[aaronwalker]

There's a difference between being known by the mainstream and being used by the mainstream. Bitcoin is the former, but not yet the latter. It appears that Bitcoin's main use case is as a long-term store of value (like Gold, but digital). It will be very helpful to have a currency that anyone can use without one country's central bank controlling it, and with Bitcoin's strong network effects, its only a matter of time before it becomes adopted by more commercial banks, central banks, and individuals.

[root_axis]

> It appears that Bitcoin's main use case is as a long-term store of value

If we grant this for the sake of discussion, bitcoin has been capable of this for more than a decade, the masses aren't interested in this, the only thing they like about bitcoin is the fun of gambling which is the mainstream success I referred to in my previous comment.

> It will be very helpful to have a currency that anyone can use without one country's central bank controlling it

Again, bitcoin has been capable of this since the beginning, it's a niche use case that has its place but the masses don't care, central bank money will always be superior due to its intrinsic connection to the governing authority of the region that mediates the economy - people want their stuff, they don't want bitcoin and have no reason to use it.

> its only a matter of time before it becomes adopted by more commercial banks, central banks, and individuals.

There's no reason for them to do so, least of all a monetary authority like a central bank. Peak bitcoin is what bitcoin looks like today.

[aaronwalker]

> the masses aren't interested in this

Having a store of value is in fact appealing to the masses, especially those with weak national currencies. We know this because the rates of crypto adoption are highest in developing nations, where national currencies are not as strong.

Yes, the possibility of making a lucrative investment is also appealing, and is what's driving most of its current growth, but as BTC settles into its role as store-of-value (which may take 10+ years) it is expected to become less volatile, and adopted for this use case.

> central bank money will always be superior due to its intrinsic connection to the governing authority of the region that mediates the economy

There are two sides to this sword. In wealthy, democratic governments this allows for more control over the economy, boosting it in times of need, but for oppressive regimes it just gives the government more power to act in their own interest.

> * people want their stuff, they don't want bitcoin and have no reason to use it.*

People do not immediately use all of their wealth to consume things, instead they have to store some of it somewhere. This is one of the uses of currencies. In countries with high inflation there is difficulty for people to store any wealth at all in their central bank's currency, and have instead resorted to Gold, USD, and Bitcoin.

> Peak bitcoin is what bitcoin looks like today.

If peak BTC is what it looks like today, then there is no incentive for people to keep pouring money into it, so its value relative to Gold, USD should not increase too much from what it is today.

I believe we are still far away from peak Bitcoin, and that Bitcoin will continue to rise in value in terms of USD over the long run.

[ilammy]

> they have to store some of it somewhere. This is one of the uses of currencies

Currency is for current things. You don’t store wealth in currency. Even in poor countries wealthy people store wealth in assets, be it real estate, businesses, cars, or cattle. Only poor people store their “wealth” in currencies, because they can’t afford any assets.

> there is no incentive for people to keep pouring money into it, so its value relative to Gold, USD should not increase too much

If there is no incentive to keep pouring money into it — not feeding the miners who maintain security and turning gears of the network — then indeed the value will not increase, but rather rapidly decrease.

[aaronwalker]

> * You don’t store wealth in currency. *

Do you have a bank account with money in it? If so you are using currency as a store of value. This is a very common use case.

> Only poor people store their “wealth” in currencies

So are we just dismissing the needs of poor people then?

> the value will not increase, but rather rapidly decrease.

So a testable prediction would be come back to this and ten years, look at the price of Bitcoin, and see who was right.

[lordfrito]

> Having a store of value is in fact appealing to the masses, especially those with weak national currencies.

I think you're being overly generous in your estimation of the thought processes of the masses. All the normies I know that are into bitcoin (or talk about it) aren't into it because of "weak national currencies". The normies are into crypto because of hype and FOMO. "Hey did you hear, you can make a ton of money in bitcoin! What's bitcoin. It's internet computer money". "It's the future!" "Gotta get in early." That kind of nonsense. At best you get a few of the "fuck the government" crowd in the mix.

Normies don't spend one second thinking about the dollar beyond "how can I easily get more of them." When talking about economics they parrot "the Fed sucks" or "Biden destroyed the economy" narratives etc.

They want dollars because dollars lets them purchase everything they need and pay taxes. They're not interested in monetary policy beyond paying lip service.

I have to assume this is pretty universal the world over. People are just trying to survive, and [local_currency] lets them do that. Bankers and fiscal policy setters worry about the stuff you're talking about.

[aaronwalker]

> The normies are into crypto because of hype and FOMO.

Hype and FOMO are indeed drivers of growth, but those alone would not explain why rates of crypto adoption are highest in countries with large unbanked populations.

Take a look at this website, which ranks countries by rates of crypto adoption: https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/2022-global-crypto-adop...

Then compare it to this chart from Statistica, which ranks countries with highest unbanked populations: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1246963/unbanked-populat...

Notice that there is a lot of overlap.

While Bitcoin adoption in countries with strong national currencies like the US or EU is likely driven by FOMO and hype, its main appeal is as an investment/store-of-value for those who lack access to them otherwise, and that is why Bitcoin adoption is highest in unbanked populations.

[lordfrito]

Well I was replying to your comment about general appeal of bitcoin to the masses. Your last question relates as to why certain countries are adopting first. I think that's an important distinction, might not be the same underlying reasons.

I don't have answers, but I can throw out potential answers that come to mind.

- I agree there's utility to the unbanked. Having a bitcoin is better than having nothing. Could be better than national currency depending on the country you're living in. I still suggest that those people would rather get their hands on $$$ if they could.

- A lot of crypto is used for crime. 419 scams come to mind (yes I know a lot are in $$$). The point is that some of the adoption in these poor countries could just be explained by criminal utility.

I appreciate your perspective. My point being I don't think it's that cut-and-dried. My gut says bitcoin is better than nothing, but $$$ are better still for most.

Lastly, and it's an important point I keep forgetting to make. Almost everyone into bitcoin are into it because of the $$$ they can later get out of it. That's a huge litmus test for me, telling me that it's not about the bitcoin to them. They want $$$ at the end of the day.

[int_19h]

Thing is, if someone needs a store of value that's not controlled by the bank, gold is already there - and, for most people, it being physical is actually an advantage (easier to secure in a way that they can understand and verify).

Then again, most people who hold crypto today, do so in third-party wallets on platforms like Coinbase. At which point the "gold equivalent" would be to buy gold certificates from your bank of choice.

Thus, the only practical value proposition of Bitcoin is that it can do long-distance transactions outside of the established bank network and its regulations. I'm not saying that dodging regulations is always a bad thing, but regardless of that it's a very niche use case by definition, never mainstream.

The reason why it is so popular outside of that niche is speculation. Which is also why we're seeing those wild swings - if the current price was anything resembling its real utility, it would be a great deal more stable.

[aaronwalker]

> * being physical is actually an advantage (easier to secure in a way that they can understand and verify). *

Because gold is physical it is not easy to transport, and can more easily be seized by the government -- both of which make it a worse store of value. It is also worse because its supply growth rate is higher, which means that if you hold gold you are losing more value every year (absent changes in demand) than if you hold Bitcoin. In fact, we know exactly what Bitcoin's total supply count will be, whereas with Gold we do not. If BTC gains mass adoption, then it will be the best store of value that we have.

[zirgs]

A tiny amount of gold costs a shitload of money. 1kg of gold costs around 60k eur. More than most people have in savings. No problems to transport something like that if you don't brag that you own it.

But the same applies to BTC. Telling others that you own a large amount of it is not a good idea. It can be stolen in various ways too. Like by an exchange that's owned by a trustworthy and altruistic billionaire.

It's been 14 years and BTC is not even close to mass adoption.

Even my mom knows what it is but has no need or interest to use it.

What would make "normies" switch to BTC if they haven't already?

[kavalg]

I don't think it is so simple. There is already a EUR 10k limit on the amount of cash that you can carry across EU border without declaring it. In case of violations the money may be confiscated. I would assume that the same would apply for gold above some reasonable value (e.g. a really big gold necklace :) ).

[Symbiote]

So the use case is evading tax, money laundering etc.

Glad we got to the point eventually.

[int_19h]

Yes, absolutely. Also evading sanctions, buying prohibited goods etc.

To remind, most people in the world live in countries with oppressive governments.

[aaronwalker]

> evading tax, money laundering etc.

And evading oppressive governments. Disobeying the law is not always a "bad" thing.

[int_19h]

That is exactly the practical case for BTC, yes. But note that this is about moving money from point A to point B, not storing it.

[aaronwalker]

> * I would assume that the same would apply for gold above some reasonable value (e.g. a really big gold necklace :) ).*

Whereas with Bitcoin, it is much more difficult to confiscate it because it's purely information. You might be trusting the manufacturer of a hard wallet to protect the privacy of your seed phrase, but once you memorize it no one can forcibly take it from you.

[zirgs]

OK and why would you choose not to declare it?

I think you meant external borders, because there are no border checks between Schengen area countries.

[int_19h]

> Because gold is physical it is not easy to transport, and can more easily be seized by the government

For most people, the more immediate threat is not the government seizing it, but robbers and/or scammers. Defending against robbers isn't that hard, especially if you have so much money to park somewhere; but more importantly, it's well-understood. OTOH the average level of technical literacy makes malware and scammers much more dangerous, and Bitcoin is far more exposed to both.

The usual retort is, "just learn how to secure it properly, it's as easy as this 20-point list". When it comes to mass adoption, this is kinda like pitching Vim + LaTeX to Word users. It doesn't matter that you can secure Bitcoin better than gold, if you know what you're doing, because most people do not and will not.

> It is also worse because its supply growth rate is higher, which means that if you hold gold you are losing more value every year (absent changes in demand) than if you hold Bitcoin.

You can't realistically assume "absent changes in demand" IRL, making this point completely moot.

On top of that, scarcity is not the determinant of value in and of itself. It's easy to make tokens of which there's a limited supply, but it's much harder to convince everyone else that they're worth using. But, for gold, that part is already done, and this consensus has been stable for literally millennia. Bitcoin is still in a consensus-building stage, and it's not even clear whether it'll ever be achieved at all, much less how long it'll take.

> If BTC gains mass adoption, then it will be the best store of value that we have.

So, BTC should be mass-adopted because it is the best store of value, but it can only be the best store of value if it's mass-adopted?

BTW, I should be clear that I'm not anti-Bitcoin or anti-crypto in general - I just think that speculating on it is neither productive nor safe. Unfortunately, that's also 99% of all the economic activity in the ecosystem right now. Hopefully that bubble will burst eventually, and it'll go back to its crypto-anarchist roots.