Not sure if he has some narrative behind by attacking bitcoin as a payment network. Of all the people, he should understand that bitcoin can still be a good payment scheme if big retailers are going to used it.

But what will be the best crypto payment network now? Doge? ETH? doubt that as well. We still need to give LN some time to developed and mature and then we will see how it goes.

That's a crazy assessment in my opinion and no one has been able to remove bitcoin from the first order because so far bitcoin has remained the main coin among other altcoins.
And talking about bitcoin having no future is impossible because there are a lot of changes in people that we see after they introduced bitcoin.
Even though bitcoin is considered to have no future as a payment, we can still use it as an exchange with others so that we can continue to feel the results of bitcoin.

Well, about the future I do not dare to predict, but what he says I think it is not only because of the problem of scalability, but also because Bitcoin is a deflationary scarce resource and, if people buy it expecting it to be more valuable as time goes by, as it is logical due to its nature, it is normal that it will not be used massively for payments and other systems will be used.

I only see it being used massively for payments if all fiat and shitcoins disappear, and that is not going to happen.

Although I was not able to read the full article in Financial Times because I am not not a subscriber, but his points are well highlighted in this post. Sam Bankman-Fried is well grounded in the crypto space and has a lot of experience. His concerns might be genuine but his predictions is too harsh and stereotyped.

He should understand that Bitcoin operations can be upgraded or redesigned to overcome these challenges he mentioned. His concerned about high environmental costs is being tackled by Bitcoiners. It is important to not that energy usage is not equivalent to carbon emissions. The amount of energy consumed can be easily determined but it is more difficult to determine its carbon emissions. Hence, analysts always publish how much energy Bitcoin consumes but less has been said of how much carbon the operations emit. But generally, the Bitcoin market is pushing North American energy sources to get greener because Bitcoin mining in the U.S. is more than 50% powered by renewables.https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/20/bitcoin-mining-environmental-impact-new-study.html

But I see his observations and predictions as a wakeup call for the Bitcoin community to study his reservations and make necessary amends.

Why not if people can use very cheap fee at 1 satoshi/ vbyte. To have it, they must use non custodial wallet, not exchange wallet (custodial).

In addition, they can use Lightning network that can help them to make transactions with fees are in peny.

The growth of Lightning Network since 2020 is a good signal for Bitcoin as a payment method. Important to note, fee is not what most important, secured, health of a network is most important. With Bitcoin, you have it, not with altcoins.

Stop right there.  When do we stop giving attention to and caring about these people?  Global warming becomes trendy, we are all of a sudden supportive for it.  Bitcoin crashes, we were suddenly right all along that it may or may not have a future even if we have always been publicly bullish about it.  Bitcoin's price goes for an All Time High?  We were always bullish to begin with!

I have a particular disgrace for those who always keep up with trends even if they most of the time simply contradict themselves by doing so.  Just stop caring about them.  Of course there will always be bullish and bearish voices.  I do not say the voices that do not align with my vision shall be silenced.  I just think there is no point in caring about someone who just repeats a narrative that has been proven wrong multiple times.  Bitcoin is scalable for a reason.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

In my opinion, there are many solutions for what said, maybe bitcoin cannot be a good payment system because of the costs and many other factors but still there are many solutions, for example, the lightning network, regardless of being a successful solution or not but I guess a year later there will be more and better solution and increasing the interest of using bitcoin as a payment system for people. But regardless of all that, many people do not use bitcoin as a payment system but they will save it and hold it as an investment option to be safe from the inflation rate. However, I'm not sure what's behind these speaks when they start attacking bitcoin sometimes periodically.

I read this news few days ago and it made me laughed, but what I am just disappointed at is that I did not believe someone that created one of the leading exchanges can say such trash and mislead people. Bitcoin fee is still cheap than thought and there is lightning network which has low fee and help mempool to maintain not being congested to some level.

If bitcoin withdrawal fee on FTX is huge, then another means to let people to think it is bitcoin fee that is costly, not knowing it is the exchange withdrawal fee.

All I know is that he is absolutely wrong and one of the people that is misleading people about bitcoin transaction fee. Exchanges are the idiots that is making people to think bitcoin fee is high. When many exchanges are supporting lightning network now, FTX has not yet supoort it. I have begin to dislike this FTX exchange, we do not want criticism but to support lightning network and reduce bitcoin withdrawal fee.

The fact that you or me may send transactions mostly Saturdays with lowest tx fee is not the topic here.
The fact that in most days tx fees are far from big is not the topic here.
The fact the exchanges steal people's money as withdrawal fees and claim it's tx fee is also not the topic here.

The topic is, imho, that if we want to have half of the world pay in the supermarket with Bitcoin, on-chain, it's not possible, because the next block may come in a minute or in an hour and because if so many people would transact so much the fees would go over the roof.

LN is off-chain and, as I said, it's easily seen as a plugin to Bitcoin, not Bitcoin itself, hence the statements is not about LN.
I see his statement like "LN can be the payment channel and Bitcoin itself can be the store of value". Better?


Edit: I can agree though that he could have better skills in telling the things in order to not scare off the average Joe.