Can Bitcoin realistically power all online transactions in the near future?

[CharlesPower]

However, if we look ahead to the next few years, do you think Bitcoin can realistically handle a massive chunk of everyday online commerce? Or will it always remain primarily a settlement layer and store of value, leaving day-to-day transactions to stable coins or other networks?
I’m curious to hear how people here view the trade-offs, especially regarding user experience, volatility, and global scalability. Let’s discuss!

Bitcoin can already do this. The point is not to use everything on chain because that is not good, many payments are small and not important. They don't need to be permanently stored and replicated on many thousands of computers. Instead Bitcoin's Lightning Network already provides more capacity than is needed to handle all the transactions of the world. There isn't a practical limit that we have hit yet, we can see what happens when it has more users. If it is going to be used this way is another topic, for that I am not so confident because many do not value the decentralization that much as we do.

Lightning cannot reach mass adoption. The architecture is just not allowing convenient use, because of liquidity and connection issues.

Bitcoin can power all online transactions theoretically using Ark, but probably requires covenants to be included in a future softfork. Ark is already working without covenants though, although it's debatable if that alone can power all online transactions.

I have read things like this many times but I have never had a single issue for small payments, which is what lightning is made for. I never had connection issues or liquidity issues. Did you personally have some issues? When was that? What wallet did you use?

I'm confident that Bitcoin won't power all online transactions in the near or even distant future. 🙋

You are probably right but that is not the question here, the question is about technological capability of doing all of that.

To be honest, I've never used the Lightning Network... Although, of course, I understand that learning it makes sense from a practical Bitcoin use case. 🙋

For example, let's consider a practical problem... In the spring of 2024, many of us faced a big problem. We needed to sell Bitcoin for fiat currency, and Bitcoin network fees were incredibly high (due to the incredible popularity of runes and ordinals). I remember paying 40 percent in fees for a single transaction. It was terrifying!

Bitcoin network fees are low now, but I wouldn't want to face such a critical situation in the future.

As far as I understand, Lightning Network fees are low. However, if I want to save on fees in the future, I need to transfer satoshis to the Lightning network in advance and open a channel. But as far as I understand, a software glitch could lead to the unexpected closure of the channel.  Furthermore, as far as I understand - correct me if I'm wrong - all Lightning Bitcoin wallets are hot wallets. Therefore, storing Bitcoin in them for long periods of time is less secure than storing it in mainstream cold wallets.

Furthermore, in my opinion, second-layer solutions will always be less secure than first-layer solutions. The number of points of vulnerability increases in any case... The recent Liquid incident confirms this. Although, of course, Lightning and Liquid have different security architectures. 🧑‍💻

I think your point about the trade-off between scalability and security is fair. I also agree that if Bitcoin is going to be used for much more everyday activity, we need to be careful about pushing users toward solutions that introduce additional complexity.

To be transparent, I haven't personally used Lightning enough to claim that I've experienced liquidity or connection problems myself. My concern is more about whether those issues become significant when millions of ordinary users start using it, rather than whether it works for today's smaller user base.

Regarding the channel issue, I don't think users necessarily need to manage channels manually anymore with many modern Lightning wallets, but that doesn't mean the underlying liquidity and channel-management requirements disappear. They are still part of the system somewhere.

And I wouldn't necessarily say that every second-layer solution is automatically less secure than the base layer. The security model is different, and it depends heavily on how the particular system is designed.

[Woodie]

Technically it can, but realistically it can never get 100% adoption because of numerous reasons, for example politicians who see Bitcoin as an asset that could distabilize their traditional financial systems of their countries.. to the point of it putting their political career in harms way, so people have different interests to protect but with time when the new generations come in, life will be more of a digital lifestyle and that's where BTC could make it's mark.

[CharlesPower]

Technically it can, but realistically it can never get 100% adoption because of numerous reasons, for example politicians who see Bitcoin as an asset that could distabilize their traditional financial systems of their countries.. to the point of it putting their political career in harms way, so people have different interests to protect but with time when the new generations come in, life will be more of a digital lifestyle and that's where BTC could make it's mark.

100% adoption is probably unrealistic, especially while governments and traditional financial institutions have reasons to protect the systems they already control. But I think adoption doesn't have to be 100% for Bitcoin to become a major part of digital payments. As younger generations grow up with digital assets and online finance as normal, the resistance may gradually become less important. The bigger question is whether Bitcoin's payment infrastructure can evolve enough to make using it as easy as using traditional payment methods.

[DiMarxist]

No body even believed that Bitcoin will get to even this stage when it was launched some few years ago. That Bitcoin today is competing with traditional payment shows the general acceptance that Bitcoin has been able to gather over time. The truth is that the world is evolving as technology is also improving with time, going forward Bitcoin will not only be dominants for only online settlement but it will also be a medium for payment even in real life situation.

[Renampun]

Bitcoin was never designed to handle online transactions on such a massive scale.. even though it can be an alternative to fiat, its scalability is still limited, and to handle a larger number of transactions, Layer 2 solutions can help address this limitation by allowing transactions to be processed off-chain.. popular L2 solutions are Lightning and ARK, both of which are L2s that aim to improve Bitcoin's transaction capacity and make it faster and more efficient.

[MarryWithBTC]

LN challenge right now isn't scalabiliy, it's more of liquidity and even that one can get solve if institutions step in with their Bitcoin with more liquid channels. It's like the institutional investors see problem with LN and are resisting the adoption, most of the institutionals are not too concern about scalabily interest, they prefer valuation of their investments and how to hedge their fund against inflation, that is why LN remain that way.

We know that the main essence of LN is for buying coffee (small repetitive trades/transactions). In the other hand, institutions as you noted are more interested in valuation, volume and they operate in millions and billions of dollars. So, there's no iota of correlation between LN and the institutions.

Waiting for institutions to get involved in LN in order to give it a boost is like waiting for an air plane to land in the sea port.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

’m curious to hear how people here view the trade-offs, especially regarding user experience, volatility, and global scalability. Let’s discuss!

Yes Bitcoin can but ls that really what the industry is fighting for? no it isn't. With a fair share of the industry, I think Bitcoin is okay with that because the idea has always been to be an alternative to what the govenwmmt are offering and anyone that wants to take control of their finances should switch over to Bitcoin.

I always believe Bitcoin and fiats will live side by side as neither is going to overtake the other.  The market is large enough for the both of them to exis but the govenwmmt don't see it this way instead they see Bitcoin as a threat and that's why they don't want it succeeding.

With Blockchain technology backing Bitcoin, the online transactions market could easily be taken care of, and people won't have to be worried about getting scammed because of reversals and fake transaction's which is still high among online transactions. Bitcoin has everything to take control of the finance systems without any problem but the government will rather not give up control that they currently have.

[CharlesPower]

’m curious to hear how people here view the trade-offs, especially regarding user experience, volatility, and global scalability. Let’s discuss!

Yes Bitcoin can but ls that really what the industry is fighting for? no it isn't. With a fair share of the industry, I think Bitcoin is okay with that because the idea has always been to be an alternative to what the govenwmmt are offering and anyone that wants to take control of their finances should switch over to Bitcoin.

I always believe Bitcoin and fiats will live side by side as neither is going to overtake the other.  The market is large enough for the both of them to exis but the govenwmmt don't see it this way instead they see Bitcoin as a threat and that's why they don't want it succeeding.

With Blockchain technology backing Bitcoin, the online transactions market could easily be taken care of, and people won't have to be worried about getting scammed because of reversals and fake transaction's which is still high among online transactions. Bitcoin has everything to take control of the finance systems without any problem but the government will rather not give up control that they currently have.

I also think Bitcoin and fiat can exist side by side. Bitcoin doesn't necessarily have to completely replace fiat for it to be successful. Having an alternative is already a big deal, especially for people who don't want to depend entirely on banks or other financial institutions.

At the end of the day, people should be able to choose what works best for them. Fiat has its place, but Bitcoin brings a different option to the table. I think the real challenge is getting governments to accept that both systems can exist without one having to completely eliminate the other.

[yhiaali3]

Personally, I don't think Bitcoin will make up a large part of everyday e-commerce, not because of network problems or congestion and the like, but because most people no longer want to part with their valuable Bitcoin to conduct everyday transactions.

So I believe that the main use will be limited to stablecoins because they are fast and have low fees, while Bitcoin's role in the next stage will be limited to being a hedge against inflation and a store of value much more than its use for everyday transactions.

[hmbdofficial]

However, if we look ahead to the next few years, do you think Bitcoin can realistically handle a massive chunk of everyday online commerce? Or will it always remain primarily a settlement layer and store of value, leaving day-to-day transactions to stable coins or other networks?
I’m curious to hear how people here view the trade-offs, especially regarding user experience, volatility, and global scalability. Let’s discuss!

Primarily bitcoin was not meant to be a store of value based on my understanding, it was later that people discovered that it’s could actually be a store of value based on it behaviour over time, and people took advantage of that and it is now even affecting it primary aim. Satoshi created bitcoin to serve as an alternative way to trade without the involvement of the government institutions or any central authority. bitcoin is already handling chunk of transactions on a daily based. you may also wish to confirm what volume of bitcoin coins is traded on a daily based to confirm that.

As for bitcoin to be used in day to day transactions? It might not be viable, because of it volatility. If bitcoin isn’t this volatile it would have made that wave since it adoption got started, but due to it swing in it’s price within short period of time, it will not be a suitable tool for day to day transaction most especially for business owners.

[Outhue]

I believe in the long run, Bitcoin may be used for all online transactions, but I don't believe so for the next few years. It needs something on top of it since the base layer does only about 7 transactions per second. Lightning seems like the obvious solution, but in my experience the problem of liquidity and routing still makes it unpleasant for daily users and @BlackHatCoiner has a point there. I like the idea of Ark but I'm not sure it can scale at this point.

Volatility is another problem. Only a few users would want to spend money that can go up/down by 5-10% in a single week, so most of the day-to-day crypto transactions currently utilise stablecoins. Bitcoin will likely keep growing in importance as a store of value and settlement layer and potentially as a payment mechanism as well.

I think volatility is bigger issue than every other because today people are still using Bitcoin for online transactions, I have lost count about how many times I have used Bitcoin for online transactions in the past, the waiting game is what people can get used with since it's online payment, there is no reason to rush but volatility? That's never going to get solved.

Which leads me to this final conclusion that Bitcoin won't take over completely like it's the only thing left, the option will just always be there but many others will be side by side on the list, it's left for people to go with anyone they are convenient with.

[davis196]

Hey everyone,

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about the actual limits and trajectory of Bitcoin adoption. We all know Bitcoin is heavily anchored as digital gold and a macro store of value, but what about its original promise as a medium of exchange?

Looking at the ongoing improvements with Layer 2 scaling solutions like the Lightning Network, transaction speeds and fees have improved dramatically compared to earlier years. At the same time, traditional payment rails (like credit cards, wire transfers, and cross-border processors) still feel clunky, expensive, and heavily gatekept.

However, if we look ahead to the next few years, do you think Bitcoin can realistically handle a massive chunk of everyday online commerce? Or will it always remain primarily a settlement layer and store of value, leaving day-to-day transactions to stable coins or other networks?
I’m curious to hear how people here view the trade-offs, especially regarding user experience, volatility, and global scalability. Let’s discuss!

You are asking a question, that has been asked a million times already. Search the older forum threads and you will find your answers.
No, the Bitcoin Core blockchain cannot handle all global online transactions and it cannot fully replace the online fiat payment infrastructure.
And no, there won't be any mass BTC adoption in the retail sector mostly due to Bitcoin's price volatility. Bitcoin is great where it is right now and we don't have to feel sorry for BTC not achieving global domination as "the one and only" digital currency.