Pay Me in Bitcoin Theory

Bitcoin effectively stores value over time because it has a fixed supply

Is this true? Seems like a non-sequitur from which many theories go awry

Much debated. Gold works well. Gold theoretically has a fixed supply.

Yet the history of gold supply is much more functionally like a constant emission. We have thus far always found more of it.

1 Like

Bitcoin hardly can be used for micropayments. Nobody pays services & goods with gold.

Day by day financial giants like Blackrock, Paypal, big banks entering the scene, in the future most transactions probably will occur between them and when those giants move billion of dollars, the fees will skyrocket. 500$ fee is not a problem for a bank who moves ex: 300 million $ and settle it with counterparty, but ordinary joe cant afford it.

And can average joe afford those high fees and wait in the line for so long to pay for good & services with his Bitcoin ? His tx can wait for days even, merchant’s side won’t like to wait either.

Bitcoin is Store of value and medium of wealth transfer by design. Paying coffee with Bitcoin is nonsense.

When layer two is well impemented, paying with Bitcoin should not be a big issue technically. However, what I see as a large obstacle to the use of Bitcoin as day to day currencies are:

  1. Halvings and their resulting price fluctuations. The choice of having halvings opposed to a gradual change in stock to fliw simply causes too much price volatility. A system like Grin where the supply relative to the stock gradually decreased should in the long term limit large price swings. The major price swings we see now are only indirect effects of the market due to Bitcoins volatility.

  2. The article states:

People would rather be paid in a form of money that cannot be printed–rather than in a form of money that can be easily printed–because the former will more effectively store value between exchanges (download Bitcoin Obsoletes All Other Money for more on these principles).

I have one major gripe with this reasoning. Since BTC appreciates in value so much, stores might want to accept it, but at the same time, BTC holders might be less willing to spend their BTC. From my own experience I severely limit my BTC spending in bear-markets since I know spending BTC will cost me dearly opposed to HODLing.
Again, Grin which is inflationary until the loss rate approximates the supply (maybe in 100 years from now) is much more suitable as day to day currency.

Overall I think spending BTC is mostly done from idealist perspective. Yes I want BTC to be good money, but no it is far from perfect fot it. Overall I see Grin as a superior form of digital cash and superior as a long store of value in the long run due to its fairer linnear supply, better long term security, better privacy/fungability.

  1. I think that those who want to be paid in bitcoin are many more than those who want on a regular basis to pay others or services in bitcoin

  2. This logic opens the door for large companies to fully record and collect further information of those who use bitcoin for payments.