That completely goes against to what we've been working towards though. Scalability is a key and an important thing that has been emphasized over and over again through the entire lifespan of Bitcoin. The idea for lightning network and Layer 2 scaling has always been to facilitate smaller transactions like these.

My understanding is that you think Bitcoin will never compete against USD, or any other traditional currency and that we will always be dependent on and using traditional fiat for everything that we do. Otherwise, for people to only spend Bitcoins for high value items also prices out majority of the population. That, also doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Personally, if I were to use my precious Bitcoins that I bought with my fiat to escape fiat's degrading buying power, then it should take MORE than "for even the smallest thing" to spend it. Bitcoin as designed with censorship-resistance as its main value proposition in mind, Bitcoin is no mere currency for coffee-transactions - ALTHOUGH you could use it for that. Your choice.


In my own view point, it can't compete with fiat as a medium of exchange, but it could build its own parallel economy where everything is denominated in Bitcoin. The Dark Markets, for better or worse, is that parallel economy.

Good advice! I would even call BTC the land with gold mines under it in your example It just takes time to see them.

I maybe guess that the approach of people either they are new or old timer dealing with bitcoin will truly depends on their financial capabilities, also how they want to use their earnings. Since there are people choose to withdraw their gains once it reach to their wallet since they take need to take care first their basic needs. For me its fine as long as they didn't regret their decision to sell and still happy with the outcome of current growth of bitcoin since they enjoy anyways on where they spend their money. Although we can say that people doing that wasting their opportunity to acquire lots of volume when they decide to sell but I guess they know the consequences of their decision done and just want to make sure that they enjoy their money earned from bitcoin.

Its good that I surpass that level where I don't have a choice but to sell my bitcoin because I need to pay bills since as of the moment I'm glad that I have multiple opportunities where I can earn money and have extra funds to buy bitcoin and hold it.

Almost all holders in the market are just there to make money. We want to make more money that is why we keep investing in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency. Investing in Bitcoin is quite rewarding especially when we know how to go about our ways investing at the right time to make more money. People that have funds are the ones that are making huge amounts of money in the crypto world while those that have less money would have to invest the little they have and wait for the price of Bitcoin to go up well so that they can make something reasonable from the crypto market.

The only thing that can take care of madness is reason and vice versa with people who do not believe in bitcoin. We live in the era of digitalization and any information should be seen openly, but in reality people fail to understand what Bitcoin is especially for those haters. Now we see that many people are starting to believe in Bitcoin and that happens so far to be discussed. I don't care about Trump, politicians or anyone because they speak according to their needs and sometimes their talk cannot be trusted.

But one thing that makes me optimistic that almost most people talk about Bitcoin because they understand their good side and they have seen the advantages that can be accepted by most people of the process born by Bitcoin itself. Bitcoin will be useful when someone intends to enter trade and investment, the rest is Bitcoin is an inanimate object that is not realized without being used properly by anyone.

Are you suggesting that we actually should deny Bitcoin's technical design, what it's capable of achieving, and its power made possible from that technical design because you argue "white paper"?

Pardon me ser, but respectfully, it's a laughable suggestion.

I don't think their reason for trying to embrace bitcoin now is because they don't want to miss an account, but it could be because they have tried all that they could to control it, but it all landed to no avail.
 
The only option they are left with is to drag it closer to themselves and see what percentage of the market can be under their own control, which can only be achievable if a large number of holders are making use of a centralised system. If not, all they will still end up doing is watching the market, buying large volumes if they can, but they can't have their hand in controlling even 10% of the market movement.

Well, not at all. Notice how I have never denied any of Bitcoin’s utility but rather used what has been stated in this thread as an opposition to some of the pointers brought up. The impression that I’ve been getting from your posts is that you’re focusing on what ‘Bitcoin’s main value proposition’ is and my response was meant to target exactly that. Contrary to popular belief, Bitcoin’s original intentions and current intentions is to create a currency which can facilitate micro transactions on a peer to peer level. Sure, you can argue that censorship is in the books, but that isn't the design focus. If you’re looking for something that ensures your anonymity and by extension censorship resistant, then the key value proposition of Monero fits better.

Not acknowledging the actual utility of Bitcoin and what us as developers has worked towards seems to focus and distort the perspective of everyone having the HODLING = Good. Expecting a currency to function like a currency for the masses without actively doing so seems to be a direct contradiction the main value proposition of Bitcoin, which is that's right: Facilitating peer to peer transactions. That is laughable.

In fact, HODLING is not intended to encourage people to hold Bitcoins and not actively use it. It was actually to dissuade people from panic selling in the volatile market conditions. That is fairly reasonable and I don’t dispute it. However, the perspective presented in this thread appears to be vastly different. Instead of HODLING, I suggest a better term to be hoarding.