[wpietri]

No, they are looking at merchant growth by looking at use among top retailers. It's a perfectly fine metric if what you care about is daily consumer use for common transactions.

If you're saying, as the blog post says, that it's getting used more for other things than typical ecommerce, that's a different argument.

[mrb]

Yes there is a difference between acceptance and payment use. However they extrapolate that it's declining based on a way too small sample size: 2 retailers stopped accepting BTC so they infer global acceptance is declining... That's just ridiculous.

For all we know the JPMorgan report making this claim could be wrong, as it doesn't even list which 500 retailers it studied, and which are the 2 that dropped Bitcoin. I wouldn't expect quality Bitcoin research coming from JPMorgan anyway, as their CEO is staunchly anti-Bitcoin, so their analysts are probably not enticed or instructed to spend that much time and effort studying it.

[wpietri]

The largest 500 retailers is an excellent representation of the largest 500 retailers. I think it's also a fine proxy for mainstream ecommerce.

That's certainly a metric that Bitcoin advocates would have been happy with, say, 5 years ago. Then they were agitating for major retailers to accept it as the obvious coming thing.

The fact that new major merchants are not joining and old merchants are going to the trouble of taking it out is a sign that earlier vision was flawed.

[mrb]

The largest 500 retailers are a poor representation of all retailers. Especially because Bitcoin tends to be more often accepted at small—as opposed to large—retailers.

And again the sample size is way too small. Two (2!) retailers dropping it means nothing, in particular because other larger more significant data points contradict this small sample size: BitPay doing 1B/yr at +328% growth... hardly a sign the "vision was flawed".

[wpietri]

You seem to be working very hard not to understand their point. Or mine.

The largest 500 retailers is an excellent representation of major retailers. It's also a reasonable indicator to use for general consumer behavior, because what makes retailers the largest is their use by consumers.

You could claim that a loss of 2 retailers isn't significant proof of decline, although since it's 2 of 5, a 40% decline seems notable to me. But regardless, having less than 1% market penetration in this segment (and declining) is a pretty good sign that it is not currently successful. If you pitched some VC partners with that as proof of traction, they'd laugh you out of the room.

The BitPay post is definitely interesting, but they're cagey enough about their numbers that it's hard to tell what's actually growing. You might be able to use it to make an argument that BitPay is succeeding in some other segment. But it definitely doesn't prove mainstream consumer ecommerce success. Which apparently isn't interesting to you, but to major ecommerce companies, it's very interesting indeed.

[mrb]

«isn't significant proof of decline, although since it's 2 of 5, a 40% decline seems notable to me»

Any percentage value is irrelevant because a change of ±2 among 500 retailers is statistically insignificant. If it was ±20 it would be significant.

What if we went from 1 to 2 accepting BTC, would you say "acceptance went up 50% among top 500 retailers?" It would be highly misleading and improper to report it as such.

[wpietri]

Taking the one bit you want to argue with but ignoring the meat of my point certainly isn't something I'm finding useful. I'll take my leave here.

[saalweachter]

If they went from 1 to 2 accepting BTC, I would say "acceptance went up 100%".