Volatility IS a bug, not a feature :)

[PrivacyG]

The last "cycle" was already less than a doubling. And no, the supply doesn't halve at halvings. It's the additional supply mined by miners, which makes up currently (at a 3.125 BTC reward) less than 1% per year. That's a big difference.

The Supply does not have to halve, it is enough that it is twice as difficult to obtain it.  If Miners have to sell at lower and lower Prices, it would make Bitcoin not worth Mining any more.  This is where my thoughts of Bitcoin doubling every four years come.

How was it less than a doubling by the way?  I am pretty sure it went from a high of around 60 thousand Dollars to over 120 thousand.

I agree with these statements. However, if Bitcoin stays as speculative as it is now, there are scenarios where the volatility could stay high, but mostly to the downside. As I said in the OP, I can imagine a scenario like current's ETH price evolution, which seems to not anymore reach new ATHs (last ETH ATH was in 2021) but instead fluctuate 80-90% between high and low. That can of course work for a while due to traders keeping the market afloat. But it would eventually lead probably to an even further price reduction when the hope of a long term price increase begins to fade away and more and more investors leave the boat.

I agree that people may leave the boat if the Price does not offer incredible upside movement and a level of 'Safety' or ensurance that it will do the same in the following cycles.  It can not however go like this for ever, Bitcoin will naturally stabilize by itself to a some what predictable cycle.  It already is pretty much predictable, the only thing missing is an almost stable growth every cycle.  By cycle I mean Halving cycles by the way.

A Bitcoin with positive price evolution or at least stability, and low volatility would be much more attractive both as an investment and as a currency.

How can we make it more stable?  Once again, if you simply take a quick look at the way it works, the Halvings et cetera, you can not imagine a stable Currency.  Its Price is unstable naturally.

[NotATether]

For comparison, Monero is famously non-volatile (until some desperate criminal inflated the exchange rate 2x by laundering his stolen BTC at terrible rates), so it is possible to design a widely adopted non-volatile crypto.

The volatility comes from exchanges. People come in, enter longs and shorts, etc.

Ever since XMR was delisted, there's been none of that.

[Zaguru12]

Bitcoin volatility is not a bug as it is reducing in each cycle till now, unlike altcoins that you referred to that are completely nothing but gambling.

If bitcoin get to $50000 this time, that is still a reducing volatility in progress as bitcoin did not fall up to how it fell from $69000 back to $15500 in 2022. I believe this year is not going to be like that and that is has it has always been.

Yes it’s a feature and many things suggests that it will be reacting that way, for me it been a bug means the volatility will be static which is not the case at the moment because bitcoin volatility over the years is reducing and I can confidently say it will be reducing. Many will ask whether this reduction can actually causes it to get to zero volatility and I say no, it might reduce to a significant low value not to zero.

The adoption rate and the habit of people treating it more as a thing to hodl actually signifies the reduction in volatility plus the market cap also is a little bit part of that. In 2022 we saw bitcoin goes as low as 70% from it’s ATH but this bear cycle I don’t see it repeating such same way i don’t expect a 1000% pump in a single cycle anymore

[Don Pedro Dinero]

This thread is a response to Volatility is not a bug and also the continuation a short remark I made recently in the Wall Observer but forgot about it.

The creator of that thread has probably bought into Michael Saylor's idea.

Michael Saylor Describes Bitcoin Volatility as a Feature

If you're right, he's going to lose his business.

Let's say Bitcoin continues as volatile as it is. The problem is that upside and downside volatility have evolved in a different manner.

- Downside volatility is only reducing very gradually. From a -90% in the very initial stages, during the last long dips we lost about -80% (-75% to -85% roughly) compared to the last ATH. The differences between the different bear markets were negligible.
- Upside volatility instead is reducing much faster. From more than 100000% in 2011 between the previous low and the ATH of the bubble, the value decreased to 15000% in the 2017 bull, to 2000% in 2021, and finally only 500% in 2025 (if the ATH is in, as it seems).

And it is likely that this continues that way because liquidity increases, there are more early adopters or smart bear market buyers willing to sell when they achieve a few hundreds % of profit.

But that will lead to a situation where Bitcoin will struggle to reach new ATHs. Because it's not that attractive anymore for "gamblers" who want to get rich quick, and it continues to be risky, because the masses still tend to sell at the same time, creating huge crashes. That can lead to a slow boreout, people will get bored of Bitcoin.

That looks like a significant problem: volatility increasingly reduced on the upside but the same or only minimally reduced on the downside.

However, everything could change. Gold, which has been used for thousands of years, experienced low volatility between 1980 and 2010, then accelerated, mainly upwards, until recently, when it seems to have almost the volatility of a cryptocurrency. It is twice as volatile as tech stocks. Bitcoin only has 17 years of history. Obviously, we have to look at those 17 years when we project into the future, but with such a short history, there could be many surprises.

[stompix]

You have x demand and y supply, y grows by a known number, meaning that you can always anticipate the ratio of those too, fiat also has a demand, look at the USD for example in the last year, or take a look at the bolivar for the extreme example.[...]
I have no idea and I see no reason why the controlled supply would prevent an extremely low volatility, we had a silver and a gold standard for two millennia with a quasi-controlled supply, as it was pretty hard to mine out of the blue half the supply of silver (till the Spanish conquest of America) and volatility was not a factor whatsoever.

Perhaps you're correct here. I think still gold and silver have more supply flexibility, as with rising prices new mining techniques are developed and supply can grow faster. This can't happen with Bitcoin, so if there is any systemic demand surplus (or reduction) then the price will eventually react, and often harshly due to market overreactions (FOMO/panic/liquidations to both sides).

But I'm at least convinced that Bitcoin's volatility can lower to the volatility values of a currency with a 15-30% fluctuation over the year, like the Brazilian Real or the Indian Rupee.

Gold production is 3500 tons a year, total supply is anywhere between 220k and 250k, depending on what you research, as in actual logs of explorations and holding or estimates of gold that has been there for the taking for centuries and never registered. Plus, just as Bitcoin, you can't really mine another 220k....nope!
Bitcoin is capped by math, Gold is capped by alchemy!  
The lower bracket gives us 1.5% per year, for Bitcoin we're sitting at 0.8%, hardly a difference!

The volatility has nothing to do with the scarcity or history or anythign else, it's pure economics, there isn't enough liquidity to keep the price stable at one point, there is no consensus in the value, there is no enough actual real-world usage to put a break on speculation as more goods would get tied to a price in BTC, and thus you have the volatility. It's not a bug, it's a feature, it's a consequence!

This thread is a response to Volatility is not a bug and also the continuation a short remark I made recently in the Wall Observer but forgot about it.

The creator of that thread has probably bought into Michael Saylor's idea.

Michael Saylor Describes Bitcoin Volatility as a Feature

 
Hmmm....
I think I'm seeing things:
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

I keep seeing currency, payment, and other things and nothing about volatility and a former con artist and fraud being now the voice of Bitcoin.

If you're right, he's going to lose his business.

Remember how cheering for Trump came to bite us in the ass? Wait till we have a SaYlor revelation!

[PrivacyG]

For comparison, Monero is famously non-volatile (until some desperate criminal inflated the exchange rate 2x by laundering his stolen BTC at terrible rates), so it is possible to design a widely adopted non-volatile crypto.

The volatility comes from exchanges. People come in, enter longs and shorts, etc.

Ever since XMR was delisted, there's been none of that.

I can not consider Monero non volatile.  Whether you choose a Bitcoin pair or a Dollar pair, it still fluctuates a lot.  I agree Exchanges take part in the volatility of Cryptocurrencies but Monero has not been too different.

[philipma1957]

A flaw sure maybe.

It is difficult to decide if it is a flaw.

But all sellable items on exchanges can go up and down.

And people can bet on up and down on silver gold platinum copper oil and stock and crypto

coin.

So the reality is feature is possible because it can be traded.

but I would say degenerate players that seek to maneuver it in their favor are the issue,

not that it can be traded easy peasy.

[nakamura12]

Bitcoin volatility is not a bug as it is reducing in each cycle till now, unlike altcoins that you referred to that are completely nothing but gambling.

If bitcoin get to $50000 this time, that is still a reducing volatility in progress as bitcoin did not fall up to how it fell from $69000 back to $15500 in 2022. I believe this year is not going to be like that and that is has it has always been.

If it's a bug then there still many people who will take advantage of this bug (what if situation) to earn more money (profit) just like what many people are doing years ago and even now. We know that it isn't a bug but a feature in Bitcoin because even a product may decrease in price or increase in price. We know that there's a reason why something like Bitcoin is volatile it's because of many reasons where one of it is about the buyer and seller (supply and demand).

[legiteum]

Volatility is the only reason Bitcoin even exists as a popular platform. If it weren't for speculation and the promise to get rich quick (say if Bitcoin were originally designed as a stablecoin), then the interest in it now would be about the same as it was in 2010.

Bitcoin was also never designed to be a mainstream value transfer mechanism because it's too slow and expensive to transact. It's sole unique benefit is that it allowed an illegal network to evade prosecution long enough to take hold among a large audience, forcing governments to effectively legalize such a platform (and from this you see that the original unique benefit is now meaningless, Bitcoin being a victim of its own success).

In other words, without "volatility"--i.e. the promise of future riches from investing now--then all Bitcoin amounts to is a very slow, very expensive means of transferring money.

So I think the answer to this debate is going to be based on whether you want "Bitcoin 2010" or "Bitcoin 2026". Saylor obviously wants the latter...

[d5000]

I'm just reminding you that gold is one of the most liquid assets with more than $150 billion daily trading volume.

Yes, I acknowledge that. What I meant is that Bitcoin's success also depends on increasing that liquidity, only then it will be able to match gold's lower volatility.

The Supply does not have to halve, it is enough that it is twice as difficult to obtain it.  If Miners have to sell at lower and lower Prices, it would make Bitcoin not worth Mining any more.  This is where my thoughts of Bitcoin doubling every four years come.

I'm glad I misunderstood you, your remark in the other post seemed a bit too off.

But I still disagree: "Obtaining" Bitcoin today is most easily done by buying. Only in bubble phases buying is significantly more expensive than mining. And if Bitcoin's price less than doubles between the halving periods, then its hashrate and security budget will decrease. But we can say both values are probably excessively high currently, likely fueled by a potential "mining bubble" when mining operators financed themselves by going public. With half the current hashrate, Bitcoin would be still much safer than it needs to be. (And then there are transaction fees, merged mining ...)

How was it less than a doubling by the way?  I am pretty sure it went from a high of around 60 thousand Dollars to over 120 thousand.

The correct numbers if we take ATH to ATH, are 69000 and 126000. That's only a 82% increase and was what I took

Of course it would be better to compare "average price to average price", but the WMA 200 values (~20k for 2018-2022, ~60k for 2022-2026) are misleading here because they go back too far. The WMA 100 which is a bit better has indeed approximately doubled between 2022 and 2026 (38k to 78k). For the halving years 2020 and 2024, the values are 7000 and 31000, which is also still more than a compensation for the halving.

So you may be correct in the end, on average the value may have doubled indeed. But that's not likely to continue.

How can we make it more stable?

By increasing liquidity. Usage "as a currency" would add orders of magnitude of liquidity. Trading on sidechains and on Lightning, too. That are the two main ways I see currently. Both depend somewhat on scalability improvements (layer 2 popularization).

The creator of that thread has probably bought into Michael Saylor's idea. [...] If you're right, he's going to lose his business.

Yeah, Saylor's recent remark was probably the trigger for that whole discussion that came up in several threads.

However, I think he may say that now because at this moment volatility benefits his business. But a "high volatility, but low or zero growth" scenario would be fatal for him indeed, while a "low volatility, low to medium growth" would be something he could adapt to as a Bitcoin treasury company. I'm not hoping for his bankruptcy, what I hope is that he can indeed adapt to that. What I'm worrying a bit is that in such a scenario his business model would lose relevancy, so he has also to take into account business scenarios where he's able to sell some coins without side effects, and thus decrease his exposure.

The lower bracket gives us 1.5% per year, for Bitcoin we're sitting at 0.8%, hardly a difference!

Current gold volatility indeed is perfectly achievable for Bitcoin I think.

What I meant however that the even lower flexibility could leed to sudden jumps even if the price appears to have stabilized.

Let's have a simple example: Let's say that Bitcoin in a few years becomes an "established" online currency in those countries it's already somewhat popular now (North and South America, India, some European and African countries). It stabilizes on ~200,000$. But then China opens their restrictions. That could lead to a massive demand boost and a sudden 50% jump in price.

These things, however, have happened with fiat currencies too. I remember for example the wild EUR/USD fluctuations at around 2010, which were in the same order of magnitude. If we take into account such scenarios, then Bitcoin indeed may not be far away from fiat respect to a potential lower bound for volatility.

[BlackHatCoiner]

It's sole unique benefit is that it allowed an illegal network to evade prosecution long enough to take hold among a large audience, forcing governments to effectively legalize such a platform (and from this you see that the original unique benefit is now meaningless, Bitcoin being a victim of its own success).

Why is it a victim of its own success? I don't understand. Governments bending their knees is a win.

In other words, without "volatility"--i.e. the promise of future riches from investing now--then all Bitcoin amounts to is a very slow, very expensive means of transferring money.

Bitcoin without the property of hard money (i.e., "increasing value overtime") would not get the same attraction, correct. However, I would claim that being able to finally settle high-value transactions from one part of the planet to the other, in 10 minutes, by paying nickles is something no other forms of payment can provide.

[legiteum]

It's sole unique benefit is that it allowed an illegal network to evade prosecution long enough to take hold among a large audience, forcing governments to effectively legalize such a platform (and from this you see that the original unique benefit is now meaningless, Bitcoin being a victim of its own success).

Why is it a victim of its own success? I don't understand. Governments bending their knees is a win.

Because of Bitcoin and its popularity, digital currencies are now perfectly legal almost anywhere. You no longer need to hide from the government, which means that decentralization is an unnecessary waste of resources (which is why cryptos have been moving away from true decentralization for years, starting when they traded PoW for PoS).

In other words, without "volatility"--i.e. the promise of future riches from investing now--then all Bitcoin amounts to is a very slow, very expensive means of transferring money.

Bitcoin without the property of hard money (i.e., "increasing value overtime") would not get the same attraction, correct. However, I would claim that being able to finally settle high-value transactions from one part of the planet to the other, in 10 minutes, by paying nickles is something no other forms of payment can provide.

Oh wow, only 10 minutes! Only "nickels". LOL

If you want to transfer money today, in 2026, you can do so for absolutely ZERO transactions fees, settling in less than 20 milliseconds. Waiting 10 minutes for a transaction is absolutely insane. Can you imagine the lines at the local mall during Christmas time if customers needed to wait 10 minutes for every single sale? Imagine the line at the highway toll booth if everybody had to wait 10 minutes to pay? It's unthinkable.

Fortunately, today, we have better technology, and transfers can settled in milliseconds...

So I guess I'd amend my comment to above that Bitcoin is a victim of its own success AND it's a victim of its own stagnation...

[Ronsbit]

I do not think volatility is a bug but rather a feature. Volatility is what makes the crypto market go because if it were to be a bug, it would have been rectified, and believe me, the crypto market would not be as it is now. Maybe it would have long gone on extinct because that shows it could be easily hijacked and controlled. Being a feature is one of the things that made it long in existence till this moment as nobody has the sole control of it.

[EluguHcman]

You left me defend less that even if I had to say the otherwise, your points were practically proven with references of past performances and adoptors psychological behaviors. So I can not dispute with your insight about the controversy of the uptrend volatility becoming weaker against downtrend volatility scheme driving.

You have also made your personal opinion which is a fact and as a research to what this will attribute to Bitcoin value in the future, I am sure this thread (your opinion) can not move mountain to reshape the ideal of investors who are in their various zones with hands crossed to sell once their Bitcoin portfolio (s) has yield them perceive income.

Therefore, the volatility can not be a bug rather than a feature because the market is not regulated to where we could assume that volatility is going against what it was instructed.
Perhaps the future of Bitcoin has always lie on the communities (adoptors) reactions. So is why the market is psychologically effective.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Because of Bitcoin and its popularity, digital currencies are now perfectly legal almost anywhere. You no longer need to hide from the government, which means that decentralization is an unnecessary waste of resources (which is why cryptos have been moving away from true decentralization for years, starting when they traded PoW for PoS).

You don't need to hide anything from the government... if you live in Fantasyland. But, if you live in the real world, where governments don't want the good of the people, enact wars, take half of everyone's stuff and give it to evil pedophiles who eat kids, then you might want to hide sometimes.

If you want to transfer money today, in 2026, you can do so for absolutely ZERO transactions fees, settling in less than 20 milliseconds. Waiting 10 minutes for a transaction is absolutely insane.

Re-read what I wrote. I know you can use Revolut or Paypal to send money instantly, but this is not final settlement. Final settlement from one part of the planet to the other in a matter of minutes is impossible with the traditional financial system, as it relies on layers of intermediaries and clearing houses. The actual funds are reconciled later through nostro/vostro accounts, batch processing, and central bank systems. It usually takes days.

[Satofan44]

People who say that is is a feature are wrong or just stuck in the past, but you are partially wrong too with they way that you proposed this topic. I would rephrase this title to the following: Volatility was a feature, now it is a bug. I believe that this more accurately reflects the progression that Bitcoin has experienced.

Reading your Topic I do not know if we speak the same language or we see things in a different way.  The upside volatility was meant to reduce naturally, we can not have even 2017 levels of percent increases constantly.  We would already be in the quadrillions of Market Cap I believe by now other wise.

You are completely missing the point. Nobody is disputing that the upside volatility is supposed to reduce, that is the basic of diminishing returns. Only some idiots would claim otherwise. The problem is that the downside volatility is not reducing sufficiently, and thus the total sum of the volatility can be more considered an issue than a benefit now.

Sorry, but I don't get it...
What has the mathematically controlled supply to do with volatility?

You have x demand and y supply, y grows by a known number, meaning that you can always anticipate the ratio of those too, fiat also has a demand, look at the USD for example in the last year, or take a look at the bolivar for the extreme example.
I have no idea and I see no reason why the controlled supply would prevent an extremely low volatility, we had a silver and a gold standard for two millennia with a quasi-controlled supply, as it was pretty hard to mine out of the blue half the supply of silver (till the Spanish conquest of America) and volatility was not a factor whatsoever.

You are missing a huge portion of the debate there. Of course that having a mathematically controlled supply has an impact on volatility. You are unable to do anything really to neither create more volatility nor to suppress it, a mathematically controlled supply takes away the power out of an entity that would traditional have a control over these systems. By mismanagement or by targeted chaos you can increase volatility, and with the inverse you can stiffen it. This is not the case with Bitcoin, so yes a mathematically controlled supply has a negative impact on volatility -- it makes it worse, at least until the new asset class or commodity full established itself. After it does establish itself, then it becomes a benefit to the volatility as no central policy maker can intentionally spike volatility for their own reasons.

I think @stompix has a point here and while I see where @d5000 is coming from, volatility is not a function of fixed supply.

It does not need to be a function of anything to have an impact on something. You both are thinking in very narrow, textbook definition ways. Most of these definitions are bullshit, most of mainstream economics is false.

Volatility is not a bug. It is the natural behavior in the asymmetry of an apex predator asset.

You are also missing the point a bit.

For comparison, Monero is famously non-volatile (until some desperate criminal inflated the exchange rate 2x by laundering his stolen BTC at terrible rates), so it is possible to design a widely adopted non-volatile crypto.

The volatility comes from exchanges. People come in, enter longs and shorts, etc.

Ever since XMR was delisted, there's been none of that.

I can not consider Monero non volatile.  Whether you choose a Bitcoin pair or a Dollar pair, it still fluctuates a lot.  I agree Exchanges take part in the volatility of Cryptocurrencies but Monero has not been too different.

It is just a language barrier. People would use non-volatile for low volatility, they don't literally mean 0% volatility which is not a possibility in a free market. However, he is absolutely right that Monero is quite stable and that it has a lot to do with the lack of various derivatives. However, he is wrong to claim that it is possible to design such a currency. It is not. It is only like this because it is banned from most places. Any widely accepted currency like Bitcoin will have all of these instruments and will be subject to their negative effects.

If you want to transfer money today, in 2026, you can do so for absolutely ZERO transactions fees, settling in less than 20 milliseconds. Waiting 10 minutes for a transaction is absolutely insane.

Re-read what I wrote. I know you can use Revolut or Paypal to send money instantly, but this is not final settlement. Final settlement from one part of the planet to the other in a matter of minutes is impossible with the traditional financial system, as it relies on layers of intermediaries and clearing houses. The actual funds are reconciled later through nostro/vostro accounts, batch processing, and central bank systems. It usually takes days.

These claims are bullshit anyways even if you put instant settlement aside. These transactions work well until they don't, and then you are waiting days for something that is supposed to take "20 milliseconds". Bankster shills are completely retarded.

People, before you comment so rapidly on this matter you should run some simulations. You can make it easier for yourself and ask LLMs to do it for you. If something does not change in the rate of decrease in both the upside and downside volatility, Bitcoin is destined to die. Do the simulations and you will see that this is not a sustainable model, and we will experience a big crisis soon unless something changes. Someone might be quick to dismiss this claim due to sensationalism bullshit that they have been read and programmed to have repetitive dismissal too, but don't be idiots. The current setup of the math is very clear. Here is some data on the downside using this as a source: https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/22159974964394, alternative source https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/BTC_ATHDRAWDOWN/?timeframe=ALL. Keep in mind that for the sake of this slight variance in data does not matter so much. For returns I will use ATH to ATH.

The 2011 Cycle: -93%
The 2013 Cycle: upside 40x ($29 to $1,163), downside -86.9%.
The 2017 Cycle: upside 16.9x ($1,163 to $19,666), downside -83.6%.
The 2021 Cycle: upside 3.50x ($19,666 to $69,000), downside -76%.
The 2025 Cycle (current, downside in progress): upside 1.8x ($69,000 to $124,700), downside 50%.

Some fast AI work.

38.15% reduction in return on average per cycle (upside).
15.74% reduction in downside risk on average per cycle.

So what happens next? Here are the projected upside and downside numbers for the next cycle:

2029 cycle: upside 1.1133x (1.8 - 38.15%), maximum price 138,686.31, downside -42.13% (0.5-15.74%), lowest price $72,171.

Do you not see an issue already and that something has to change? If we subtracted another 38% from the 1.1 return for the 2033 cycle Bitcoin would start printing negative returns. When reading this, don't waste time adjusting useless things such as whether the ATH was $69,000 or $69,540 -- you are just wasting time, it does not change anything about the trend. Only do that if you are willing to revise the whole.

[legiteum]

Because of Bitcoin and its popularity, digital currencies are now perfectly legal almost anywhere. You no longer need to hide from the government, which means that decentralization is an unnecessary waste of resources (which is why cryptos have been moving away from true decentralization for years, starting when they traded PoW for PoS).

You don't need to hide anything from the government... if you live in Fantasyland. But, if you live in the real world, where governments don't want the good of the people, enact wars, take half of everyone's stuff and give it to evil pedophiles who eat kids, then you might want to hide sometimes.

Well, there's two kinds of "want" as well. I don't always trust my government, and I sometimes might "want" to hide my money from that government, but I absolutely do not want to get in any sort of trouble with my government. I'm of the opinion that if my government turns bad and they are out to get me then... they're going to get me. Everything else is living in fantasy land--or that shack in the forest that the Unabomber lived in.

But hey, that's just my opinion. Some people probably really want to live like the Unabomber, and will base their life on it. For those people you... still don't want to use Bitcoin since it relies on the Internet, so you should trade in physical goods like metals or bullets and so forth.

As such, Bitcoin's true niche is, "Unabomber cosplay".

If you want to transfer money today, in 2026, you can do so for absolutely ZERO transactions fees, settling in less than 20 milliseconds. Waiting 10 minutes for a transaction is absolutely insane.

Re-read what I wrote. I know you can use Revolut or Paypal to send money instantly, but this is not final settlement. Final settlement from one part of the planet to the other in a matter of minutes is impossible with the traditional financial system, as it relies on layers of intermediaries and clearing houses. The actual funds are reconciled later through nostro/vostro accounts, batch processing, and central bank systems. It usually takes days.

You can use any number of other stablecoins (including Haypenny, which settles in milliseconds) and settle thousands of times faster than Bitcoin. There are literally thousands of products that do exactly what Bitcoin does, and most do it much better, and some do it thousands of times better.

[BlackHatCoiner]

You can use any number of other stablecoins (including Haypenny, which settles in milliseconds) and settle thousands of times faster than Bitcoin.

Stablecoins are one alternative, correct, however transactions in stablecoin can and have been censored. Tether has every right to reject any transaction they don't like. Therefore, USDT transactions are not completely finally settled. A bitcoin transaction is completely irreversible once it has more than a couple of confirmations. Haypenny is also centralized and transactions can be reversed.

Some people probably really want to live like the Unabomber, and will base their life on it.

No, you're just overthinking it. People have always evaded their governments and did not need to leave civilization to do it.

[Iranus]

This idea does not seem right to me at all. In my opinion this ups and down are very important to determine the true price of a new and limited supply commodity. The more mature the market the less this volatility will be, that is the rule. If you look at the history of Bitcoin you will understand that its volatility has been decreasing year by year. Even now its gap with gold is decreasing a lot which prove that the more people enter this line the less the madness is decreasing.

But yes Bitcoin still shakes much more than ordinary stock or gold so it cannot be called as stable as traditional asset. But when big company or institution enter the market this storm will subside a lot. So I think this is not a fatal bug but just a sign of Bitcoin growing up

[legiteum]

You can use any number of other stablecoins (including Haypenny, which settles in milliseconds) and settle thousands of times faster than Bitcoin.

Stablecoins are one alternative, correct, however transactions in stablecoin can and have been censored. Tether has every right to reject any transaction they don't like. Therefore, USDT transactions are not completely finally settled. A bitcoin transaction is completely irreversible once it has more than a couple of confirmations. Haypenny is also centralized and transactions can be reversed.

No, they can't. They simply can't. Nobody has ever reversed a USDT transaction, nor a Haypenny transaction, nor a SOL transaction, nor an XPR transaction, etc. etc. etc. times thousand of other products, some of which have literally the same exact code base as Bitcoin.

In all practicality, in the real-world, transactions are never "reversed" in a technical sense: they are written to a permanent ledger somewhere that is never changed, just like Bitcoin.

For transactions with some vendors, one can "get their money back" from the vendor if there is a problem with the sale, but this involves creating another transaction to move the money the reverse direction. But the process is the exact same whether it's Bitcoin or PayPal.

Some people probably really want to live like the Unabomber, and will base their life on it.

No, you're just overthinking it. People have always evaded their governments and did not need to leave civilization to do it.

Yep, and those people got caught and were sent to gulags.

I'm not going to debate the life benefits here of living outside of your government's law, but suffice it to say that such a lifestyle is... peculiar. If that is Bitcoin's sole audience, Bitcoin's market cap will never break a few million dollars...

Oh, and if you are really in that niche, you'd be foolish to use Bitcoin, which has a public ledger, and you should instead use Monero...