 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
|
Subject to change of course, and I realize many will disagree, but right now my long term price estimate is $2341, based on M2 calculations and my subjective take on utilization and velocity. I think most analysts that I have read overstate velocity massively by including mining transactions in velocity calculations.
With my current cost average, that means I am hoping for about a 5x total return. Not sure how long it will take, but I am guessing between 5 and 7 years. So for me, bitcoin is not likely to represent life-changing money, but just another long-term investment with a great ROI.
That said, there is certainly potential both to the upside and downside of my current estimate (read: guess). I am wide open to new information.
One relatively minor (by bitcoin standards) bubble with associated media coverage and your long term estimate will be easily surpassed and suddenly everyone will be contemplating 5 digits with seriousness. Of course, this is not guaranteed to happen, but I suspect if sufficient time passes without it happening, the all-or-nothing mentality of a lot of bitcoiners will tend to bring the price to the Nothing side of things, way before 5 years is up. So while I support a sober valuation of BTC, honestly, if it fails to surpass a couple of grand in five years (that's as long as the entire lifetime of the blockchain so far!), bitcoin will be considered a failure, and far from reaching and staying at 2k, it will crumble to nothing. |
|
|
|
|
So basically OP, since 21 million units with 8 decimal places ARE adequate to serve a pretty large economy, what you are really wanting to do is devalue the holdings of current bitcoin investors. (Probably so you can have a bigger window of opportunity to 'get in early' again, eh?)
Miners wouldn't like it if you didn't increase the block reward to compensate, and users wouldn't like it because you would definitely reduce the value of a coin. So... not going to happen. Only way it would happen is by force.
|
|
|
|
|
Keep sowing those seeds man, good work.
|
|
|
|
|
I find it more likely that bitcoin/alts will spread from the ground up, virus-like, into many countries. Any official decisions to adopt it as national currency will be forced when it becomes too late to resist. IMO national acceptance needs to happen when bitcoin/alts are much bigger and stronger and distributed than they are now, to avoid corrupting the purity of the system with politics and maintain bitcoin as a purely impartial exchange medium.
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty sensible video TBH
|
|
|
|
|
The proof that it is not fading away is that there is a constant stream of newbs coming to these boards and posting fudsy threads such as these.
|
|
|
|
What I think: A lot of people have their summer vacations right now, and many of us (tech geeks at BTC forums) has all or most of their savings in BTC.
So they sell some to get money for travel and vacations. Sell pressure. At the same time that buy pressure is low when a large part of us is on vacation.
And major investors won't step in right now. Probably in september/october we will see a lot more action.
Personally I would actually LIKE to see BTC be at this level or lower, for at least another couple of years (!!) so that I can save and invest more money in BTC.
Also stability aroung $600 would probably help for more mainstream adoption.
The main criticism and skepticism I've heard is about the volatility. Personally I think 1 BTC should be worth at least $2000 by the end of the year, and I believe that it possibly could be worth x10 times that, in 2014. But it would be much more profitable for ME if thoose level is delayed a couple of years.
Yep, I'm short on funds for more BTC partly due to the season. A stagnant price would definitely benefit me, assuming we see another growth spurt at some point after that. |
|
|
|
|
The big holders got their coins fairly, and it would be ridiculous to suggest they should have bought or mined less out of consideration for later adopters, since the future was not certain. I think later adopters benefit because the earliest adopters gave life to the network and made others aware of this new system thanks to the growing price. As for future wealth inequality, at least with bitcoin the rules of money generation and number of coins are clear and simple for anyone to understand, unlike the current system which is obscure to say the least. This gives people a fairer chance to improve their lot.
|
|
|
|
|
Google have been sidelining forums in their results for a while now (see how they got rid of the discussion and blog search options) in favour of commercial or 'official' type sites. Don't know if that has anything to do with the more recent change you mentioned but it's part of a trend.
|
|
|
|
|
Done! Hope you get lots more participants for a proper representation.
|
|
|
|
|
Her existing fortune would be worth-less, yes. But if she could continue getting high paid jobs, she could ask for payment in bitcoins and do just fine. Basically if BTC did end up consuming fiat currencies, it would devalue fiat savings and make earlier adopters savings worth more, but doesn't necessarily have to ruin people's salaries because those can be compensated by (hyper) inflation or switching to BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
A bitcoin reserve currency? I've pondered this issue myself - your version could work. I like the annual refresh thing to combat counterfeiting and fraud. It seems likely that if bitcoin goes on to become fully mainstream that this is something a bank might do to stay relevant. But IMO if bitcoin is to become mainstream, it'll be because people like having direct control over their money. So ideas like this will be helpful for more anonymous off-chain transactions, but if it goes too far you just end up with the same crap we have in today's system.
|
|
|
|
|
Why was it either spend $49000, or nothing?
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I use terms like 'central bank currency' IRL. Agree that fiat isn't a very well known term in everyday use, and talking in terms people can relate to makes it harder to dismiss you as some gobbledegook speaking radical.. Once they understand a bit about how the banking system works, then I start to talk in terms of fiat. You have to lead people through the thought process or they get overloaded with unfamiliar stuff and shy away.
|
|
|
|
The majority (56 percent) of those polled said they knew ‘‘nothing at all’’ about the currency. Nearly half (47 percent) of respondents said that the U.S. government should not allow people to use bitcoins to purchase goods and services. Does anyone but me see a numbers problem here? 56+47=103% Would assume those percentages relate to different questions. Article is quite crappy but at least it has some vaguely educational info on bitcoin at the end which might help encourage some more open minded readers. |
|
|
|
|
I understand the idea that inflation encourages exchange of money for goods and investments. I wont attempt to claim this doesn't support growth. But people do not like being dictated to that having value sapped from their savings is a good thing, like they need to be whipped into splurging their money. The system supposedly works to stimulate a certain pattern of spending and growth, but it is narrow minded to assume it is the only way to do things. So - rather than 'more of the same, but mo'betta', IMO people are turning away from the system in order to do things differently.
|
|
|
|
|
If bitcoin meets the expectations of a lot of people in this community (>>100K usd/the end of fiat/crypto ruling the world) you will still be considered a rich jammy bastard early adopter. Really, how rich do you need to be? Just stick with it this time.
|
|
|
|
|
