Bitcoin Doesn't Need Mass Adoption.

[lionheart78]

Many people argue that Bitcoin must achieve global adoption to succeed but is that really true, I have been thinking about this and I have come to the conclusion, that Bitcoin actually doesn't need global adoption to succeed.
Gold never needed everyone to use it daily before it became seen today, as a physical store of value.Bitcoin can function as a store of value without mass usage. Bitcoin is already successful the way it's today. Because it's really solving a problem. Next time someone who is still doubtful about Bitcoin ask you if Bitcoin can stay  the test of time just tell the person that bitcoin doesn't need global adoption to succeed that, it's already a success.

At the end of the day, Gold still needs global adoption. No matter what your stand is, if there is no demand on an item, it will be worthless.  So what if Bitcoin solve something, if it is not needed or demanded by anyone, do you think Bitcoin will be what it is today?

Can Scarcity alone may drive value.

Scarcity alone cannot drive value if there is no demand for it.  We have seen several cryptocurrencies that have way less than the total max coin but have become worthless because there is no demand for it.

What if Bitcoin’s strength lies in selective adoption, not universal adoption.

Adoption is adoption, whether it be selective or global adoption, people wanted Bitcoin to be popular and be demanded globally so that its value will go up.  the achievment between selective adoption and global adoption is way too vast.

Is mass adoption necessary, or is Bitcoin already successful as it is today.

Isn't Bitcoin had achieved mass adoption?  It is successful today because it is globally adopted.

[CryptoYar]

Bitcoin has frequently been described as digital gold since its main worth is its safety and limited supply, as against its use in making small purchases on daily basis. You are correct that it does not need everybody in world to use it in order to be successful but even just richest investors and largest groups in order to protect their dollars can make price reach millions of dollars. Although limited supply adds to value, as long as people want secure area to place their wealth, the price steadily increases and limited use by long term holders actually makes network more trustworthy. Today, Bitcoin is already a success because it stood test of time and lasted more than 15 years without single central leader to lead it and to prove that it can be steady and strong financial system to anyone who wants to hold control over his own money. It would be clear that we will not have to guess number of people using Bitcoin but other level of financial freedom it gives to users.

[aoluain]

Yea, some people say that mass adoption is needed for Bitcoin and I think a lot of people
WANT mass adoption for Bitcoin for kind of selfish reasons nothing to do with the project
itself but for purely financial gains.

Bitcoin doesnt need mass adoption, it just needs increased adoption as time passes and
its scarcity is a big factor in attracting new 'investors'.

Can Scarcity alone may drive value.

Scarcity does not necessarily make something valuable, look at how an altcoin that is intentionally designed to have a small supply, can they even surpass the popularity of BNB?

Your statement is technically correct but it depends on what is scarce and the demand for that item.
A pablo Picasso painting v's my local artist, both produced rare artwork to equal standards and scarcity
but the Picasso is more well known globally and very sought after because its a given that the Picasso
will always be sought after for its value retention.

Bitcoin in still growing in that regard.

[Shineup]

The definition of success varies from one perspective to another. For some, success is Bitcoin reaching $100,000 (which has already happened), while for others, Bitcoin's success lies in its ability to function as a means of making everyday payments. Therefore, success lies somewhere in between. For me, success is the increasing availability of Bitcoin as an alternative to traditional payment methods.

Bitcoin is already available to be an alternative to traditional payment system and in the case of increasing it's availability it is entirely tied to choices looking at the varieties of Bitcoin utility base, for some it is already successful as they either trade, invest with it.

[Botnake]

The idea that bitcoin requires global adoption to succeed may be true, but its never obligatory or mandatory. Bitcoin is already successful these days by seeing how far it has gone from zero value and zero recognition. Now people have slowly recognized bitcoin not just as a good store of value, but also as a reliable currency that can be used across borders.

However, if chances will be granted for bitcoin to be globally adopted, that would be much better to guarantee long term success, not just as a valuable tool for investment but also as a currency that can co-exist with physical fiat. Global adoption does not mean bitcoin becoming as a legal tender, that would go through long processes first before bitcoin can be legally used as one.

[Somegory]

Aren't you people satisfied already? The mass adoption to millions of people is seeing real life data of Bitcoin holder but that's not possible, they can only give a number based on addresses that's been generated.

Bitcoin adoption that we got right now is government acceptance and ETF approval, it's already happening, almost everyone knows about Bitcoin but there are some stubborn heads who still believe that Bitcoin will die painfully some day.

If I am been asked about Bitcoin adoption it's satisfying to me, we have made it very far already, acceptance is increasing but people what to see it with their naked eye, and that is impossible.

[Dictator69]

What if Bitcoin’s strength lies in selective adoption, not universal adoption.
Is mass adoption necessary, or is Bitcoin already successful as it is today.

I think it is already successful, on one hand, as a kind of proof of concept.

But its true potential still has been missed. The true potential of Bitcoin is to be at least the base unit for a payment system. Imagine: It is the first time that a globally available, decentralized payment system is conceived, without the need of strong institutions like banks. And with censorship resistance, i.e. nobody can prevent anybody to pay to another person, group or organization.

For a store of value, humanity has already found precious metals as a similarly decentralized system. Gold however is completely unsuitable (and more so today!) as a payment means.

Bitcoin's advantage as a payment system is HUGE, much bigger than as a store of value alone. The lower the units transferred and the more transactions there are, the higher Bitcoin's advantage over precious metals (this includes tech like Ark and Lightning of course).

I also believe that the current price doesn't reflect Bitcoin's current usage. If the usage patterns long term do not change and move into more universal adoption as a payment system, then Bitcoin is currently overvalued (I'd put the target price at $10k then).

Ah, and it doesn't need global adoption indeed. Regional or niche adoption as a currency would be huge as well.

Only $10k? Now that would be concerning, but your points are really good. Because I also think this is the key distinction many people miss: BTC does not have to become everyone's daily coffee payment tool first to justify its value as money.

Its strongest path may be layered adoption. At the base layer, BTC works as a neutral, censorship-resistant settlement system, while on the upper layers like LN or Ark, it can serve smaller and more frequent payments. So the real comparison is not BTC vs Visa at the base layer, but whether BTC can become the final settlement asset underneath payment networks.

That is exactly where your point about precious metals becomes important. Gold could preserve value, but it could never realistically operate as a native internet payment system, while BTC can do both in a layered way: store value at the foundation, move value through higher layers, and settle globally without relying on banks or states.

So I agree that selective or regional adoption would already be enormous, especially if BTC becomes the monetary rail that local payment systems plug into. In that sense, mass adoption may not start with consumers, it may start with settlement, remittances, niche circular economies, and only later expand outward.

Maybe the real question is not whether Bitcoin needs universal adoption, but whether it can become indispensable in the areas where legacy money works worst. As you said yourself, gold is unsuitable as a means of payment, but it is still being used and its price keeps increasing. That is why I do not think Bitcoin's value has to be justified mainly through payment adoption, but regional and niche adoption as a currency is the best idea I have heard.

[RagnarTheThunderer]

I think little bit different maybe. Bitcoin dont need everyone using it daily, that is true, like gold also, most people never touch it but still has value. But still, there must be some adoption, otherwise who give it value then?

Security alone is not enough I think, many things are scarce but nobody care, so price is zero. Bitcoin works because more people start to trust it slowly. Selective adoption makes sense, early people, institutions, smart money come first. Then later maybe more people follow.

So I agree it already succeed, but still need growth in users and belief, not just sit like this forever

[Ishicryptic]

Without mass adoption you can see the level that Bitcoin has reached and putting many doubters to rest because it has become a store of value and there is no doubt about that. But just imagine if it attains a global adoption I think that Bitcoin will become the number one universal currency without any boundaries when you want to make transactions anywhere in the world. It will become not only a valuable asset but also a decentralized digital currency that will be accepted everywhere. Satoshi primary aim of Bitcoin creation was for peer to peer transactions and it is global adoption that can truly actualize it because it will be accepted everywhere.

[Zigabel]

Many people argue that Bitcoin must achieve global adoption to succeed but is that really true, I have been thinking about this and I have come to the conclusion, that Bitcoin actually doesn't need global adoption to succeed.
Gold never needed everyone to use it daily before it became seen today, as a physical store of value.Bitcoin can function as a store of value without mass usage. Bitcoin is already successful the way it's today. Because it's really solving a problem. Next time someone who is still doubtful about Bitcoin ask you if Bitcoin can stay  the test of time just tell the person that bitcoin doesn't need global adoption to succeed that, it's already a success.

Ask yourself these key questions

Can Scarcity alone may drive value.
What if Bitcoin’s strength lies in selective adoption, not universal adoption.
Is mass adoption necessary, or is Bitcoin already successful as it is today.

For success, Bitcoin may need mass adoption but doesn't need everyone to use it. Gold has a seeming mass adoption but not everyone uses it, yet it's value has not been based on the number of persons using it. The adoption helps with it's valuation and they is why it is needed, it may further facilitate the speedy growth of value for it but what we cannot be sure about is if it will get everyone to use it, which is practically not possible. It is also important to know that Bitcoin technically cannot be used by everyone but if somehow everyone gets to know about it, it gives it more edge for value, so you may not necessarily need to induce some sort of scarcity to keep it's value at the top like expected.

Selective adoption may come with it's own downside which has to be considered, one thing with mass adoption is that it is surely influencing the value of Bitcoin because people cannot  create value for what they don't know or are not sure of. The adoption also gets to strengthen the confidence people will build around it either as an asset or as a currency.  Bitcoin is already successful today due to the adoption it has gotten already, so you can imagine what it will be like if it gains even more adoption, look back five years ago when it hasn't gained as much adoption as now, you will agree there's a huge difference both in value and utility.  It's able to solve certain problems today because of so.w adoption.

[m2017]

Can Scarcity alone may drive value.

The value of bitcoin doesn't lie in scarcity alone.

What if Bitcoin’s strength lies in selective adoption, not universal adoption.

I believe that universal distribution is fundamentally impossible, as there aren't enough bitcoins for everyone on the planet. Moreover, most of the bitcoins are already concentrated in the hands of a small group of people (who won't be willing to give up this valuable asset). It turns out that what we're seeing now is selective distribution.

Is mass adoption necessary, or is Bitcoin already successful as it is today.

It depends on what you mean by success.

I believe that bitcoin has failed as electronic digital money (the very purpose for which it was created), as the share of bitcoin use as a payment method is extremely small.

I'm starting to think that bitcoin will never become widespread, but will remain an asset accessible only to wealthy investors, companies, and countries. And the rising price is contributing to this. Most of the planet isn't exactly poor, and they won't be able to afford bitcoin. How do you envision mass adoption in this situation? It's also important to consider that bitcoin has become a store of value that needs to be accumulated. Only the wealthy have savings.

[mcdouglasx]

The fact that something is scarce doesn't make it valuable if it lacks qualities that make it valuable. Gold isn't valuable because it's scarce, but because it's a malleable, non-corrosive material. It is and was used as a store of value for a long time. Nowadays, nobody uses gold for exchanging goods, only as jewelry, and yet it remains relevant. The same is true for Bitcoin. It offers security, is immune to censorship, can be used by anyone, and is decentralized.

Bitcoin doesn't need mass adoption to be valuable, since Bitcoin solves what gold doesn't: the ability to send large amounts of money securely and transparently to the other side of the world in a matter of minutes. Imagine that feat using gold! Furthermore, fiat currency lacks transparency, so a bank transfer is not the same as a Bitcoin transaction.

[AsvXrin]

The fact that something is scarce doesn't make it valuable if it lacks qualities that make it valuable. Gold isn't valuable because it's scarce, but because it's a malleable, non-corrosive material. It is and was used as a store of value for a long time. Nowadays, nobody uses gold for exchanging goods, only as jewelry, and yet it remains relevant. The same is true for Bitcoin. It offers security, is immune to censorship, can be used by anyone, and is decentralized.

Bitcoin doesn't need mass adoption to be valuable, since Bitcoin solves what gold doesn't: the ability to send large amounts of money securely and transparently to the other side of the world in a matter of minutes. Imagine that feat using gold! Furthermore, fiat currency lacks transparency, so a bank transfer is not the same as a Bitcoin transaction.

Its a mix of both tbh, scarcity alone doesnt give value, that part is ture, otherwise a lot of random limited things would be worth something. But scarcity + utility is what makes something hold long-term value, thats where bitcoin kinda fits in.

Gold has physical properties going for it (like you said), but bitcoins property are more digital, decentralization, censorship resistance, and being able to move value globally without needing permission. Thats something gold and fiat both struggle with in different ways.

That said, I wouldnt completely dismiss mass adoption either. Bitcoin doesnt need everyone to use it, but some level of adoption definitely helps reinforce its value over time. Without users, even the best tech doesnt really  matter. Id say bitcoins value comes from a combination of scarcity, utility and growing trust, not just one of those alone.

[Alpha Marine]

Everybody using bitcoin is not the goal. The goal to me is to be able to use bitcoin anywhere and anytime. Corporation and countr having bitcoin reserves is good, but that is not the end game. The end game for me walking into any stor and paying in bitcoin like it's a normal thing, ordering for something online and using the bitcoin option the way I use the card option. It should be normal for those who wants to use it. It doesn't need everybody to use it, but it should always be available for those who wants to.

I do freelance jobs online sometimes and I receive payment online. I have bitcoin as an option, I also have Payoneer as an option. On my Payoneer account for the majority of those who don't pay with Bitcoin, on my Payoneer account, I get charged $1 for every money I receive and they use lesser exchange rate. But when I receive money in bitcoin, it comes straight to me with no extra charges. I would like to say "I only accept payment in bitcoin" and not lose customers because paying with bitcoin is normal.
I don't know if this can be achieved without mass adoption, but it would be nice to live in a world like that.

Btw, when they say "bitcoin needs mass adoption to be successful", what do that mean? Do they mean bitcoin is failing as it is? I think not. Bitcoin has been a huge success so far. There is still a lot of room for it to become bigger, but even with less than 4% of the world using or owning it, it has become very successful, what do you think will happen when 20% of the worlds population starts using it?

[Ucy]

Ofcourse. What even matters more are few adopters (which could be in millions) using Bitcoin as intended (Ref: Bitcoin whitepaper).
What makes Bitcoin valuable are the principled millions... The mass adopters in their billion add little to negative value to the Bitcoin Network.
 It's very likely that a mass adoption would means the inclusion of billions that add little to no value to the Bitcoin Network. They will only be used as pawns to distablize nations and create one world globalist system.

The principled adopters, who are in the minority, and could be as high as hundreds of millions of people, will have the most influence on Bitcoin. And will be an independent global community

[BitGoba]

Many people argue that Bitcoin must achieve global adoption to succeed but is that really true, I have been thinking about this and I have come to the conclusion, that Bitcoin actually doesn't need global adoption to succeed.
Gold never needed everyone to use it daily before it became seen today, as a physical store of value.Bitcoin can function as a store of value without mass usage. Bitcoin is already successful the way it's today. Because it's really solving a problem. Next time someone who is still doubtful about Bitcoin ask you if Bitcoin can stay  the test of time just tell the person that bitcoin doesn't need global adoption to succeed that, it's already a success.

Ask yourself these key questions

Can Scarcity alone may drive value.
What if Bitcoin’s strength lies in selective adoption, not universal adoption.
Is mass adoption necessary, or is Bitcoin already successful as it is today.

Bitcoin is money.
So now you are probably asking what money is and why Bitcoin is money. If you want the answer to that question and want to understand why Bitcoin is the best form of money, you should read Carl Menger, the Austrian economist, and his book On the Origins of Money.

Money is something that emerges on the free market, when people voluntarily choose a good or medium to use as money. That is what makes money different from fiat currencies, which are imposed by the state by force.For the market to accept something as money, scarcity alone is not enough. Money must also be durable, portable, divisible, recognizable, easy to verify, and costly to produce.

Money emerges on the free market, but not everyone understands equally what money is, why Bitcoin is better money, or what benefits come from using better money. If we have a form of money born on the free market  that is meant to replace fiat , then it cannot be evenly distributed from the very beginning while everyone already appreciates its value. It must necessarily go through a phase in which only a small number of people understand it and value it. Only later, as more people begin to understand what it is and why it matters, does broader adoption follow. And it is very possible that most people will never fully understand what Bitcoin is.

[serjent05]

I believe that bitcoin has failed as electronic digital money (the very purpose for which it was created), as the share of bitcoin use as a payment method is extremely small.

Bitcoin, being use as an electronic digital money, is still in progress. Bitcoin iinfrastructure to be one is already successful, what is missing is to be used in a massive way.  Thus, Bitcoin needed global adoption to fully establish its function as electronic money in the global standard.

I'm starting to think that bitcoin will never become widespread, but will remain an asset accessible only to wealthy investors, companies, and countries.

For me Bitcoin is already become widespread.  It already touches different countries whether they approved it or not.  People in different country are already use it to pay for online merchandise it is that majority of the Bitcoin holder are holding it for future profit.

And the rising price is contributing to this. Most of the planet isn't exactly poor, and they won't be able to afford bitcoin. How do you envision mass adoption in this situation?

One don't need to buy 1 whole BTC.  They can buy a fraction of it.  And a fraction of it won't cost too much, one can buy $10 or even less.  So even in a developing country, there will be people who can be capable of buying BTC as long as they wanted to buy.

It's also important to consider that bitcoin has become a store of value that needs to be accumulated. Only the wealthy have savings.

Not a proven facts.  Even average people have savings, this all goes down to whether the person wanted to buy BTC or not, since even wealthy people can't afford to buy BTC if their belief thinks that it is not worth buying.

Thus, if one wanted to see a widespread purchase, stocks, or use of BTC, it needs to be globally adopted.  Since if  Bitcoin failed to be globally adopted, the time when block reward become 0 and only  transaction fees can be mined,  miners will find it too difficult to maintain since the mined transaction fee won't be enough to cover their expenses.  This might spark the fall of BTC ecosystem, when the one securing the network stop to work due to insufficient reward.

[Cryptomultiplier]

Bitcoin has frequently been described as digital gold since its main worth is its safety and limited supply, as against its use in making small purchases on daily basis. You are correct that it does not need everybody in world to use it in order to be successful but even just richest investors and largest groups in order to protect their dollars can make price reach millions of dollars. Although limited supply adds to value, as long as people want secure area to place their wealth, the price steadily increases and limited use by long term holders actually makes network more trustworthy. Today, Bitcoin is already a success because it stood test of time and lasted more than 15 years without single central leader to lead it and to prove that it can be steady and strong financial system to anyone who wants to hold control over his own money. It would be clear that we will not have to guess number of people using Bitcoin but other level of financial freedom it gives to users.

The world has certainly not adopted Bitcoin as a major currency even though it has attained success in its own way and has proven beyond doubts that it is a currency of value, hence the name digital gold.
We know how gold is scarce and majorly used for a store of value rather than as a currency to be spent in daily basis, that is how Bitcoin is and in the cases where it is used for payments or freely, it is being regulated making it just like every other currencies out there.

So I think it would be okay if we view Bitcoin from a person to person perspective, rather than as a group thought to classify it accordingly.
If Bitcoin is viewed as a gold standard replacement, it has succeeded in that regard, but one thing is clear that if we compare Bitcoin to the dollar, then that is when the need for mass adoption would be demanded as a component of its success.

[BitBrainers]

The store of value argument makes sense to me. Gold never needed everyone to use it daily either. Bitcoin proving it can hold value through wars, rate hikes, and a pandemic is already a bigger test than most assets ever face.

[ColdLava40]

Is mass adoption necessary, or is Bitcoin already successful as it is today.

Well we may not completely comprehend the inputs of gold in this regards because not everyone own gold bars, but the government does and they used gold in the past as a way to represent how much a country is worth.

Till fiat money came into existence gold had been a major means of wealth calculation. Though majority no longer own gold, but it's still very much a measurement of a countries wealth.

Bitcoin even at it's early stage grew very swiftly than any other monetary system that has ever existed. The idea is that people who were more of interest in a system where the government could not have eyes on them, covered a huge percentage of the early adopters..

Today kind of adopters are more on the profit minded.they wish to make gains from their investment thus the swift growth in adoption. We can't tell when but it's obvious that Bitcoin would eventually become the money of the future.. that simply means adoption will take place gradually.