Let me refer this question back to you. Do you think that with volatility and high transaction fees, people themselves will be willing to use only bitcoin as an everyday means of payment? There is a big difference here between bitcoin being capable of handling massive chunk of everyday payments and people being willing to adopt bitcoin as an everyday means of payment. There needs to be a balance between these two. People need quick, predictable and less expensive payment options, reason they are going for fiat and stable coins. Yea I admit that the lightening network and other technologies are trying to make bitcoin transactions easier, but the truth is that, many people won't still use bitcoin for everyday payments.

Yea, we should erase that idea of bitcoin being the only currency to perform all online transactions. Bitcoin is only an alternative and people will look for it when the need for it arises.

This is particularly some of the reason why it’s easy to accept the narrative that Bitcoin would continue to be valued even more in the coming years. Not only because of how it’s being doing but the fact that, the only means it can serve with its limited supply would be to amass as much as possible a lot of purchasing power to a Bitcoin.

Whenever such a time comes, when the least sat would be valued above several dollars, Bitcoin would be able to serve in a mainstream capacity as a means of exchange, especially for discrete and cross border transactions and would be supported by transitional means to transacting.

With its price, I think it stays as store of value or some sort of investment asset than a commodity that can be used daily like a normal fiat. Most users buy bitcoin and hold it, instead uses it for their daily lives. For example buying a coffee worth $3 will he uses bitcoin? Or just pat out off pocket with his dollars?

Maybe depends on innovation if most globally will adopt and establish payment channel for bitcoin.

I agree that Lightning’s liquidity and channel-management requirements are a real hurdle, especially if we’re talking about ordinary users who shouldn’t have to think about routing, inbound liquidity, or keeping channels healthy.

What I find interesting about Ark is that it changes the design trade-off rather than simply trying to push Lightning further. If it can provide a smoother experience while still ultimately settling on Bitcoin, that could make Bitcoin much more practical for everyday payments.

That said, I’m still curious about the scalability side. Handling a large share of global online commerce isn’t just about whether transactions can technically be processed. it’s also about liquidity, privacy, UX, custody, and how easily someone can receive and spend without understanding the underlying machinery.

So I think the bigger question is whether Bitcoin’s future payment layer will look like Lightning, Ark, or some combination of several approaches. The base layer probably doesn’t need to handle every coffee purchase directly if the layers above it can make Bitcoin feel like a normal payment network.

I was mainly thinking about Bitcoin competing with traditional online payment systems, rather than just competing with other cryptocurrencies.

I agree that comparing raw transactions per second makes Bitcoin look very limited, especially against established fiat payment rails. But I also think TPS alone can be a bit misleading because Bitcoin’s scaling model is different. The base layer doesn’t necessarily need to process every individual payment if second-layer systems can handle the majority of transactions and periodically settle back to Bitcoin.

The real question for me is whether those layers can provide the same convenience people expect from traditional payments while still keeping Bitcoin’s decentralization and security. If they can, the lower base-layer TPS may not be as important as it initially appears.

Well, all we can do in this case is speculate and see if that will be possible in the nearest future, but as you know, nothing is certain. Although, if we look at how bitcoin transaction capacity and payment infrastructure has improved over the years, one could anticipate on a day when the answer to your question will be a "YES".

The first major improvement was BIP 141 (SegWit). Prior to this time, block size was just  limited to1MB which caused delay in transactions, SegWit fixed this by introducing the concept of block weight, which allowed more transaction to fit into a block. That is, transaction size moved from 1 MB to 4 MB. Further scaling approach has come from the Lightning network and Ark. Although these improvements might not have solved all the problem already, but we can hope and speculate that their will be a major break that will solve this in the nearest future.

I think Bitcoin can still become useful for everyday payments, especially with Lightning. The main chain doesn't need to handle every coffee or small transaction.

For me, the bigger issue is adoption and UX. If paying with BTC becomes simple enough for normal users, I don't see why it can't have a bigger role in daily payments. Stablecoins may be more convenient for some use cases, but Bitcoin can still remain the base settlement layer.

To be honest, I've never used the Lightning Network... Although, of course, I understand that learning it makes sense from a practical Bitcoin use case. 🙋

For example, let's consider a practical problem... In the spring of 2024, many of us faced a big problem. We needed to sell Bitcoin for fiat currency, and Bitcoin network fees were incredibly high (due to the incredible popularity of runes and ordinals). I remember paying 40 percent in fees for a single transaction. It was terrifying!

Bitcoin network fees are low now, but I wouldn't want to face such a critical situation in the future.

As far as I understand, Lightning Network fees are low. However, if I want to save on fees in the future, I need to transfer satoshis to the Lightning network in advance and open a channel. But as far as I understand, a software glitch could lead to the unexpected closure of the channel.  Furthermore, as far as I understand - correct me if I'm wrong - all Lightning Bitcoin wallets are hot wallets. Therefore, storing Bitcoin in them for long periods of time is less secure than storing it in mainstream cold wallets.

Furthermore, in my opinion, second-layer solutions will always be less secure than first-layer solutions. The number of points of vulnerability increases in any case... The recent Liquid incident confirms this. Although, of course, Lightning and Liquid have different security architectures. 🧑‍💻

I think it ends up being a mix, and most users won't even know which layer they're on, the wallet will just pick. Ark is interesting, but it doesn't make the liquidity problem disappear, it moves it to the ASP, which has to lock up a lot of capital. And users still have to come online before their VTXOs expire, so it isn't fully "set and forget" either.

Honestly the bigger blocker for me is still merchants and volatility.