Problem with mass adoption of Bitcoin

[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.

[1714675571]

1714675571

[1714675571]

1714675571

[1714675571]

1714675571

[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