I think, bitcoin is more of a crypto-asset than a crypto-currency. It lacks many properties a currency is supposed to have...

Who's franky1?

I enjoy it as a crypto-asset (I like that name) much more so than a currency, and I've said that many times.  I hold it like I'd hold gold or silver.  I have yet to actually use it to buy something, and I have no desire to do so.

Aside from that, I'm glad other people are smarter than me and can make arguments like OP, of which I didn't understand a word. 

well, yeah. it's a totally obvious statement. but that's the price you pay for bitcoin's unique qualities. no doubt it's gonna get slicker as the years go by but its very nature will always make database based solutions more efficient by an order of magnitude or two.

I do heard a lot of people complains about the inefficient as payment network, but for now most people are using it as investment and many people used it not only for as currency but they used it for many reason, some used it for gambling some used it for trading, so even though it has disadvantage in payment network but it also has a lot of advantage that keep bitcoin alive

According to Blockchain.info the estimated transaction volume over the last 24 hours was about 343,500 BTC, and the total mining revenue was 2000 BTC.  The cost of the Bitcoin payment system is about 0.6% of transaction volume.

Visa's yearly transaction volume is about $3300 billion, while its revenue is about $14 billion. The cost of the Visa network is about 0.4% of transaction volume.

Visa is currently more efficient than Bitcoin, but I expect that to change in the future.

Seriously i'm a franky's fans.  he is very active users with good statement and suggestion.

That's right i agree with you. just like the confirmation and unable for using a zero transaction caused by the double spending are preventing the bitcoin could be a efficient payment network. and just hoping the LN will resolving the problem and making the bitcoin be the efficient currency in the future. but we need a lot of the developer are wanna making a new ideas for bitcoin.

Bitcoin is working fine for online payments the problem is in real life where it is not possible to wait more than 10 minutes on a supermarket for your transaction to be confirmed.I hope that lightning network or something similar will fix this issue in the future otherwise, we will have to move on another cryptocurrency(none of the existing ones is good enough to replace BTC imo) for our daily payments and we will keep Bitcoin as an asset only.

by "realbitcoin" mentioning my name causes me to get involved. like a self fulfilling prophecy.
much like asling people to do an intentional split because the asker is afraid an intentional split will happen is also a self fulfilling prophecy.

anyway
i am open to both sides. i am not in the blockstream camp nor the classic camp. i am in the bitcoin consensus for everyone camp.
i just hold a sceptical mind about many things. not a utopian dream and not a dictatorial desire.

i have said that LN and sidechains have a place in the community. but people need to know the reality of what they are handling and that we should not be pushing for everyone to use offchain. even done subtly to pretend its not being done. especially when pushing false doomsdays.
doomsdays such as "that in 10 years the blockchain will be many terrabytes big so that no node will be able to run it, except centralized data centers." are false doomsdays made by blockstreamers to push their offchain agenda.

there is a balance. a compromise. and although some are presenting 8,6,32 proposals now..
i personally feel 2mb base 4mb weight is a good compromise everyone could agree with, and everyone gets what they want.. IF they put their political party ambitions aside.

forcing false doomsdays to coerce people offchain,(even done subtly) causes less people to want to become nodes(for security). less reason to want to become miners(for security). and turns bitcoin into a less secure system.
thus moving people to sidechains permanently the agenda. (much like "realbitcoins" rhetoric last year involving the altcoin NXT being bitcoin 2.0)

bitcoin needs to continue having an open and fair choice to continue doing onchain transactions for the immutable security. or offchain for the faster convenience.
there should not be an all or nothing debate.(though blockstreamers want all or nothing)

bitcoin is an open network that should have no barriers of entry and no dictatorship in central authority. this should not change.
by barrier of entry i mean. today sticking with 1mb blocks is a barrier to entry. jumping to obscene block sizes of "terrabytes" is a barrier of entry
thus a safe and workable compromise and agreement by the community is the best option to continue bitcoins ethos.

But isn't it true to a point that the blockchain would be too large and that it will make it harder for people to run a node? The storage problem could be stored. But what about the bandwidth problem?


I also want to know your opinion what a Bitcoin hard fork would look like. I am afraid that it might happen just like what happened to Ethereum. The blockchain splits and now we have 2 chains competing against each other. Will it not slow down Bitcoin's adoption if this happens? I believe Roger Ver said something like if it happens then it happens, and he acted as if it was not a big deal.

If Bitcoin Unlimited "wins", what will happen to the core developers?