[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.