcoin. There are countries taking adequate measures in favour of bitcoin mass adoption. Last year the countries to top the list favouring bitcoin mass adoption were Brazil, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, El Salvador and Central African Republic. These countries amidst all the opposition and different problems have been working on developing framework to support bitcoin usage. Governments fearing cryptocurrency is the only problem.

[Broadanbig]

Massive adoption of Bitcoin would definitely increase the demand pressure of bitcoin irrespective of government actions. When there is proper awareness the communication barrier is broken which will therefore call for proper review on how the adoption is progressing. No other thing is a challenge to mass adoption of bitcoin rather, it should be a benefit because when more people are in possession or in need of bitcoin, the demand will be high.

[GeorgeJohn]

Bitcoin is always growing and introducing new kind of use cases every day. Mass adoption does not come with a problem. People will still have traditional fiat currency for regular buy, sell of products. And if the people who hold a huge portion of bitcoin (not confirmed yet) decides to manipulate the market, then there will always be other people willing to do the opposite. Such as, pump in price by whales - people will sell. Dump in price by whales - people will buy.
And those who are holding for decades now, won't let go of their holdings. That's just how I see the market.

Bitcoin today have many supporters because it's been confirmed as a good potential, and many people have values the adoption of bitcoin. While people is been massive of adopting Bitcoin everyday, it's because of the market of Bitcoin in bullish market and kind of transaction procession with Bitcoin, because when using Bitcoin for a transaction across the country, it's not have much delay compare with transaction of Fiat

[tjtonmoy]

Bitcoin is always growing and introducing new kind of use cases every day. Mass adoption does not come with a problem. People will still have traditional fiat currency for regular buy, sell of products. And if the people who hold a huge portion of bitcoin (not confirmed yet) decides to manipulate the market, then there will always be other people willing to do the opposite. Such as, pump in price by whales - people will sell. Dump in price by whales - people will buy.
And those who are holding for decades now, won't let go of their holdings. That's just how I see the market.

Bitcoin today have many supporters because it's been confirmed as a good potential, and many people have values the adoption of bitcoin. While people is been massive of adopting Bitcoin everyday, it's because of the market of Bitcoin in bullish market and kind of transaction procession with Bitcoin, because when using Bitcoin for a transaction across the country, it's not have much delay compare with transaction of Fiat

We can not yet say that the market is bullish yet. Nothing in the price chart has indicated any of the movements towards bullish market. We are in the crypto winter and this is going to stay like this for a bit more. We are yet to see another push towards the up.
If this mass adoption was a part of the bull run market, then the price would have skyrocketed. But in this bear market, even with news and indication is not enough to push BTC through its threshold.
But we all know that the potential is there and one day it will happen for sure.

[GeorgeJohn]

We can not yet say that the market is bullish yet.

From my emphasis i have not stipulate that we are into bullish market, only what i said,was that people now accept Bitcoin oe adopt Bitcoin of bullish news, so as it stands now we all are aware that Bitcoin since 2022 it has bot gone out with in bearish market the way I'm saying the current situation of Bitcoin now, so i believe that Bitcoin will have a good value in 2024

[ChiBitCTy]

I was chatting about Bitcoin's impact and effects with a few friends today. My friends discuss the impact that Bitcoin whales are having on the adoption of Bitcoin. In the coming years, according to Bitcoin experts, adoption will increase. He claimed that 3.7 million coins are lost, with the remaining coins being held on chains by early adopters.

He claimed that this specific set of people is seriously impeding the adoption of Bitcoin. As they have the ability to shock the entire system with sell/buy. Avoiding a centralized authority controlling the system is one of the issues that Bitcoin seeks to overcome. If there is a large demand and widespread adoption, a supply shock would then occur.

However, the issue is still present and may be more significant than the use of fiat money. Unless Bitcoin holding changes in any way. I believe the system should be changed such that each person is limited to holding a certain quantity of Bitcoin.

I think that this will hinder widespread adoption. What do all of you think?


Happy Christmas 🎄🎄

What you're promoting here is a form of communism and it doesn't work, just look at all the nations that have tried it in the past and those that are currently trying to use it as legitimate form of government.

You bring up some good points here, but I think your friends have greatly over-stated things when it comes to the whales. I know plenty of people who own just a little bit of bitcoin.  It's not like the price is that high right now to be buying in, relatively speaking.

[Abiky]

It is the governments that work against the adoption of bitcoin. There are countries taking adequate measures in favour of bitcoin mass adoption. Last year the countries to top the list favouring bitcoin mass adoption were Brazil, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, El Salvador and Central African Republic. These countries amidst all the opposition and different problems have been working on developing framework to support bitcoin usage. Governments fearing cryptocurrency is the only problem.

Exactly. The main obstacle against the mainstream adoption of Bitcoin has always been governments. Some of them have embraced the cryptocurrency with open arms, but the vast majority of them are highly skeptical about it. We can't expect people around the world to adopt Bitcoin as an alternative to Fiat, when there's strong opposition against it. This happens when a monetary system (such as Bitcoin) is decentralized and censorship-resistant. You can bet governments wouldn't be against BTC if it was centralized.

While I believe adoption will continue to grow over time, it will be at a slow and steady pace. I'm pretty sure, Bitcoin has all it takes to become the payment system of the world. Who knows if Bitcoin beats Fiat sometime in the future? Just my opinion