3 ms·

The post you're replying to is about Bitcoin being "used", not specifically "used for everyday transactions". Bitcoin has so far been a decent asset to hold as

The post you're replying to is about Bitcoin being "used", not specifically "used for everyday transactions". Bitcoin has so far been a decent asset to hold as a store of value if you don't want to or can't store your money in the traditional financial system. Lots of everyday people in countries with high inflation or strict controls or how people can store money hold Bitcoin (or perhaps more commonly, stablecoins) for a very practical purpose other than speculation. Bitcoin has only failed so far as a replacement for Visa and Mastercard. So no, nobody's using it to buy coffee.

ekianjo 2y ago
BTC cash has lower fees I believe, I wonder if it could actually work as a currency for day to day payments.
- markasoftware 2y ago
  It can work as a day-to-day currency, but it compromises the decentralization that is key to Bitcoin's usefulness as a store of value: + By allowing 8x larger blocks (unless it's even larger now?), if in widespread use with full blocks, the blockchain would be 8x larger. Bitcoin's blockchain is already the better part of 1TB, though you can still fit that on a cheap SSD. Imagine if it were 8 and growing fast. + Because BCH uses the same hash algo as Bitcoin, but is much less popular, it's at risk of 51% attack. + Because there is no pressure on block sizes, fees are very low, which means that as halvings continue the block rewards for BCH will get extremely small. This will result in hashrate continuing to decrease, putting it at even greater risk of 51% attacks. Bitcoin's high fees allow it to remain profitable for miners even without inflation. Miners have to be paid to keep the network secure, and that's either going to come from tx fees or from inflation. BCH aims to have neither and that puts it at risk. And anyway, there are much better solutions for day to day payments, such as Monero and Ethereum.
  - listenallyall 2y ago
    Every Bitcoin Cash transaction is on the chain itself. Bitcoin is increasingly reliant on off-chain "Lightning" transactions. An extra few TB of data or majority of transactions not on the chain at all? I'll go with more data & transparency, thank you.
  - lmm 2y ago
    > By allowing 8x larger blocks (unless it's even larger now?), if in widespread use with full blocks, the blockchain would be 8x larger. Bitcoin's blockchain is already the better part of 1TB, though you can still fit that on a cheap SSD. Imagine if it were 8 and growing fast. This has always felt like a completely weaksauce argument to me. Even with Bitcoin, very few people other than dedicated miners download a full blockchain (like it or not). 1TB is already too large to keep on your phone or laptop, but 8TB is at most a minor inconvenience on a server or dedicated mining rig. What's the demographic where a measly factor of 8 makes a difference?
    - markasoftware 2y ago
      > very few people other than dedicated miners download a full blockchain I'm gonna have to ask for evidence on this one, I strongly believe most full nodes are not mining pools. http://bitdash.io/ http://bitdash.io/ says there are ~10,000 running full nodes, yet there are only ~100 mining pools that have produced a block in recent history: https://miningpoolstats.stream/bitcoin https://miningpoolstats.stream/bitcoin > 1TB is already too large to keep on your phone or laptop On your phone, sure. But my desktop already has a few TB of storage. But not 8. And Bitcoin Cash supporters usually seem to indicate that they'd increase it beyond 8 if the 8mb blocks filled up.
  - loophole27 2y ago
    I used to run nodes to “contribute”, but it’s cumbersome and does not really contribute to decentralization . The only ones who need to have full blockchain nodes are the miners, and for them it’s just another disk in their data center.
- adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
  30 minute transaction times are kind of a deal-breaker. 3 seconds is the edge of reasonable.
TeaBrain 2y ago
>Bitcoin has only failed so far as a replacement for Visa and Mastercard. So no, nobody's using it to buy coffee. It not being "used" in this context is referring to it not being used as legal tender. The law that was walked back was one which had made bitcoin legal tender throughout the country. As others have mentioned, it seems to have largely failed in being adopted as such, as surveys seem to indicate that less than 10% of people in the country had used it as legal tender in the previous year.
- distortionfield 2y ago
  Trying to use bitcoin like this is like trying to use certificates of deposit to buy coffee. Bitcoin is a store of value, it’s nonsense to try and use it like this. Look at Ethereum if you want a medium of exchange fit for the digital age.
  - jeffhuys 2y ago
    More like Solana… Eth fees are also way too high.
  - genem9 2y ago
    Lightning transactions are instant and near zero cost …

ekianjo 2y ago

BTC cash has lower fees I believe, I wonder if it could actually work as a currency for day to day payments.

markasoftware 2y ago
It can work as a day-to-day currency, but it compromises the decentralization that is key to Bitcoin's usefulness as a store of value: + By allowing 8x larger blocks (unless it's even larger now?), if in widespread use with full blocks, the blockchain would be 8x larger. Bitcoin's blockchain is already the better part of 1TB, though you can still fit that on a cheap SSD. Imagine if it were 8 and growing fast. + Because BCH uses the same hash algo as Bitcoin, but is much less popular, it's at risk of 51% attack. + Because there is no pressure on block sizes, fees are very low, which means that as halvings continue the block rewards for BCH will get extremely small. This will result in hashrate continuing to decrease, putting it at even greater risk of 51% attacks. Bitcoin's high fees allow it to remain profitable for miners even without inflation. Miners have to be paid to keep the network secure, and that's either going to come from tx fees or from inflation. BCH aims to have neither and that puts it at risk. And anyway, there are much better solutions for day to day payments, such as Monero and Ethereum.
- listenallyall 2y ago
  Every Bitcoin Cash transaction is on the chain itself. Bitcoin is increasingly reliant on off-chain "Lightning" transactions. An extra few TB of data or majority of transactions not on the chain at all? I'll go with more data & transparency, thank you.
- lmm 2y ago
  > By allowing 8x larger blocks (unless it's even larger now?), if in widespread use with full blocks, the blockchain would be 8x larger. Bitcoin's blockchain is already the better part of 1TB, though you can still fit that on a cheap SSD. Imagine if it were 8 and growing fast. This has always felt like a completely weaksauce argument to me. Even with Bitcoin, very few people other than dedicated miners download a full blockchain (like it or not). 1TB is already too large to keep on your phone or laptop, but 8TB is at most a minor inconvenience on a server or dedicated mining rig. What's the demographic where a measly factor of 8 makes a difference?
  - markasoftware 2y ago
    > very few people other than dedicated miners download a full blockchain I'm gonna have to ask for evidence on this one, I strongly believe most full nodes are not mining pools. http://bitdash.io/ http://bitdash.io/ says there are ~10,000 running full nodes, yet there are only ~100 mining pools that have produced a block in recent history: https://miningpoolstats.stream/bitcoin https://miningpoolstats.stream/bitcoin > 1TB is already too large to keep on your phone or laptop On your phone, sure. But my desktop already has a few TB of storage. But not 8. And Bitcoin Cash supporters usually seem to indicate that they'd increase it beyond 8 if the 8mb blocks filled up.
- loophole27 2y ago
  I used to run nodes to “contribute”, but it’s cumbersome and does not really contribute to decentralization . The only ones who need to have full blockchain nodes are the miners, and for them it’s just another disk in their data center.
adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
30 minute transaction times are kind of a deal-breaker. 3 seconds is the edge of reasonable.

TeaBrain 2y ago

>Bitcoin has only failed so far as a replacement for Visa and Mastercard. So no, nobody's using it to buy coffee. It not being "used" in this context is referring to it not being used as legal tender. The law that was walked back was one which had made bitcoin legal tender throughout the country. As others have mentioned, it seems to have largely failed in being adopted as such, as surveys seem to indicate that less than 10% of people in the country had used it as legal tender in the previous year.

distortionfield 2y ago
Trying to use bitcoin like this is like trying to use certificates of deposit to buy coffee. Bitcoin is a store of value, it’s nonsense to try and use it like this. Look at Ethereum if you want a medium of exchange fit for the digital age.
- jeffhuys 2y ago
  More like Solana… Eth fees are also way too high.
- genem9 2y ago
  Lightning transactions are instant and near zero cost …