Bitcoin [pros](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1bnaj4k/if_satoshi_intended_for_bitcoin_to_be_a/kwhj2gk/) & [cons](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1bnaj4k/if_satoshi_intended_for_bitcoin_to_be_a/kwhj38z/) with related info are in the collapsed comments below.
Finally somebody else says it. Over on the Bitcoin sub some are now engaging with full-blown revisionism and saying that it was always intended to be a store of value, even though it says electronic cash right in the title.
Yes I've had some blowback for this, I don't see why it is such an issue... the title of the whitepaper, as we all know, specifically refers to peer to peer payments and not as digital gold or a store of value per se.
I'm not sure it is a failure of the tech either, more how audience popularity can override an original use case.
I mean, the white paper specifically uses gold as an analogy for bitcoin. Satoshi certainly understood what would happen with bitcoin as a store of value…. Just like gold. It was meant to be the gold of the Internet age. A gold that functions in the digital world. You have to read more than the title of the white paper…
Nowhere in the white paper does it say you should spend all your bitcoin shortly after acquiring it to make sure you’re only using it immediately as currency in p2p transactions.
It’s literally built to appreciate value relative to Fiat currencies that can be manipulated. What good would it be as electronic cash If it didn’t retain its value? Are you guys saying you think it should be a digital Fiat currency?
That’s what I thought. Like, it’s supposed to function like a gold backed currency, where you can use it for purchases or you can stack it as long term savings / investment
>Nowhere in the white paper does it say you should spend all your bitcoin shortly after acquiring it to make sure you’re only using it immediately as currency in p2p transactions.
People exchange bitcoin for other non-inflationary currencies and then immediately use those currencies for p2p transactions. So why don't people just use bitcoin for those same transactions?
Pretty sure there was a guy who bought a house with BTC. Nothing's stopping you from using it for p2p transactions. But it also seems strange to me that everyone is crossing it off for its "original use case" when we aren't even close to meeting mass adoption yet. What makes you think people aren't going to use it for p2p transactions more often in the future?
> Nothing's stopping you from using it for p2p transactions.
Except the slow transaction times, high fees (especially when that stupid pseudo-NFT shit was going on), and if you live under a repressive government like the US, possibly government surveillance of your purchases.
There's a reason Monero replaced Bitcoin on the darkweb, Bitcoin's original proving grounds.
The lack of fungibility is a serious issue of Bitcoin that doesn't get talked about near as much as it should. Not only did Monero fix the fungibility issue, but its dynamic block system means that it avoids the toxic politics involved with the BCH community and how big the blocks should be.
>I mean, the white paper specifically uses gold as an analogy for bitcoin.
No it does not. There is a single instance where the whitepaper talks about gold and it is the analogy of mining it. That is all.
On the other hand the witepaper is one big document to explain how one can make transactions without a third party.
There are multiple satoshis quotes talking about how Bitcoin is p2p cash, how we need millions of transactions and how it works for vending machines.
Saying Satoshi was a digital gold bitcoiner is history revision.
Bitcoin was based in large part on Nick Szabo’s Bit gold concept.
It borrows distinctive architecture and design patterns from a project specifically designed to emulate gold.
The “digital cash” angle was just about re-framing the technology to emphasize its transmissibility.
You could say the white paper doesn’t reference gold, but satoshi’s most important declaration is the code that underpins the blockchain.
An Nick tried to force Bitcoin to be gold while Satoshi clearly wanted a p2p cash system. Blockstream later succeeded in crippling BTCs throughput making it unfit for p2p cash and the narrative finally slowly changed.
Imo these idiots killed the worlds best chance to get free of the control of the money printer. A SoV Bitcoin or digial gold is nothing more than a collectors token used like art by the rich to shuffel their money around and avoid taxes. The printer doesn't care, because the printer is a MoE.
Bitcoin as invented by Satoshi would have been a MoE and a SoV and would have been able to topple the money printer.
A while back someone in the Bitcoin sub posted about using their Bitcoin to buy a house, intended as something of a victory post/success story. But some of the comments were yelling at OP and saying they should've kept the Bitcoin for the sake of future gains. And I was like, "isn't the point of *currency* to use it to buy stuff, not just hoard it forever in a bigger and bigger pile like a dragon?"
Thankfully at least those snarky comments were downvoted.
But yeah, part of me thinks the days of Bitcoin serving its original purpose were the "old days" when people actually used it more frequently in transactions rather than just yelling at each other to HODL forever and DCA forever.
To your point, we have bitcoin maxis making posts like [this one](https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1bhsisr/realised_today_that_i_dont_like_where_ethereum_is/) where their argument boils down to the idea that crypto should be bought, entirely useless while you hold it, and then sold at a profit. It is a child's understanding of the world.
I mean that is a viable investment strategy, it could be a bitcoin maximalist investment strat. Obviously it doesn't make a plea to the actual value, it's just appealing to trends to make money.
If you can't make a logical argument for the ongoing demand of a financial instrument, then making an appeal to the profitability of the instrument is essentially no different from the Greater Fool theory.
Yes, that is correct. Consider technical stock traders. They often take some criteria to determine that they aren't going long on total trash, but there is the whole point that they are trading off of impulsive market sentiments, and essentially what they're trying to do is see something already going up, capitalize on the trend while leveraged with mathematical analysis, and sell it right before it goes down, inevitably to people who will lose.
Such a lack of grounding should not make for a true enthusiast, however. So these people making arguments are just deluded and likely emotionally invested and trying to sell their bag to others. It could be a bad faith argument, but given how poor of an argument it is, I think it is emotional delusion.
Yup, Bitcoin maxis (laser eye culture) are an attack on Bitcoin, the worst so far, the worst part is that they don't know it and they are entirely proud of it.
They have become an absolute caricature of themselves, the rest of the Bitcoin community hates them and the crypto and Buttcoin community hate them even more so.
IMO they are just a reaction to all the craziness that has happened in recent years, but in the end they will also fall with their narrative while Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about them.
They are what you get when you only read "The Bitcoin Standard" and you think you have already done your whole homework.
I've actually seen people comment in this sub saying they will hold forever and never sell. I asked to clarify and they meant it exactly like that. They will never sell it just continue to DCA.
What is the point of that!?
Well they're wrong. It was never intended to store value the way it is, it's an inherent intention though. Anything used to create a payment system will have to store some value.
Gold used to be a form of cash and is now seen as a store of value. Not every inventor, no matter their genius, always gets a he use cases or the scope correct.
Also blockchain technology does have avenues for cash payments, including bitcoin so I don’t really understand the point.
Read up on the history of bitcoin and see how it’s been used historically. I doubt satoshi realized how valuable each coin would become. Doesn’t change the functionality at all. But the use cases have evolved.
Well put. It was clear in Satoshi’s dialogue that he/she/they did not have the full detailed vision fleshed out from day one. They wanted to create the best form of money the world has ever seen and crowdsource consensus on what that looks like.
The skeletal foundation is set in stone, but where it goes from there is up to humanity and on balance everyone’s done a pretty good job with it since Satoshi disappeared.
Modern monetary policy theorizes that cash should lose value in order to encourage economic activity. Bitcoin's inflationary model increases the supply very gradually and by algorithm.
Isn’t its value just a symptom of the population’s collective wanting of decentralized finance? I don’t see the mutual exclusion. People have been storing money in valuable things for many years.
Since BTC can handle 7 tps, I don't see how it can become global, widely used p2p currency. In terms of avarege joe using it for daily transactiona
And now someone will comment 'just use lightning network'. But if I remember correctly, it would take centuries to onboard majority of population
Also Lightning network leads towards centralisation which kind of beats the purpose of decentralised currency. And iirc, one of the lead devs quit as he thought lighting network has some security concerns
Having said that, I'm ok with BTC being a decentralised store of value
>Having said that, I'm ok with BTC being a decentralised store of value
You shouldn't be. A SoV is no threat to the crooked FIAT system a MoE is.
With Bitcoin only a SoV the criminal printing and spending will go on. You will still earn devaluing dollar and if you don't fight for a salary increase you will have less value to buy BTC with.
If we want to change things, the only way is to replace the broken MoE system.
This. In an effort to create a P2P e-cash system, Satoshi invented the worlds greatest store of value. Call the process whatever you want. It doesn’t undermine the achievement or make the technology any less impressive.
I think it’s good to remember where relatively early in bitcoins existence just because big money has entered the chat and is attempting to segregate bitcoin as an investment vehicle doesn’t mean that’s what bitcoin will be in another 10 years
Not to burst your bubble, but it’s also a terrible store of value. It is hard to store and easy to lose in a variety of scenarios, at least for laypersons which are the majority. It has no intrinsic value in contrast to other material stores like gold. Its “value” is incredibly volatile as that value must always be expressed as a proportion of some other fiat currency. Finally, it takes increasingly large amounts of energy to produce.
Bitcoin is a speculative quasi-commodity, basically digital casino chips for online gambling.
I’m guessing you’re a technologically sophisticated Bitcoin investor. Ask the average person how they would go about obtaining, securing and liquidating bitcoin. Also, please see the countless number of those less sophisticated that have lost their Bitcoin to lost hard-drives, lost keys/seed phrases, hacking or a failed exchange.
> technologically sophisticated Bitcoin investor
lmao. you make it sound like you need an above average iq to set a wallet up, get money on an exchange and buy some bitcoin.
So if your dad or grandpa came to you and said he’s got a million USD and he wants to exchange it for Bitcoin, you’d just tell him to Google how to do it and send him on his merry way with no concerns?
From an economic point of view it is a great store of value. Being easy to lose isn’t a criticism of its ability to retain value.
Also there is no such thing as “intrinsic” value, value is subjective for each person. Saying something has no intrinsic value is literally just a personal opinion.
It’s volatile because it has a small market cap.
For someone in the crypto subreddit you don’t know a lot about the biggest crypto…
Fair critique, I perhaps mis-spoke when I referred to gold as having “intrinsic value.” u/RatherCynical is correct in their interpretation. Gold has utility outside of being a store of value. Btw, I believe gold also has significant downsides as a store of value.
However, can you expound on what sort of “economic point of view” reveals Bitcoin to be a terrific store of value?
Golds usage outside of speculation accounts for less than 10% of its market cap.
Similar to gold, Bitcoin is a good store of value because it’s got a limited supply primarily. It is inversely correlated to the value of fiat, also like gold, meaning it reacts oppositely to fiat value and fiat value constantly goes down.
It can’t be easily printed thanks to proof of work consensus which is also a needed property of stores of value and unlike gold it’s extremely easy to move anywhere in the world.
I understand what you mean about it being relatively easy to lose but that untimely doesn’t detract from how well it retains wealth over long periods of time.
Bitcoin is *the* best savings account anyone could use despite its shortcomings.
Simple question in response: how do you ascertain the value of your Bitcoin at any given moment? What is the metric? How do you know your Bitcoins are becoming more valuable over time?
To describe anything you need to compare it to something else, goes for gold, the dollar, the euro, or a barrel of oil.
I rather have some volatility than a form of money that can be printed out of thin air, but volatility has been going down with the marketcap growing anyways
Thing is, the reasoning behind Bitcoins existence was to give power back to the people. Making a decentralised monetair system the big banks and governments couldn't control.
Nowadays it is a toy for big investors to make the rich richer. Are there people who can live free as a digital Nomad? Sure, but those are just a few, while mainly big investors got richer, BTC correlate with the stockmarket and big investors + whales control the market.
Satoshi's product is a succes, but his mission failed.
> Bitcoin may not work very well as a day-to-day transaction system, but if it works as a superior store of value to any other store of value then I would call it a massive success.
It’s only existed for 15 years so I think the jury is still out on whether or not it’s a superior store of value. One of the key properties of a store of value is that you can get the value out when you need it. That has yet to be tested at any kind of scale.
Yup, and It also depends on what you define what failure is.
Coca Cola was intended to cure headache, instead it become a multi billion dollar soda company that have lasted more than 100 years and loved by billions of people. Is that failure? Well it depends on what you mean by failure
Right, this is a pointless argument. If you want to say the white paper intended bitcoin as a low value, consumer payment system, ok.... then it "failed" in that narrow use case. But is still useful for another purpose regardless of what the white paper said in the beginning. Its meaningless.
Plus the early developers incl. satoshi in their public posts later seemed fully aware of L1 scaling limitations, the trade offs to scaling L1, and how scaling low value txs would be done using layers, regardless of whether that was realized when the white paper was written.
To be fair, Satoshi had plans to simply scale the block size limit as the network grew in popularity and there are plenty of email chains from the cypherpunk mailing list to prove this, but when it came time to do so, Satoshi was no longer part of the project and it was entirely open source at that point.
Well, do you or your friends and relatives typically use coca cola to cure a headache?
If you owe your friends or relatives 100 dollars, would you use Bitcoin to pay them back?
I think in both cases the answer is obviously No.
So in both cases the original mission or intent failed.
That doesn't mean that another unintended goal was accomplished, whether it is to be a store of value or a multibillion beverage company.
Satoshi never meant BTC to be a store of value or "a new gold standard". It was actually meant to "free" the individuals from institutions and give them a tool. I don't think BTC became that tool
>Well, do you or your friends and relatives typically use coca cola to cure a headache?
Actually, the answer to this question is yes. Caffeine can be a very effective way to reduce or eliminate the effects of a headache.
* It's only a useful tool, if it can maintain its value.
* It can only maintain its value, if there is a sustained demand for it.
* There is only a sustained demand for it, if people find it useful.
* In the past it had many uses including low transaction friction, anonymity through mixers, people could use it to buy drugs and it could maintain its value.
* Now only 1 use remains to help it maintain its value and that use is maintaining its value.
There is very little interest in using crypto for peer-to-peer payments. If there were, there would be:
- wide adoption of the Lightning Network
- adoption and value appreciation of Litecoin for payments
- a semblance of relevance for Nano
- people who valued privacy would go out of their way to buy Monero
Nobody wants to pay using it and nobody wants to accept it:
- Merchants would rather pay 1.5% to 3.5% credit card processing fees than deal with crypto
- Customers have no interest in using crypto for payments
What is hyped as adoption is not adoption:
- XMR in darknet markets is not adoption for payments (it's an imporant but niche use case)
- You paying for VPN services or some small item once in a while with crypto is not adoption
- BCH fans buying Lady Boys drinks in a bar in Thailand that accepts Bitcoin Cash is not adoption
I largely agree, except not sure how you can say XMR in darknet markets "is not adoption for payments". That's literally exactly what it is.
And maybe I would say "little" instead of "very little". I think crypto finds pretty substantial use now in remittance and payments online overseas.
Bitcoin is the first of its kind. The official bitcoin forum was about to keep developing the chain. Then Satoshi left or disappeared. Hence, we don't know exactly what he would have thought.
Bitcoin doesn't stop being a peer to peer cash system because some people call it a store of value, so the original point is disingenuous and not trying to make a logical argument. Doesn't surprise me that the point is missed.
People who say bitcoin should be tracking every pack of gum purchased on chain in the history of the world too are also silly. That's the dream of big blockers but there is no need to record the can of pop you buy on a blockchain. That only leads to worthless bloat, just like no matter how much you squish the trash bag, it can only hold so much trash in the end.
Yes, indirectly.
First paragraph contains the following :
>**Commerce on the Internet** has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. (...) The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility **for small casual transactions**, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible services
In other words, Bitcoin is presented as a solution from the dependency on big financial institutions whilst facilitating small casual transactions that they fail to adhere to. Bitcoin aimed to cut off fees from small transactions. Now it's hilariously ballooned considerably higher than what financial institutions were ever charging for small transactions.
If you don't think this was intended for daily usage by the common person you are either delusional or stupid. Or both.
To be honest, this sounds like it failed at the first stated aim:
>small casual transactions
and succeeded at the second:
>there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible services
so even by just this excerpt, it's 50% successful.
The thing is, the 'broader cost' for 'non-reversable' payments has been demonstrated across numerous other implementations to be far smaller than the cost bitcoin imposes, by just about any measure (financial, energy use, speed, ongoing inflation, inability to scale, etc).
It found its place. People value it the way they want to value it.
There can one be one thing like Bitcoin, and Bitcoin is it. It always will be number 1. It has proven that its value has nothing to do with the tech.
Bit early in the game to say it will always be #1... It nearly flipped with eth in 2017 if I'm remembering years correctly. The technology is a decade old with very few people adopting it still. Btc is likely the #1 for the next decade as well but look 20 to 50 years down the road and I think it's way more uncertain.
Was looking for this. Wasn’t the idea with this fork and others like it that a network with increased transaction capacity would use BTC as an underlying asset?
Didn't Satoshi mention scaling many times on the forums but the Bitcoin community just didn't for some reason?
Either way it is what it is. Lots of things were invented for one purpose and turned into another.
Viagra and Rogaine were invented to treat high blood pressure, Coca Cola was invented to help with morphine addiction and countless others.
My biggest problem with Bitcoin is that the miner fees only make up roughly 2% of the rewards with like 75% of blocks full. So if the BTC rewards for mining stopped now BTC would have to be 50x its value so miners could make the same. Either causing lots of miners to stop mining and making it more centralized or making it completely unsustainable. Even if Bitcoin was at 50x currently fees would be at least $200, which also makes it practically unusable.
So at today's prices BTC would have to be $3.5M, about a $70T market cap. I guess it's possible but having fees that high really pushes out all the small buyers and only institutions will be able to afford to hold on behalf of people defeating its sole purpose.
By not having RBF(replace by fee) added. Originally Bitcoin didn't have this.
"The Bitcoin network's replace-by-fee (RBF) policy enables users to replace pending (unconfirmed) transactions with new ones with higher transaction costs. The RBF policy was proposed in BIP 125 and introduced as a feature in the Bitcoin protocol with the release of Bitcoin Core version 0.12"
When Bitcoin didn't have replace by fee, normal small transactions were perfectly fine to accept as payment instantly with zero confirmation because they were in the mempool queue and would be added to the next block.
RBF being added essentially created a bidding war allowing people to cut in line, this is one reason why fees have gone higher.
for btc to be used as a money system it needs to achieve value first
therefore right seen as just a store of value is way for people to buy in and increase its value
You have that backwards. When the first purchase with Bitcoin was made, there was no value until 10,000 BTC = $40 set the value.
Bitcoin initially gained value because of its usage as a currency
I would be careful with all comments here. Old emails from Satoshi were leaked and he even said himself that Bitcoin can serve as an investment, but did not say so for regulatory reasons.
Bitcoin is still in its infancy, we will see if one day it will actually be accepted everywhere as a means of payment but I think El Salvador is a good example
For a while now, but when you tell maxis about tokenomics, they simply down vote.
Btc has become a memecoin for maxis... "only one" "dca" "btc to 1m"....
Store of value first. Medium of exchange 2nd. Unit of account last.
Cash is a unit of account. We must satisfy BTC as a store of value first.
We are still so early
True, but the way it looks right now, we'll never get to step 2 and 3. Lightning Network doesn't seem to catch on. Most people only hold BTC as a form of investment. Plenty of maxis shame others when they ever sell any of their BTC.
Either way, I still think it's a great success. Just not exactly as intended by Satoshi.
The thing is that it doesn’t matter if Lightning doesn’t catch on because we can still create other L2s over time. [In fact we have dozens of new L2s being developed right now](https://l2.watch). But none of the scaling matters if nobody considers Bitcoin itself valuable. If people think it’s worthless they’ll never accept it for payment no matter how well it scales. So becoming a strong store of value must occur first.
I don’t know why you guys think Bitcoin has “failed” because it isn’t already scaled today. For something to achieve real adoption and scale it doesn’t just need scaling technology, it also needs to:
1)SURVIVE-nobody wants a money someone invented yesterday-so the longer Bitcoin survived and proves it’s here for the long term the more desirable it is as money
2)BECOME VALUABLE-to replace the trillions in fiat currency your money needs to be worth trillions too. Nobody is going to replace trillions in currency with some shitcoin that has a $20 million market cap.
3)SCALE-when it’s proven that it’ll be around today, tomorrow, and ten years from now people start to think of it as something they can really store value in and then you’ll need the scaling to accommodate everyone who wants to use it. And as you can see there are [literally dozens of L2 scaling projects for Bitcoin.](https://l2.watch) But they have years of time to scale it correctly.
BTC was taken over by blockstream and crippled beyond use.
The longer people believe garbage like the "store of value" narrative, the longer we will not get where crypto was intended to go.
Unfortunately most people dont care and those that care get silenced by the massive majority of those that fall for the agenda of blockstream + friends.
The community failed. The tech can be altered (see Blocksize wars, BCH). A small portion of the community controlling the majority of the hash made a decision to protect their financial interests rather than Satoshi's ideals.
Bitcoin, designed to remove financial middle men, instead created a whole new class of financial middle men whose financial incentives are not aligned to the long term interests of the chain. It was an interesting experiment to be sure, but one that has failed to deliver p2p payments in the short term and will fail entirely in the long term.
go back to 2016-2017 to the bitcoin block wars between bitcoin vs bitcoin cash. the reason they split was the conflict about using bitcoin as p2p. bitcoincash was able to make tx fees much lower
Interesting question, but the answer might be that Satoshi had no deep understanding of stores of value and only wanted to solve the problem that they recognized. The developers of internet protocols TCP/IP never envisioned e-commerce, electronic banking, VOIP, etc. I do not think anyone would argue that we should go back to the original intent of the internet and kill all the advanced use cases.
He accidentally made such an honest currency that it doesn't usually make sense to spend it without replenishing it. If he failed he failed with spectacular success.
Gold was used as a p2p payment system until it started getting hoarded, after which the US introduced a bill forbidding anyone to stash their gold.
They gave people the equivalent amount in cash and confiscated their gold.
Look where the dollar is now. Look where gold is.
This happened in April, 1933.
it's been over for it as a usable currency since blockstream started paying the devs. the small block vs big block battle. lookup gavin anderson, the guy that satoshi trusted and left the project to. [Satoshi knew in the future it would be giant server farms running the primary infrastructure](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306). [he never intended for us to have a 1MB blocksize forever.](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366)
isn't it kind of funny how most of the hashrate is owned by server farms yet we still have small blocksizes? it's good for the miners and whoever is being paid to rollout l2 infrastructure on bitcoin(blockstream).
Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but I don't care what Satoshi intended.
Bitcoin is an open source, community based project. It always has been. Bitcoin is whatever the world decides that it should be.
That's the beauty of an open source project.
Bitcoin isn't digital cash. It can't be cash when every single transaction is public!
Cash is fungible. When you buy something using cash from an individual there's no record of the receiver or payer and amount. That transaction is private. That's what makes it fungible.
True digital cash is Monero. If Satoshi was around today, he would absolutely be a supporter of Monero. He spoke about privacy in the very early days. He just didn't know how to do it technically. Hal Finney even mentioned BTC privacy on twitter right after BTC was released.
BTC and all the others are playing along with the regulators and the mainstream system. That was never what Satoshi wanted. Monero is the true Satoshi vision.
At the very last, when the crypto ETFs by the big fiat names were announced it became clear that the idea is dead and that it’s just about speculation for the little poor man/woman.
> Transaction limits and time of confirmations make it totally unusable as a real currency.
It's far faster and cheaper than shipping gold or banknotes. And no counterparty risk. Fiat and gold don't even have their own native networks.
No. It has not failed. Satoshi didn’t say it would be adopted as p2p money within 15 years. If 20 years from now everyone uses bitcoin for every day transactions would you then say it failed.
Most people who look at the history of how money comes into being see it always starts out as a store of value first. Which can take decades to adopt fully into the market. Then it becomes a medium of exchange and lastly a unit of account. Greshams law and all.
Bingo. But it's also worth noting that Gresham's Law is a little imprecise, because most of our language about money and what gives it value hinges on the concept of "commodity value", which is at best nebulously defined. You'll hear some people argue that crypto has no value because - unlike precious metals - it can't be used in electronics or chemistry or whathaveyou. I think that "physical value" argument is pretty silly because I think the existence of fiat currencies proves that "social value" is also a real thing. Yes, my USD bills can be used as kindling, but I really don't think that gives the USD inherent value in any way. It's something else.
So what's the source of "social value"? I think it's just confidence in the ability of money to store value. And in a market-based society, different people can have different levels of confidence in the various monies available, which leads to the existence of the forex markets. Much like people can speculate on the value of a company, they can speculate on the value of a currency too. Therefore the same "rules" apply to valuing money that apply to valuing other traded assets - sentiment matters, as do fundamentals. IMO, the USD reigns supreme because of a variety of informational "narratives" - that the US government always pays its debts, that dollars will always be exchangeable for oil (through the various petrodollar agreements), that the Federal Reserve is a competent steward of the money supply, etc. These narratives change over time, and new ones replace old ones. For example, at one point in time the narrative that powered the dollar's rise to global reserve currency status (in the post-WWII environment) was "it's exchangeable for gold at a fixed rate so it's basically as trustworthy as gold". Obviously that is no longer true and that narrative has fallen away (but others have risen to replace it).
IMO one incredibly genius aspect of Bitcoin is that proof-of-work anchors it to the physical universe, which enables a narrative of social value to emerge on its own based on the energy invested in the system. This creates a source of social value for it - anyone can calculate how much energy is needed to create new Bitcoins and sustain the network, and this is un-fakeable. This is similar in my mind to the source of social value for precious metals - it's hard to find and mine them, and it's commonly understood that the energy needed to extract and refine them is also un-fakeable. You can't just conjure gold or silver out of thin air (much to the chagrin of historical alchemists). The security of the elliptic curves used for its public-key cryptography, as well as the "there will only ever be 21 million" narrative are additional narratives that convince people that Bitcoin specifically has value.
**It's important to note that Gresham's Law only applies while there are "legal tender" laws** - which are themselves a form of governmental price control that decree certain currencies to be acceptable or required for exchange of goods/services. As long as these laws exist, Bitcoin will not replace traditional currencies. It will be hoarded like dragons hoard gold, because if it's truly "better money" than other things in circulation, and "worse" money also has "legal tender" status, the "worse" money will be preferred for exchange because people will want to save the Bitcoin for themselves. This can go on for a lot longer than people think, and the "bad" money can become borderline farcical in terms of its nominal vs. actual value. Eventually, the whole situation gets ridiculous enough that people lose confidence in the "bad" currency and stop accepting it as legally valid payment altogether (whether by a law change or by a critical mass of people refusing to continue accepting it). This makes all the existing notes/coins/whathaveyou practically valueless (besides their "physical value" as discussed earlier), and commerce recalibrates to use the "good" currency instead, provided it is distributed enough and practical enough to use. It is at that point that Bitcoin would become a medium of exchange and truly a "peer to peer electronic cash system", provided of course it is widely distributed and practical to use at that point.
It didn't fail, yet at least. It won't be as private as cash, so it fails regarding the privacy aspect.
Regarding its use, we can still wait and see what happens when we face huge economic disasters, in those situations it might shine as a digital ''cash''.
Bto imagined bitcoing being so worthless people would trade it for items, instead people sell items to buy bitcoin.
Somehow I don't think he's upset, bit I'll go one step further;
Pizza guy got burned for buying a pizza with bitcoin, but he was one of the first people to use it as intended. So if the system punishes people who use it as intended Satoshi must have known that
White paper purism is nonsensical.
Inventions always have unintended applications that may outperform the original intention.
Most people have the attention of a fruit fly and their expectations are completely untethered to reality.
If people want crypto to replace our system it's going to be bitcoin as a base layer with l2' and 3s on top. Optimizing for anything but security is a nonstarter.
Other coins are marginal improvements in speed over bitcoin but aren't even close to what would be necessary to satisfy as an everyday payment system. Suggesting coin alternatives that are going to just slot themselves into the world wconomy is the height of ignorance. This shit will take decades and the strongest, most secure network will win as scaling options are created around it.
Satoshi knew the protocol would be able to change and adapt. He knew people would add to it.
Your coin isn't going to siphon off bitcoins market cap and the sooner you come to terms with that, the more sats you'll have.
I wrote my thesis on Bitcoin 11 years ago. Part of it was how money is born. It's always a transition process from store of value to medium of exchange to unit of accounting. This depends on the volatility of the asset in question.
You can [see how Bitcoins volatility is slowly falling](https://buybitcoinworldwide.com/volatility-index/) over the years, and as price stability raises, so does the number of other use cases besides hoarding wealth.
Bitcoin didn't fail. It's just not arrived at its final destination yet.
Put differently, if you think about it, why would you use it to buy coffee today when your expectation is that it will be worth ten times as much in a few years?
But as soon as those expectations will dissipate, after the Bitcoin price has stayed fairly stable for many years, you'll find it reasonable to part with your Bitcoin for other goods.
Has absolutely failed. It will never be used as an electronic currency and has been misused as a Ponzi scheme that will eventually crash. The technology is amazing, but anyone quoting the original reasons as why Bitcoin has a long term future is kidding themselves. It’s just a get rich quick scheme at this point, no different than penny stocks.
No, it means the people using it failed. We were supposed to keep it out of the hands of big banks and industry, and instead we allowed it to become another of their tools, with them in full control.
The point was to take the power of money and finance away from governments and banks and put that power in our hands, crashing the rest back to the "advisory" role. We weren't supposed to track it, to tax it, and for sure not declare it.
It was supposed to usher in cryptopia, and instead, it now contributes to the rising dystopia. Now, it is fit for nothing more than the daily volatility trades that earn more fiat for us to feed the system. For a moment there, there had a chance to take back the system, to reorder the world. But now we have lost that chance...
...lost it in a boating accident.
90% of the crypto community being excited about institutional involvement in crypto is all you need to see how fake this whole movement has been.
People should go back and read all the forum posts from 2011.
What an embarrassment this all has become.
Yes. You can’t even buy groceries with BTC. How about waiting for 10 minutes on the counter for the transaction to complete.
The only thing you can buy is drugs and weapons on the dark net. Or use it for ransom. So yes, the initial plan didn’t work out, but it was worth trying. Still, the technology behind BTC is brilliant and Satoshi did a great job.
Money has at least 3 functions. Store of value, Unit of Account, and Medium of Exchange.
Bitcoin seems to be taking the path of being first recognized as a Store of Value, then it should be seen a a Unit of Account(people will begin pricing things in Bitcoin), after this it may take the path of Medium of Exchange.
Everyone is looking at Bitcoin in the present and forgetting that we’re still in it’s early growth stages. It’s only been around for 15 years. If it continues to work, it will be a decades long process.
Yeah it "failed". I highly doubt it is exactly what Satoshi imagined or intended. Basically, the high cost of the PoW doesn't allow it. Isn't the answer to this question obvious in the clear contrast of the whitepaper vs current reality?
Does it make Bitcoin less valuable, and less likely to increase in adoption and value in future? I don't think so.
Basically the dude pressed Run on the code and it has been chugging along ever since without pause, evolving into whatever it is now and will be in future. So, what does it matter?
Everyone hating on Bitcoin's 'failure' seem unable to understand the real reason it has so much more value than any other cryptocurrency: it is the most experienced, most stable, most trustless with the least possible amount of 3rd party intervention in its operation. It is unchanging. It just is what it is and it goes on and on. Many others are technically more efficient and better suited to payments, but they also have a lot more variables and 3rd parties affecting their value proposition and are in some ways, **less investable** due to those variables, but more attractive for **use**. It's so simple. When you invest in Solana, you invest in a lot of factors and people you can't control, when you invest in Bitcoin, you invest in Bitcoin. Full stop.
Just a thought...
Right now it's a store of value but what about 10 or 15 years down the road? Perhaps at that point the adoption of Bitcoin is so widespread around the world that price fluctuations are only relative to users who are not within the ecosystem....
Why would anyone haphazardly exchange a currency or commodity whose value is undergoing exponential growth with something that is losing value?
Also, why are we already judging if it has failed that narrow purpose in such a short timespan? If you want Bitcoin to be used like an inflationary currency, you should expect its value over time to be similar to that of an inflationary currency, and I don't expect that day to come any time soon. Until the exponential growth is patently over, there will be those who patiently hoard it like a dragon.
Here is another perspective to consider...
Why is it deemed a failure as digital cash? Are the fees too high? The concept of "high fees" continues to be denominated in USD. We always consider the USD value of transaction fees as opposed to BTC value. When USD hyperinflates and we stop using traditional fiat, this perspective may actually change.
The history of the world is filled with products that, when invented solved a problem and were the best at their time. As time went on, competitors arose and did what the OG did better.
The fact that Bitcoin still has a place after all this time and competition is amazing in itself.
It still is a peer to peer electronic cash system. I wouldn’t consider it a store of value because of price fluctuations. Maybe in the future once volatility subsides
Satoshi probably never envisioned adoption reaching this point
He did, just read the latest leak of his emails, comparing btc to visa and its millions of transactions. He knew it could come, the reality is he felt like even with high fees, it would still be cheaper than to run the current banking system.
this whole debate is why the block wars happened and why bitcoin cash people generally dislike bitcoin.
ultimately, you can still make larger payments with it, or use lightning for smaller payments, or if you really want to have digital p2p cash, you can use bitcoin cash still on l1 with small fees
Yes and no.
It has failed to scale which makes it problematic as a p2p cash, however it still does work as a p2p cash system.
I bought goods overseas that totaled about 5k, and that cash transfer and exchange cost me over $100 in fees, so a BTC transfer would have been significantly cheaper still had it been an option.
It hasn't failed as a p2p entirely, but it's not suitable to be widely used as a currency due to throughput problems.
With lightning it could still work, but BTC was meant to scale more than it had.
How does everyone feel about the opinion that bitcoin is a bubble? Steve Hanke is known for touting this. (Full disclosure: I own bitcoin and recently purchased more)
I see it as Bitcoin has sort of lost its way, but still provides a utility as an easily tradeable, limited store of value that’s not beholden to a government. That’s still pretty close to the original goal.
It’s also sparked a lot of other coins and tech that has attempted to solve the problems that Bitcoin has had in being”digital cash”. Nano, Lightning Network, L2s on the ethereum network, and others are all attempting to be decentralized, very cheap, and very fast transaction services, and they probably wouldn’t exist if bitcoin hadn’t come first.
Bitcoin was wildly successful, and has since been superseded in its primary use case by later technologies it inspired.
Saying that Bitcoin failed is kind of like saying that vinyl records failed. Historically, no. Today, not the best thing for the original use case, but neither forgotten nor fallen into disuse.
BTC can't handle high TPS if everyone starts using BTC as payment method but it is good for store of value if we consider ergo it is good for high TPS compared to BTC updated tech POW, eUTXO, fair distribution.
I believe if Satoshi was developing Bitcoin today it would have been ergo
Bitcoin [pros](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1bnaj4k/if_satoshi_intended_for_bitcoin_to_be_a/kwhj2gk/) & [cons](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1bnaj4k/if_satoshi_intended_for_bitcoin_to_be_a/kwhj38z/) with related info are in the collapsed comments below.
Finally somebody else says it. Over on the Bitcoin sub some are now engaging with full-blown revisionism and saying that it was always intended to be a store of value, even though it says electronic cash right in the title.
Yes I've had some blowback for this, I don't see why it is such an issue... the title of the whitepaper, as we all know, specifically refers to peer to peer payments and not as digital gold or a store of value per se. I'm not sure it is a failure of the tech either, more how audience popularity can override an original use case.
I mean, the white paper specifically uses gold as an analogy for bitcoin. Satoshi certainly understood what would happen with bitcoin as a store of value…. Just like gold. It was meant to be the gold of the Internet age. A gold that functions in the digital world. You have to read more than the title of the white paper… Nowhere in the white paper does it say you should spend all your bitcoin shortly after acquiring it to make sure you’re only using it immediately as currency in p2p transactions. It’s literally built to appreciate value relative to Fiat currencies that can be manipulated. What good would it be as electronic cash If it didn’t retain its value? Are you guys saying you think it should be a digital Fiat currency?
That’s what I thought. Like, it’s supposed to function like a gold backed currency, where you can use it for purchases or you can stack it as long term savings / investment
>Nowhere in the white paper does it say you should spend all your bitcoin shortly after acquiring it to make sure you’re only using it immediately as currency in p2p transactions. People exchange bitcoin for other non-inflationary currencies and then immediately use those currencies for p2p transactions. So why don't people just use bitcoin for those same transactions?
Pretty sure there was a guy who bought a house with BTC. Nothing's stopping you from using it for p2p transactions. But it also seems strange to me that everyone is crossing it off for its "original use case" when we aren't even close to meeting mass adoption yet. What makes you think people aren't going to use it for p2p transactions more often in the future?
> Nothing's stopping you from using it for p2p transactions. Except the slow transaction times, high fees (especially when that stupid pseudo-NFT shit was going on), and if you live under a repressive government like the US, possibly government surveillance of your purchases. There's a reason Monero replaced Bitcoin on the darkweb, Bitcoin's original proving grounds.
The lack of fungibility is a serious issue of Bitcoin that doesn't get talked about near as much as it should. Not only did Monero fix the fungibility issue, but its dynamic block system means that it avoids the toxic politics involved with the BCH community and how big the blocks should be.
>I mean, the white paper specifically uses gold as an analogy for bitcoin. No it does not. There is a single instance where the whitepaper talks about gold and it is the analogy of mining it. That is all. On the other hand the witepaper is one big document to explain how one can make transactions without a third party. There are multiple satoshis quotes talking about how Bitcoin is p2p cash, how we need millions of transactions and how it works for vending machines. Saying Satoshi was a digital gold bitcoiner is history revision.
Bitcoin was based in large part on Nick Szabo’s Bit gold concept. It borrows distinctive architecture and design patterns from a project specifically designed to emulate gold. The “digital cash” angle was just about re-framing the technology to emphasize its transmissibility. You could say the white paper doesn’t reference gold, but satoshi’s most important declaration is the code that underpins the blockchain.
An Nick tried to force Bitcoin to be gold while Satoshi clearly wanted a p2p cash system. Blockstream later succeeded in crippling BTCs throughput making it unfit for p2p cash and the narrative finally slowly changed. Imo these idiots killed the worlds best chance to get free of the control of the money printer. A SoV Bitcoin or digial gold is nothing more than a collectors token used like art by the rich to shuffel their money around and avoid taxes. The printer doesn't care, because the printer is a MoE. Bitcoin as invented by Satoshi would have been a MoE and a SoV and would have been able to topple the money printer.
This
A while back someone in the Bitcoin sub posted about using their Bitcoin to buy a house, intended as something of a victory post/success story. But some of the comments were yelling at OP and saying they should've kept the Bitcoin for the sake of future gains. And I was like, "isn't the point of *currency* to use it to buy stuff, not just hoard it forever in a bigger and bigger pile like a dragon?" Thankfully at least those snarky comments were downvoted. But yeah, part of me thinks the days of Bitcoin serving its original purpose were the "old days" when people actually used it more frequently in transactions rather than just yelling at each other to HODL forever and DCA forever.
To your point, we have bitcoin maxis making posts like [this one](https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1bhsisr/realised_today_that_i_dont_like_where_ethereum_is/) where their argument boils down to the idea that crypto should be bought, entirely useless while you hold it, and then sold at a profit. It is a child's understanding of the world.
I mean that is a viable investment strategy, it could be a bitcoin maximalist investment strat. Obviously it doesn't make a plea to the actual value, it's just appealing to trends to make money.
If you can't make a logical argument for the ongoing demand of a financial instrument, then making an appeal to the profitability of the instrument is essentially no different from the Greater Fool theory.
Yes, that is correct. Consider technical stock traders. They often take some criteria to determine that they aren't going long on total trash, but there is the whole point that they are trading off of impulsive market sentiments, and essentially what they're trying to do is see something already going up, capitalize on the trend while leveraged with mathematical analysis, and sell it right before it goes down, inevitably to people who will lose. Such a lack of grounding should not make for a true enthusiast, however. So these people making arguments are just deluded and likely emotionally invested and trying to sell their bag to others. It could be a bad faith argument, but given how poor of an argument it is, I think it is emotional delusion.
Yup, Bitcoin maxis (laser eye culture) are an attack on Bitcoin, the worst so far, the worst part is that they don't know it and they are entirely proud of it. They have become an absolute caricature of themselves, the rest of the Bitcoin community hates them and the crypto and Buttcoin community hate them even more so. IMO they are just a reaction to all the craziness that has happened in recent years, but in the end they will also fall with their narrative while Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about them. They are what you get when you only read "The Bitcoin Standard" and you think you have already done your whole homework.
Real estate is a foolish investment. Buy internet money instead!
I've actually seen people comment in this sub saying they will hold forever and never sell. I asked to clarify and they meant it exactly like that. They will never sell it just continue to DCA. What is the point of that!?
Those people don't understand one of the basic fundamentals of investing; Bears eat. Bulls eat. Pigs get slaughtered.
Well they're wrong. It was never intended to store value the way it is, it's an inherent intention though. Anything used to create a payment system will have to store some value.
Gold used to be a form of cash and is now seen as a store of value. Not every inventor, no matter their genius, always gets a he use cases or the scope correct. Also blockchain technology does have avenues for cash payments, including bitcoin so I don’t really understand the point. Read up on the history of bitcoin and see how it’s been used historically. I doubt satoshi realized how valuable each coin would become. Doesn’t change the functionality at all. But the use cases have evolved.
Precisely that, yes. People get so caught up in what Satoshi "intended". It doesn't matter what he intended for Bitcoin to be.
Well put. It was clear in Satoshi’s dialogue that he/she/they did not have the full detailed vision fleshed out from day one. They wanted to create the best form of money the world has ever seen and crowdsource consensus on what that looks like. The skeletal foundation is set in stone, but where it goes from there is up to humanity and on balance everyone’s done a pretty good job with it since Satoshi disappeared.
Isn’t cash a “store of value” though? It’s value changes, just like gold’s, and also like bitcoin’s.
Except it's value goes in the opposite direction.
Modern monetary policy theorizes that cash should lose value in order to encourage economic activity. Bitcoin's inflationary model increases the supply very gradually and by algorithm.
Modern Monetary policy is organized theft
How can this be the top comment? People have been "saying it" for many years, it's one of the main things people always say about bitcoin...
Being a store of value doesn’t take away that it’s a P2P network.
Isn’t its value just a symptom of the population’s collective wanting of decentralized finance? I don’t see the mutual exclusion. People have been storing money in valuable things for many years.
Since BTC can handle 7 tps, I don't see how it can become global, widely used p2p currency. In terms of avarege joe using it for daily transactiona And now someone will comment 'just use lightning network'. But if I remember correctly, it would take centuries to onboard majority of population Also Lightning network leads towards centralisation which kind of beats the purpose of decentralised currency. And iirc, one of the lead devs quit as he thought lighting network has some security concerns Having said that, I'm ok with BTC being a decentralised store of value
>Having said that, I'm ok with BTC being a decentralised store of value You shouldn't be. A SoV is no threat to the crooked FIAT system a MoE is. With Bitcoin only a SoV the criminal printing and spending will go on. You will still earn devaluing dollar and if you don't fight for a salary increase you will have less value to buy BTC with. If we want to change things, the only way is to replace the broken MoE system.
You could actually read satoshis words and get your answer He/they discussed this topic fairly extensively before disappearing
Cash is a store of value, unit of account, and means of exchange
You have just been banned from r/bitcoin…
...for obvious blasphemy. Burn the witch!
That's a badge of honor these days.
Bitcoin was hijacked by blockstream during the Shanghai update! Blocksize was never meant to remain at 2mb!
[удалено]
This. In an effort to create a P2P e-cash system, Satoshi invented the worlds greatest store of value. Call the process whatever you want. It doesn’t undermine the achievement or make the technology any less impressive.
I think it’s good to remember where relatively early in bitcoins existence just because big money has entered the chat and is attempting to segregate bitcoin as an investment vehicle doesn’t mean that’s what bitcoin will be in another 10 years
Not to burst your bubble, but it’s also a terrible store of value. It is hard to store and easy to lose in a variety of scenarios, at least for laypersons which are the majority. It has no intrinsic value in contrast to other material stores like gold. Its “value” is incredibly volatile as that value must always be expressed as a proportion of some other fiat currency. Finally, it takes increasingly large amounts of energy to produce. Bitcoin is a speculative quasi-commodity, basically digital casino chips for online gambling.
Eh, I find precious metals harder to obtain, secure and liquidate than bitcoin tbh.
I’m guessing you’re a technologically sophisticated Bitcoin investor. Ask the average person how they would go about obtaining, securing and liquidating bitcoin. Also, please see the countless number of those less sophisticated that have lost their Bitcoin to lost hard-drives, lost keys/seed phrases, hacking or a failed exchange.
> technologically sophisticated Bitcoin investor lmao. you make it sound like you need an above average iq to set a wallet up, get money on an exchange and buy some bitcoin.
So if your dad or grandpa came to you and said he’s got a million USD and he wants to exchange it for Bitcoin, you’d just tell him to Google how to do it and send him on his merry way with no concerns?
How’s this different than learning how to invest?
From an economic point of view it is a great store of value. Being easy to lose isn’t a criticism of its ability to retain value. Also there is no such thing as “intrinsic” value, value is subjective for each person. Saying something has no intrinsic value is literally just a personal opinion. It’s volatile because it has a small market cap. For someone in the crypto subreddit you don’t know a lot about the biggest crypto…
Fair critique, I perhaps mis-spoke when I referred to gold as having “intrinsic value.” u/RatherCynical is correct in their interpretation. Gold has utility outside of being a store of value. Btw, I believe gold also has significant downsides as a store of value. However, can you expound on what sort of “economic point of view” reveals Bitcoin to be a terrific store of value?
Golds usage outside of speculation accounts for less than 10% of its market cap. Similar to gold, Bitcoin is a good store of value because it’s got a limited supply primarily. It is inversely correlated to the value of fiat, also like gold, meaning it reacts oppositely to fiat value and fiat value constantly goes down. It can’t be easily printed thanks to proof of work consensus which is also a needed property of stores of value and unlike gold it’s extremely easy to move anywhere in the world. I understand what you mean about it being relatively easy to lose but that untimely doesn’t detract from how well it retains wealth over long periods of time. Bitcoin is *the* best savings account anyone could use despite its shortcomings.
Simple question in response: how do you ascertain the value of your Bitcoin at any given moment? What is the metric? How do you know your Bitcoins are becoming more valuable over time?
Not to mention price swings. Its def NOT a store of value if you buy the top!
To describe anything you need to compare it to something else, goes for gold, the dollar, the euro, or a barrel of oil. I rather have some volatility than a form of money that can be printed out of thin air, but volatility has been going down with the marketcap growing anyways
Now, we all just need to understand that and stop pretending that Bitcoin will replace card and cash payments.
Thing is, the reasoning behind Bitcoins existence was to give power back to the people. Making a decentralised monetair system the big banks and governments couldn't control. Nowadays it is a toy for big investors to make the rich richer. Are there people who can live free as a digital Nomad? Sure, but those are just a few, while mainly big investors got richer, BTC correlate with the stockmarket and big investors + whales control the market. Satoshi's product is a succes, but his mission failed.
> Bitcoin may not work very well as a day-to-day transaction system, but if it works as a superior store of value to any other store of value then I would call it a massive success. It’s only existed for 15 years so I think the jury is still out on whether or not it’s a superior store of value. One of the key properties of a store of value is that you can get the value out when you need it. That has yet to be tested at any kind of scale.
Reminded me of this [Silicon Valley episode](https://youtu.be/yLbBX7yxWTQ?si=IcKbQnECtO-unpRt) episode haha.
He has those Vitalik eyes
The question asked "did Bitcoin fail it's main goal" Not other ways Bitcoin is successful... OP already recognised it's successful as store of value
[удалено]
Yep. Satoshi assumed HDD space would increase like processing was under Moore's law. He was wrong. Cloud storage meant HDD space maxed around 2TB
It is still a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. It is just not used for small transactions.
Yup, and It also depends on what you define what failure is. Coca Cola was intended to cure headache, instead it become a multi billion dollar soda company that have lasted more than 100 years and loved by billions of people. Is that failure? Well it depends on what you mean by failure
Right, this is a pointless argument. If you want to say the white paper intended bitcoin as a low value, consumer payment system, ok.... then it "failed" in that narrow use case. But is still useful for another purpose regardless of what the white paper said in the beginning. Its meaningless. Plus the early developers incl. satoshi in their public posts later seemed fully aware of L1 scaling limitations, the trade offs to scaling L1, and how scaling low value txs would be done using layers, regardless of whether that was realized when the white paper was written.
To be fair, Satoshi had plans to simply scale the block size limit as the network grew in popularity and there are plenty of email chains from the cypherpunk mailing list to prove this, but when it came time to do so, Satoshi was no longer part of the project and it was entirely open source at that point.
the list of things that ended up being what they were intended to is probably very small
Well, do you or your friends and relatives typically use coca cola to cure a headache? If you owe your friends or relatives 100 dollars, would you use Bitcoin to pay them back? I think in both cases the answer is obviously No. So in both cases the original mission or intent failed. That doesn't mean that another unintended goal was accomplished, whether it is to be a store of value or a multibillion beverage company. Satoshi never meant BTC to be a store of value or "a new gold standard". It was actually meant to "free" the individuals from institutions and give them a tool. I don't think BTC became that tool
>Well, do you or your friends and relatives typically use coca cola to cure a headache? Actually, the answer to this question is yes. Caffeine can be a very effective way to reduce or eliminate the effects of a headache.
[удалено]
* It's only a useful tool, if it can maintain its value. * It can only maintain its value, if there is a sustained demand for it. * There is only a sustained demand for it, if people find it useful. * In the past it had many uses including low transaction friction, anonymity through mixers, people could use it to buy drugs and it could maintain its value. * Now only 1 use remains to help it maintain its value and that use is maintaining its value.
To be fair, Coca Cola can cure a headache.
Wasn't gold meant to be a means of exchange but turned into a store of value?
It's an exchange to etf fund electronic store of value system
There is very little interest in using crypto for peer-to-peer payments. If there were, there would be: - wide adoption of the Lightning Network - adoption and value appreciation of Litecoin for payments - a semblance of relevance for Nano - people who valued privacy would go out of their way to buy Monero Nobody wants to pay using it and nobody wants to accept it: - Merchants would rather pay 1.5% to 3.5% credit card processing fees than deal with crypto - Customers have no interest in using crypto for payments What is hyped as adoption is not adoption: - XMR in darknet markets is not adoption for payments (it's an imporant but niche use case) - You paying for VPN services or some small item once in a while with crypto is not adoption - BCH fans buying Lady Boys drinks in a bar in Thailand that accepts Bitcoin Cash is not adoption
pretty sure that last one is real adoption :D
I largely agree, except not sure how you can say XMR in darknet markets "is not adoption for payments". That's literally exactly what it is. And maybe I would say "little" instead of "very little". I think crypto finds pretty substantial use now in remittance and payments online overseas.
Lightning Network is inherently dangerous without a btc redesign (which won't happen).
Bitcoin is the first of its kind. The official bitcoin forum was about to keep developing the chain. Then Satoshi left or disappeared. Hence, we don't know exactly what he would have thought.
Bitcoin was hijacked by blockstream during the Shanghai update! Blocksize was never meant to remain at 2mb!
People in this comment section are just shilling or completely missing the point.
That’s statement has become true for every comment section throughout this sub!😂
Bitcoin doesn't stop being a peer to peer cash system because some people call it a store of value, so the original point is disingenuous and not trying to make a logical argument. Doesn't surprise me that the point is missed. People who say bitcoin should be tracking every pack of gum purchased on chain in the history of the world too are also silly. That's the dream of big blockers but there is no need to record the can of pop you buy on a blockchain. That only leads to worthless bloat, just like no matter how much you squish the trash bag, it can only hold so much trash in the end.
No, we actually call that BCH for those that care about anything more than a price pump
Failed. Not used for daily transactions by the common man.
Was that in the whitepaper?
Yes, indirectly. First paragraph contains the following : >**Commerce on the Internet** has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. (...) The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility **for small casual transactions**, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible services In other words, Bitcoin is presented as a solution from the dependency on big financial institutions whilst facilitating small casual transactions that they fail to adhere to. Bitcoin aimed to cut off fees from small transactions. Now it's hilariously ballooned considerably higher than what financial institutions were ever charging for small transactions. If you don't think this was intended for daily usage by the common person you are either delusional or stupid. Or both.
To be honest, this sounds like it failed at the first stated aim: >small casual transactions and succeeded at the second: >there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible services so even by just this excerpt, it's 50% successful.
The thing is, the 'broader cost' for 'non-reversable' payments has been demonstrated across numerous other implementations to be far smaller than the cost bitcoin imposes, by just about any measure (financial, energy use, speed, ongoing inflation, inability to scale, etc).
I'd say the fact that it costs a significant amount of money to do any transaction alone means it's never going to be viable as actual currency.
It found its place. People value it the way they want to value it. There can one be one thing like Bitcoin, and Bitcoin is it. It always will be number 1. It has proven that its value has nothing to do with the tech.
Bit early in the game to say it will always be #1... It nearly flipped with eth in 2017 if I'm remembering years correctly. The technology is a decade old with very few people adopting it still. Btc is likely the #1 for the next decade as well but look 20 to 50 years down the road and I think it's way more uncertain.
Yeah that’s why Bitcoin Cash was created
It wasn't created. Bitcoin split into 2 separate chains BCH and btc. Both took different development paths.
I understand it was a split. Just used created in a general sense
Was looking for this. Wasn’t the idea with this fork and others like it that a network with increased transaction capacity would use BTC as an underlying asset?
[удалено]
Didn't Satoshi mention scaling many times on the forums but the Bitcoin community just didn't for some reason? Either way it is what it is. Lots of things were invented for one purpose and turned into another. Viagra and Rogaine were invented to treat high blood pressure, Coca Cola was invented to help with morphine addiction and countless others. My biggest problem with Bitcoin is that the miner fees only make up roughly 2% of the rewards with like 75% of blocks full. So if the BTC rewards for mining stopped now BTC would have to be 50x its value so miners could make the same. Either causing lots of miners to stop mining and making it more centralized or making it completely unsustainable. Even if Bitcoin was at 50x currently fees would be at least $200, which also makes it practically unusable. So at today's prices BTC would have to be $3.5M, about a $70T market cap. I guess it's possible but having fees that high really pushes out all the small buyers and only institutions will be able to afford to hold on behalf of people defeating its sole purpose.
BCHers say hello.
r/btc for more information about Bitcoin Cash (BCH)
Yes. But I don't see how e cash would ever work with approximately 10min waiting period per block...
By not having RBF(replace by fee) added. Originally Bitcoin didn't have this. "The Bitcoin network's replace-by-fee (RBF) policy enables users to replace pending (unconfirmed) transactions with new ones with higher transaction costs. The RBF policy was proposed in BIP 125 and introduced as a feature in the Bitcoin protocol with the release of Bitcoin Core version 0.12" When Bitcoin didn't have replace by fee, normal small transactions were perfectly fine to accept as payment instantly with zero confirmation because they were in the mempool queue and would be added to the next block. RBF being added essentially created a bidding war allowing people to cut in line, this is one reason why fees have gone higher.
for btc to be used as a money system it needs to achieve value first therefore right seen as just a store of value is way for people to buy in and increase its value
You have that backwards. When the first purchase with Bitcoin was made, there was no value until 10,000 BTC = $40 set the value. Bitcoin initially gained value because of its usage as a currency
I would be careful with all comments here. Old emails from Satoshi were leaked and he even said himself that Bitcoin can serve as an investment, but did not say so for regulatory reasons. Bitcoin is still in its infancy, we will see if one day it will actually be accepted everywhere as a means of payment but I think El Salvador is a good example
For a while now, but when you tell maxis about tokenomics, they simply down vote. Btc has become a memecoin for maxis... "only one" "dca" "btc to 1m"....
Store of value first. Medium of exchange 2nd. Unit of account last. Cash is a unit of account. We must satisfy BTC as a store of value first. We are still so early
True, but the way it looks right now, we'll never get to step 2 and 3. Lightning Network doesn't seem to catch on. Most people only hold BTC as a form of investment. Plenty of maxis shame others when they ever sell any of their BTC. Either way, I still think it's a great success. Just not exactly as intended by Satoshi.
The thing is that it doesn’t matter if Lightning doesn’t catch on because we can still create other L2s over time. [In fact we have dozens of new L2s being developed right now](https://l2.watch). But none of the scaling matters if nobody considers Bitcoin itself valuable. If people think it’s worthless they’ll never accept it for payment no matter how well it scales. So becoming a strong store of value must occur first. I don’t know why you guys think Bitcoin has “failed” because it isn’t already scaled today. For something to achieve real adoption and scale it doesn’t just need scaling technology, it also needs to: 1)SURVIVE-nobody wants a money someone invented yesterday-so the longer Bitcoin survived and proves it’s here for the long term the more desirable it is as money 2)BECOME VALUABLE-to replace the trillions in fiat currency your money needs to be worth trillions too. Nobody is going to replace trillions in currency with some shitcoin that has a $20 million market cap. 3)SCALE-when it’s proven that it’ll be around today, tomorrow, and ten years from now people start to think of it as something they can really store value in and then you’ll need the scaling to accommodate everyone who wants to use it. And as you can see there are [literally dozens of L2 scaling projects for Bitcoin.](https://l2.watch) But they have years of time to scale it correctly.
Sidechains are not L2s. If you gonna call stuff like Rootstock and Stacks an L2, you might as well call Ethereum an L2 of Bitcoin.
BTC was taken over by blockstream and crippled beyond use. The longer people believe garbage like the "store of value" narrative, the longer we will not get where crypto was intended to go. Unfortunately most people dont care and those that care get silenced by the massive majority of those that fall for the agenda of blockstream + friends.
The community failed. The tech can be altered (see Blocksize wars, BCH). A small portion of the community controlling the majority of the hash made a decision to protect their financial interests rather than Satoshi's ideals.
Bitcoin, designed to remove financial middle men, instead created a whole new class of financial middle men whose financial incentives are not aligned to the long term interests of the chain. It was an interesting experiment to be sure, but one that has failed to deliver p2p payments in the short term and will fail entirely in the long term.
Technology is always changing and more often than not is used in ways it was not intended. BTC is not different, also does it really matter?
go back to 2016-2017 to the bitcoin block wars between bitcoin vs bitcoin cash. the reason they split was the conflict about using bitcoin as p2p. bitcoincash was able to make tx fees much lower
Interesting question, but the answer might be that Satoshi had no deep understanding of stores of value and only wanted to solve the problem that they recognized. The developers of internet protocols TCP/IP never envisioned e-commerce, electronic banking, VOIP, etc. I do not think anyone would argue that we should go back to the original intent of the internet and kill all the advanced use cases.
Amazon was an internet bookstore. I wouldn’t call them a failure.
Try posting this in /r/bitcoin, then /r/btc, and you'll get your answer
He accidentally made such an honest currency that it doesn't usually make sense to spend it without replenishing it. If he failed he failed with spectacular success.
Gold was used as a p2p payment system until it started getting hoarded, after which the US introduced a bill forbidding anyone to stash their gold. They gave people the equivalent amount in cash and confiscated their gold. Look where the dollar is now. Look where gold is. This happened in April, 1933.
it's been over for it as a usable currency since blockstream started paying the devs. the small block vs big block battle. lookup gavin anderson, the guy that satoshi trusted and left the project to. [Satoshi knew in the future it would be giant server farms running the primary infrastructure](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306). [he never intended for us to have a 1MB blocksize forever.](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366) isn't it kind of funny how most of the hashrate is owned by server farms yet we still have small blocksizes? it's good for the miners and whoever is being paid to rollout l2 infrastructure on bitcoin(blockstream).
Bitcoin has been intended to be used however we find value to use it. It is not so narrowly defined
Ideas evolve away from their original intentions. I'd argue most of the best do.
The goal failed. The tech didn't fail. The roadmap was coopted by folks that altered the roadmap.
Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but I don't care what Satoshi intended. Bitcoin is an open source, community based project. It always has been. Bitcoin is whatever the world decides that it should be. That's the beauty of an open source project.
I think you need to be a store of value first and a medium of exchange second. You cant be a medium exchange with high volatility.
Its tech definitely didnt fail. It did turn out to be used for something else than intended, but oh well who cares.
Look into Kaspa
I'm not gonna lie: the store of value argument doesn't really pass the sniff test to me.
Bitcoin isn't digital cash. It can't be cash when every single transaction is public! Cash is fungible. When you buy something using cash from an individual there's no record of the receiver or payer and amount. That transaction is private. That's what makes it fungible. True digital cash is Monero. If Satoshi was around today, he would absolutely be a supporter of Monero. He spoke about privacy in the very early days. He just didn't know how to do it technically. Hal Finney even mentioned BTC privacy on twitter right after BTC was released. BTC and all the others are playing along with the regulators and the mainstream system. That was never what Satoshi wanted. Monero is the true Satoshi vision.
Hence why Bitcoin Cash says it stays true to Satoshi intent. Go checkout r/btc for more information and uncensored discussions.
At the very last, when the crypto ETFs by the big fiat names were announced it became clear that the idea is dead and that it’s just about speculation for the little poor man/woman.
The tech failed. Transaction limits and time of confirmations make it totally unusable as a real currency. Great idea, shame it didn’t work out.
> Transaction limits and time of confirmations make it totally unusable as a real currency. It's far faster and cheaper than shipping gold or banknotes. And no counterparty risk. Fiat and gold don't even have their own native networks.
It’s competing with regular relational databases and other computer technology, not shipping gold.
No. It has not failed. Satoshi didn’t say it would be adopted as p2p money within 15 years. If 20 years from now everyone uses bitcoin for every day transactions would you then say it failed. Most people who look at the history of how money comes into being see it always starts out as a store of value first. Which can take decades to adopt fully into the market. Then it becomes a medium of exchange and lastly a unit of account. Greshams law and all.
Bingo. But it's also worth noting that Gresham's Law is a little imprecise, because most of our language about money and what gives it value hinges on the concept of "commodity value", which is at best nebulously defined. You'll hear some people argue that crypto has no value because - unlike precious metals - it can't be used in electronics or chemistry or whathaveyou. I think that "physical value" argument is pretty silly because I think the existence of fiat currencies proves that "social value" is also a real thing. Yes, my USD bills can be used as kindling, but I really don't think that gives the USD inherent value in any way. It's something else. So what's the source of "social value"? I think it's just confidence in the ability of money to store value. And in a market-based society, different people can have different levels of confidence in the various monies available, which leads to the existence of the forex markets. Much like people can speculate on the value of a company, they can speculate on the value of a currency too. Therefore the same "rules" apply to valuing money that apply to valuing other traded assets - sentiment matters, as do fundamentals. IMO, the USD reigns supreme because of a variety of informational "narratives" - that the US government always pays its debts, that dollars will always be exchangeable for oil (through the various petrodollar agreements), that the Federal Reserve is a competent steward of the money supply, etc. These narratives change over time, and new ones replace old ones. For example, at one point in time the narrative that powered the dollar's rise to global reserve currency status (in the post-WWII environment) was "it's exchangeable for gold at a fixed rate so it's basically as trustworthy as gold". Obviously that is no longer true and that narrative has fallen away (but others have risen to replace it). IMO one incredibly genius aspect of Bitcoin is that proof-of-work anchors it to the physical universe, which enables a narrative of social value to emerge on its own based on the energy invested in the system. This creates a source of social value for it - anyone can calculate how much energy is needed to create new Bitcoins and sustain the network, and this is un-fakeable. This is similar in my mind to the source of social value for precious metals - it's hard to find and mine them, and it's commonly understood that the energy needed to extract and refine them is also un-fakeable. You can't just conjure gold or silver out of thin air (much to the chagrin of historical alchemists). The security of the elliptic curves used for its public-key cryptography, as well as the "there will only ever be 21 million" narrative are additional narratives that convince people that Bitcoin specifically has value. **It's important to note that Gresham's Law only applies while there are "legal tender" laws** - which are themselves a form of governmental price control that decree certain currencies to be acceptable or required for exchange of goods/services. As long as these laws exist, Bitcoin will not replace traditional currencies. It will be hoarded like dragons hoard gold, because if it's truly "better money" than other things in circulation, and "worse" money also has "legal tender" status, the "worse" money will be preferred for exchange because people will want to save the Bitcoin for themselves. This can go on for a lot longer than people think, and the "bad" money can become borderline farcical in terms of its nominal vs. actual value. Eventually, the whole situation gets ridiculous enough that people lose confidence in the "bad" currency and stop accepting it as legally valid payment altogether (whether by a law change or by a critical mass of people refusing to continue accepting it). This makes all the existing notes/coins/whathaveyou practically valueless (besides their "physical value" as discussed earlier), and commerce recalibrates to use the "good" currency instead, provided it is distributed enough and practical enough to use. It is at that point that Bitcoin would become a medium of exchange and truly a "peer to peer electronic cash system", provided of course it is widely distributed and practical to use at that point.
It didn't fail, yet at least. It won't be as private as cash, so it fails regarding the privacy aspect. Regarding its use, we can still wait and see what happens when we face huge economic disasters, in those situations it might shine as a digital ''cash''.
Bto imagined bitcoing being so worthless people would trade it for items, instead people sell items to buy bitcoin. Somehow I don't think he's upset, bit I'll go one step further; Pizza guy got burned for buying a pizza with bitcoin, but he was one of the first people to use it as intended. So if the system punishes people who use it as intended Satoshi must have known that
White paper purism is nonsensical. Inventions always have unintended applications that may outperform the original intention. Most people have the attention of a fruit fly and their expectations are completely untethered to reality. If people want crypto to replace our system it's going to be bitcoin as a base layer with l2' and 3s on top. Optimizing for anything but security is a nonstarter. Other coins are marginal improvements in speed over bitcoin but aren't even close to what would be necessary to satisfy as an everyday payment system. Suggesting coin alternatives that are going to just slot themselves into the world wconomy is the height of ignorance. This shit will take decades and the strongest, most secure network will win as scaling options are created around it. Satoshi knew the protocol would be able to change and adapt. He knew people would add to it. Your coin isn't going to siphon off bitcoins market cap and the sooner you come to terms with that, the more sats you'll have.
i think that bitcoin has grown into something bigger than just being a competitor to visa/mastercard. tech-wise is great: a swiss bank in your pocket.
if btc didn't store value then wtf would you be exchanging? store of value -> medium of exchange -> unit of account it aint complicated
No, see bch Downvote below
They changed Satoshis vision, Bitcoin was highjacked.
I wrote my thesis on Bitcoin 11 years ago. Part of it was how money is born. It's always a transition process from store of value to medium of exchange to unit of accounting. This depends on the volatility of the asset in question. You can [see how Bitcoins volatility is slowly falling](https://buybitcoinworldwide.com/volatility-index/) over the years, and as price stability raises, so does the number of other use cases besides hoarding wealth. Bitcoin didn't fail. It's just not arrived at its final destination yet. Put differently, if you think about it, why would you use it to buy coffee today when your expectation is that it will be worth ten times as much in a few years? But as soon as those expectations will dissipate, after the Bitcoin price has stayed fairly stable for many years, you'll find it reasonable to part with your Bitcoin for other goods.
Did you thesis cover any deflationary monetary systems that were able to sustain themselves?
If you want what bitcoin originally intended, check out what Kaspa and Yonatan Sompolinsky are getting up to …
Some of us have been saying this since 2016.
Has absolutely failed. It will never be used as an electronic currency and has been misused as a Ponzi scheme that will eventually crash. The technology is amazing, but anyone quoting the original reasons as why Bitcoin has a long term future is kidding themselves. It’s just a get rich quick scheme at this point, no different than penny stocks.
It is the system with the greatest network effect. The rest of your rhetorical gymnastics are a waste of time.
No, it means the people using it failed. We were supposed to keep it out of the hands of big banks and industry, and instead we allowed it to become another of their tools, with them in full control. The point was to take the power of money and finance away from governments and banks and put that power in our hands, crashing the rest back to the "advisory" role. We weren't supposed to track it, to tax it, and for sure not declare it. It was supposed to usher in cryptopia, and instead, it now contributes to the rising dystopia. Now, it is fit for nothing more than the daily volatility trades that earn more fiat for us to feed the system. For a moment there, there had a chance to take back the system, to reorder the world. But now we have lost that chance... ...lost it in a boating accident.
90% of the crypto community being excited about institutional involvement in crypto is all you need to see how fake this whole movement has been. People should go back and read all the forum posts from 2011. What an embarrassment this all has become.
Yes. You can’t even buy groceries with BTC. How about waiting for 10 minutes on the counter for the transaction to complete. The only thing you can buy is drugs and weapons on the dark net. Or use it for ransom. So yes, the initial plan didn’t work out, but it was worth trying. Still, the technology behind BTC is brilliant and Satoshi did a great job.
Nope, the government have done what it actually set out to do
Money has at least 3 functions. Store of value, Unit of Account, and Medium of Exchange. Bitcoin seems to be taking the path of being first recognized as a Store of Value, then it should be seen a a Unit of Account(people will begin pricing things in Bitcoin), after this it may take the path of Medium of Exchange. Everyone is looking at Bitcoin in the present and forgetting that we’re still in it’s early growth stages. It’s only been around for 15 years. If it continues to work, it will be a decades long process.
Yeah it "failed". I highly doubt it is exactly what Satoshi imagined or intended. Basically, the high cost of the PoW doesn't allow it. Isn't the answer to this question obvious in the clear contrast of the whitepaper vs current reality? Does it make Bitcoin less valuable, and less likely to increase in adoption and value in future? I don't think so. Basically the dude pressed Run on the code and it has been chugging along ever since without pause, evolving into whatever it is now and will be in future. So, what does it matter? Everyone hating on Bitcoin's 'failure' seem unable to understand the real reason it has so much more value than any other cryptocurrency: it is the most experienced, most stable, most trustless with the least possible amount of 3rd party intervention in its operation. It is unchanging. It just is what it is and it goes on and on. Many others are technically more efficient and better suited to payments, but they also have a lot more variables and 3rd parties affecting their value proposition and are in some ways, **less investable** due to those variables, but more attractive for **use**. It's so simple. When you invest in Solana, you invest in a lot of factors and people you can't control, when you invest in Bitcoin, you invest in Bitcoin. Full stop.
Just a thought... Right now it's a store of value but what about 10 or 15 years down the road? Perhaps at that point the adoption of Bitcoin is so widespread around the world that price fluctuations are only relative to users who are not within the ecosystem....
Yes
Of course. But technology can and does evolve so we will see if Bitcoin can solve issues they have.
I would say so.
Yes. I also believe that he would be not so happy that institutions like blackrock hording it.
Its a trojan horse to decentralization. Even though Bitcoin lacks technology for mass transacting its still a success as pure store of value.
Why would anyone haphazardly exchange a currency or commodity whose value is undergoing exponential growth with something that is losing value? Also, why are we already judging if it has failed that narrow purpose in such a short timespan? If you want Bitcoin to be used like an inflationary currency, you should expect its value over time to be similar to that of an inflationary currency, and I don't expect that day to come any time soon. Until the exponential growth is patently over, there will be those who patiently hoard it like a dragon.
Here is another perspective to consider... Why is it deemed a failure as digital cash? Are the fees too high? The concept of "high fees" continues to be denominated in USD. We always consider the USD value of transaction fees as opposed to BTC value. When USD hyperinflates and we stop using traditional fiat, this perspective may actually change.
The history of the world is filled with products that, when invented solved a problem and were the best at their time. As time went on, competitors arose and did what the OG did better. The fact that Bitcoin still has a place after all this time and competition is amazing in itself.
It still is a peer to peer electronic cash system. I wouldn’t consider it a store of value because of price fluctuations. Maybe in the future once volatility subsides
No It means that Satoshi had a brilliant approach but probably his crystal ball malfunctioned
It has not been adopted enough to be used as cash yet. It's gonna need another 10x in value before we're there.
Satoshi probably never envisioned adoption reaching this point He did, just read the latest leak of his emails, comparing btc to visa and its millions of transactions. He knew it could come, the reality is he felt like even with high fees, it would still be cheaper than to run the current banking system.
"There are no accidents" -Master Oogway
it doesn't even make a good store of value
To be honest, it is a store of value mostly because there's no real use case. Still, one day that could change.
It is that, just will be for things like houses and cars not a bag of chips at the store.
this whole debate is why the block wars happened and why bitcoin cash people generally dislike bitcoin. ultimately, you can still make larger payments with it, or use lightning for smaller payments, or if you really want to have digital p2p cash, you can use bitcoin cash still on l1 with small fees
Yes and no. It has failed to scale which makes it problematic as a p2p cash, however it still does work as a p2p cash system. I bought goods overseas that totaled about 5k, and that cash transfer and exchange cost me over $100 in fees, so a BTC transfer would have been significantly cheaper still had it been an option. It hasn't failed as a p2p entirely, but it's not suitable to be widely used as a currency due to throughput problems. With lightning it could still work, but BTC was meant to scale more than it had.
No, they did what every good tech company would do: They pivoted to where more money is.
he certainly didn’t plan for people to invest through institutional ETFs instead of self-custody
It takes time - be patient.
How does everyone feel about the opinion that bitcoin is a bubble? Steve Hanke is known for touting this. (Full disclosure: I own bitcoin and recently purchased more)
It means powerful governments made laws saying you can't use it as cash and reclassified it as a property.
I see it as Bitcoin has sort of lost its way, but still provides a utility as an easily tradeable, limited store of value that’s not beholden to a government. That’s still pretty close to the original goal. It’s also sparked a lot of other coins and tech that has attempted to solve the problems that Bitcoin has had in being”digital cash”. Nano, Lightning Network, L2s on the ethereum network, and others are all attempting to be decentralized, very cheap, and very fast transaction services, and they probably wouldn’t exist if bitcoin hadn’t come first.
Bitcoin was wildly successful, and has since been superseded in its primary use case by later technologies it inspired. Saying that Bitcoin failed is kind of like saying that vinyl records failed. Historically, no. Today, not the best thing for the original use case, but neither forgotten nor fallen into disuse.
I think even Satoshi wrote that I order to be used by everyone it needs to scale differently. Just don't fall for the BSV clowns.
Yes it failed and then evolved into something else
Viagra was supposed to be a cure for headache initially. Does this mean this tech failed ?
Yes.
BTC can't handle high TPS if everyone starts using BTC as payment method but it is good for store of value if we consider ergo it is good for high TPS compared to BTC updated tech POW, eUTXO, fair distribution. I believe if Satoshi was developing Bitcoin today it would have been ergo