"Blockchain is useful, Bitcoin is not" — How do you respond to this?

[Swordsoffreedom]

No government could "stop it" anymore than governments can fully stop child porn networks despite how hard they try, but the US government could very easily make Bitcoin so hard get and dangerous to hold that the price would go back down to pennies.

Hence, while it's technically true that "Bitcoin is unstoppable", in practicality it's just as "stoppable" as any other major asset.

And while Bitcoin solves the problem of being impossible to actually kill, that's not a problem that 99.99% of consumers need solved. Most people invest in Bitcoin with an app, a broker, the ETFs, or some other mechanism that makes no use of Bitcoin's decentralization.

So yes, for Bitcoin 2010, when the price was less than a dollar a coin, all of these things are relevant. But these things became meaningless when mainstream investors drove the price into the billions.

China already has proven it with its own hand, completely banning exchange and mining, all hash rate fled the country within a few week the price dropped a little but after 18 month it set a new ATH, XD

And what was the benefit of all the hype about Tornado Cash? The public simply shifted to new tools. Whenever regulators crack down on exchange, self custody volume skyrocket. So no single govt has a master switch that can be flipped and Bitcoin can be shut down

Those who say that 'ownerless, unstoppable money' is just a marketing dodge are not really getting the point. Dude this is the true identity and value of Bitcoin. Blackrock or the etf team are just the paper version of Bitcoin, the real asset are those that are stored in cold storage, multi sig and lightning network. No one can freeze them they cannot be seized and there is no question of closing them. The thinking that the Cypherpunk won in 2010 still survives with force 

[barbara44]

Blockchain is a technology whereas bitcoin is a pioneer product and bitcoin can only exists thanks to blockchain being such a powerful technology, we have seen blockchain being used even on the worst kind of memecoin or shitcoins, and yet those never got the same interest. Because while blockchain made bitcoin possible, it was bitcoin that got the interest and not other projects, and why other projects are not loved as much as bitcoin?

Because while bitcoin is the first, it's the most decentralized and trusted as well. As long as we have bitcoin, I am going to keep loving it, I love them both, blockchain and bitcoin can be possible only together, without one , the other isn't as useful and will not matter.

[legiteum]

No government could "stop it" anymore than governments can fully stop child porn networks despite how hard they try, but the US government could very easily make Bitcoin so hard get and dangerous to hold that the price would go back down to pennies.

Hence, while it's technically true that "Bitcoin is unstoppable", in practicality it's just as "stoppable" as any other major asset.

And while Bitcoin solves the problem of being impossible to actually kill, that's not a problem that 99.99% of consumers need solved. Most people invest in Bitcoin with an app, a broker, the ETFs, or some other mechanism that makes no use of Bitcoin's decentralization.

So yes, for Bitcoin 2010, when the price was less than a dollar a coin, all of these things are relevant. But these things became meaningless when mainstream investors drove the price into the billions.

China already has proven it with its own hand, completely banning exchange and mining, all hash rate fled the country within a few week the price dropped a little but after 18 month it set a new ATH, XD

China was perhaps 1% of the demand for Bitcoin--and they never actually banned owning and trading it, just mining it and bank ownership of it.

The US and its western allies banning Bitcoin would drop the price by 99% at least. Yes, it would still "exist", but you could forget all about billions of dollars pouring into like we have now.

And what was the benefit of all the hype about Tornado Cash? The public simply shifted to new tools. Whenever regulators crack down on exchange, self custody volume skyrocket. So no single govt has a master switch that can be flipped and Bitcoin can be shut down

Again, nobody here is talking about "shutting down" Bitcoin--that's a straw man (that people repeat over and over and over again so go figure). We're only talking about dropping its price by 99% when mainstream money bails out if government(s) ban it.

Currently at least 75% of Bitcoin's price is probably based directly on the Republicans being in power in the USA. After the crypto community bought the 2024 US elections, I think it's pretty safe to say that the old "libertarian" religion that started Bitcoin is long, long gone. Now it's just a government-controlled, government-propped-up speculative asset that is based on US election outcomes and the manipulations of a few whales.

[sbercoin.one]

How the majority of the users used it doesn't matter in this context. What matters is "what gives Bitcoin its value". If nobody at all uses Bitcoin as a currency again, that doesn't take away the currency feature of Bitcoin. It is not a currency because people use it; it is a currency because it was built that way.

But in your first reply you said: "It is the fact that it is a superior currency that allows it to be an asset."
If nobody uses it as currency — where does the value come from? You can't have it both ways: either currency features give it value (then usage matters), or they don't (then what does?).
A car built as a vehicle doesn't retain value if nobody drives it. Design intent doesn't create value — usage does.

Once upon a time, there were people who believed that altcoins would make Bitcoin vulnerable because they were faster in transactions, had lower fees and all, but here we are today, none have come close.

Altcoins were crypto competing with crypto. Tokenization is traditional finance absorbing blockchain. Different game.
Altcoins had no institutional backing, no regulatory framework, no connection to real economy. BlackRock's BUIDL has all three.

OpenAI has a market value of about $500B, do you think everybody who holds their shares believes in the project or company? NO. A lot of them, too, just want to make a profit.

OpenAI shares represent ownership in a company with revenue, IP, and cash flow. Even if you don't "believe" — you own something real.
Bitcoin shares (via ETF) represent... Bitcoin. Which represents... the expectation that someone will pay more later.
That's the difference. OpenAI speculators are betting on a company. Bitcoin speculators are betting on other speculators.

Most of the demand has always come from speculators, and this is not a bad thing. People buy bitcoin, because they speculate that, since it's the hardest money, its purchasing power is likely to continue going up. Just as most people buy gold, not to wear it or to put it in electronics, but to protect themselves from the inflation caused by the central banks.

Gold has 5,000 years of history as store of value, physical scarcity you can touch, and industrial demand as a floor. Bitcoin has 15 years and a narrative.
I'm not saying narrative is worthless — clearly it's worth $1T+. But narratives can shift. Gold's hasn't shifted in millennia. Bitcoin's shifts every cycle (digital gold → inflation hedge → risk-on asset → store of value again).

Bitcoin is money. Money does not have any utility other than to be exchanged through space and time. Bitcoin is just the best money at traveling through space and time, and the market realizes it.

"Best money for traveling through time" implies stability. Bitcoin dropped 80%+ three times in the last decade. That's not traveling through time — that's a rollercoaster.
For actual time-travel (retirement, inheritance), people want predictability. That's why pension funds buy bonds, not Bitcoin. And now tokenized bonds exist on the same rails.
You still haven't answered my core question: if speculators drive Bitcoin's value, what happens when a better speculative vehicle appears? One with yield, regulatory clarity, and the same 24/7 blockchain access?

China already has proven it with its own hand, completely banning exchange and mining, all hash rate fled the country within a few week the price dropped a little but after 18 month it set a new ATH.

China banned it, price recovered — true. But China didn't have a viable alternative to offer.
What happens when the "ban" isn't a prohibition, but a better product? If BlackRock offers tokenized S&P500 with 10% yield on the same blockchain rails — that's not a ban, that's competition.
Bitcoin survived government attacks. The question is whether it survives being ignored by the mainstream while something shinier takes the spotlight.

[henry_of_skalitz]

Bitcoin is absolutely used, almost exclusively, as a long-term investment, not a utility because it doesn't work well for that.

As I said previously, bitcoin is money, and money does not have any utility beyond exchanging. You do not buy bitcoin to do something with it other than to exchange it for something else. Money is not a consumption good nor a capital good.

Bitcoin does provide utility, such as pseudonymous, permissionless transactions, that is not provided by other forms of money (e.g., Paypal) but that is just part of being money to my mind. No "extra" utility that comes from "consuming it" somehow, like gold.

It's just that BTC is the money that is not as used as the usual money. And this is changing on our own eyes little by little.

[Alpha Marine]

But in your first reply you said: "It is the fact that it is a superior currency that allows it to be an asset."
If nobody uses it as currency — where does the value come from? You can't have it both ways: either currency features give it value (then usage matters), or they don't (then what does?).

No, the usage does not matter. It is not the usage of Bitcoin that makes it a currency. It was built as a currency from the beginning.
The point is, Bitcoin has value because it is a currency. Bitcoin is an asset because it is a currency. Even if nobody uses it as a currency anymore, everybody already knows what it is as a currency, and that is where the value comes from.
Using a tablet phone as a table tennis bat doesn't stop it from being a tablet phone, does it?

A car built as a vehicle doesn't retain value if nobody drives it. Design intent doesn't create value — usage does.

There are cars in people's garages that they don't drive, and they will never drive them until they get passed to another person or they sell, yet these cars are worth hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. Most of these garage queens are used as investments. Sometimes, these cars are transported to events for viewing. The ones that are driven are only driven a few times a year. Does this stop them from being a car, even though they are never driven?

[macson]

1. How do you respond to the argument "blockchain is useful, Bitcoin is not"?

That is their assumption because they see that they cannot control Bitcoin, whereas Blockchain technology can be applied to the services they offer, so they see that Blockchain is more useful than Bitcoin which does not provide any benefits to them.

2. Are ETF buyers adoption or just speculation?

There's a reason people buy ETFs, they might avoid dealing with wallets or other things they think would be a hassle, since they're solely focused on the Bitcoin price. These individuals aren't adopters, but rather speculators solely seeking financial gain.

3. If tokenized assets offer everything Bitcoin does + yield + regulatory protection — what remains unique about Bitcoin besides trustlessness?

Decentralization and full control over your assets. That's what makes Bitcoin unique compared to asset tokenization. With Bitcoin, you have complete control over your assets through self-custody --- you don't have to worry about your assets being seized, frozen, or anything else that could cause you to lose control of them.

[VRExpress]

If Bitcoin has been so useless for anyone in this forum I think this is the best time to let us know, Bitcoin is useful for me in two different places

1. I am able to make money just by holding some Bitcoin.
2. It is a good option for payment solution.

I have been able to shop purchase things from intentional countries because they accept Bitcoin payment, they won't accept Fiat because my country is not supported and Bitcoin filled that gap.

As you can see, I can't support the claim that Bitcoin is not useful.

[betswift]

If Bitcoin has been so useless for anyone in this forum I think this is the best time to let us know, Bitcoin is useful for me in two different places

1. I am able to make money just by holding some Bitcoin.
2. It is a good option for payment solution.

I have been able to shop purchase things from intentional countries because they accept Bitcoin payment, they won't accept Fiat because my country is not supported and Bitcoin filled that gap.

As you can see, I can't support the claim that Bitcoin is not useful.

I don't think we would find such peeps on BTCTalk Forum in BTC section

[obuoma]

The post tried to be intelligently crafted as it likely confused even Bitcoin enthusiasts into believing that it is true. Both Blockchain and Bitcoin are useful, this is the simple truth. Bitcoin solves a fundamental problem which is the ability of transaction to happen between two parties without the interference of a third party. Everyone is faced with the challenges of censorship, high fees and transaction taking business days to settle for cross-border transaction,  and outright denial of service when governments questions the source of the funds or for even funny reasons. These problems are completely solved by Bitcoin.

If you believe that tokenization solves better problem than Bitcoin, tell us some of the successful tokenization projects and their impacts in real life, then we can start the discussion from there.

[Smartprofit]

In my opinion, it's the other way around. Bitcoin is useful, blockchain (in most cases) is not. 🙋

Blockchain, in my opinion, is a very specific technology. In most cases, it is inferior in efficiency to centralized solutions. Maintaining a blockchain system is very expensive. Blockchain systems are very slow. There are too many duplicate elements...

At the same time, blockchain systems operate very efficiently in an untrusted environment. Therefore, based on all of the above, the scope of blockchain application is very narrow. In particular, blockchain can be used to create global decentralized money. And such money was created... That's Bitcoin!

Why do institutional players say blockchain is useful and Bitcoin is not? It's very simple: they hate and fear Bitcoin. They perceive Bitcoin as a virus created by Satoshi Nakamoto and aimed at destroying their beloved global financial system. Therefore, they seek to slander, discredit, and destroy Bitcoin. Does this surprise you?  How can you trust people who create central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), build a digital concentration camp, and deny human rights? 🤷

[melinoe]

The post tried to be intelligently crafted as it likely confused even Bitcoin enthusiasts into believing that it is true. Both Blockchain and Bitcoin are useful, this is the simple truth. Bitcoin solves a fundamental problem which is the ability of transaction to happen between two parties without the interference of a third party. Everyone is faced with the challenges of censorship, high fees and transaction taking business days to settle for cross-border transaction,  and outright denial of service when governments questions the source of the funds or for even funny reasons. These problems are completely solved by Bitcoin.

If you believe that tokenization solves better problem than Bitcoin, tell us some of the successful tokenization projects and their impacts in real life, then we can start the discussion from there.

BTC is for those who wants to be at the helm of his own custody, not because he doesn't trust no one, but because the govs not always have your interest as the highest one, unfortunately.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I'm not saying narrative is worthless — clearly it's worth $1T+. But narratives can shift. Gold's hasn't shifted in millennia.

Gold hasn't shifted because it has always been the hardest money. Bitcoin is not worth $1 trillion just for "a narrative". It has the potential to overthrow gold's position as hardest money, since it very much is harder.

Bitcoin shares (via ETF) represent... Bitcoin. Which represents... the expectation that someone will pay more later.

Wait until you learn that all value is subjective, be it stocks, gold or bitcoin and that all investments are made by speculating that you will end up with more than you have!

That's the difference. OpenAI speculators are betting on a company. Bitcoin speculators are betting on other speculators.

OpenAI speculators are betting that other people will value the company. Bitcoin speculators are betting that other people will value bitcoin.

"Best money for traveling through time" implies stability. Bitcoin dropped 80%+ three times in the last decade. That's not traveling through time — that's a rollercoaster.

No, that's called low liquidity. Gold is also a rollercoaster, considering it has a market capitalization of $30 trillion with $150 billion daily trading volume, and can still move by 3-4% swings. Bitcoin, against all those dips, has managed to make nearly every person who's held it for a long period richer.

For actual time-travel (retirement, inheritance), people want predictability. That's why pension funds buy bonds, not Bitcoin. And now tokenized bonds exist on the same rails.

I can predict that the pension funds will not outpace inflation then!

[darktalks100]

That is absolutely not true, either. I support the idea of both but neither does explain the need for food and living costs like homes for example. I'm merely talking about the need for better mental health services through a change of environment and through a change of people 

But before anyone says "This doesn't explain!" I HAVE seen the CNBC Business advisor video where StockX a third party seller for retail shoes has access to authenticators through Gucci and other QR barcodes but does not fit the ideal situation of families who need less roles & responsibilities.

All in All,
blockchain is not useful and bitcoin is useful in thus it halves and becomes scarcity allowing low income household family members access to all-in expedites to a new home / location. For better mental health, most likely. Others may disagree.

[sbercoin.one]

There are cars in people's garages that they don't drive, and they will never drive them until they get passed to another person or they sell, yet these cars are worth hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

Fair analogy, but those garage queens have value because they CAN be driven. The option to drive is what makes them cars. If a Ferrari's engine was permanently removed, it becomes furniture, not a car.

Bitcoin's "engine" is trustless, permissionless transfer. If 90% of holders use custodians and ETFs — the engine is still there, but nobody's using it. The question is: how long does an unused engine retain value?

Even if nobody uses it as a currency anymore, everybody already knows what it is as a currency, and that is where the value comes from.

"Everybody knows what it is" is brand recognition, not utility. Kodak had brand recognition too. Didn't save them when smartphones appeared.

OpenAI speculators are betting that other people will value the company. Bitcoin speculators are betting that other people will value bitcoin.

Technically true, but there's a difference in what backs that bet.

OpenAI bet: "This company will generate revenue, build products, create value."
Bitcoin bet: "More people will want this because... more people will want this."

One has a feedback loop connected to reality. The other is purely reflexive.

No, that's called low liquidity. Gold is also a rollercoaster, considering it has a market capitalization of $30 trillion with $150 billion daily trading volume, and can still move by 3-4% swings.

Gold moves 3-4%. Bitcoin moves 80%. That's not the same liquidity problem — that's a 20x difference in volatility.

You're right that long-term holders got richer. But "hold for 10 years and you'll probably be fine" isn't a selling point for store of value. It's a selling point for high-risk speculation.

I can predict that the pension funds will not outpace inflation then!

Maybe. But tokenized equities on blockchain rails might. That's my point — Bitcoin isn't the only option anymore.

If you believe that tokenization solves better problem than Bitcoin, tell us some of the successful tokenization projects and their impacts in real life, then we can start the discussion from there.

Fair challenge. Here's what's live right now:

- BlackRock BUIDL: $2.9B tokenized Treasuries, 40% market share
- JPMorgan Kinexys: $2B daily transactions, $700B+ in repo operations
- Franklin Templeton BENJI: ~$800M, SEC-registered since 2021

These aren't promises — they're operational. Growing 85% YoY.

I'm not saying tokenization is "better" than Bitcoin. I'm saying it solves a different problem for a bigger audience. And that audience has money that currently flows into Bitcoin for lack of alternatives.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Technically true, but there's a difference in what backs that bet.

OpenAI bet: "This company will generate revenue, build products, create value."
Bitcoin bet: "More people will want this because... more people will want this."

You can view Bitcoin like a company. Instead of producing traditional cash flow, however, it creates value through the appreciation of its scarce network token. Buying into it is essentially providing liquidity to a system that makes central banks obsolete. If one believes that central banks are the world's absolute worst problem, then supporting bitcoin could be seen as an extremely lucrative opportunity. There are just not enough business opportunities more compelling than replacing central banks!

Once central banks and their shitcoins are dead, we can get back to valuing revenue generating investments. But until this day comes, bitcoin will appreciate far more than most fiat-measured and -backed stocks. It just solves a lot more painful problem than any other company does.

[legiteum]

You can view Bitcoin like a company. Instead of producing traditional cash flow, however, it creates value through the appreciation of its scarce network token. Buying into it is essentially providing liquidity to a system that makes central banks obsolete. If one believes that central banks are the world's absolute worst problem, then supporting bitcoin could be seen as an extremely lucrative opportunity. There are just not enough business opportunities more compelling than replacing central banks!

Once central banks and their shitcoins are dead, we can get back to valuing revenue generating investments. But until this day comes, bitcoin will appreciate far more than most fiat-measured and -backed stocks. It just solves a lot more painful problem than any other company does.

There is, literally, an infinite number of things that one can invest in that has a limited supply. It's like saying you should come to this restaurant because they serve food.

Also...

Five year performance:

BTC: 12%

NVDA: 1,283%

[BlackHatCoiner]

There is, literally, an infinite number of things that one can invest in that has a limited supply.

There is no other asset that can act as alternative to the central banking system. This is why the potential of bitcoin is far higher than any other scarce asset. Houses may be scarce (not as scarce as a fixed supply, btw), but they are not money. You can't divide them, you can't send them to another country, and you can't keep the hands of the State out of them. Try not paying taxes and see what happens to your houses.

Five year performance:

BTC: 12%

NVDA: 1,283%

Nice cherrypicking. Now do ten years or CAGR of the last ten years.

[Sandra_hakeem]

There are cars in people's garages that they don't drive, and they will never drive them until they get passed to another person or they sell, yet these cars are worth hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

Fair analogy, but those garage queens have value because they CAN be driven. The option to drive is what makes them cars. If a Ferrari's engine was permanently removed, it becomes furniture, not a car.

Every other part on the Ferrari looks like a joke to you right? naysayers will write anything just to make ETF; especially NVDA relevant.

Bitcoin's "engine" is trustless, permissionless transfer.

Just because you're comfortable with the centralized system that snoops every transaction, controls and enslaves people who should actually be free with their funds, and with plenty of censorships doesn't make you or what you say "trustworthy".

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

There is no other asset that can act as alternative to the central banking system. This is why the potential of bitcoin is far higher than any other scarce asset. Houses may be scarce (not as scarce as a fixed supply, btw), but they are not money. You can't divide them, you can't send them to another country, and you can't keep the hands of the State out of them. Try not paying taxes and see what happens to your houses.

Bitcoin is not the alternative to central banking system as it is decentralized and it is not another centralized replacement of central bank system. If anyone want centralized replacements, they can find with thousands of useless altcoins in the market.

Five year performance:

BTC: 12%

NVDA: 1,283%

Nice cherrypicking. Now do ten years or CAGR of the last ten years.

It is easy to find at https://casebitcoin.com/ with tables in the main page or with this chart and it's acceptable to use S&P 500 for comparisons. Bitcoin in last decades has outperformed S&P 500 while NVDA just massive soared with AI hype recent years.
https://casebitcoin.com/charts#roi_chart