The fiat will depreciate more in price which will make the price of bitcoin to increase. Another is that the wealth in the world is increasing, which will make more money goes into buying bitcoin.

There could be a time the price may not really be volatile but bitcoin will still remain an appreciative asset in long term.

Price is consequence of value and value comes from use cases and utilities of Bitcoin that includes its blockchain security as well.

Price is zero if value is zero and you can see this fact with altcoins that can be very high in short term but in long term after a scam trend gone, shitcoins' prices will return to zero as should be.

Bitcoin success comes with mass adoption and without it, there will be no success like what we witness in 2025.

The Bitcoin founder Satoshi Nakamoto imagined about this future many years ago, he is like a time traveller.

Well, I don't think it's necessary that Bitcoin must compete with Fiat. Bitcoin is being used by many people across the world, it is used as a means of pair to pair transaction and have made across borders transactions more seamless compared to the Fiat system. Can anything beat the fact that Bitcoin transaction across bothers is more seamless than Fiat? The growth of Bitcoin is limitless.

On the long run, Bitcoin can not still become a game for the rich because the rich can not be the only people to own Bitcoin, it's not possible. Am not saying that there are not going to be Bitcoin whales, some minor market manipulation but even if there's some minor manipulation, it would not keep Bitcoin price stable, after a minor shift in the market, the price will still normalize. Bitcoin is a volatile asset, price can not be completely controlled by a few rich people.

I don't think it's that necessary to convince anyone on that. Who convinced you? I assume you practically learned the way the system is programmed and you did your research well and was able to feel convinced, so other should.

Bitcoin's uniqueness comes from its volatility as well.

If it didn't change in value, what would it be? Not as many people would be going for it (honestly).

As well as.. BTC is an alternative. Not Fiat killer, as many outlined already.

Depending on where the demand will come from, it we say that it will come from average joe and then we can used it as sound money and for everyday transaction, then Bitcoin might be adopted.


I think it will remain a speculative asset, or be a store of value, or hedge, again it's up to us whether what we want to do with Bitcoin itself. But for now, it's really the asset and everyone is here to make more money and to profit. Just simply but and HODL for a long term.

I don’t think so. We need to able to use btc to purchase stuff. Yes trading is also part of the adoption but it is not enough. If nobody uses btc to buy stuff then it is no different than another stock in the stock market. Btc will lose a good portion of its intrinsic value if nobody uses btc to buy stuff. It will get closer to a Ponzi scheme.

Why do people people buy and store gold? Because it has a real world use. People use it to make electronics, jewelry… It is not just a shiny metal.

Btc also has a very unique intrinsic property. It is the most secure crypto network which we use to transact money on. If people abandon using btc, then it is just another crypto.

The thing is though that bitcoin is not exactly looking to compete with fiat. It is its own currency and does not need to be compared to fiat because fiat will always be used for everyday transactions by a country or several. Bitcoin is for those who wants to make transactions with their privacy secured or maybe if they will be making big transactions and not wanting to wait for a long time for bank processes and such. Point is they have different purposes.
Bitcoin is safer as a long term hold because it has a fixed supply. It is almost guaranteed that it will keep growing in value due to its scarcity.
It is not my responsibility to do that but the simple answer is that several countries are also legalizing bitcoin and looking for ways to use bitcoin. Adoption may not yet be fully completed but it is starting. Many countries are looking to add bitcoin into their reserves as well. This is one example out of many politicians considering it:


_{blockworks.co/news/brazil-bill-for-national-bitcoin-reserve}

I do not see how this is related to the question OP asked. OP did not ask anything about double spending.

Another thing is that if a transaction has been confirmed already on the blockchain, double spending the coin is costly to do and you are referring to 51% attack if this is done intentionally and not chain reorg.

Microstrategy bitcoin is not belonging to a single person. Also ETFs is not belonging to a single person but owned by people that are buying its shares.

Agreed. It's still not anticipated that there would be a scenario of sorts where 51% attack would even come to action.

Because, clearly,  there is no contestant such as that to be able to do so.

Who says that BTC should compete with fiat in anything? In some imaginary scenario where a lot of people would start using BTC for daily on-chain transactions, this would, as always, create pressure on the mempool and transactions would become too expensive - but that's why we have LN which enables instant and super cheap transactions.


So far, long-term investing in BTC has definitely paid off, for some less, for others more - and no one will say that there is no risk in it, but not only because of volatility, but also because of the security aspect. If you're an investor who keeps your coins on a centralized crypto exchange, or in a hot wallet - or behaves irresponsibly when it comes to online security, then you have much bigger problems than volatility.

As for the manipulation of the wealthy, it seems to me that this game has been going on for years, but there's nothing we can do about it. The only thing we could do was to get ahead of them by buying most of the BTC in the early days and refusing to sell to them today - but the problem is that few people will turn down something like $100k for 1 BTC, right?


Why do you think you, I, or anyone else should convince someone to believe in something or not to believe? If someone is not sure if BTC can survive, grow and whatnot, I suggest you don't play financial advisor in an attempt to convince them of something. I have a very simple answer/message for those people - wait another 15 years and you will resolve some of your doubts.