My biggest problem with Bitcoin these days is the developers pushing Bitcoin to become 'store of value'.
Originally Bitcoin became popular because it simply let people transact over the internet quickly with low cost. This was what gave Bitcoin its utility, and thus value.
Now that the Core team has decided that ease-of-use is not important, they are literally trying to hype Bitcoin as something intrinsically worthless except for people's perception of it. Bitcoin is now coasting on its reputation it accumulated in its first 5 years of life. So what makes Bitcoin _not_ a pyramid scheme?
Other cyptocurrencies have their own uses-
Litecoin - Buy stuff over internet cheaply and quickly
Ethereum - ICO and contracts
Ripple/Steem - Pseudo-decentralization allows for huge number of transactions.
Monero/ZCash - Privacy
Gold - People have liked shiny and non-degradable stuff since the stone age
Stocks/Bonds - Dividend/Interests
Tulips bulbs - Grow tulip flowers
Bitcoin in 2017 - ??? Store of value
The first 4 example cryptos actually have real world usage that could potentially justify their prices. What use does Bitcoin have right now? Every transaction costs >$1 and takes hours to process. What could Bitcoin do that other cryptocurrencies couldn't do better?
It is a severe misunderstanding to think a coins market cap is a reflection of its current utility. "Potential" drives valuations, and bitcoin has the greatest potential to be the currency of the future, despite its limited current utility. The fact that almost every alt-coin has cheaper/faster transactions, and yet are worth tiny fractions compared to bitcoin should clue you in. Bitcoin is still the most valuable because it has by far the most name recognition, and this name recognition will carry it to success down the road when things like the lightnight network are implemented and in widespread use.
First, no where I mentioned current market cap, let alone its link to utility. As an aside, Ethereum and Bitcoin Gold combined mkt cap are slightly half of Bitcoin's, so it's not tiny fractions by any measurement.
As you said, one has to make the distinction between current utility and potential utility. You argued that Bitcoin is valuable because it has the most name recognition, and it has the biggest potential utility via Lightning Network.
I actually typed up more on how Lightning Network in my previous post, but I deleted it because I don't want to stifle the conversation. But hear me out, other crypto currencies have implemented LN and are beginning to use it. Aside from the fact that it would only give BTC 1.7x transaction counts boost, what other features does LN bring to Bitcoin that other currencies can not achieve? Name recognition again.
I haven't even gotten into how long it is taking the Core team to put in a functional LN into Bitcoin. By the time they are done, so would every other cyptocurrencies under the sun.
Okay fair enough. What I was going for in using the word "value" was the intrinsic worth of having a free-flowing currency that can be use by anyone.
>other crypto currencies have implemented LN and are beginning to use it
>No one is near having a functional lightning network...it needs to be in widespread usage for its full potential to be reached.
Maybe I am too dumb to understand LN, but what gives BTC an edge over, say Litecoin, if both BTC and Litcoin have LN fully implemented.
>LN enables off-chain transactions and so would scale the effective transaction capacity orders of magnitude.
I never see anyone ever claim LN will allow +10x transactions. Most claims I read are 1.7x-4x . If you have a source on that I'd really appreciate it (I will read it.)
But all these are moot points. While BTC is waiting for LN to be implemented, other solutions (that have their uses) are available today. A bad analogy would be a restaurant owner telling hungry patrons that a new master chef will start next week, and the food will be amazing. Great, but people are hungry now and they will just go to other restaurants (and maybe the other restaurants are almost as good as this one and so the patrons will stop coming to yours.)
By the time LN is done, I hope there's enough left of BTC's reputation.
You have to understand the end goal of the LN. A future with LN is one with off-chain instant transactions with unlimited throughput. This is enabled by a network of LN hubs where each "edge" is a payment channel. Then sending a payment on the LN is a matter of routing your payment through existing hubs. As long as you already have some locked amount on the LN and there is a route between you and your intended destination, the transaction can happen instantly and immutably off chain. Once you close your connection then the transactions are settled on chain. Essentially an unlimited number LN transactions can occur in between an on-chain settlement. But this requires widespread deployment of LN hubs which only happens if there is enough incentive by sellers to join.
If enough of their customers have bitcoin they want to spend, they will join. If some alt-coin has all the tech ready for the LN, but lack the widespread distribution of their tokens to incentivize sellers to join, it won't happen. This is why the idea of bitcoin being a store of value is a necessary step in the mainstreaming of bitcoin for payments: it gives people an incentive to buy and hold it now. A "currency" that only greases the wheels of transactions (i.e. bought for the duration of a tx then immediately sold) is no currency. It has to be worth holding in its own right and "store of value" bitcoin provides that.
>I never see anyone ever claim LN will allow +10x transactions. Most claims I read are 1.7x-4x . If you have a source on that I'd really appreciate it (I will read it.)
I'm guessing what they mean is that Segwit reduces the signature and thus increases the on chain capacity by 1.7x. People say this in an attempt to cloud the issue of Segwit vs bigger blocks. The LN isn't about stuffing more transactions into each block.
>Great, but people are hungry now and they will just go to other restaurants (and maybe the other restaurants are almost as good as this one and so the patrons will stop coming to yours.)
But most people aren't hungry now. For most people, paypal and VISA works just fine. They will only switch when the advantages over these legacy systems are great enough. This only happens with the fully deployed LN. For the small number of people that want anonymous transactions now, or need to circumvent the banking infrastructure now, they will use bitcoin or any number of alt-coins. But the value this service provides as it stands just doesn't warrant multi-billion dollar market caps: there simply isn't enough simultaneous transactions (i.e. instantaneous demand) to drive up the cost of the service.
>I never see anyone ever claim LN will allow +10x transactions. Most claims I read are 1.7x-4x . If you have a source on that I'd really appreciate it (I will read it.)
I don't have any good authoritative sources on hand, but a recent comment I saw on reddit really drives home the value of the LN (warning, its a bit ranty): https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7fde71/im_switching_to...
The only substantive way to read "this was what gave Bitcoin its utility, and thus value" is through its connection to market cap.
>other crypto currencies have implemented LN and are beginning to use it
No one is near having a functional lightning network. Simply enabling segwit isn't enough. Furthermore, it isn't enough to just have the LN, but it needs to be in widespread usage for its full potential to be reached. Say some low usage alt-coin did enable a fully functional lightning network. It wouldn't matter because there are no scaling concerns for that coin to begin with. It would be functionally no different than doing a transaction with the bare network. The LN is a solution to the kinds of scaling problems only bitcoin is currently having (perhaps Ethereum as well).
>Aside from the fact that it would only give BTC 1.7x transaction counts boost
LN enables off-chain transactions and so would scale the effective transaction capacity orders of magnitude.
As a sibling comment mentioned, it could be a gold alternative. Bitcoin is much more volatile, however, and it already has a $160b market cap. The total value of all gold ever mined, from what I've found, is $1190b. Gold has gone up in value while Bitcoin has been rallying, which is a small but nonetheless existent indicator that people are not changing their store of value.
Bitcoin will only be stable when most of those invested in it view it as that store of value, however even then it will be shaky compared to gold. Though it may receive commercial adoption due to its popularity, the slow transactions you mentioned really disable that.
In conclusion: Thanks for the list of cryptocurrencies, as I'll certainly be looking into buying them rather than Bitcoin ;)
Bitcoin has the brand position in peoples heads. For most, cryptocurrency and Bitcoin are the same thing. You "google" it, you don't "search the web".
I chose this example because both financial markets and Web 2.0 depends on network of scale to be efficient. At the same time, just because most people use your product today, doesn't mean they will remain to do so tomorrow. Constant improvement is the key, and Bitcoin is actually regressing in its utility.
I'm actually a little surprised that local coin shops haven't gotten into the cryptocurrency market.
Bitcoin will certainly survive, at least, as a niche alternative for short-term storage (easy transactions) and/or those in physical danger (decentralized and without a physical existence).
Only? Thats not true though.
> With companies like TSLA it can be sustainable, as investors believe that future earnings will justify the valuation.
Why do you keep using stock and equity analogies when talking about a completely different asset class that behaves more like a commodity?
So so strange.
What does a "pop" and "doom" mean to you? Bitcoin has swung 90% downwards multiple times and all tearful holders at any point in history have a profit right now. The people that are using bitcoin for more than an alternative bank account will still have uses for bitcoin.
limited supply cryptographic hashes have utility for a variety of reasons at any price to various market participants, just like oil and gold has utility for a variety of reasons at any price.
but yes I can see why that might be confusing when your only valuation model requires revenues and earnings.
Stocks have tangible assets that generate earnings to justify their investment. Bitcoin, however, generates no real returns beyond its exploding popularity resulting in a higher price. While that doesn't automatically doom its fate (see: traditional currency pairs), Bitcoin is different in that its only real use so far is as an alternative bank account. It will likely remain this way until people can live their lives on Bitcoin in the way people live their lives on a traditional, centralized currency. Many people who simply use it as a bank account may deposit their money for a long period of time, resulting in a sustainable price; for simplicity's sake, we can give the benefit of the doubt and assume that 100% of those looking for an alternative bank rather than an investment will hold it indefinitely.
The question is: Of those pushing the price from ~$750 to ~$10,000 in one year, after several years of stability in the ~$500 area, how many are looking to hold it as a bank account alternative, and how many are looking at it as an investment to eventually sell for a profit? Given the trajectory, it's hard to believe individuals are adopting it this rapidly for purposes other than investment; it seems like this 'mainstream adoption' is really just primarily mainstream investment. Is it sustainable when the majority of people are just buying in expectation of others buying? With companies like TSLA it can be sustainable, as investors believe that future earnings will justify the valuation. Here, there's nothing but a hope that others will buy because the price keeps going up.
The only way this bubble doesn't pop is if the money being pumped into Bitcoin results in commercial adoption as a viable currency, however that seems unlikely in the meantime.