The rate may actually speed up since we are still at the bottom of the S curve.

Reaching 1 billion adoption is different from having 1 billion users using bitcoin every day. Not to mention that 1 billion (~12%) according to the chart would be reached around 2030 which is still far in the future and by then LN will have grown more and the on-chain capacity should have been increased.
It's not like tomorrow we are going to see 1 billion users!

I guess it is safe to assume that the rate of adoption is gaining acceleration and is therefore expected to speed up instead of slow down. The level of Bitcoin awareness has been rising. The level of acceptance is also rising. So there's no reason why the current 0.36% of the world's population that is into Bitcoin, which is still very low, will not double or triple or quadruple in size in just a matter of a few years.

The adoption rate of the first decade of Bitcoin is certainly not comparable to the adoption rate of the next decade considering that the former starts from scratch while the latter begins with Bitcoin's level of popularity already high. So Bitcoin will probably be facing a bigger influx of institutional and individual newcomers in the coming years.

The overall development seems to suggest that banks are more likely to bend rather than break. The people behind them won't kill for the sake of fiat. It looks like they are willing to adapt instead.

I think the average user just does very few on-chain transactions every year tho. I also saw on glassnode that around 60% of Bitcoins supply didn’t move in over a year, which indicates people use on-chain as a store of value primarily at the moment. Scaling with blocks alone will also not work, without becoming centralized at the moment. So we will need to rely on off-chain solutions and they’re probably ready to handle 1 billion users by then, so i wouldn’t be too pessimistic.

https://studio.glassnode.com/metrics?a=BTC&m=supply.ActiveMore1YPercent&resolution=24h

Sure, they can slow things down, but don’t forget the mess fiat is bringing billions into at the moment. Bitcoins game plan is strong and you could say banks are the best marketers for Bitcoin at the moment, by their own actions. Fiat will collapse by itself, it’s like a house of cards, once there’s problems it’s unable to fix itself, so it’s just a matter of time.

It's an unexpected fortune to find good information, and I think I'll find a lot of luck after I get to know this place Thank you so much for helping me a lot.토토사이트   

I don’t think how Bitcoin is defined will play a big role. Because if you look at the state of government, banks and the economies finances, it’s clear that they became fragile. They opened pandoras box with inflation now, which they can’t get out of, because they rely on the printer to pay back debts.

They will need some kind of monetary reform or extreme control over how money flows to keep this system alive. Which means Fiat will continue to become worthless, to the point that it eradicates any wealth a regular citizen had stored there.

There was a situation like this in 1929 where banks started to collapse and people were rushing into gold, which then was forbidden by the government in 1933.

There will be a need and probably no alternative to escape Fiat in the future.
So Bitcoin will be adopted because there is a need for it, unconfiscatable assets have the highest chance of surviving economic turmoil and Bitcoin is the most sound money there ever was. What do you think people will do when governments shed apart their bank accounts? Waiting till they define Bitcoin differently?

Bitcoin will win because it’s better, not because the government says so.

doesnt matter if LN is run but different dev teams on different protocols(separate sub-nets)
or there is a single LN... the problem is all the versions lf LN have major flaws..

the main being lack of consensus protocol (fails to solve byzantine generals problem)
the next being the actual paying of more people on a network
by which the three directions for LN are..
a. master hubs everyone has a channel with.. (avoiding routing)
b. users playing pass the parcel down a stream of users (using routing) where the more users on the network means more hops to go through to reach everyone
c. users require more channels for more potential destinations to have a more direct contact without as many hops.


each of these directions fall flat into the problem of value liquidity.
a. this scenario needs a master hub to have alot of value locked up to have liquidity in each of its channels to palm off to its customers
b. for every hop along a lengthy route they have to rely on each person along the route to have available balance and be online to service that payment. the more people in the network. the more distance between source and destinations, the more hops means the more chance of running into a roadblock
c. the more channels a user needs to open the more funds it needs to lock up (like the (a) hub problem, but where funds are locked on the user side) where the user becomes a hub. meaning if all they have invested/acquired of  crypto is like $800 worth. 2 channels is $400 per channel 16 channels is $50 a channel. which then limits how much they can spend at at given time to a destination available only on one channel

LN has many other flaws too. not just routing bottlenecks of liquidity issues of channels or the requirement of all parties involved in a payment needing to be online. or the requirement of middlemen to sign whereby they can just be assy and refuse, holding payments up/delaying 'success'/fail messages. or the fact that the more hops needed=more fee due to having to pay each hop. or the issue around having to map larger routing tables becomes a bloat of gossip the bigger the network gets and the more data required just to update. or the issues around centralisation of hubs or the dilution of spendable value if users had to have more channels.
.
but also that the settlement and punishment parts and the initial funding locks are not firmly ruled systems which are audited by the network to ensure compliance.. yep LN is not a consensus network and does not fulfil the byzantine generals problem

IMO, I believe that the 30.8 Million net Bitcoin users are already a huge achievement of the crypto industry. But making it a Billion users is a big task to do, but it's not impossible because as the technology is improving the adoption will continue to increase on a year-to-year basis thats why we should continue to support the Bitcoin to make that one Billion target users a reality, nevermind those competitors. After all, they have also the interest to protect so they gonna hate, But one thing is for sure they cannot destroy Bitcoin.

The only way for the adoption to slow down is when many governments ban bitcoin which is still possible up until now. There are also other reasons on why people won't engage in bitcoin even if bitcoin is already legalized on their country. A long term bear is one it and also the following; extreme volatility, fees, slow transaction, being to complex or complicated, and many more.

It is possible for 1 billion users to be accommodated because one whole bitcoin can still be divided into to smaller pieces and also not all that who engage in bitcoin are using it daily as a currency but majority of them is using it passively therefore it cant cause an issue on the network.

I am not sure about this. With LN, people will need to periodically add/remove coin from their various channels, and I am not aware of any reasonable assumptions as to how frequently users would remove coin from a channel for the max block size to remain reasonable.

The current implementation of LN is not necessarily going to be the best. The current devs are working on improving it, and there is no reason why they should be given a monopoly on improving L2 implementations.

I think we are bound to see a pattern similar to what we saw with social media, in which at the beginning we see a slow expansion, then a critical point is reached which lead us to explosive growth only to reach a point in which the growth becomes way slower and stabilizes, in my opinion we have yet to see the explosive growth, and if I were to take a guess I think the adoption will accelerate during this decade at a speed way faster than the previous one.