Life is tough today and people will always think about the money. But the actual value that laszlo did for all of us, it's already engraved in the history and it will be carry on for the rest of this generation and until this world ends.

We cannot do anything for those people because we understand their point because they only look at the price and how many BTCs were sold for that exchange.

They don't look at the whole value and contribution, a huge one that laszlo did for this great community.

The mistake most of the people who fault Laszlo Hanyecz who using Bitcoin as the monetary value in buying pizza was that they failed to understand the fact that what he did was the primary reason Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin. He had enough Bitcoin to satisfy his cravings and decided to use 10,000 btc which was equivalent to 41 USD as the day of purchase. He was putting to practice what the creator Satoshi Nakamoto narrated in his White Paper that Bitcoin will be used as a peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System .
If you can spend your BTC and still be able to get same amount of BTC for offering your service or in transactional dealings, you aren't losing money but is helping to Bitcoin to achieve it's primary purpose.

I am much interested about the last part which I quoted from your post and it says, we can spend bitcoin and then later re-buy it, which is the truth about the entire situation, all of us can't be the same holders at the same time, some have to be seeling while some are buying, this is what makes it volatility and at the same time the network market price determination, all working under its demands and supply, so this can't be one sided, as everyone can't just hold, infact, holding it makes the market worse in losing value, but when there is buying and selling, the demand for it will increase as the total supply remains as it is, we should sell high and buy dip, this is best done by speculating on when we should push for the sell or buy order and make profits on our investment.

For me the way or method you use to spend bitcoin is actually what guarantees it to be a either a loss or not, Bitcoin on its own is simply money (although one that has value than fiat) and it is an alternative to the traditional fiat currency as such it should be used for payment where it actually eases the hassle of using the fiat. For example cross boarder transactions have been usually hectic using fiat currency because of the change from one fiat currency to another fiat currency but using bitcoin in this regard eases this hassle and most of time reduces the cost of transfer fees related to changing from one currency to another.

Where it is a loss to me is when it is possible to actually use fiat and both will be same hassle free and no extra, I will say go for fiat in this regard to keep your bitcoin because bitcoin has value whereas fiat devalues. Only way again to use bitcoin in place of here fiat is possible is simply just to support the business owner using this method as this helps in bitcoin adoption and propagation

Just to clarify: I'm not against the digital gold concept. I'm only against the conception that Bitcoin should be treated only as an investment now and not as cash. It can and should of course be a store of value too!

That's not what the thread is about It is about spending Bitcoin to pay for goods or services, not to sell it for fiat. When you re-buy, if instantly or if you try to catch a dip -- there can be different strategies associated with risk.

It can be compared if the work of these people has some positive effect, for example strengthening their muscles

I've already written in the OP that the reason to spend Bitcoin and then re-buy is to strengthen the circulation. The main goal is to incentive merchants to accept Bitcoin. AFAIK there has been a bit of a decrease lately of shops who accept Bitcoin or even other cryptocurrencies (in my country there are only few left), and this is not a coincidence as people aren't using this feature that much.

Circulation strenghtens Bitcoin in various ways. If it's widely used for payments it can stop downward volatility a bit, as it increases liquidity. It also can lead to a perception as a unit of account if merchants begin to use Bitcoin prices for some goods. This effect would be at first only temporary - when Bitcoin moves sideways - but then could get stronger over time. And third, the argument of many Bitcoin critics that "it's only used to gamble/speculate" would be refuted, which has also psychological effects and should be great for the price evolution (and thus also for the "digital gold" camp).

I was maybe (on purpose ) a bit too generalistic about the "digital gold camp". There are of course a lot of people like you who like the "store of value" concept but don't disagree with the usefulness as payment means either. But I'm a bit tired of those who think that Bitcoin can now "only" exist as an investment and the cash feature is somewhat outdated.

My personal definition is that Bitcoin has some similarity to gold silver coins, i.e. it is "hard" but at the same time useful for paying/spending. (Yes, gold/silver coins are currently not used much for that use case, but cash was their original purpose. I know, Gresham's Law is working here, both in the case of Bitcoin and with gold coins. But the possibility to almost instantly re-buy Bitcoins makes it somewhat easier to circumvent Gresham's law in the way I laid out in the OP - in reality, you're spending fiat, but using Bitcoin to make it circulate).

In the fiat world we have also prepaid cards, digital wallets (Paypal!) and similar tools where you temporarily transfer your money to a less-safe platform than your bank account (which could be seen as "pure fiat") and use them for easier, more private, or cheaper payments. Liquid and similar platforms can be compared with that. In the case of LN I disagree because you are dealing with pure Bitcoin UTXOs which are bundled. But I won't deepen this discussion in this thread, there are many LN threads for that.

In addition, the "circulation" effects I mentioned in the answer to Free Market Capitalist also applies in the case of second layers.

Normally if you're not in an absolute hurry you pay currently less than $1 for a transfer even on Bitcoin mainchain. And international bank transfers are much more expensive, I have to pay 30-35 dollars approximately for such a transfer. You could use PayPal, but again, that is like using Liquid with Bitcoin

I have also been having same thought but it just look like when majority is saying same thing and you try to oppose it, it will look as if you have a disease that people are avoiding because they will look at you in a different way.

Bitcoin is digital money, of what use is money without spending it? moreover, the real essence of creating bitcoin was for decentralized transaction and i believe if bitcoin was a stable coin, not many people could have thought of hodling but since it's value tends to increase from time to time, many people now come up with the idea that if they hold for longer time, they gonno make profits from the amount they've hodl and that is practically the reason why we look at it as a store of value instead of for transactional purposes but however, the reason why we are hodling bitcoin is just to own more of it in our possession pending when bitcoin will be fully accepted and adopted globally so that those of us that have hodl for a longer time will be more beneficial that those who will want to acquire it by then so we are still on the right track by hodling it even though hodling wasn't the primary aim of inventing bitcoin. I don't think we should keep emphasizing on why Laszlo used his bitcoins to buy pizza because that singular act was very remarkable towards the growth and awareness of bitcoin and here we are now celebrating bitcoin pizza day annually. May 22 is almost around the corner and we look forward for another pizza day celebration courtesy of Laszlo's 10,000 bitcoin transaction for two pizza.

However, Laszlo's transaction wouldn't have been criticized if he bought back some bitcoins and hodl again, possibly with the view that he could still use it for another transaction in the future but the reality of using 10,000 BTC to purchase two pizza then and considering what that 10,000 BTC is worth in current day is what makes it appear like Laszlo made a huge mistake when he was only being practical on the major reason why bitcoin was invented.

Appreciate your response. I mostly do SEPA transfers, which are practically free (I think it's 1 euro or something like that), and the value must be at least 5 euros if I remember correctly. Depending on the bank, they can be instant or take up to 24 hours - in my bank, it's usually around 4–6 hours.  

For large sums, it doesn't matter - no one cares if a transfer costs $1 or $100 when moving a few million.
But for the average Joe who wants to send, let's say, $1,000 to family in another country, a $100 fee in Bitcoin would be a barrier.

Bitcoin would need to offer something better than "it costs less than $1 when the network is not congested," and we still have to pay trading fees since Bitcoin is not mainstream enough to avoid FIAT. So overall, it's the Bitcoin network fee plus whatever fee your trading platform charges for exchange.  

Ideally, everyone would use Bitcoin, eliminating the need to trade back to FIAT, but then network fees would skyrocket to $100+ per transaction. Even then, it would take a long time for your transaction to be included in a block due to the long queue in the mempool.  

I like the visual representation of this line:

https://txcity.io/v/xmr-btc


I disagree. Using LN is not using Bitcoin, and during L1 congestion, it doesn't even work, as we've seen in the past.  

LN is a dead-end project anyway. Its centralized nature - I’m sure you know what I mean - makes its existence unnecessary and serves more as a marketing tool for Bitcoin rather than a real solution. As I said, you might as well use PayPal.

Bitcoin can't support any L2 solution on a large scale because it stands on very skinny legs with its non-scalable, tiny blocks.

A lot of people still don't understand spending Bitcoin and what it actually means.  Everyone has value, whether it be dollars, Bitcoin, gold, whatever.  If you choose to spend some of that value, you can either rebalance your portfolio or not.  Too many people think that if you spend Bitcoin it is gone forever.  In reality, you could view every dollar you spend as a missed opportunity to own more Bitcoin, so it spending dollars really any different than spending Bitcoin?  In the end, it isn't the spending of Bitcoin that is bad and causes you to miss out on future appreciation, it is the failure to actively manage your personal portfolio of value.

In the end, spending is what is the problem, be it dollar or bitcoin. Concerning what OP wrote about, this clarion call would have been sounding since. When I was new in the forum, I became confused because a hodler is being praised in the forum and in the same time, anyone who purchases with bitcoin will also be praised. It seems we don't know what we want for BTC.

Coming from the reality angle, with the extent of global adoption, everyone is reluctant of spending bitcoin. Besides, what is keeping most of us in bitcoin is the price increment and not other benefits.