Bitcoin Forum

To anyone thinking of complaining about the volatility, please fill in the blanks in this image and connect the two dots in whatever way you think would be "ideal for bitcoin". Then explain why you think such a scenario (e.g.,  straight line) is plausible.

http://i47.tinypic.com/av4dig.png

Awe, I thought we were going to play some sort of Mad Libs.

If I were drawing that line, it would actually look more fucked up than the real one-- though, that's more "ideal for me" than for bitcoin.

Before the chart is completed I think we need a definition of what a "Success Scenario" is.

And also a definition of "ideal for bitcoin."

That is for each person to define.

Actually, the Widespread Use is variable as your looking it from an Optimistic point of view. What if Widepread ends as the Genesis?

You are saying the "value" during widespread use would be 0? This doesn't make sense to me. If you think even during widespread use the value (in whatever units you want) should be low, then just put 0.01 in that box. Perhaps I should add some more boxes for units.

Your forgot to fill in the boxes  ::) . Also, I have now added boxes for units (eg USD, pizza rolls, etc).

Whoops!  Sorry, they're little boxes, so I didn't think about putting anything in them ;D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v297/Mechaman/15zrqt_zpscaf6310c.png

New and improved!

The only problem I have with it is you seem to be assuming time travel, so the word "soon" is somewhat vague.

I was gonna write eventually but boy, that was a long word to write, so I settled on soon.  :P

Now with bigger boxes!! 8)

Maybe I misunderstood your chart. What if bitcoin eventually dies. Not that I want that, Im buying Bitcoins daily but the US Government didnt start the war yet.
With your chart you are saying the Widespread Use will end Up.

THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE.

http://i1327.photobucket.com/albums/u680/Agustin_Kassis/ejemplo_zpsc459eeae.png

What I mean with this is. You say thats wrong complaining ofthe volatility because you are saying that Bitcoin will ALWAYS FINISH with increasing Widespread Use.
But the problem with volatility is that you don't know when you are in the top until the time passed.

What if I have a store and Im selling thing with Bitcoin, just the moment when its at its best usd 160 example. And then starts to go down for weeks. I have to pay my suppliers that dont accept Bitcoin, sell my Bitcoins at low price. But then suddenly starts to grow up again, and I'm buying Bitcoins at the expensive price.
You are gambling when you sell with Bitcoins. Personally I think It going to go up and never stop, but I can be wrong. But I am aware that its risk accepting bitcoins and thats why people complain about volatility.

Yes, this is only for success scenarios. We are not considering eventual failure scenarios here. I did add some space on the top in the new version of the chart for anyone who predicts an overshoot

oblig xkcd...

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/movie_narrative_charts.png


...im thinking it will be like primer.

Of course, Bitcoin will inevitably fail when a newer technology takes its spot.  But it'll probably be another crypto-currency.

Right. Just like the Internet failed when we replaced with Internet2.

Its pointless to compare two completely different things. But.
Internet is not only scalable but upgradable.

Bitcoin has it's rules set up from the beggining so it can´t be upgraded to future changes.

Not only is it false that Bitcoin can't be upgraded in the future, it already has been upgraded in the past. On multiple occasions.

Really? show me...

I don't think any of us are using the same technology when the Internet was first introduced.  If you're implying the Internet as a concept, of course there will never be an Internet2.  And if we're implying Crypto-currencies as a concept, likewise.  But specifically, considering what Bitcoin actually is right now (not even completely 1.0, mind you), we'll inevitably abandon it for something new and improved.

As masize said, it's incomparable.  A lot of what the Internet brought over from its first incarnation is still around, but a lot of it isn't; HTML is great, but HTML5 is probably better than HTML2.  I'm not saying HTML2 isn't around anymore, but why use HTML2 when everyone wants you to use HTML4 or HTML5?  Python's great, but most everyone prefers Python 2 at this point.  I also heard Windows has been steadily releasing newer OSes for a while; did Windows 98 disappear?  No.  Does anyone use it?  I suppose.  Software becomes obsolete as technology improves.  Why should Bitcoin be the exception?  It has certain hard-coded rules that cannot be upgraded without forking the whole thing.  Now everyone's gotta use one or the other: let's say, Bitcoin 1, and Bitcoin 2.  Bitcoin 2 has all the improvements over Bitcoin 1, so everyone moves their assets from Bitcoin 1 to Bitcoin 2.  Inevitably, people stop using Bitcoin 1.  Now: is Bitcoin 2 literally going to be Bitcoin, or is it going to be another form of crypto-currency all together?  Either way, the original technology is left behind, and a newer technology takes its spot.  Thus, Bitcoin, without anyone to trade with, as we've all moved onto another technology, fails; rather, fail is a harsh word, and I feel I should've picked a better one.  Bitcoin will lose enough popularity for its value to drop tremendously from where it would've been if no superior alternative was proposed (including an improved, forked version of Bitcoin.)  This could happen in ten years, it could happen in a hundred years, but at the rate technology improves, it is an inevitability.  What I do believe, however, will remain for a long time, is what Bitcoin is: a crypto-currency.  The concept of crypto-currency will doubtfully have a crypto-currency2; rather, it will simply be improved over time.

Not a complete list:

1 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=153330.msg1636557#msg1636557)
2 (http://bitcoin.org/may15.html)

So what you are saying is that the rules can be changed anytime by the bitcoin.org ?

That doesn't seem so descentralized as very foundation of Bitcoin claims to be.

Client upgrades doesnt change Bitcoin core algorithm or block rules or whatever limits established.

If Bitcoin.org upgrade changes core rules, like coins per block, or coin limit. That can't be fair.

Or Bitcoin is centralized currency ruled by the founders and can be upgraded anytime, or is descentralized as everybody has the rules set up from the beginning as there's no authority to change them in the future.

There cannot be both at the same time.

The bitcoin developers can propose changes, but they can't force anyone to install new versions containing their proposed changes. They are limited in what they can change by what the community of users will accept.

Is it a democratic thing? Does having 1000 BTC make you a voter on the changes? I'm just curious, and honestly don't like very much the idea of "Community" changing the rules whenever they please, because they are the "Official Community". I'm investing a lot of money on Bitcoin the way it is.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority)