Bitcoin Forum

Source : http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-02/projecting-price-bitcoin


http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img923/583/dtmAJC.png

While I agree with the network effect being important and difficult to calculate, I'm a bit skeptic about the conclusion this article draws - it's only one more of the ultra-bullish "predictions" I saw in the last months.

First, Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency in the market. There are thousands. There are several worst-case scenarios where Bitcoin could lose value in the future.

Second, there are also other interesting ideas for private currencies, like "baskets" of goods and services. These cannot be easily realized with Bitcoin. With Ethereum and Bitshares it's possible, but it has some hassles, and I think this model would have more success when managed by a "democratic" organization (like an association or foundation or even an "informal organized group").

Third, a part of the "mass adoption" dream of Bitcoin is already priced in its present value. With present use as a currency Bitcoin would have a value of less than $100 (rough estimation).

If everything goes well, I expect however higher Bitcoin prices in the future ($20K perhaps) but not hundreds of thousands or millions like this article suggests.

Also blockchains contain encrypt manipulate and transmit data. that makes them very different to gold or fiat

The underlying assumption between every projection on cryptocurrencies is the rate of adoption. If adoption fails to take off, Bitcoin will die a slow death. Only when the adoption increases significantly does the network effect kick in.

Your high school math teacher would be very angry with you. You didn't show your work!


I couldn't have said it better myself. We're nowhere close to that yet.

Ahem.  This is how all bubbles start, with a new technology that's gonna change the world.  Railroads, cars, planes, internet, radio.  All their stocks got hyped to the point where a bubble formed, and they all popped.  Any time you think "it's different this time!", it's not. 

Having blabbed all that, I don't think we're in a bubble exactly.  But if the price keeps rising like it is, it's going to crash down to earth just like everything before it.  You watch.

What goes up, must come down.

Agreed, we're not in a bubble. It's the normal growth of the crypts as the inflow increasing periodically. But the second thing doesn't look appropriate, crash is realistic but with bitcoin it differs. Unlike market shares it won't be sustaining long in the crash. In a short time lapse it retains.

i don't get what this new wave of way of thinking is coming from but it has just been a thing recently!

for years whenever you looked around on the social media everyone was excited to say "we spent bitcoin", and acknowledge bitcoin as a currency. then recently i keep hearing some people starting to insist on convincing others that bitcoin is not a currency but a store of value!

nice chart by the way...

Crypto is something truly revolutionary, but not what we think it is.  It has not much to do with "currency".  Crypto is essentially the purest form of "speculative financial asset".  Most speculative financial assets have some or other link with the real economy, apart from gold.  Real estate, stock, derivatives etc .... are formulated in such a way that their value is somehow linked to something in the real economy (you could say that the real economy is the random generator that is trusted by the financial players to give the outcome of their speculative game).   Crypto has invented the "economy-less derivative".  Financial institutions had invented de facto such kind of assets to be able to gamble big time - which led to the banking crisis of 2007-2008.  Since the financial sector is much more restricted now in the speculative games it can play, and technology was ripe, a new "Wild Wild West" speculative asset had a market opportunity: crypto.

Regularly, the financial world looks for such assets to speculate on when they have too much easy money on their hands, and are in need of bubbles.  Crypto is the perfect asset for that.  When financial markets are in the stock market and gamble with stock (like before 1929 or dot-com), or they gamble on real-estate (Japan in the 90-ies, US/Spain/... real estate bubble) or they invent unfathomable derivatives (2007), financial markets live off irrational bubbles ; the problem is, most of the time, they use "real-economy connected" assets to gamble on, and at a certain point, the disparity between the fundamentals and the market value indicates a bubble.  Crypto has the advantage to be a purely speculative asset without almost any "real economy connection": it is a token on which to gamble, and the market price is PURELY determined by other gamblers.  

I think there are still a lot of legal barriers for big finance to enter crypto, but I think they are just having wet dreams of being able to play with it.  Crypto will be banks and financial institutions' best friends, and if the legal barriers fall, it will most probably be one of the better bubbles out there, paling the 1929 or 2007 banking crisis: crypto has the potential to cause one of the biggest financial catastrophes of history if it seriously takes off (no, it won't be its cure, it will be its cause).

This is essentially due to the "collectible" nature of most crypto, without value capping, which makes it a gambler's asset like no other.  This is why we see it bubbling, and growing at the same time: it is a highly unstable asset, the perfect wet dream for financial institutions.  The bubble it might blow could very well be much, much higher than what we're used to, so this ride can go very very high.

There's still the question of adoption. More and more people are accepting crypto as currency. If the rate of this takes off, is it possible that the USD (or other world currencies) could collapse? Or would they simply create their own "USDCOIN" and convert to block chain technology?

Crypto has the potential to cause the biggest financial catastrophe in history. Could it be possible for it to be the cause AND the cure also as well?

I read the article on zerohedge the day it was posted. It is a brilliant article which shows us why bitcoin is invincible. Old timers who compare bitcoin to gold and think bitcoin is just another tulipmania which is about to die. They do miss the main point(s).

1) If we were able to trade tulips P2P through the world since the year 16xx's, we would still be doing it. We would have named it, Tulipcoin.
2) Bitcoin is different than tulips because tulip trading died because people just couldn't trade it anymore. The government banned it. Bitcoin is invincible in this regard.

Even if they close all the exchanges, shut all the miners down, bitcoin will still keep being traded. The trading volume will drop %99, the prices will drop %99 but it won't die completely. It will always find users. That is why bitcoin is no tulips. Not even close.

FIFY.
Now that we're finally out of that 2013-2015 slump people are rushing to get bitcoins again. We're just back on track to where we should have been in 2014. More people are adopting bitcoins, more places are accepting it, more countries are declaring it legal currency. It's not a fad or whatever. This is the real value of bitcoins. Get on the bus or or watch it drive away.

Yes it's possible, but I'd say world reserve currencies will be kept afloat for a long time until a real collapse happens. The inflation will continue and what now costs $100 will be $200 in 10 years. You'll need a million to buy a house and new cheap cars will cost at least $20000, that's a near future. A 100 years ago people were working for $1 per hour, now they need at least $10, when we reach $100 per hour you'll know your fiat is hyperinflated and collapsing.

You've got very good points there, especially with the notion of increased (not mass I think) adoption already priced in. That's not the only thing... I believe speculators are trying to predict based on history and pricing these events in as well:
1. Future halving in 2019/20
2. More coins lost in Mt. Gox like events
3. near term scarcity at exchanges

This is where I get a little confused. I thought the beauty of block chain, was that events like Mt.Gox wouldn't happen.

well the beauty of gold is that things like hackers cant scam your credit card..  but if you put your gold into a storage box and not care who has the key.. then someone can steal it.

the point of bitcoin is not to use things like mtgox!!!

i have never been victim to exchange hacking. my hoard has remained in my sole control. the only time it leaves my control is when spending it. but then its not my problem anymore, its the recipients.

bitcoin is not about using online wallet. but some people cannot look passed the fiat mindset, to be in self control.. so end up being lazy and "trusting" others to hold their value because its all they have ever known

That makes more sense now. I would imagine any exchange could be hacked whether it be crypto or fiat. I have major trust issues. That's why I ask a lot of questions. Playing around in those exchanges is a gamble anyway.

How does anyone else on this thread feel about blockchain being used for things other than currency? For example: voting polls

Useful there are a variety of proposals to use it as a means of confirming election votes without serious counting errors.
The mainstream news looked at that a while back in detail
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/08/30/block-the-vote-could-blockchain-technology-cybersecure-elections/#bfca02f2ab31
https://venturebeat.com/2016/10/22/blockchain-tech-could-fight-voter-fraud-and-these-countries-are-testing-it/

Crypto has introduced the idea to have scarce tokens that are not that easily manipulable without a trusted central authority ; at least, at first sight.  On the other hand, this also means that everybody can invent a crypto ; and there's something that has not been tested a lot, but that seems to me to be unavoidable in the long run: successful crypto chains can be split, copied, copied with modifications, etc...  Crypto has power games to it, that can lead to a small cartel of people to decide about the modifications of the rules of a crypto.   

So contrary to what it seems, crypto is NOT a single chain with rules graved in stone ; but the way these are modified, copied, morphed .... are obscure games we are still in the process of discovering.  We don't know what the eco-system of many crypto, evolving, morphing, crossing over, being created, .... will look like (for the moment, we see what it looks like: a huge speculative market like the complex derivatives).   The only thing such eco system provides, more and more, is a rather opaque means to get value from one place to another that may not see the daylight.  As such, it is honouring somewhat its initial purpose of being an anarchist payment method where one can gain a form of economic freedom (for the better - dark markets, avoiding taxes and bribing deciders - or the worse - financing terrorism and ransoms), but the price to pay is that we have created a speculative bomb that will, like any speculative bomb, blow in our face. 

Will this complex eco system of different morphing crypto come to a kind of equilibrium that gives it a useful economic function apart from the economic freedom I mentioned above, or will it have brought a new form of economic instability one doesn't know how to master ?  I don't see how a morphing boiling sea of speculative crypto can bring much good in the long term apart from the side application, which is economic freedom.  But maybe this thing will find its own equilibrium and become something that moderates speculation but I don't see how.

I don't know where you got that.
The bubble burst because at a public auction of tulips in Haarlem, nobody showed up.
The Dutch government would have been quite crazy to ban it, it was Holland's fourth largest export product.

Your Subject and OP aren't the same.

To your Subject, I respectfully disagree with you - cryptocurrencies are stores of value, the blockchain is the network.

What does this have to do with bubbles? Everything. Stores of value have bubbles. Networks not so much.

To your article, when I first saw this chart I actually thought it was real data. It would be nice to see the real data up to this point and then the projections. I realize you didn't create it. The key point of that chart (which I do agree with you on) is that thus far after every decline there's been a roaring return. It make take a year or more, but it's happened.

The best part for me is, what will happen next?

Apparently this is correct. Though price appreciation over rate of adoption shows positive results as of now, we still can't be sure that this would be the case for the next coming months or years. Adoption is very critical for the growth of the network since the little minnows that support the reef is needed for the ecology to thrive.

In fact, not at all.  The fact that the value is decreasing slowly, but in a foreseeable way (slightly inflationary), is exactly what makes these currencies good currencies, close to "Ideal Money".  They are of course not good stores of value in the long term, but money is not supposed to be a store of value in the long term (investments are).  Money has to be such that it has a *predictable* value (stable in the short term, slightly inflationary or deflationary in the longer term).

Would you have dared to take a loan in bitcoin to buy a house ?

Hell, I know people who are in deep shit  because these idiots took a loan in Swiss Franc to buy a house and the Swiss Franc rose somewhat with respect to their income.  If they would have taken a loan in bitcoin in 2015, they would be entirely broke now and could never pay their loan back.

That sounds a lot like "we need fresh flesh, greater fools to come in (the minnows) to keep our early adopter wealth to grow".

the blockchain is the internet of money that carry the possibility to share information and storage, the real potential is the blockchain here

that graph show the true, while there were dump the pump in the end always come victorious, the average increase per year is moving upward, the absolute trend is a bull run

all those crash were done for acquiring more bitcoin, by the whales


eh i doubt it, because greater fools coming mean that early adopters sold their wealth, there is no farther adoption without better distribution

The former greater fools are now the early adopters, as long as there is fresh flesh flowing in.

The constant change of value of bitcoin, makes it so hard to predict. Yes, if some took a loan for a house, they'd definitely be in a bad place now. Just the thought of someone doing that makes me laugh a little bit.
But aside from all the crypto exchange casinos, and all of the pump and dump altcoin scams, the real potential is in blockchain. That is something that will never go away.

This bus has two flat tires and charges way too much for a slow ride when compared to competing bus companies.
We must fix Bitcoin soon, or you will watch several other buses driving away.

Are you referring to some of the many other altcoins that exist? Do you predict any of them being more successful?

referring to alts = Yes

More successful than BTC =
Several years ago the official Bitcoin Wiki labeled Litecoin as an example of a "Ponzi scheme" (does anyone know if that ever got edited/revised?)

I never took alts too seriously, they were fun to trade when everyone else was constantly panic selling.
Bitcoin still has a chance to remain dominant, but the trend towards "rich people only" is very disturbing. We had a chance to set common people free, and instead we are (in many ways) locked in a sick repeat of much of Human history.

This place used to be fun!

Then more and more people will accept crypto as currency, Or will they create their own "USDCOIN" and change it or create it into a technology block chain

That is also worrying me. If all "poor users" can do is use a not-entirely-trustless off-chain mechanism like Lightning Network when they want to use Bitcoin, then BTC loses advantages to the fiat system. But more worrying - for Bitcoin Maximalists - is that this path isn't mandatory and there are other blockchain projects trying to fix it in a more sustainable way, e.g. with "sharding", "sidechain" or "child chain" concepts, where the "on-chain transaction paradigm" isn't preserved only for the rich.

If one of these competing approaches get really traction and it is cheaper and faster to do a transaction with them than with Bitcoin, network effect will slowly fade away and the chart the OP posted transforms simply into a wet dream.

(tl;dr: Bitcoin should introduce decentralized sidechains! There is only a **** opcode missing (https://github.com/rsksmart/bips/blob/master/BIP-R10.md) ...)



Good observation, I agree. Bubbles occur when the network (blockchain ecosystem) is smaller the "store of value" makes believe some people. And I think that is actually the case with Bitcoin, even if we may go higher in this bubble.

And that is exactly why bitcoin (or most other alts) cannot be a true currency.  One of the main functions of a true currency is to be a "unit of account" which has a *predictable* value (not necessarily a *stable* value).   This is why Nash defines ideal money as one that has stable value, and an asymptotic ideal money, as one that has a predictable inflation/deflation ; so even if it is not stable in itself, one can account (in time-dependent contracts such as a loan) for the change.

And the origin of that instability is that bitcoin (and most other alts) have a combination of two aspects:
- high initial seigniorage (that is, early adopters can get coins for low value)
- high inelasticity (falling debasement curve) or worse, a collectible (like bitcoin: maximum number of coins EVER).

That makes for a very, very speculative asset, and hence for a very, very bad currency (and even a bad store of value in the very long term, because it bubbles too much).

This is also why bitcoin and altcoins won't go away so easily: there's a lot of demand for speculative assets !   After all, that's what most of the financial world lives off.  But the problem is that pure speculation is actually economically a bad thing.  Speculation as a way to trade risk for gains is economically positive.  But *pure* speculation is a side effect that has only negative consequences, and the irony is that bitcoin was invented after the banking crash because of too much pure speculation by financial institutions (the banking crisis of 2007 had NOTHING to do with fiat but everything with uncontrolled speculation, blowing bubbles, and getting it blow in your face), and invented, itself, an even worse form of speculation that are PURE bubbles.  If ever big finance gets into crypto - and I don't see how they couldn't: if this stuff can multiply fortunes by serious factors, how could professional finance stay out of it ? - this will cause a far, far more severe financial crisis than we've ever seen before, simply because its bubble capacity is unlimited, and the floor is ZERO.  There's no economical "backing" of anything in crypto, so there is no floor.


True, but that's nothing else but a cryptographic invention.  Like "public key crypto", or like "hash functions".  It is not necessarily related to some "token".  It is a kind of cryptographically certified database.  One of its applications is "token transfers".

Well, unless of course you see the actual price as a market prediction for the future "fundamental" value.  However, bitcoin is probably by far the most "useful" thing as a currency, and if we make a quick estimation, its coin value (its "fundamental" as a currency) should be of the order of a few tens of dollars.  How can we know ?

If we take bitpay as an indicator for "merchant currency usage", we are (end of 2016) at a volume of less than 300 million per month, which brings us to about 3 billion per year.  Let us say that bitpay has 1/5 of the market share of "merchant usage", that would bring us to a volume of 15 billion a year.  
Now, a normal fiat currency M1 has a velocity of the order of 10, but things like bitcoin circulate normally more quickly, because they are bought and sold more quickly.  So let us give it a velocity of 50.

The market cap of bitcoin should then be 15 billion / 50 = 300 million dollars.

That's the "fundamental" of bitcoin at this moment, as a "merchant currency".  It would put the price of a coin around $20-$30.
This is the true economic value of bitcoin, its true merchant value.

Agreed fully. I think that bitcoin's true value will never be discovered until fiats around the world collapses.

Fiats will eventually collapse, there is absolutely no doubt about it. There has never been a surviving fiat currency even from 200 years ago.

The thing is that bitcoin is going to thrive when there is a financial crisis - unlike the other investment tools like stocks and property. Property prices are in a frenzy, everyone is taking out loans to finance their new home. When fiat becomes worthless, the best alternative will be btc.

A perfect understanding of bitcoin shows that its not only a form of currency or an asset to be stored but also an infrastructure and that is why the news we are reading that banks are adopting bitcoin does not necessarily means adopting bitcoin as a currency but blockchain technology for their process. The same thing for Etherum to the best of my understanding which is combination of several computers or softwares that can be developed for several uses.

I agree. But the price - and so the "estimation of future fundamental value" - has changed in 2017 heavily to the upside, while the fundamentals (e.g. transaction count/volume) have not changed significantly since the end of 2016, when Bitcoin's price was 30%-40% of today's price ($2500). It's true that it's somewhat "capped" because of the 1MB blocksize limit, but if you take the pure number of transaction added to the mempool (https://blockchain.info/charts/transactions-per-second?daysAverageString=7&timespan=1year) the growth since December 2016 seems not to justify the price increase. And there are some negative fundamental news, too, like the possibility for a chain split or a "flippening" (=losing the leadership as most valued - not most used! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1932126.0) - cryptocurrency).

For me, that is a "bubblish" (sounds like bullish but is actually bearish) sign, not an indicator of a growing network. There seems to be much newbie speculation in countries like Japan, Bolivia and Nigeria, for example.


I doubt a bit if you should multiply velocity by five respect to fiat currencies. But even if you take a "normal" velocity of 10 then the "fair price" would be below $200, so BTC would be at least 10x overvalued.

Well, the reason for that is essentially that most merchants convert almost directly received bitcoins into fiat.  If that would be the only difference between fiat behaviour and bitcoin behaviour, it would already multiply velocity by 2 (the "holding time to spend" of merchants being essentially zero, instead of being the usual delays between them receiving money, and paying their providers).  But also buyers of bitcoin are, if they only use bitcoin as a currency, usually only acquiring coins relatively quickly before spending them, which would make me think that there too, there's a speed-up as compared to people receiving fiat (their salary) and holding it until they spend it.  But I agree that this is just guess work.  The real conclusion is that the market cap and the price of bitcoin is essentially speculative, and that the value of it that comes from the demand to be used as a currency, is a negligible fraction of the market price.

Now, in how much this speculative value is only market's best guess at its *future* currency usage, or in how much this speculative value is essentially "purely speculative", unrelated to its "Fisher value" due to demand as a usage of a currency, is open ; however, my own guess is that indeed, it is essentially purely speculative. 

The reason for that is that we see that too with other crypto currencies (alt coins).  There, the relationship between market price and "Fisher utility price" is even much much more distorted.  Now, I know the statement of bitcoin maximalists that there is only one "real" crypto, that's bitcoin, and all the rest is shit, but that's not realistic.  Alt coins are just as well crypto as bitcoin is.  Given that alt coins are visibly entirely "purely speculative", there's no reason to assume that bitcoin's price is ALSO not "purely speculative".

This is why I think that the "real world economic value" (for a currency, that's exactly Fisher's price calculation) has really nothing to do with the market price.

Now, of course, both explanations meet in the "delusionally story about the future".  You can say that alts, just as well as bitcoin, have the potential to have one day a HUGE real-world economic value, if ever they "replace fiat", or "they replace contracts", or "they replace finance" or whatever delusional story ; so the market is only guessing at this huge potential.
If you see it that way, the market is making a rational guess about the future real-world value.  If you think these stories are delusional (which I think they are), then this is just a cheap justification of pure speculation without any fundamentals behind it.

they can adopt Blockchain (so Bitcoin base network) ... but they must pay the fees even if they only use the 100 000 000 satoshis as a marker (or timeline) in 1 BTC.

that's why i love bitcoin and the fees strategies.

You are right, but on the other hand, there are entities that are holding Bitcoins much longer than they would hold cash and bank account balances - the "hodlers" and "long time investors", and afaik also exchanges and payment processors are holding a large part of their holdings ("cold storage") for several weeks or months. At least exchanges have only a low volatility risk if they don't run a fractional reserve.


Totally right (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1932126.0). As you correctly mention later - the altcoin speculation is fueled by hopes that some of these coins will be some day "the next Bitcoin" and so the speculation is related to at least a "dream" of future usage.

But if this is pure delusion or not is not so clear for me. It's obvious that a Bitcoin clone without any new feature or only a new algorithm, like most of the lower positions, will have only a very limted usage (except perhaps for some niche-oriented coins, e.g. those targeting a specific video game community). But myself I think there is a possibility for a scenario where cryptocurrencies are much more used than today and the market is more fragmented, with 7 or 10 big players that are doing really well (and not only on Coinmarketcap).

This is what keeps the money and network what do you think?

Yes, but that is not a currency usage.  People don't hodl bitcoin because they bought some stash of coins to spend them on the internet, buying stuff.  They hodl bitcoin because they want to see the price rise.  Actually, I must be one of the few who bought a modest stash of bitcoin to buy stuff on the internet (VPN and VPS services essentially) - but its value increases so much that I put them aside, and I'm not using them any more as a currency, but also as a greater-fool betting stash.

I mean: one could buy, say, 10 BTC at a certain point, because one has foreseen to spend about 10 BTC in the next few months on things on the internet: then we are in your case, of holding times of currency being long.  But one could also buy 10 BTC because it could rise in value, and one doesn't want to "miss the train to the moon".  Then one is speculating in a greater-fool game.  I think that most "long held coins" are of the last category, and are not "just a practical measure of buying a heap of coins to spend them over the next few months".


Almost all of these systems have fundamental problems, which make that they cannot go mainstream for the usage they claim ; on the other hand, they all have a clear, and unlimited, already active, usage: pure speculation.  I don't believe in any of the announced dreams of crypto, whether it is "replacing fiat", or "replacing justice/contracts", or whatever on a mainstream scale.  But they are ALREADY doing what they do best: being the BACKING of IOU on exchanges, to gamble on in a speculative game, like the entire financial market of derivatives.  THIS is the real invention of crypto: a new kind of speculative derivatives market.  The real trading is not on chain (nobody cares about that chain), but is with IOU on clearing houses (exchanges).  The chain only backs the IOU of the clearing houses, and allows the transfer between financial institutions, and clearing houses.  THAT's crypto.  The announced applications of the block chain don't matter (payments with bitcoin, contracts with eth, world computer with golem, ....).  Only big transfers between big financial players and clearing houses matters, and EVERY block chain can do that.

We are indeed witnessing a revolution, but one in the financial speculative sector.  Instead of betting on the production of rice or the sales of cars, one has now invented a totally new market of financial speculative products: crypto IOU on exchanges.  THAT is what has been invented.  Not "currencies", "smart contracts", "distributed storage", "pay-for social networks", or whatever these chains CLAIM.  Just tokens on which to speculate on exchanges.

There's about 10 times the world's economy in "speculative assets" (the derivatives market).  There's a great thirst for these things.  This is why crypto will catch on: it will be the unregulated gamblings' feast of the financial world.

That said, the crypto ecosystem is in full experimental mode, and maybe some day something useful comes out of it that can go mainstream.  This will most probably NOT be a "mainstream freedom thing", but some kind of authorities-endorsed stuff on one hand, and niche applications on the other.

Crypto is much more fragile than one thinks.  The naive "single block chain" flow with cryptographic protection is too naive a picture.  Hell, Satoshi didn't even think that alt coins would see the daylight.  As a state, one cannot allow the whole economy to depend on obscure cartels that can decide, and are under unknown influence.  Bitcoin can never be allowed to become a replacement for a national (or international) currency - first of all, bitcoin's design isn't made to do this, contrary to claims of the opposite by its creator - but it would put a country's economy at the whims of unknown entities under the unverifiable influence of foreign powers.  For instance, imagine that Europe would have a de facto replacement of the Euro by bitcoin.  Then Europe's economy would even be much more dependent on what happens in China.  There would be huge incentives on the Chinese side to control the mining cartels over there, and they wouldn't miss out on it.  Unless Europe would engage in a "mining war" with China, war it cannot win, and which would transform 3/4 of the economy in "mining producing assets", China would dictate the European monetary policy (by modifying of course bitcoin's emission protocol they would hold firmly in their hands).  The only solution for Europe would be to fork off bitcoin, and make a kind of proof of central bank coin, where blocks are signed off by a central authority or something.

*this* is the kind of crypto that may one day see the light: centralized transparent crypto.  Authorities would dream of being able to see all its citizens/victims transactions.  People would also see authorities' transactions, which would be the "democratic concession" in order to have total financial control over the people.