Bitcoin is not meant to be used for “payments,” or as a “payment network,” it’s meant to be MONEY. This is an important clarification that needs to be made.

Seeing Bitcoin described this way has been a pet peeve of mine for some time because using language like “Bitcoin should be used for payments.” or “Bitcoin is a payment network.” helps to frame Bitcoin incorrectly as a financial tool rather than as money. It plays into the “digital gold” narrative by reinforcing and normalizing the idea that Bitcoin is just a supplementary tool for the existing system meant for specific niches rather than a new global currency meant to entirely replace fiat.

No one describes the dollar as a “payment network” or ponders whether it should be used for payments because that’s an inherent property of money. The same should be true when we speak of Bitcoin.

By using the language mentioned above, it feels as if we’ve already conceded some ground in how the debate is framed. The debate should not be “Digital Gold vs Payments,” it should be “Bitcoin is money vs Bitcoin is not money” because if their argument is that Bitcoin shouldn’t be used for payments, then what they’re really arguing is that Bitcoin shouldn’t be money.

It’s a subtle distinction but it’s one that I think needs to be made whenever we speak about Bitcoin because, if not, it can aid in spreading a fundamental misunderstanding of what Bitcoin is. Bitcoin is meant to be money, period. Not a store of value. Not a payment network. Money.

TL:DR - (in my opinion) We shouldn’t say “Bitcoin is a payment network used for payments.” Instead, we should say “Bitcoin is money and should be used thusly.”

submitted by /u/myotherone123
[link] [comments]

source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/q6y7ko/bitcoin_is_not_meant_to_be_used_for_payments_or/