BTW, AlcoHoDL...

100% per year = 2x per year.

200% per year = 3x per year.

Saylor's 200% up (3x) yearly growth prediction goes like this:

End of:
2020 — $30k
2021 — $90k
2022 — $270k
2023 — $810k
2024 — $2.4M   <--- sat/¢ parity (1 BTC = $1M) by early 2024
2025 — $7.3M
2026 — $22M

'Doubling yearly' sounds good. I'm OK with that.

We should not be ascribing sorcery status to anyone, even smart peeps (whether Hal or Satoshi or whoever), especially for things that they said in early 2009 when bitcoin was merely just getting off the ground.  They are giving broad and overview ideas, but they cannot really know some of the specific branches that might grow in the future or even some specific attributes that might get incorporated into main aspects of the tree.  

Accordingly, I would suspect that Hal was attempting to give a ballpark figure of various aspects of what he understood to have been then storage of wealth and monies.. so I doubt that it necessarily accounts for some various kinds of innovative storage of wealth and monies (even if they might remain a relatively smaller component), and I would think that his ballparking was based on 2009 valuations - so inflation would surely affect his figure - $10million today is not what $10million was in 2009, and likely $10million in 10 to 30 years from now is likely going to be considerably degraded based con what we currently see happening (and doubts about whether there are desires (or will develop desires) within traditional systems to reign in aspects of the ongoing denigration of the dollar to allow it to continue to survive - if that is even possible).    


Seems that Arriemoller is accounting for ongoing denigration of the dollar - so maybe $10million and $1billion will be the same?  hahahahahaha.. but I see your point, Phil_S.. Arriemoller does seem to have lost some degree of tether (not the currency) to reality, which is not really unusual for him (based on his post history), for whatever that's worth..  


Huh?  Why you so bearish AlcoHoDL?    

Historically, we have had in the ballpark of 80x to 150x for each of the 4 year cycles (referring to 2011 150x(+) (maybe does not count), 2013 = 100x, 2017 = 80x, and 2021 so far = 16x).**  Of course, with decreasing multiples with the passage of time, but still, even if there are far from any guarantees, why would we be expecting outrageous curtailment of the upward leg of the s-curve.  It's like you are prematurely suggesting that we are getting to the flat portion of the s-curve.  Yeah.. I know that there is no guarantees, but why presume that we are at the top of the s-curve without any real or meaningful evidence of such?

**By the way, to some degree, I can appreciate criticisms that my numbers are a bit loosey goosey, but I give few fucks, because I believe that my numbers are largely fair and reasonable because they attempt to go off of reasonable floor starting points for each cycle to provide estimates for the top of each of the previous cycles, the current cycle and attempting to project where future cycles may well go (without guarantees, of course).

So, if we concede that $64,895 is the top of this cycle at 16x, then maybe we get to your numbers of $1million by 2030, but it seems quite reasonable that this cycle is not over and it is NOT going to bring us only 16x.  

For this cycle, relatively conservative estimates still get us to $100k to $300k (so that would be 25x to 75x).  There are more bold and bullish out there (maybe just referring to peeps like my lil selfie) that suggest over shootings in the $500k to $1.5million territory. which would either already deliver $1million or would be within 2x of your $1million target - even though if something like $500k, were to be reached, $500k would not be the bouncing off point for the next cycle, but instead we would have to see where its floor ends up, which may well be anywhere between $40k and $100k as starting off point for the next cycle, which would still allow for $1million to be reached with 10x to 25x in the 2025 cycle's culmination.

In regards to the relatively more conservative estimates of $100k to $300k for this cycle, then for the next cycle we would likely have bouncing off points of $20k to $60k, so I am thinking that still $1million would still be within reasonable reach of the next cycle because $20k to $60k would be 16.6x to 50x for that cycle.. And, so (as I type) I can start to see that presuming 50x for the next cycle to be a bit presumptuous, even though I consider it to be reasonable.. and I will also say that reaching a million by 2029 or 2030 would be reasonable, too, even though it is likely not necessary to attempt to extract too much about what might happen two additional cycles down the road when we still have not finished this cycle nor have seen what the next cycle might have in store for us (which none of us longer term observers of the BTC space, including ur lil selfie, AlcoHoDL, would be surprised by $1million in the next cycle - even if we might be surprised by it in this cycle).  

Regarding your point about reaching 10x fuck you status, so yeah sure, there is likely a kind of entry level fuck you status and then there are multiples of that, but I am going to stick with my guns in terms of continuing to accuse you, and likely others too, of problematic thinking when continuing to asserts the price of tops as fuck you status level because of at least two reasons:  1) we know that tops have tended to be quite unreliable in bitcoin so 2) based on 1, you end up having to rely upon either cashing out some bitcoin or overly valuing your wealth in dollars to consider tops as your fuck you status achievements.

I will continue to agree with you and others (including that I do the same thing) about tops having importance and significance in terms of showing us where bitcoin is capable of going and showing where it is likely to go in future cycles, and also tops providing cushion regarding how much DOWNity would be feasibly within the cards and also there are likely going to be some cashing outs (shavings) of some of our BTC value at various price points on the way up, even if NOT being able to (nor wanting to) time the price top with any kind of precision.

So you say if there were 18 million Mona Lisas then each and every one of them would cost 60k? I doubt that.

I understand what Arrie is saying but I think 1b is a bit overthrown, maybe somewhere around 100mil in todays value by 2050.

Does todays money supply even matter? Why BTC can't overrun the total monetary value?

Why?

Do you think all demand will dry up when we hit 10 mil?
The only way we will stop at 10 mil is if everybody in the whole world has adopted bitcoin at that point and the price is now stable.
I very much doubt that.

You don't understand, the price of a commodity has nothing to do with the total wealth of the world, they are two separate things.
My prediction is no more overboard then 1100 USD was in 2011 or 20000 USD was in 2015, but time will tell, its just an educated guess.

I don't know, I don't know where Hal got his numbers from and if those numbers included commodities owned or if it was just fiat money owned.

Yes, world wide wealth is a very sucky indicator.
Wealth is unevenly distributed, all it takes is for the wealthy to buy all the bitcoin they can, and the price will surge well above the "total wealth of the world"

To be clearer, bitcoin is a commodity, the price is set by supply and demand. The price of a single bitcoin has nothing to do with the total world wealth, just like the price of a barrel of oil or a Rolls Royce has nothing to do with total world wealth.

Edited.

So you think the total value of all bitcoins reaching the total worldwide household wealth is 'conservative'?
I think Hal was trying to estimate the upper limit for btc price.


So the total value of all bitcoins would be... 100x of worldwide wealth?

Thanks. Interesting listen so far.

Have never understood the "end of the world but I have gold" argument, certainly not against Bitcoin.

If there is a massive cyber attack, you are struggling for food if supermarkets are empty, barbarians roam and run the streets, internet and telephone lines are unavailable, there is no postal service etc
Seriously what would be the point in comforting your loved ones in saying:
"It's ok my darlings, I have dozens of bars of gold stored away in some random vault in Switzerland. We'll be fine. Just need to figure out a way to get ahold of them. I might try pigeons."
Would it help?  

Personally, I do not refer to the recent "underperforming" assessments as "greedy" (even though there could be some truth in the "greedy" label) instead of "distracted."**..

**The distraction is by shitcoins, to be more precise... which really seems difficult to help "supposed bitcoiner" who has such difficult times focusing on king daddy bitcoin, even after having supposedly been studying this space for as long as me (more than 7 years) while still cannot help his lil selfie in being distracted by shitcoins.. go figure???  can we help dumb in that kind of presentation?