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

[CharlesPower]

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!

[JaanusRaim]

The cryptocurrencies role as a mediums of exchange can dramatically increase during a major fiat crisis. Although Bitcoin vastly outperforms other cryptocurrencies as a store of value, it competes closely with Litecoin as a medium of exchange and Litecoin will probably not stay the only one... I bet that while the cryptocurrencies role can remarkable increase the share of the first cryptocurrency among other cryptocurrencies become smaller.

[Nathrixxx]

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?

Bitcoin has been serving its purpose and will continue to even go beyond what we may think of, this is why even satoshi nakamatu himself never expected bitcoin to be widely accepted the way it has gone far with people's adoption, all because bitcoin can serve as a multifaceted assets as an investment and a digital currency or a medium of exchange for goods and services, all we needed is to know how it could channel its application to suit our individual use irrespective of where it is being made applicable.

[BlackHatCoiner]

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.

[Rruchi man]

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!

Consumer behavior on how Bitcoin will be used in the future will be influenced by others around them. If it becomes the behavior of most people who own Bitcoin to start using it for transactions both around them and from one country to another, it will not be long before they are able to influence others who have Bitcoin as well but only have the store of value and investment mindset towards it to start using it for regular transactions.

Many people have the investment mindset towards Bitcoin right now because that is what many of us see it to be at the moment, an opportunity to invest and profit from the volatility.

[atookz]

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.

[Ahli38]

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 can see that Bitcoin is now being used as a medium of exchange even though there are still restrictions imposed by government regulations. You can also see that Bitcoin is widely used for various purposes. And Bitcoin can even be used for microtransactions such as buying a burger as Trump once did (Source). I believe Bitcoin is no longer merely a medium of exchange. But It has expanded to become an investment instrument or even a digital asset with significant profit potential. So I personally believe that even at this stage Bitcoin can already be used as a transaction tool for everyday transactions of any kind. And I’m confident that in the future, where its use will become even more widespread on a global scale. On the other hand concerns about its volatility may still be leading people to use stablecoins. But I’m confident that in the future more people will realize that Bitcoin is more suitable for everyday transactions and even Bitcoin Layer 2 solutions will likely play a role in this.

[Ashawowo(OS)]

However, if we look ahead to the next few years, do you think Bitcoin can realistically handle a massive chunk of everyday online commerce?

The next few years are already by the corner and adoption is still very slow, from a quick search, less than 4% of the world population owns bitcoin and since fewer than 1% uses it for transactions, it shows the rest of the less than 4% are just buying and accumulating bitcoin, including myself. So my answer to this question is NO. The figures of adoption/transactions involving bitcoin should increase and a medium of faster payment like LN reach a bigger adoption before we can think of a "massive chunk"

Consumer behavior on how Bitcoin will be used in the future will be influenced by others around them. If it becomes the behavior of most people who own Bitcoin to start using it for transactions both around them and from one country to another, it will not be long before they are able to influence others who have Bitcoin as well but only have the store of value and investment mindset towards it to start using it for regular transactions.

The problem is that in a good number of countries, bitcoin is illegal and in others, there is unclear regulations towards it, thereby obstructing its efficient use for transactions within countries, a lot of people use it across countries though, starting from campaign managers here who pay for signature campaigns in bitcoin and casinos that accept bitcoin deposits and process its withdrawals, to other services that accept bitcoin payments.
If bitcoin can achieve good intra-country transactional relevance in countries it is legal, then we have a good starting point to proper globalization.

[Upgrade00]

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?

Are you comparing bitcoin to other cryptocurrencies to know if it can take up majority of crypto transactions or how much bitcoin can take up when compared to fiat online payment system?

Against other crypto, I do not have much data on the amount of transactions that gets completed daily, but with fiat that completes about 10,000-50,000 per second, bitcoin cannot compete even with extra layer solutions.

[YOSHIE]

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?

In my personal assessment, if Bitcoin still relies on its main network, namely blockchain, it can be seen realistically that of course Bitcoin cannot be one of the reasons for supporting all online transactions globally, What's more, in the near future, I think Bitcoin will still prioritize the concept of the Bitcoin main network, of course it will still prioritize security and decentralization as in the beginning.

Another reason Bitcoin cannot support all transactions, is because Bitcoin is still tied to block size and transaction fees such as gas fees, in blocks of 1 MB every 10 minutes, meaning that if Bitcoin is used for all transactions, transactions will automatically queue. jammed / piled up, When a situation like this occurs Bitcoin users will pay expensive transaction fees so that their transactions run smoothly, of course it is not practical and realistic to buy a cup of coffee which should pay $1. When this situation occurs users have to pay up to $5 for a cup of coffee, right? that's not realistic.

[joniboini]

When this situation occurs users have to pay up to $5 for a cup of coffee, right? that's not realistic.

I believe that's not part of the goal anyway. At the very least, I believe the biggest goal about preventing double spending without reliance on a third party is achieved already. This means the nature of tx that you see should be sensitive, in the sense that users don't mind waiting for block confirmation before they go on with their life. Using another solution for small transactions like coffee doesn't sound too bad to begin with, even if you have to use your banks for that. Personally, I don't mind using fiat if I have to pay $5 or so regularly. I'd be careful if I'm dealing with hundred or thousands of dollars against someone else if I need to rely on banks though. CMIIW.

[Solodoski]

The possibilities are there already, because in prop firms it's acceptable as means of payment, which is definitely an online transaction. This is just us trying to forecast the future of bitcoin which I think it's not easy, but I really think it has the tendency to power online transactions, but right now most people sees it as a form of investment rather than a means of exchange. We really don't know what tomorrow brings, so will not be surprised if it becomes a means for all online transaction in the future,  because bitcoin has been here for a very long time and it's already proven that it can be trusted when it comes to long term investment.

[Jubilee58]

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!

Consumer behavior on how Bitcoin will be used in the future will be influenced by others around them. If it becomes the behavior of most people who own Bitcoin to start using it for transactions both around them and from one country to another, it will not be long before they are able to influence others who have Bitcoin as well but only have the store of value and investment mindset towards it to start using it for regular transactions.

Many people have the investment mindset towards Bitcoin right now because that is what many of us see it to be at the moment, an opportunity to invest and profit from the volatility.

I believe Bitcoin can be used in making what ever transactions you want to use it for if really that is what you want , but the interest of May is not even centered on the path of making transactions with Bitcoin as only few people does that among many people that invest in Bitcoin. Although making transactions with Bitcoin is one of it's core purpose, but is mostly used as a store of value. Bitcoin has increased massively in adoption helping to fuel it's growth, and value. For this reason majority of the investors are investing in Bitcoin with the mindset of making huge profits, and if today or in future the transaction speed of Bitcoin is increased even more than the lightening network, that is not what most investors are interested about, but they are more interested about the value of their asset.

[Cookdata]

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!

This is where lightning comes in. Bitcoin lightning takes seconds to send transaction across different channel. The lightning is even faster, like super faster than any of the layer transactions because even if it's congested, it doesn't wait for confirmation until there is settlements on the main chain which can be done when you want to close the channel. Bitcoin lightning can solve the scalability most people are facing everyday but I don't know why they don't like lightning.

Like if you visit some of the centralized exchanges, they have lightning deposit. Binance even recommend it for their users because they are one of the largest channel on lightning. Some of the challenges we have on lightning is even because people are not using it. If people start to use lightning for large scale transactions, there will be enough liquidity for even institutional investors. Imagined an institution with $1b open channel, it transactions are going to easily routed.

[Freeveto]

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 handle every commercial online transaction because it is reliable and fast in terms of transaction. If you can learn how to use Bitcoin wallets that allow you to boost transaction fees, maybe during network congestion so that you can have a very fast transaction, and the Lightning network is also there to facilitate fast Bitcoin transactions, there is no need to rely on stablecoins or any altcoin so long as you can use your Bitcoin to pay for any goods you buy online. Bitcoin will still remain good for investment, and it will store its value.

[Jewan420]

How Bitcoin will be used in the future and how much it will be used in real life depends on the mindset of the users. Bitcoin is still being used for transactions, but on a small scale. I think that if Bitcoin becomes more valuable in the future, it will probably gain more fame as a store of value. The issue is not the transaction problem or fees, but the holding benefit. You can profit more from Bitcoin by investing than by actual transactions, so people will choose the profitable option. If it is profitable for someone to transact with Bitcoin, then they will use it for transactions. However, the use of fiat currency will never end, and if there is a fiat crisis, Bitcoin can play a role as an alternative.

[Cryptomultiplier]

Realistically speaking, Bitcoin remains one of the most secure hard digital gold asset to own, with the assurance of creating wealth by being a store of value and hedge against inflation, rather than it being an everyday currency of use.
The only thing I see as a takeaway point from the existence of Bitcoin is the payment rails it has made possible like the lightening network which can handle instant broad payment in stable coins or even in local currency.

[lionheart78]

If we talk about the future, the question of Bitcoin being able to power all online transactions can be answered by hypothetically yes.  Since we do not know the future path of bitcoin development, we can only assume something like the developer creating a Bitcoin layer where transactions can be instantly confirmed and can process billions of transactions in a second. think of it as a greatly improved Lightning Network.

I am optimistic about Bitcoin development, and I also welcome any form of Bitcoin layer development as long as it helps Bitcoin establish its dominance and greatly enhance its performance.

[Smartprofit]

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

There are already quite successful financial instruments that do this well (stablecoins, central bank digital currencies, and some alternative cryptocurrencies). Bitcoin has technological limitations that prevent it from powering all online transactions worldwide.

I see Bitcoin's role as that of digital diamonds. In past centuries, family diamonds were passed down from generation to generation and could be pawned when money was desperately needed. And in emergencies, they could be sold.

At the same time, if diamonds are considered money (and they were sometimes used as such), it must be acknowledged that diamond transactions were very rare and few in number. Owning diamonds was a status symbol. It was an opportunity to concentrate large amounts of capital (in a very compact form), which could be quickly transferred from one country to another if necessary. In my opinion, this is precisely the primary function of Bitcoin.💁

[Ambatman]

 We speaking about Bitcoin layer one then it can't
It handles way less than the world does in a second
Due to its intentionally created constrain
But potentially with layer two then yes
Though it would be an alternative method to Fiat at best imo.