WingNews logo WingNews
top | item 29663235

(no title)

hackingforfun | 4 years ago

I agree, and I imagine it's seen as "expensive" due to the psychology of people wanting to own one whole of something, i.e. a whole Bitcoin, in this case.

However, due to the 21 million max supply cap, not even everyone in the world today can own a whole Bitcoin.

Measuring things in satoshis (100 millionth of a bitcoin) will probably become more common, assuming demand continues to increase. I think it will, due to Bitcoin's scarcity, and the ever increasing realization of the need for a hard asset, as inflationary monetary policies continue around the world.

I also think an important distinction is that several of the other popular cryptos do not have a hard supply cap, or it's so high as to not matter.

Ethereum does not have a hard supply cap. With EIP-1559, some ETH is burned, causing some deflationary pressure, but still, there is no max cap in place at this time. The Shiba Inu meme coin has a 1 quadrillion supply cap, which is so high as to not matter at all. People can own a bunch of Shiba Inu, and maybe they like having a high number of something, but IMO, it just doesn't have the long term resilience of Bitcoin.

By the way I'm not hating on Ethereum, I think it has a place too, but Bitcoin is different. I have no idea why people invest in Shiba Inu except just to try to ride momentum, but I don't see how that will work out well long term (or maybe they believe in ShibaSwap, I'm not sure).

Anyway going back to Bitcoin, another benefit is allowing the unbanked to economically participate with others using digital money just by having a smartphone or computer, and an internet connection. Otherwise they have to rely on physical cash.

The hard money aspect of Bitcoin, and the ability to transfer money to anyone across the world over the internet, even the unbanked, are two aspects that I consider a "revolution". I do think Bitcoin needs the Lightning Network to scale, but I don't see any issue with that.

discuss

order

cam0|4 years ago

Regardless of the divisible nature, it's still an asset - not money. Poor people don't have enough to invest in assets. They live week to week with enough cash to buy shelter, food, and the bare necessities. If they do have enough to save, it makes more sense to keep that savings in cash so they can pay for unexpected incidents and needs without having to first convert BTC into their local currency.

hackingforfun|4 years ago

Yes, I agree with you, at least until Bitcoin is accepted widely, which I think is only a matter of time. At that time, there is no need to transfer to local currency, if Bitcoin is the global monetary standard and accepted for all day to day expenses as well as for larger expenses like real estate. At that point it's beyond an asset, but we will see with time what happens.