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

[Dogedegen]

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.

[uchegod-21]

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?

Let me refer this question back to you. Do you think that with volatility and high transaction fees, people themselves will be willing to use only bitcoin as an everyday means of payment? There is a big difference here between bitcoin being capable of handling massive chunk of everyday payments and people being willing to adopt bitcoin as an everyday means of payment. There needs to be a balance between these two. People need quick, predictable and less expensive payment options, reason they are going for fiat and stable coins. Yea I admit that the lightening network and other technologies are trying to make bitcoin transactions easier, but the truth is that, many people won't still use bitcoin for everyday payments.

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.

Yea, we should erase that idea of bitcoin being the only currency to perform all online transactions. Bitcoin is only an alternative and people will look for it when the need for it arises.

[Queentoshi]

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?

In the shortest future it is possible that Bitcoin realistically powers all online transactions before considering how dynamic technology can be, I say except another technology that does not compete with the attention that Bitcoin has comes up, bitcoin is on a projectile to become an everyday use.
In the future people will bend more towards preference and speed than towards government regulations and opinion than just because everyone is doing it. As this mindset develops, bitcoin grows.

[JiiBs]

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 particularly some of the reason why it’s easy to accept the narrative that Bitcoin would continue to be valued even more in the coming years. Not only because of how it’s being doing but the fact that, the only means it can serve with its limited supply would be to amass as much as possible a lot of purchasing power to a Bitcoin.

Whenever such a time comes, when the least sat would be valued above several dollars, Bitcoin would be able to serve in a mainstream capacity as a means of exchange, especially for discrete and cross border transactions and would be supported by transitional means to transacting.

[X-ray]

Maybe in the future it will power all online transactions and solve scalability through the use of layer 2 with rollup mechanism like BOB (Build on Bitcoin) using BitVM but it isn't popular yet.

The only problem so far is actually scaling, Bitcoin wins compared to traditional payment rail because no intermediary costs and hidden fees, settlement also happened after few confirmations unlike traditional payment rails that requires few working days. Not to mention account freezing, and so on.

But frankly, even being a primary settlement layer for institutional use to move big amount of capital is not a problem at all, Bitcoin is already doing great in that regard.

[cryptoaddictchie]

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!

With its price, I think it stays as store of value or some sort of investment asset than a commodity that can be used daily like a normal fiat. Most users buy bitcoin and hold it, instead uses it for their daily lives. For example buying a coffee worth $3 will he uses bitcoin? Or just pat out off pocket with his dollars?

Maybe depends on innovation if most globally will adopt and establish payment channel for bitcoin.

[Peanutswar]

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

Right now, we are shifting into web3 which is some of the platform too adapting the use of the bitcoin as a mode of payment which is good because beside from being used as an investment is they also now offer as a payment using our web browsers but of course we know the risk of it, one mistake from a link they can now compromised also our wallets so its the user risk protection now but adaptation wise? bitcoin is now slowly adapting by most of the companies first place is the government must need to adapt this for transparency so people in the community seen the potential of it.

[CharlesPower]

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 agree that Lightning’s liquidity and channel-management requirements are a real hurdle, especially if we’re talking about ordinary users who shouldn’t have to think about routing, inbound liquidity, or keeping channels healthy.

What I find interesting about Ark is that it changes the design trade-off rather than simply trying to push Lightning further. If it can provide a smoother experience while still ultimately settling on Bitcoin, that could make Bitcoin much more practical for everyday payments.

That said, I’m still curious about the scalability side. Handling a large share of global online commerce isn’t just about whether transactions can technically be processed. it’s also about liquidity, privacy, UX, custody, and how easily someone can receive and spend without understanding the underlying machinery.

So I think the bigger question is whether Bitcoin’s future payment layer will look like Lightning, Ark, or some combination of several approaches. The base layer probably doesn’t need to handle every coffee purchase directly if the layers above it can make Bitcoin feel like a normal payment network.

[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!

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 think that’s a good point. Adoption can become a feedback loop once people actually see Bitcoin being used for everyday payments rather than just holding it as an investment.

At the same time, I think the spending behavior will depend a lot on how people perceive Bitcoin’s value at that moment. If someone expects it to appreciate significantly, they may be reluctant to spend it. But if sending and receiving Bitcoin becomes fast, cheap, and convenient enough, people may start treating it more like money rather than an asset they only hold.

The interesting part will be whether Bitcoin can make that transition without losing the qualities that made people want to hold it in the first place.

[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?

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.

I was mainly thinking about Bitcoin competing with traditional online payment systems, rather than just competing with other cryptocurrencies.

I agree that comparing raw transactions per second makes Bitcoin look very limited, especially against established fiat payment rails. But I also think TPS alone can be a bit misleading because Bitcoin’s scaling model is different. The base layer doesn’t necessarily need to process every individual payment if second-layer systems can handle the majority of transactions and periodically settle back to Bitcoin.

The real question for me is whether those layers can provide the same convenience people expect from traditional payments while still keeping Bitcoin’s decentralization and security. If they can, the lower base-layer TPS may not be as important as it initially appears.

[CharlesPower]

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.

I agree that using the Bitcoin base layer for every transaction would create a serious bottleneck, especially during periods of high demand. The coffee example makes the point pretty well—nobody wants to pay several dollars in fees just to make a small payment.

But I think that limitation is also why Layer 2 solutions are so important to Bitcoin’s long-term scaling. The goal doesn’t necessarily have to be putting every coffee purchase directly on the blockchain. If most everyday transactions can happen on faster and cheaper layers while Bitcoin remains the settlement and security layer, it could potentially scale much further without sacrificing the properties of the main network.

So for me, the bigger question isn't whether Bitcoin's base layer can process every transaction—it clearly isn't designed for that. The interesting question is whether the surrounding layers can scale enough while still providing users with a simple and reliable payment experience.

[Alvin_talk]

Well, all we can do in this case is speculate and see if that will be possible in the nearest future, but as you know, nothing is certain. Although, if we look at how bitcoin transaction capacity and payment infrastructure has improved over the years, one could anticipate on a day when the answer to your question will be a "YES".

The first major improvement was BIP 141 (SegWit). Prior to this time, block size was just  limited to1MB which caused delay in transactions, SegWit fixed this by introducing the concept of block weight, which allowed more transaction to fit into a block. That is, transaction size moved from 1 MB to 4 MB. Further scaling approach has come from the Lightning network and Ark. Although these improvements might not have solved all the problem already, but we can hope and speculate that their will be a major break that will solve this in the nearest future.

[CharlesPower]

Well, all we can do in this case is speculate and see if that will be possible in the nearest future, but as you know, nothing is certain. Although, if we look at how bitcoin transaction capacity and payment infrastructure has improved over the years, one could anticipate on a day when the answer to your question will be a "YES".

The first major improvement was BIP 141 (SegWit). Prior to this time, block size was just  limited to1MB which caused delay in transactions, SegWit fixed this by introducing the concept of block weight, which allowed more transaction to fit into a block. That is, transaction size moved from 1 MB to 4 MB. Further scaling approach has come from the Lightning network and Ark. Although these improvements might not have solved all the problem already, but we can hope and speculate that their will be a major break that will solve this in the nearest future.

I agree that we can’t know for certain how far Bitcoin’s payment infrastructure will evolve, but the progress so far is definitely worth considering. SegWit was a major step, and Lightning and Ark show that scaling doesn’t necessarily have to mean increasing the capacity of the base layer indefinitely.

I also think the next breakthrough may be less about finding one solution that handles everything and more about several layers working together. If Bitcoin can keep the base layer focused on security and settlement while other layers handle high-volume everyday payments, the overall system could become much more practical.

The real test, though, will be whether these improvements can eventually become simple enough for ordinary users to use without even needing to understand how the underlying technology works.

[wapwapwendy]

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!

I think Bitcoin can still become useful for everyday payments, especially with Lightning. The main chain doesn't need to handle every coffee or small transaction.

For me, the bigger issue is adoption and UX. If paying with BTC becomes simple enough for normal users, I don't see why it can't have a bigger role in daily payments. Stablecoins may be more convenient for some use cases, but Bitcoin can still remain the base settlement layer.

[abel1337]

Realistically? I think no. If layer 1, it can't since transaction takes too long that no merchants or fast moving businesses would use it. For lightning? Yes it solves issues and has solutions like being fast and has lower cost compared to layer 1 but I think it is still not possible to fully replace all online transactions on the near future. Whether it's layer one or lightning, it is still bitcoin, it is volatile that business owners would really make a hard decisions to adapt it as their strict mode of payment. Business owners wants stability and they won't find it on bitcoin.

I can see bitcoin in the future as a widely accepted alternative mode of payment, we are still far from being adapted by the 50% of the entire population of the world but I would be happy if majority of the merchants in the whole world accepts bitcoin payments.

[Smartprofit]

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. 🧑‍💻

[MarryWithBTC]

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?

Satoshi developed bitcoin and we all have read his original intention of creating bitcoin. However, he didn't limit bitcoin only to that purpose. At a time, he realized that he created something more powerful than he intended. That was when he began to make some statements of uncertainty, like "in 50 years time, bitcoin could worth millions or could also worth nothing"

So, I am okay in whatever bitcoin will develop to, even as it will maintain its original purpose.

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.

TBH, I feel that layer 2 solutions (LN especially) are not scalable enough. They have been around for a while and yet haven't the slightest adoption limit.

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!

It will handle partly the everyday transactions, stable coins will also handle, digital currencies will also do even the fiat will play its role. The ecosystem will co-exist, bitcoin alone cannot do it.

[BlackHatCoiner]

So I think the bigger question is whether Bitcoin’s future payment layer will look like Lightning, Ark, or some combination of several approaches.

I think it ends up being a mix, and most users won't even know which layer they're on, the wallet will just pick. Ark is interesting, but it doesn't make the liquidity problem disappear, it moves it to the ASP, which has to lock up a lot of capital. And users still have to come online before their VTXOs expire, so it isn't fully "set and forget" either.

Honestly the bigger blocker for me is still merchants and volatility.

[Cookdata]

TBH, I feel that layer 2 solutions (LN especially) are not scalable enough. They have been around for a while and yet haven't the slightest adoption limit.

You feel, or you know? LN is pretty scalable and better than any other alt layers you can think of. Let's take Ethereum for example, the main layer is not scalable, projects like Base, Arbitrum, and Optimism are its layer 2, where the transactions get settled before they are settled on the main chain, this is kind of similar to LN. However, most of them are limited to the number of transactions they can settle per second. If you bloat them, they can become congested, but LN isn't designed that way except when you want to settle everything on the main layer which is the main purpose of lightning network.

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.

[CharlesPower]

So I think the bigger question is whether Bitcoin’s future payment layer will look like Lightning, Ark, or some combination of several approaches.

I think it ends up being a mix, and most users won't even know which layer they're on, the wallet will just pick. Ark is interesting, but it doesn't make the liquidity problem disappear, it moves it to the ASP, which has to lock up a lot of capital. And users still have to come online before their VTXOs expire, so it isn't fully "set and forget" either.

Honestly the bigger blocker for me is still merchants and volatility.

Yeah, The wallet abstracting away the underlying layer is probably the most realistic path. Most people aren't going to care whether a payment went through Lightning, Ark, or something else as long as it is fast, cheap, and reliable.

And you're right about Ark not magically eliminating liquidity requirements. Moving that responsibility to the ASP can make the user experience simpler, but the capital still has to come from somewhere. The VTXO expiry requirement is another practical detail that could easily be overlooked when talking about Ark at a high level.

I also agree that merchant adoption and volatility may be bigger obstacles than the raw transaction capacity. Even if the infrastructure works perfectly, merchants still have to be willing to accept Bitcoin and deal with the price risk. Stable coins may have an advantage there because merchants can accept digital payments without taking the same BTC price exposure.

So maybe the interesting question isn't whether Bitcoin itself handles every payment, but whether Bitcoin can remain the underlying settlement layer while different payment layers and assets handle the different use cases.