Problem with mass adoption of Bitcoin

[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.

[1714248351]

1714248351

[1714248351]

1714248351

[1714248351]

1714248351

[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.