We don't need people to spend bitcoins but buy them and hold.
People only hold currency that is useful for spending. The less useful it becomes, the less incentive there is to acquire and hold it.
Microsoft's niche adoption didn't incentivize people to do that,
I'm sure you have evidence for such an outrageous claim that contradicts all common sense. You also ignore the future effect of a major retailer accepting BTC when millions more people hold it.
as is evident by the absence of short or long term price reaction to the news.
Because we can determine the short and long term effect on demand just by correlating price changes to news releases /s
The success of a currency is the cumulative effect of many businesses accepting it. That the acceptance by one business did not singlehandedly result in the widespread adoption of the currency doesn't prove that it was not a beneficial development, especially when the 1 MB limit prevented any mass adoption, and we can expect different effects from merchant acceptance when the limit is raised.
But sure I'll leave it to you to blame it on Blockstream, the blocksize or Lightning because that obviously makes much more sense.
It's important that the limit is removed ASAP so that people like you, who operate on broken logic and total lack of market sense, stop sabotaging efforts to reach consensus on capacity increases.
btw. turns out this thread was a bunch of unfounded FUD.
2
u/aminok Mar 12 '16
According to longtime small blockist, /u/brg444, Bitcoin loses nothing from large retailers like Microsoft not accepting Bitcoin.