Why Are You Sceptical of Bitcoin?

welcomeUniverseWorld on 31/05/2026 - 19:02

Bitcoin discussions often attract scepticism, and I’m interested in understanding why.

I’m not looking to argue or persuade anyone to buy Bitcoin—just to hear from those who are critical of it.

I’d especially like to hear from people who have researched Bitcoin and concluded it’s not a worthwhile investment or store of value.

If your opinion has changed over time, I’d also be interested in what influenced that shift.

Please keep the discussion respectful. I’m here to understand different viewpoints, not debate them.

Financial Cryptocurrency

Comments

Best
Search through all the comments in this post.
  • elgrande on 31/05/2026 - 19:20

    Because it's a big ponzi scheme

    • 92
    • raiseyoursteaks on 01/06/2026 - 07:12

      Fiat is a ponzi scheme

      • 0
    • not ai on 01/06/2026 - 22:16

      A Ponzi scheme by who exactly?

      • 0
      • Crow K on 06/06/2026 - 16:43

        I think they'd need to know what an actual Ponzi scheme was to clarify their position

        • 1
      • welcomeUniverseWorld on 02/06/2026 - 07:36

        “ You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Welcome to the desert of the real.”

        • -5
    • CalmLemons on 02/06/2026 - 22:32

      Entire market is. Everything AI is hyped up, but what people don't understand the power is just concentrated in the top 5 companies, leading to more concentration of wealth and greater wealthy disparity. The people who are able to do the work, are the ones with access to the super scalers.

      • 0
    • welcomeUniverseWorld on 02/06/2026 - 07:33

      What is not?

      • -1
      • sareth on 01/06/2026 - 08:37

        Most things. Hope this helps

        • 26
      • Charmoffensive on 01/06/2026 - 22:05

        The thing you're forgetting about other things is that they have intrinsic value.

        • 9
        • boirganz on 04/06/2026 - 19:21

          Like. A house ? Or clothes ? Food ?

          These things have intrinsic value. Crypto currency doesn’t. Fiat currency doesn’t. Any representative store of value doesn’t.

          • 0
          • Charmoffensive on 05/06/2026 - 10:18

            @boirganz:

            Fiat currency doesn’t.

            Fiat currency has value in the fact that it's has the inherent trust in the governemnt backing it. It's not a useless token of value, it's a promise by the government to honour it's value. In a way, it's a very real portion of this nation's productive output. Crypto is backed by no one and used practically nowhere. It has no value other than speculative bullsh-t for easily manipulated working class kids clueless about how to actually invest. It's ladbrokes for investing.

            • 0
            • boirganz on 05/06/2026 - 18:55

              @Charmoffensive: Yes but fiat has no intrinsic value. That’s what I was replying to.

              In of itself it has no value.

              You’re half right - because fiat doesn’t have a fixed value either that any government will “honour”. It’s simply a token with varying values for goods and services that we use as a method of exchange.

              In that sense, bitcoin is no different - it’s just far less popular as a method of exchange as it’s far more volitile, has no legislative backing requiring it to be used, and is competing against established currencies and systems that have no incentive to change. The petro-dollar reigns supreme.

              And thus it’s relegated to just being an extra thing you can trade back and forth, or exchange for a fiat currency to spend on a lambo if you’re a crypto bro.

              • 0
              • Charmoffensive on 06/06/2026 - 21:46

                @boirganz:

                because fiat doesn’t have a fixed value either that any government will “honour”

                It doesn't have a fixed value, but it will be guaranteed to be valuable by the government. The government has a interest in reining in inflationary pressure so that it will retain its value. It works more or less like a government iou for 1 unit of Australian GDP.

                Bitcoin is different as it has no backing and inherently cannot cope with being used - it literally cannot be traded fast or frequently enough to replace visa in a single country, let alone the world. It has an inherent limitation of 7 transactions per second, it was never going to replace fiat currency - let me say it again - it doesn't even have value as a bloody currency you can spend.

                Again, it's only value is in how it's currently being used to fleece the gullible and why crypto bros are so adamant about encouraging everyone to join the pump. The minute consumer confidence starts tumbling, it'll crash like literally every other crypto and be worth a fraction of a cent.

                exchange for a fiat currency to spend on a lambo if you’re a crypto bro

                Yes, this is the carrot used to lure in the aforementioned retards who think thisll finally be their ticket out of financial mediocrity.

                • 0
        • welcomeUniverseWorld on 02/06/2026 - 07:34

          So why is it so costly to buy 1BTC?

          • -1
  • mskeggs on 31/05/2026 - 19:27

    The underlying "value" for Bitcoin is crime, tax avoidance and money laundering.
    It exists in opposition to legitimate governments.
    So far, it is small enough to be no big deal for nations. And the speculators make lots of money so they are happy to keep talking it up and funding political candidates to look the other way.

    But a different approach in the white house or a growth in use so it became more a rounding error, will see it be made illegal.
    For these reasons, it is necessarily self limited.
    Could it double - maybe, but there is a real risk it will come under so much regulatory scrutiny if it is used for e.g. funding a North Korean terrorist attack, or a ransomware attack that shuts down the water system that it becomes trivial for governments to outlaw it.

    Then what is left? You are left holding the equivalent of counterfeit bills.

    To put it back to you - do you think it has any value if every transaction had to be validated with a KYC ID? If so, why?

    • 39
    • fantombloo on 31/05/2026 - 19:59

      exists in opposition to legitimate governments.

      IMO not a bad thing - most governments are simply self-legitimising and deserve scrutiny.

      What Bitcoin was purported to be - some sort of currency for all people - is just BS. When the majority of the world's people don't even have access to it (computers, connectivity, etc) it's a class based device to begin with.

      Bitcoin is now just another thing for the wealthiest in the world (that's us here) to play with. Probably better for society than playing with basic needs like houses. Coiners: go for your life. Just don't crap on about how it's gonna save the world and pretend it's driven by anything more than self interest.

      • 13
      • welcomeUniverseWorld on 02/06/2026 - 07:41

        bitcoin won’t save the world.
        it just gives people an exit from the people
        who keep saying they’re saving it.

        • 0
    • smalltime0 on 01/06/2026 - 20:38

      funding a North Korean terrorist attack, or a ransomware attack

      North Korea has already done ransomware attacks using Bitcoin/Ethereum as the payment method.

      • 1
    • welcomeUniverseWorld on 02/06/2026 - 07:40

      strange how the thing supposedly used only by criminals
      is mostly owned through brokers, ETFs, public companies and retirement
      accounts these days?

      • 1
      • mskeggs on 02/06/2026 - 08:44

        Yes, you correctly understand the concern.
        The idea that laws could easily be passed to make it a jail offence to transact Bitcoin without registering your id would be a substantial blow to Bitcoin, as all that would be left is the speculators.
        And if you believe that is a sustainable market, I have some tulips for sale you will love.

        • 2
        • tenpercent on 02/06/2026 - 09:17

          I have some tulips for sale you will love.

          Is this a reference to the so called 'tulip mania' in the Netherlands in the 1600s where contracted prices for special tulip bulbs which produced flowers with striped petals became stupidly expensive all of a sudden? The one that lasted just a few months and didn't involve very many people and was mostly just broken promises to pay silly prices as opposed to finalised sales?

          • 1
          • mskeggs on 02/06/2026 - 12:59

            @tenpercent: It's true I don't actually hold Dutch investment grade tulips, it was a rhetorical flourish.
            But equally, not a good asset class for the SMSF.

            • 0
        • welcomeUniverseWorld on 02/06/2026 - 08:57

          15 years later we’re still one regulation away
          from the end. remarkably resilient
          apocalypse?

          • 0
          • mskeggs on 02/06/2026 - 09:17

            @welcomeUniverseWorld: Yes, you keep posting saying you understand the risks, yet you conclude they won't apply to you.
            All the best.

            • 2
    • Ooops on 31/05/2026 - 22:28

      The underlying "value" for Bitcoin is crime, tax avoidance and money laundering.

      Cash is money transfer are far more used for those. Bitcoin is the most watched "thing" on the internet.

      • 0
      • simplystu on 01/06/2026 - 06:00

        While the baggie you buy on the street corner or from a mate may still be in cash …

        What happens futher up the chain … is majority done by Bitcoin (talking on the scale of $50,000+ deals at a time).

        • 7
        • tenpercent on 01/06/2026 - 20:43

          Real estate, art, and other collectibles getting sold above or below market value (depending who is effectively taking payment) are also an easy way to transfer value in return for a shipment of cocaine or to pay for CFMEU lap dancers.

          • 1
        • welcomeUniverseWorld on 02/06/2026 - 07:44

          if the criminal use case was the killer app,
          Monero would’ve won years ago

          • 1
      • mskeggs on 01/06/2026 - 08:00

        Oh, my mistake. Certainly a resounding ring of confidence in the fundamentals! The most watched thing you say. Can’t wait for the Netflix series.

        • 5
  • visitorsonlyparking on 31/05/2026 - 19:21

    I’m here to understand different viewpoints, not debate them.

    this x not y became the strongest giveaway of ai

    • 30
    • s1Lence on 01/06/2026 - 00:42

      It's not just that—it's also the em dash.

      • 15
      • moar bargains on 01/06/2026 - 14:36

        That's not arbitrary.
        It's not abstract.
        That's genuine intelligence and skill at picking up nuance—well done.

        /s botspeak to be clear

        • 8
      • Chandler on 01/06/2026 - 22:26

        Don't knock the em dash! Although I'm personally more fond of the middle child – the en dash.

        I do regularly use the em dash as a strikeout in blank cells on spreadsheets but (in place of a 0, blank, etc).

        • 1
    • Oztx on 03/06/2026 - 08:59

      After the obvious em-dash lel

      • 0
  • randomusername2017 on 31/05/2026 - 19:15

    @rektrading

    • 27
    • JIMB0 on 31/05/2026 - 21:27

      What ever happened to him? Did he make it and fly off to his own private island, or did he end up flying out the window, 1929 style?

      • 9
      • Jimothy Wongingtons on 01/06/2026 - 10:40

        Yes

        • 3
      • smartazz104 on 02/06/2026 - 07:45

        He got wrecked, trading.

        • 2
      • Crow K on 06/06/2026 - 16:36

        He applied his market knowledge to go all in a unique opportunity to invest in alternate crypto (Dunning Kruger Widgetz).

        His final message to Earth's fiatslaves was "have fun staying poor" right before he and his diamond hands went straight to the Moon.

        (proudly salutes, a tear running down his eye)

        • 2
      • randomusername2017 on 02/06/2026 - 14:14

        Unconfirmed reports have him chained up in Pams basement playing with her pussies 😸

        • 1
    • Lurk Hartog on 01/06/2026 - 08:47

      🎯 🔫

      • 0
  • ihbh on 31/05/2026 - 19:20

    Why Are You Sceptical of Bitcoin?

    Same way I'm sceptical of tulips, etc.

    If it was called bitulips, would you feel any different?

    • 25
    • SlickMick on 01/06/2026 - 09:38

      The difference between bitcoin and tulips is tulips do have a value

      • 29
      • Chandler on 01/06/2026 - 22:22

        Pretty bad analogy - tulips only have value because people like tulips. From my 2 seconds searching, there are some minor culinary and medical applications for tulips, but apart from that it's typical "flower" usage.

        A better analogy would be that if everything goes to hell, with tulips at least you will still have the physical tulips, and may be able to find some alternative use for them (i.e. eat them). Although still a bad analogy because tulips like all flowers have a relatively short shelf life.

        Bitcoin has almost the same value as the $X my bank says I own. The difference being the number of organisations and governments guaranteeing it and its value.

        • 0
        • Laserface on 02/06/2026 - 14:21

          Maybe you should look up Tulip mania because this 'pretty bad analogy' is actually referring to the first asset bubble in history. that is to say, it actually happened (and there is a reason why people refer to it and bitcoin in the same sentence)

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

          • 2
        • SlickMick on 02/06/2026 - 08:41

          I think the analogy is sound. People liking something is a pretty good evidence it has value. But yes, if it were discovered that tulips cause cancer or something, that value could disappear.

          Likewise people like gold. They could stop liking gold, and the value would plummet. It's value isn't just in what it's useful for.

          Do people actually like bitcoin? I think it's fair to say that it failed at it's objective, and people only like it for it's perceived value.
          People still want tulips regardless of whether anyone in the future will.

          Yes, your "better" analogy isn't.

          Bitcoin has almost the same value as the $X my bank says I own

          But did it last week/ month/ year, and will it next week/ month/ year?

          • 0
          • Chandler on 02/06/2026 - 13:21

            @SlickMick: Gold is a good example - its value as currency came from people valuing it. If people lost interest in shiny gold, it's value would drop. But it would have a floor - since gold has many valuable scientific and medical qualities. Some of which (stability, reactivity, corrosion resistance) are part of why it was valued for currency: your hoard of gold won't physically deteriorate.

            Do people actually like bitcoin? I think it's fair to say that it failed at it's objective, and people only like it for it's perceived value.

            I think this is the issue. The point is not to have people "like" Bitcoin. And the value I see in it is not in the FIAT value of Bitcoin (1BTC=xxAUD) - the value is in the system itself. It's probably the closest we've gotten to digital cash (IMO). Secure, verifiable ownership. Cheap/free/fast transactions (Lightning Network). All without needing specific parties involved (government, bank, Visa/Mastercard, etc) or divulging any personal information (tracking is a double edged sword).

            • -1
        • deck_oz on 03/06/2026 - 14:14

          Bitcoin has almost the same value as the $X my bank says I own.

          Multiplied by the number of Lance Armstrong's Tour De France titles.

          • 0
        • welcomeUniverseWorld on 02/06/2026 - 07:38

          If everything goes wrong, how is government going to give back you money that you might have in banks? Are they going to print in a printer and hand over papers?

          • -2
          • Thenarrator on 02/06/2026 - 12:42

            @welcomeUniverseWorld: Really depends on probability, consequence, risk. How likely is it for government to steal all your money and have total disorder versus how likely is it for bitcoin to screw you over (hacked, total loss in value).
            Personally even at harshest of times, the government has demonstrated compassion in its policies whether it be cyclone relief, pandemic payouts to help people get over hurdles. Some argue that these payouts come at the expense of future sacrifices. Even so, I dont think bitcoin will ever show compassion if your wallet is hacked or stolen or whatever troubles the world comes with.

            • 7
            • Chandler on 02/06/2026 - 13:11

              @Thenarrator:

              (hacked, total loss in value)

              Money can be stolen just like Bitcoin. Security of the digital stronghold is the difference here, which again for FIAT is controlled by regulation, and major FIAT holders (i.e. banks) have significantly more incentive (financial, judicial penalties) to do better than BTC holders.

              Money loses value (inflation, Forex rates). Bitcoin's value fluctuations are just much more severe, since there's a significant amount more speculation on the Bitcoin market and there's not a large stable capital pool attenuating that effect like in FIAT.

              Personally even at harshest of times, the government has demonstrated compassion in its policies whether it be cyclone relief, pandemic payouts to help people get over hurdles. Some argue that these payouts come at the expense of future sacrifices. Even so, I dont think bitcoin will ever show compassion if your wallet is hacked or stolen or whatever troubles the world comes with.

              Not sure I understand your point with this, sorry.

              • -1
            • welcomeUniverseWorld on 02/06/2026 - 14:20

              @Thenarrator: I like your thinking. Good points

              • -2
      • welcomeUniverseWorld on 02/06/2026 - 07:36

        Why is Bitcoin so costly then?

        • -1
        • SlickMick on 02/06/2026 - 08:41

          Ask the tulip investors back in the day

          • 4
  • p1 ama on 31/05/2026 - 19:31

    Bitcoin discussions often attract scepticism, and I’m interested in understanding why. I’m not looking to argue or persuade anyone to buy Bitcoin—just to hear from those who are critical of it.

    I'm not a BTC "skeptic", but it's largely because cryptocurrencies have no fundamental value.

    With any other asset, you can link its price back to fundamental value. Even for stocks which have extremely high P/E ratios, there's often some "fundamental" reason why that is - e.g. they are bringing a revolutionary product to market, there's huge market share to be gained, they're investing a lot in R&D that's expected to yield high returns in future…etc.

    I’d especially like to hear from people who have researched Bitcoin and concluded it’s not a worthwhile investment or store of value.

    Overall, I believe in the purpose of cryptocurrencies, the issue is that no cryptocurrencies today fulfil what they were promised to do.

    Cryptocurrencies do not facilitate and enable trade - generally speaking, I cannot go out and purchase anything and pay with BTC. Even where buyers and sellers both agree on using BTC, they simply just trade at the BTC spot market. This is basically just bartering, and is no different if I were to pay someone in CBA stock.

    There was once an argument that cryptocurrencies could disrupt international money transfer (e.g. Western Union), however, that's not come to pass. Whilst transaction fees are cheap these days, exchange fees are still high, so if you wanted to transfer money to someone in the US (for example), you'll get stung on the AUD -> BTC conversion, then the BTC -> USD conversion.

    If your opinion has changed over time, I’d also be interested in what influenced that shift.

    As per above - I used to really believe in cryptocurrencies and their promise to disrupt the global banking sector.

    However, I've changed my mind as they've not achieved this aim. There are only really two types of people who are still into cryptocurrencies - speculators, and criminals.

    • 21
    • welcomeUniverseWorld on 02/06/2026 - 07:52

      “criminals and speculators” also describes dollars,
      property, art, gold and half of equities?

      • 1
      • mskeggs on 02/06/2026 - 08:52

        The problem you are having is you want Bitcoin to be intrinsically worth money, so you are very forgiving with comparisons to other assets.
        Property, gold, art, equities etc are things with intrinsic value. They are desirable apart from their cash value. Cash is not valuable apart from its currency value. If you think it is, I will happily sell my old bank statements at 10% of face value.

        Nobody is saying there isn't a cash value currently attributable to Bitcoin, but it does not have the characteristics of the assets you named, and it's utility is in opposition to the lawmakers.

        I would say draw your own conclusions, but in this case I will spell out that the government must strongly regulate crypto in time, and the regulations will place heavy pressure on the value.

        • 4
        • welcomeUniverseWorld on 02/06/2026 - 16:33

          if regulation destroys bitcoin, the market is currently
          paying a remarkable amount for that risk.

          • 0
      • p1 ama on 02/06/2026 - 21:13

        “criminals and speculators” also describes dollars

        Vast majority of transactions using dollars are not "criminals and speculators".

        property

        Property has intrinsic value - you can live in a house, can you live in a bitcoin?

        art

        Sure - I never said that speculators are criminals are unique to cryptocurrencies. I'd lump art into the same category

        gold

        Gold has intrinsic value - you can make jewellery out of it, it has certain uses in electronics and other manufacturing processes.

        half of equities?

        Equities have intrinsic value, you are purchasing the future economic value generated by a company when you buy stock in that particular company.

        As I stated regarding cryptocurrencies, the vast majority of them do not have any economic value beyond the "hope" that someone will come along and be willing to pay more for it.

        This is the very definition of a speculative bubble.

        • 1
  • Cluster on 01/06/2026 - 10:43

    People who got in early on bitcoin did very well, assuming they kept their stash. I bet very few people did. They probably traded in and out of it, cashed out on previous booms or busts, lost the keys, or had them stolen. Remember that bitcoin crashing 80%+ peak to trough is not unusual. Its happened several times in the past.

    People buying today are still pushing the narrative that 'We're Still Early'. Think about that for a moment. Bitcoin has been around 17 years. Its been easy to trade for over a decade. Yet, the price has stagnated. The hype is gone. AI is all the rage now, until something else comes along.

    Compare bitcoin to other tech products. Take the internet for example. The general public became aware of it around 1997 and started to get online. Fast forward 17 years to 2014 and we had Amazon, Youtube, buying concert tickets online instead of lining up at outlets, access in our pockets through phones, broadband, etc. Where is bitcoin today after 17 years? It's still a speculative asset. When was the last time you used it to buy something in store? No, a credit card linked to a bitcoin exchange doesn't count. You're still spending AUD.

    The narrative around bitcoin has changed too. At the beginning it was all about freedom. Not using centralized authorities to transfer value. Banking the unbanked. Now? The vast majority of bitcoin transfers happen off chain in a database, just like a bank. A handful of exchanges dominate the market. The wise saying 'Not your keys, not your coins' has been conveniently ignored. Bitcoin supporters once rejected government intervention, but now crave it (see Trump et al).

    • 13
    • colin5000 on 01/06/2026 - 17:45

      Really interesting and insightful comment, thanks.

      • 2
    • tenpercent on 01/06/2026 - 19:38

      People who got in early on bitcoin did very well, assuming they kept their stash. I bet very few people did.

      You probably made more money making that bet than this guy did selling his 2k BTC for $10k. https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/17625688/redir

      • 2
    • Checkmate3023 on 02/06/2026 - 07:33

      this comment is spot on - your not early and it is not an government/regulation free currency anymore - it has almost become to main stream

      • 2
    • welcomeUniverseWorld on 02/06/2026 - 08:45

      This is actually a very good comment

      • 0
  • Brick50 on 31/05/2026 - 19:28

    Because it's an imaginary coin with a cap of $1.5 trillion US, something something 2% of people who hold it actually use it for it's intended purpose

    • 12
    • eddyah on 01/06/2026 - 10:23

      But but crypto and maths and satoshi and peer-to-peer blah blah.

      Sure there are edge use cases of it. But it's definitely not worth anything of 'value'.

      We are humans after all though and there's no difference in buying/selling pieces of art vs crypto.

      • 3
      • welcomeUniverseWorld on 02/06/2026 - 07:46

        “no difference between art and crypto” is
        accidentally the strongest pro-bitcoin argument you’ve made

        • 0
        • mskeggs on 02/06/2026 - 08:44

          Lol

          • 1
        • eddyah on 02/06/2026 - 15:24

          if you say so!

          I think both are equally stupid but what do I know - people seem to be making money off it.

          • 1
    • welcomeUniverseWorld on 02/06/2026 - 07:45

      98% of people who own gold don’t use it for
      settling trade either. markets are full of
      disappointing users.

      • 0
      • Brick50 on 02/06/2026 - 10:24

        I also think gold is over valued as well, maybe a solid argument for people who hold gold though

        • 1
  • brendanm on 31/05/2026 - 19:36

    Knew who was posting this before opening the thread.

    • 8
  • shiver on 31/05/2026 - 19:41

    My opinion is that bitcoin has a few design flaws which limit its longevity as a useable currency.

    There is a finite number of bitcoins that can be mined and a finite number in circulation. If people lose access to their cold wallet, die before transferring access to their crypto ect., those coins leave circulation forever. For bitcoin to actually be a viable currency, it needs to have a useable amount of coins in circulation to sustain demand. I haven't seen any real discussions of a replenishment strategy to replace bitcoins which permanently leave circulation, and eventually we will reach a point where more coins are leaving circulation than entering.

    Perhaps more important, currently validation of transactions depends on bitcoin mining. When all coins have been mined this validation base will need to be replaced. If there are too few miners the network security of bitcoin (its main selling point) will drop. If a reward system (comparable to bitcoin payment) is introduced, bitcoin transaction fees may become unreasonably high.

    finally, Bitcoin depends on current assumptions about cryptography remaining secure for decades, but advancements in AI are helping to accelerate sophisticated malicious attacks. If users were (for example) able compromise ECDSA and change Bitcoin signatures, this could have an immediate and catastrophic effect on the confidence in and value of Bitcoin.

    • 8
    • askbargain on 31/05/2026 - 22:31

      When all coins have been mined this validation base will need to be replaced.

      Will need? It’s already designed.

      If there are too few miners the network security of bitcoin (its main selling point) will drop.

      If there are less miners, the mining difficulty drops.

      • 1
      • shiver on 01/06/2026 - 08:15

        Will need? It’s already designed.

        How so? Validation is incentivised by bitcoin payment. Why would people validate for free?

        • 2
        • askbargain on 01/06/2026 - 11:01

          They wouldn’t be validating for free because they would collect the miner fees from transactions.

          • 0
          • shiver on 01/06/2026 - 12:05

            @askbargain: Well, yeah thats my point. And transaction fees fluctuate based on network congestion and transaction complexity. Like surge pricing.

            The more demand there is to use bitcoin for transactions, the higher network congestion and thus higher transaction fees. The higher fees, the lower interest in using bitcoin. IMO this feedback loop directly limits bitcoin from having widespead mainstream use.

            • 2
            • askbargain on 01/06/2026 - 16:20

              @shiver: So your point is that there’s no incentive for miners to continue mining when there’s no block reward. Except difficulty drops if there’s less miners. There’s no impact on security since that’s done by nodes.

              • 0
              • shiver on 02/06/2026 - 06:53

                @askbargain: No, my point is that the transaction fees will put people off using the coin. If network useage is high, even with a low complexity a high number of minors are needed to validate transactions. Pricing surges based on demands to attract those minors, and coin users pay that as transaction fees.

                Having a non-fixed fee associated with every transaction you make is going to limit people's interest in using bitcoin, and make it easy for commercial alternatives to offer lower fixed fees.

                • 2
                • askbargain on 02/06/2026 - 11:42

                  @shiver:

                  transaction fees will put people off using the coin

                  On-chain transactions are far cheaper than traditional global transfers. Lightning transactions are far cheaper than credit/debit card transactions.

                  If network useage is high, even with a low complexity a high number of minors are needed to validate transactions.

                  I still think you're misunderstanding miners and nodes (validators). The number of miners ONLY affects the mining difficulty.

                  Having a non-fixed fee associated with every transaction

                  The blockchain has consistently confirmed transactions less than 1sat/vB.

                  As adoption in lightning networks continues to grow, the fee will be consistently drop closer to 0. If 2 people use the same lightning node (likely majority of lightning users won't self custody), the fee is 0.

                  https://support.walletofsatoshi.com/support/solutions/articl…

                  • 0
                  • shiver on 02/06/2026 - 16:19

                    @askbargain:

                    On-chain transactions are far cheaper than traditional global transfers. Lightning transactions are far cheaper than credit/debit card transactions

                    This is because it is currently subsidised through block payments. Increased transaction fees are an expected outcome of the transition away from mining

                    • 0
                    • askbargain on 02/06/2026 - 18:16

                      @shiver: Miners don't set fees. If miners don't like the reward, they leave. (There is the risk of a 51% attack but this is highly unlikely for Bitcoin). There will always be miners because the expectation is cost per hash rate decreases.

                      • 1
    • welcomeUniverseWorld on 02/06/2026 - 07:54

      “lost coins reduce supply” is a strange criticism of
      a scarce asset?

      • 0
      • shiver on 02/06/2026 - 16:17

        Its a criticism of Bitcoin as a useable currency, which is what its always pitched itself to be.

        Naturally scarcity can inflates the value of an asset, but in this case it also acts in contrast to the supposed purpose of what Bitcoin is meant to be. This is the heart of why I think Bitcoin is all spin and no substance. It simply isn't a useable currency, and has no functional value. People invest in it because it has perceived rather than actual value.

        If a significant security event comprimises Bitcoin I imagine the value will plummet irrepairably, because Bitcoin's illusion of stability is the only thing it offers.

        • 2
        • welcomeUniverseWorld on 02/06/2026 - 16:36

          if a major security event kills confidence,
          price goes down applies to every financial
          system ever built.

          • 0
          • shiver on 02/06/2026 - 17:14

            @welcomeUniverseWorld: Not really. People counterfeit Australian dollars, it doesn't dramatically devalue the currency because there are a number of both physical and regulatory barriers in place to limit the scale and impact.

            By design Bitcoin has limited regulatory guardrails and oversight, and it also isn't ingrained in any formal economic system. If the coin were perceived as insecure, investors would dump it and move on to the next hot thing. Fiat currency is less likely to do that because of its significance in local economies.

            • 3
            • welcomeUniverseWorld on 02/06/2026 - 17:44

              @shiver: if your strongest argument is “the
              government has guardrails,” you’ve
              accidentally explained why bitcoin exists.

              • -1
              • shiver on 02/06/2026 - 23:02

                @welcomeUniverseWorld: Think of it like this:

                Bitcoin exists in its own isolated ecosystem. If something malicous breaks into that ecosystem, it can rapidly tear the whole thing down.

                Its harder for attackers to disrupt physical assets like money, gold, houses etc. because these are tangible things. Bitcoin has single points of failure across the entire currency, making them a much more vulnerable investment.

                The volatility of bitcoin is obviously its appeal to some investors, but you are foolish if you cant also see the inherent risk.

                • 3
  • Hybroid on 31/05/2026 - 19:17

    It's all about appetite for risk. That differs for different people.

    Some people made a lot of bank on it, some people lost a lot on it. That will continue endlessly.

    • 7
    • LFO on 01/06/2026 - 11:06

      Funny thing I have never ever found a real person that made a lot of bank on it.

      Having lots and lots of Bitcoin coins as a number?
      Yes lots of real people.
      Buying a mansion/dwelling/car from it? Never.

      • 5
      • smalltime0 on 01/06/2026 - 20:32

        I have a friend who bought early, actually believing in the idea of decentralised finance (and used it in Berlin at one of the first cafes to do bitcoin purchasing).
        But he sold out almost all of it when it first reached 100 USD and then the rest I think when it reach $200.
        He made a neat sum, and it meant that he could afford to live in Berlin for years taking little to no income working for IT startups, which resulted in him getting his current job working in Paris as a Senior software engineer.

        I don't know how much he made in total, but he was talking my ear off about bitcoin and blockchain back when it was trading for like 20c

        • 4
Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join