#1 store of value
#1 digital medium of exchange
#1 inflation hedge
#1 memecoin
#1 utility coin
#1 tech
Is there anything Bitcoin can't do?
don't care, still not buying your boomercoin
Can bitcoin answer me this question?
I am, for the time being, priced out of owning 1 BTC.
I do want to get one ASAP, but in the meanwhile, there are... fucking TONS of options out there in the boomer market that are BTC-adjactent. How many hours of literature or investigation do I have to parse through to identify which ones are legit (earn me a fraction of one) and which ones aren't?
I am guessing there are fewer scams in the regular market as opposed to the crypto market, but fewer doesn't mean zero.
#1 seethe inducer
#1 at pricing out poors
If you're looking for Bitcoin adjacent options, try ETF options like iBIT. Can always buy some long term contracts next time there's a lull in volatility, or sell cash secured puts if you want to wait for a better entry while making some passive income in the meantime
i won't buy simply because maxis are annoying obnoxious shills. even if what you said was true i still wouldn't buy bitcoin simply out of spite for btc maxi cultists
I won't buy because muh feelings
Good
Stocks are way more profitable. The last two years have seen so many obvious 10x, and since freedom day I had three slurps doing a 3x. For which only Hyperliquid can compete, which I also bought, but it's one of my few crypto "investments".
#1 store of value
Or in other words, no potential.
#1 digital medium of exchange
That's SEPA. In the P2P scams world, it is Tether.
#1 inflation hedge
Barely above it since 2021. It better do a 2x now or it's officially dead.
#1 utility coin
Again, that's SEPA. In the P2P scams world, it is Tether, or maybe Ethereum, BNB or Solana.
#1 tech
That's AI, by orders of magnitude.
Bitcoin is the biggest centralized shit coin with terrible outdated tech and self defeating mining. It’s nearly reached the end of its run.
I can’t wait for Michael Saylor or Adam Back and his cronies to rug pull you all and watch your shocked faces when the world moves on and price never goes back up.
its low throughput makes most use impossible.
hence Blackrock etc trade mostly paper BTC, which is why the volume (not USD volume) has been decreasing since 2017
PS:
The Lightning network will literally never work without significant Layer 1 scaling which BTCers dont want and dont know how to do. And if they could, Lightning would not be needed
Thanks man. Stocks and ETF are straightforward enough, plus my country is very strict with money management, but crypto's comparatively the wild west and the amount of info (and disinfo) is staggering.
I want to get in, but also tread lightly.
nobody is getting back in
need to do a minus 70%
or at least back to 40-50k range!
Make me rich.
the #1 digital medium of exchange is done through SWIFT transfers with real currencies.
no i want to accept a volatile commodity for payment
Is there anything Bitcoin can't do?
private transactions.
#1 store of value
Future uncertainty around its security budget make it an inferior store of value to ETH, however all cryptocurrencies are too speculative to be stores of value. Gold and Equities are superior.
#1 digital medium of exchange
By any reasonable metric, ETH wins this one (volume, variety, finality, etc)
#1 inflation hedge
Cryptocurrencies are not good inflation hedges as they are too speculative, Gold and Equities are superior.
#1 memecoin
Correct
#1 utility coin
It doesn't have any utility, so literally any coin that does wins this by default (ETH, SOL, ADA, etc).
#1 tech
ETH wins this by any reasonable metric, BTC is incredibly limited and inferior in its tech compared to its competitors.
In short, only the memecoin part was right, everything else is beaten by Gold, Equities, and ETH
isn't used for its intended purpose
it is a frankenstein of made up usecases now
No matter what you invest in, emotional investors ALWAYS lose
Two more weeks
ETH has been stomped by BTC for years now and can’t stop crabbing
A volatile currency can't be a good medium of exchange (even if it continues to appreciate in the long run).
ETH has been stomped by BTC for years now and can’t stop crabbing
Price has very little to do with fundamental properties, just because the market is irrational and values a slow, useless meme coin over everything else doesn't mean that meme coin is actually more valuable.
As an aside, you'll find that people in Ethereum, Solana, and other altcoins tend to discuss things in terms of tech and use cases, whereas Bitcoin people tend to discuss primarily price action. It is quite telling.
Bitcoin isnt speculative, people who are trying to add new functionality are speculative. Its finite and does what it needs, along with more security and research. The bitcoin network has never successfully been breached or exploited itself. That within itself is just as good as gold and silver. You know what people dont use gold as? A form of daily currency. If youre going to compare bitcoin as an unproductive asset then you have to include precious metals as well.
Its the people who run the network and adapt is what causes speculation. You can make the same analogy with the first cars.
bag holders quit talking about the price
lol, I don’t doubt it
As of right now bitcoin is the most decentralized widely adopted currency. Its an uphill battle to convince people to switch to a new one every 20 years. Each mainstream token has their own purpose. Its a vassal to allow other tokens to flourish. Such as technological fractalization where you can use your bitcoin as collateral and in the backend the custodial protocol takes it uses ETH to loan you usdc all while smart contract capability reduces most if not all intermediaries
Gold and Equities are superior.
What's the overhead, risk, and time involved in sending someone on the other side of the planet $100 in Gold vs. $100 in BTC?
It doesn't have any utility
See above
ETH wins this by any reasonable metric
Spending $100 in gas to send someone $5, not exactly a bargain
In terms of being a store of value and an inflation hedge (which are basically the same thing), the ideal properties are a stable, predictable supply and demand. Of those, cryptocurrencies tend to have a stable, predictable supply and a volatile, unpredictable demand. As implies, holding a bag of any cryptocurrency regardless of its supply dynamics carries enormous risk of losing value. Bitcoin is not immune to this risk, every 4 years it tends to enter brutal bear markets that lose you 60-90% of your buying power.
Comparatively, Gold has a stable and predictable supply and demand. Putting your money in the S&P also fits this property of having a stable and predictable supply and demand. That's why Gold and Equities are superior stores of value and inflation hedges.
I wouldnt argue against other items currently being an equal store of value or better. Your main concern is price appreciation which is fair to a normal. For most people who do use blockchain technology to successfully cut themselves off from centralized finance like myself get the real use case of this. But ill also agree that it hinges on the world being fair and trusting of this stuff. Decades down the road you wont see new ATHs but youll rather see higher lows. Blockchain technology has been around since the early 90s. Its 2025 and its been expanding. Its kind of ironic that people use the dollar knowing the background behind it but still dont understand how bitcoin operates. Youre also comparing subsurface issues like current supply and market dynamics. Bitcoin is here to stay. Bitcoin has had its model T moment and itll take a few more decades before a competitor out right dominates the market.
Its kind of like "bitcoin is going to zero" but people gotta explain that without going into emotional rhetort. If a nigger in zambia who does not have access to a bank account can instead download a wallet application, set up a business making cheap shirts, and i wanna drop ship those shirts. Instead of sending him gold or his native currency. There is finally a medium that will work without intermediaries. That itself cannot be placed with value
checked. maxipads desperate for exit liquidity.
Bitcoin is here to stay.
The crux of my argument is that I don't necessarily believe Bitcoin or any cryptocurrency is here to stay. Bitcoin itself is a ticking time bomb that will either implode in a 51% attack or enter a tail emission war, which doesn't sit well with me. Every other cryptocurrency has been tainted by the alt/shit coin nonsense and will for the foreseeable future move in lockstep with Bitcoin, none of them have an independent identity (look at how Ethereum people tend to price ETH in sats for example). This is still very risky and I would never advise someone who doesn't like taking on risk for higher rewards to put their money into crypto, which is exactly what someone who wants a store of value would prefer.
Perhaps in a world where cryptocurrency actually gained financial adoption instead of becoming a speculative asset it could've been a good inflation hedge, but at the moment the only financial adoption narrative is tokenizing *non-cryptocurrencies* like dollars and treasuries versus using them themselves. People would rather use USDC as a currency than use BTC, ETH, or XMR, and I believe that tells a story about the current state of crypto"currency".
low-IQ take based on debunked FUD
transactions are posted INSTANTLY and once the transaction is POSTED you can be reasonably assured (more reasonable than any third party service which takes DAYS to actually settle) that it will be confirmed
lightning network not needed, but nice to have as well
Which goes hand in hand on why its good that bitcoin doesnt do these flavor of the month new features that ultimately goes nowhere. A 51% attack would almost be nearly impossible due to too many hands in the pie, russia, china, the US, itll be harder to attempt that. The things youve mentioned are pretty grounded and accurate with how people perceive stores of value. As of right now in its current situation its volatile.
this is wrong
mathematically, a state or entity with the energy required (not money, it requires energy) would be incentivized to PARTICIPATE in the network, not destroy it
but muh state wants to burn hundreds of trillions of dollars to attack something currently worth ~2 trillion
Not gonna happen, that 51% attack is already PRICED IN
wrong
It can't be a currency that the masses use.
implode in a 51% attack or enter a tail emission war
Realisitcally, when would this be a valid concern? When the block reward is way too low? Which halving year would this be?
If theyre able to successfully gut the technology and tradfi encapsulates it, its a concern about censorship. Which ill be honest, USDC and the digital yuan wont be cross chain inherently. The largest hurdle to that is adopting a standard for remittance and currently china/russia are settling LNG payments through bitcoin to avoid sanctions.
Bingo, if bitcoin goes proof of stake then its over. Its store of value is always adhering to its genesis.
Bitcoin could go the tail emissions route, although i dont see a problem with that after all bitcoin has been mined. If it doesnt then it could incite major security flaws in the network due to a lack of incentives
The security budget issue is that if miners wish to seek a profit mining bitcoin, then the average cost to mine 1 bitcoin should converge to the price of 1 bitcoin. Every 4 years, the block subsidy reward for mining a block of bitcoin halves, which if the prior statement is true would necessarily halve the amount of economic security contributed by block rewards relative to the market cap of the chain. Historically this has happened already, the cost of all the hash power of BTC today is a smaller proportion of its market cap than 10 years ago. Fees are the second element of block rewards, but historically they average a much smaller share of the pie and for them to contribute similar security they would need to at least 10x in size (this is in BTC, not dollars btw, so fees would need to rise to some 20-200sats/vbyte).
In the scenario that fees do not rise enough to offset block rewards (and discounting any game theoretic problems with a fee-only reward), as the block subsidies dwindles to 0 the cost to 51% attack the chain falls with it relative to the market cap of Bitcoin. A hypothetical attacker could plausibly borrow a large number of Bitcoins, sell them for dollars, and then 51% attack the chain to crash the value of Bitcoin, bringing them great profit. The cheaper and cheaper it is to attack the chain, the more likely this short and 51% attack scenario could happen.
One scenario where there is no tail emission and fees do not supplant block subsidies is if miners cease to be profit seeking (violating the main assumption around the security budget issue). This could happen if say nation states mine Bitcoin as a national security concern, or large holders altruistically mine Bitcoin to prevent a 51% attack. These miners would mine at a loss but secure the network, but secure themselves against greater losses from the fall in value of Bitcoin. I'm not convinced this will happen.
although i dont see a problem with that after all bitcoin has been mined
That will happen in 2140 right? So all this security issue with the block rewards being too low is only a concern after we're long dead?
Man people really fucking suck to abuse something that will revolutionize the world. Its more likely to see governments mining bitcoin as regulatory law if a bitcoin reserve gets added. Ironically tax dollars will go towards mining the coin. The price will forever be pegged so high that when inflation really hits the fan the cost of fees wont matter in dollars.
Won't bitcoin simply reach a very high price in order to make up for the smaller block rewards?
#1 memecoin
That's a new one
I find it hard to grasp that when bitcoin first released it would be this big. So there are going to be inherent gaps that need to be pointed out. Bitcoin will be priced at millions to offset any risk to security.
Icp created the best solution so far far for btc layer 0. You can hate Icp as much as you want since it’s a terrible investment but from the tech pov it has made the best implementation of btc integration that no other chain is even close to achieving. Bitcoin maxis refuse to admit it because icp network has a token tied to it and still shill lighting like retards
No, because the profit you can receive by shorting Bitcoin is proportional to its price, and if my initial assumption about miners seeking profit holds true, the cost of mining and thus the cost to attack the chain is also proportional to its price. You can basically divide the price out from both sides.
Realistically though as long as it remains sufficiently expensive it won't get attacked due to logistical concerns. Right now you would need to buy $20B worth of equipment, and lose an average of $15B/year to attack BTC, while also suffering the consequences of shorting dozens of billions of dollars worth of BTC (which is not an easy thing to do). So the cost to attack it right now is too expensive and infeasible, the worry is that over time it becomes less expensive and more feasible.
Theyll use the technology but stick with BTC.
I don't quite follow...won't bitcoin's price being at millions per coin offset any security issues?
I'll try to frame it mathematically
let g = gain from short position, l = total loss from attack, P = the price of Bitcoin
g is proportional to the number of Bitcoin the attacker is shorting, let us call it N
g ∝ N
g is proportional to the negative difference in price after the attack, or equivalently the return of the price after the attack (e.g. 0.8 for a 20% drop), let us call that constant R
g ∝ -(RP-P) = P - RP = P(1-R)
so with a constant k, we have our profit model for g
g = kNP(1-R)
If miners are profit-seeking, the cost of mining Bitcoin is proportional to the cost of a Bitcoin, so if its cheaper more miners will join and thus raise the difficulty, and if its more expensive then miners will fall out decreasing the difficulty. Thus l is proportional to the price of Bitcoin.
l ∝ P
l is also proportional to the average number of Bitcoin rewarded per block, that miners compete for, let us call this B
l ∝ B
thus, our simplified model for l is, with a constant K
l = KBP
An attacker would only attack if the gain is greater than the loss, so
g > l
using our simplified models (which do not take into account liquidity or slippage or the cost of the mining equipment, but hopefully delivers the point I'm trying to make)
kNP(1-R) > KBP
and if we divide P from both sides we get
kN(1-R) > KB
so the price gets divided out and doesn't impact the scenario. As one can see intuitively, as B goes to 0 the attacker needs either to short a smaller number of N or a smaller fall of R to be profitable, which is the security budget problem. As I mentioned, this model obviously doesn't take into account slippage, liquidity, or the upfront cost of the mining equipment, which right now would make this attack most likely highly unprofitable with current values of B.
...so number go up?
number no matter
:(