Op, such prediction appeared in so many places before now and I believe it is a possibility that is bound to happen and may not happen at all. But if bitcoin should continue the way it's value move this year that it will reach $25000 by 2022 though it is not a guarantee that it will come an accomplishment at the end of 2022.
Bitcoin has moved from $1000 from the beginning of the year and it's currently hovering around $9200 as of right now and it has the potential of reaching $10000 before the year ends. I think it will be an understatement to say it reach $25000 by 2022, I believe it will reach $20000 by next year ending if not higher. Bitcoin only reach that price that year. That's because I think the price of Bitcoin can reach more numbers. I hope, in 2 to 3 years the price of Bitcoin can reach 10 times as it did several years ago. That's because I want my investments to pay off in the time I've set. And I think many say that the price of Bitcoin will increase more than that. If the price of Bitcoin is going to be that way, or my predictions and predictions do not happen, then I want to ask something. If we invest now, then we start our investment when it costs $ 10,000. And if we want to profit 10 times, we have to wait until Bitcoin's price reaches $ 100,000. The question is, when will Bitcoin's price reach $ 100,000? The main problem with this line of thinking to me is that people would expect an investment to increase 10x as a matter of fact. This line of thinking shows that people don't view Bitcoin as a risk, they view price increases as an inevitability, and that mania and irrationality is a surefire sign of a bubble. This exact sentiment fueled the mania that created the dotcom bubble and the housing bubble. Alan Greenspan famously called the market irrational exuberant during the dotcom bubble. To me, this looks far more unbalanced than that did at the time. |
|
|
|
November 29, 2017: bitcoin falls from around $11,400 to around $8,600 in about four hours. That's a flash crash if I've ever seen one. 24.5% decline, then a sharp movement back up to about $10,000 45 minutes later. The volatility is extreme, even by crypto standards. In the midst of that, I was seeing a bid ask spread over $200 where I am accustomed to it being under $1 much of the time.  Any theories on the cause? |
|
|
|
I'm currently investigating how to stay under the radar with regards to the profits made from crypto.
So, let's say we made millions, how do you get some of the money back to fiat,but without making waves with the government.
Added, I stay in a corrupt country where large scale government corruption is the norm.
Any help will be appreciated.
PS: Is the idea of crypto not to be anonymous.
So you're asking for advice on how to launder money so you don't have to pay taxes on your financial gain? Seems like a smart and totally legit thing to do! Take your windfall and go legit, pay your taxes or risk jail. The trade off there isn't exactly equal. Any exchange not keeping financial records is not an exchange trustworthy enough to use. Trying to structure your transactions to avoid any type of reporting requirement is going to lead you down a bad path. |
|
|
|
It is very much possible if we consider the current bitcoin growth rate.
We may see bitcoin to 10000$ in very short period of time.
Demand of bitcoin is increasing day by day among people.
My prediction is in 2022 price will be more than 30000$.
The growth rate is the key variable, but everyone is taking it for granted that this is 1) normal, and 2) sustainable. Normal is easier to argue, because Bitcoin has always been very volatile. Plus, how do you determine what normal is with such limited data? So perhaps extreme volatility is normal, and periods of rapid price appreciation can be normal, but sustainable is another question entirely. Bitcoin cannot grow at such a rapid clip for extended periods of time (up 750% in less than a year now), because the law of large numbers makes it more difficult to the growth rate the larger it gets. That's a mathematical question though. The larger question is can Bitcoin grow this quickly and not be a bubble. I'm not sold on that one. Everything about this feels like a bubble, because everyone looks irrational insisting it can't go down. |
|
|
|
Of course I heard about the information in the title, but I want to draw your attention to that 1% thing. Do you guys realize how much is that?
The world population is roughly 7.6 billion, so our 1% means that there are 76 million rich people in the world. That's a big number. I mean, where do they live? Do some of us know some of them? And what if every one of them will want have 1 Bitcoin?
The bulk of the richest people living in America. I'm sure that many of them already have bitcoins. But the fact that they are very rich does not mean that they have the available funds. Assessment of property is done on the basis of cost of the enterprises they own. At any moment they can turn into poor. If they did become rich with Fiat, why do they need bitcoin? If they are rich in fiat the will most likely invest in bitcoin to safeguard their wealth. No one knows if Bitcoin will really be successful but when it is then those rich people will not wait to buy the coin for $1 million, They will invest once the price is still low. I see this the exact opposite way. If they are rich in fiat, it's because they don't take unnecessary risks. Nobody who is worth a billion dollars is going to "safeguard their wealth" by investing a very large portion of it in cryptocurrency. They're going to invest in businesses and other income-generating assets. Crypto is not a business and it doesn't generate income or profit, it is a commodity/asset (and a speculative one at that) and only appreciates in price when large groups of people agree it is worth more. Because this is arbitrary, it is far too risky for anyone who has a lot of traditional wealth to risk it here. |
|
|
|
I have been making an analysis about how people is getting real rich thanks to the increse of BTC and it is amazing to think that people are getting real rich, lets hope and this will continue so the people that holds very little BTC also gets rich.
This is the analisis I made:
On February 1st 2015 you will need 4,219 BTC to have 1 million USD, now that is worth: 10,125,600 usd
On Febraury 1st 2016 you will need 2,681 BTC to have 1 million USD, now that is worth: 6,434,400 usd
On February 1st 2017 you will need 992 BTC to have 1 million USD, now that is worth: 2,380,800 usd
Today you need 404 BTC to have 1 million USD ( the person who has now 404 BTC it is millionaire, and in Feb 2015 just had with the same 404 BTC 95,757 USD
That is amazing.
I wonder what are the new rich people doing right know? have they realised that they are rich yet.
For me not only rich people thanks to btc, also us like we need to say gratitude to the author or the creator of this bitcoin because of this technology many people all over the world have been benefited, economy rise and stock market continue to bloom.the rich people i know that they invest and joined in bitcoin is bill gates & mayweather and i think what are they doing right know is continue to bloom there wealth and enjoying the fruit of there labor and creating their own legacy. Most of the people who are rich because of bitcoin are those who trusted into bitcoin and keep buying them when bitcoin was damn cheap in prices. Those who even get to know about bitcoin a year back or two are undoubtedly rich people now. It is very simple to be rich with bitcoin, you just need to keep holding bitcoin in your wallet without doing any hard work and this is what exactly I am doing now. Yeah, but let's be honest here. Most, if not all, of those people just got lucky. You can call it faith or talk about trust and so on, but these folks just got lucky. Bitcoin isn't a business. It doesn't create profits or value, it's just a commodity that has taken on a cult mentality, and the earliest fools who rushed into it got lucky that it blew up as big as it did. There's no magic or special intelligence here, and no assurance the bitcoin bubble isn't going to burst just like the Tulip bubble did. It is not luck if they knew what they were doing, some important investors were given the chance to invest in uber and they declined thinking it was never going to work and now look at it, ubers are everywhere, so while many got lucky, we cannot deny the fact that many knew exactly what they were doing and deserve the profits they got. Anyone who says now they always knew Bitcoin would reach this point is not a person I believe. Depending on when you got into Uber, it may not have been a great investment either. Everything is relative, and people buying Bitcoin at less than a dollar were speculative buying, and I agree they deserve the profit and earned it, I just don't believe any of them saw this coming as opposed to taking a gamble and being extremely lucky. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not a bubble unless you also consider the case for US dollar as a bubble within world reserve currency deposits relative to trade done. No one mentions this growth in political currency vs actual trade done but it has altered economics world over, hence no price can be considered as a bubble without reference to the worlds largest currency and excess liquidity.
How can USD be a bubble if the value is stable or slightly devalued over time and not rapidly increasing? It's quite easy to say Bitcoin is a bubble without necessitating the USD also being a bubble. Relative to the USD, Bitcoin's price has rapidly appreciated. The USD value has not rapidly appreciated to any stable benchmark. I don't see the link you cite between USD and trade. What does that mean exactly? |
|
|
|
|
I generally view Bitcoin as the rising tide that lifts all boats. If you're not familiar with that saying, it means the success Bitcoin brings to cryptocurrency makes all cryptocurrencies to do better. The here are times when ehtereum does not trade in symmetry with Bitcoin, but generally it seems that most currencies trade the same direction as Bitcoin more times than not.
|
|
|
|
Napoleon Bonaparte said that China is a "Sleeping Giant" well now it is awake because its economical status are almost on the top of few well known country. Well the main reason why they progress much easily is because they are focus on the things that they have for example the people instead of making a lot factories they focus of labor that is why the price of products in China was so cheap because there are so many laborers out there. Being Industrious is the fundamental of a Utopian Country.
People as a resource... with a population as large as China, you have to consider it an advantage that no other country can match. Even if China doesn't have the most advanced military, they can overcome a certain level of technological disadvantage with their excess population. As technological advancement evens the field, eventually they will have to be viewed as a super power. You're seeing the beginning of their posturing in the South China Sea. I would only expect this to become more militaristic in the future. |
|
|
|
Hello everyone, Today I came across a post https://powercompare.co.uk/bitcoin/ and became wary of potential drawbacks of increased Bitcoin mining to global electricity supply or with its reduced mining because of "caps" on electricity use lead to high appreciation of its value. Because its going to be a concern in coming days if only by 2020 mining will be using entire global electricity supply. Check the article and lets discuss the future of BTC as well as crypto! There's a critical logic error in the article that leads to the most shocking claim. The article purports that at the current growth rate, Bitcoin will consume all the world's electricity by Feb 2020. That should immediately be discounted as preposterous and impossible; obviously Bitcoin can never consume all the world's electricity. Its is physically impossible. The authors mean to say that if Bitcoin's growth continues, by Feb 2020 it will consume as much electricity as the world currently does. That's not the same thing, and also extremely unlikely. First, they took one data point and extrapolated it 26 months into the future. Anyone with a little statistics knowledge should be able to tell you the folly in making a conclusion based on only one data point. The smaller your subset, the more likely your data point is an outlier or not indicative of a true trend. Second, as energy demand grows, energy supply grows, so increasing Bitcoin demand for electricity would spur the world to create more capacity. Third, the diminishing return on very large numbers means the growth of electricity consumption has to slow from Bitcoin-related sources. That means it's highly unlikely that the growth rate they extrapolated an be maintained long enough to reach the energy consumption it is predicted to in 26 months, and even if it did, for the other reasons it wouldn't constitute all the world's electricity consumption. Because they get these basic things wrong, it's hard to take anything else they said too seriously. |
|
|
|
I just wonder, where bitcoin depends its value/price.
Don't we have the power to make its value higher?
If we have, what can we do to make bitcoin's price become higher?
Let's talk about it here. Maybe we can help each other to achieve what we want in bitcoins.
The only thing you can do to directly affect the price is buy more coins and lock them away to take them out of circulation. Less supply and unchanged demand would result in higher prices. However, releasing those coins back into circulation would have the opposite effect, as increase supply with unchanged demand would decrease the price. In reality though, there's nothing you can do on a large enough scale to affect the price. |
|
|
|
We only shifting the simple work to robots and create on other places new.
There will be still stuff to do which a robot will not able to do it. But not in 50 years.
Read the book Homo Sapiens. This guy write it just how it would be in 2050 and above.
Everything works with algorithms. Even a Police officer, lawyer or Doctor could be replaced by a machine.
Police officers and doctors require a level of dexterity that robots cannot replicate, and doctors, lawyers and police officers require a level of conscious decision making that is unlikely for computers to be able to replicate. Lawyers create arguments based on abstract concepts, so even if a computer can learn legal precedent, it doesn't seem likely they can adapt and create novel legal arguments required to inform new areas of the law. Much of the law in the US is determined by case law, not legislative law, so it's just not likely robots will ever acquire the ability or be granted the authority to have input on such crucial items. If robots could learn to be a suitable lawyer, doctor or police officer, we would be living in a world where we are subservient to robots. |
|
|
|
The richest 1% now owns more than half of all the world’s household wealth, according to analysts at Credit Suisse. And they say inequality is only going to get worse over the coming years, with millennials having a particularly tough time. The Swiss bank released its latest Global Wealth Report on Tuesday, together with a statement that contained the immortal phrase, “The outlook for the millionaire segment is more optimistic than for the bottom of the wealth pyramid.” The research showed that there are increasing numbers of dollar millionaires. This is partly because the strength of the euro has created 620,000 more of them in Germany, France, Italy and Spain (conversely, depreciating currencies in the U.K. and Japan have seen 34,000 and over 300,000 people in those countries respectively lose the status). But almost half of the new dollar millionaires are in the U.S. itself. “So far, the Trump Presidency has seen businesses flourish and employment grow, though the ongoing supportive role played by the Federal Reserve has undoubtedly played a part here as well, and wealth inequality remains a prominent issue,” said Michael O’Sullivan, CIO for International Wealth Management at Credit Suisse. Credit Suisse expects to see a 22% rise in dollar millionaires by 2022, from 36 million to 44 million. The problem is, the numbers of adults who have less than $10,000 are expected to shrink by only 4%. The bank’s researchers see wealth inequality as largely being a result of the financial crisis— it rose across the world between 2007 and 2016, because financial assets were growing faster than non-financial assets. The top 1% started the millennium owning 45.5% of all wealth, and now they have 50.1%. As for what’s been happening since mid-2016, Credit Suisse described a mixed picture. Non-financial wealth has been increasing “substantially,” but inequality is still rising. “Despite higher mean wealth per adult, median wealth fell again this year in Africa, Asia-Pacific and Latin America. Our projections for 2022 suggest more pessimistic scenarios for the immediate years ahead,” the researchers said. “Looking at the bottom of the wealth distribution, 3.5 billion people—corresponding to 70% of all adults in the world—own less than $10,000. Those with low wealth tend to be disproportionately found among the younger age groups, who have had little chance to accumulate assets, but we find that millennials face particularly challenging circumstances compared to other generations,” they wrote. Essentially, millennials are more likely to be unemployed or earning less, priced out of the housing market, and unable to get a pension. Baby boomers have most of the wealth and the housing, so “millennials are doing less well than their parents at the same age.” Millennials may be better educated than earlier generations, but Credit Suisse’s researchers said they expected only a “minority of high achievers and those in high-demand sectors such as technology or finance to effectively overcome the ‘millennial disadvantage.'” http://fortune.com/2017/11/14/credit-suisse-millionaires-millennials-inequality/ .... Here we have an interesting piece on wealth and wage inequality. Historically wealth distribution was defined by something known as the 20/80 rule. It was a loose rule of thumb that roughly 20% of the population owned 80% of the wealth. Today that divide has increased to a point where 1% of the population owns 50% of the wealth. This implies that while productivity and technology are increasing the profits are increasingly being distributed disproportionately across the population. This is an interesting point for discussion as some of the things capitalism or socialism are blamed for might be traced back to wealth and wage inequality. Its also an interesting point as real inflation could be growing faster than wages which could produce catastrophic results over the long term. Many markets and industries across global economies could suffer as wages stagnate. This could have a negative impact across real estate and many other areas which could expect inevitable downturns leading to recession/depression. An attempt at greater equality in terms of wealth and wages has the potential to cure many issues facing society. Reading the article there could be a lot of misinformation and lies in it also. The top 1% owning 50% of wealth is not mutually exclusive of the top 20% owning 80% of the wealth, so first, there's no indication that anything has changed based on these statistics because it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. It could be true that the top 20% still own 80% of the wealth, which if true negates your first point. We just need a better statistic to know if your thesis is supported or not. I think many of the things capitalism is blamed for stem primarily from stagnating wages as a subset of wealth inequality generally. Not sure about socialism there, I don't see the connection. But I agree that many global economies suffer as wages stagnate. The economy grows larger when the middle class makes more money, because the ultra wealthy generally put less of it back into the economy when they get more. "An attempt at greater equality in terms of wealth and wages has the potential to cure many issues facing society," agreed! We're generally seeing automation reduce employment, which increases wealth for the people who own the means of production, at the direct expense of the people who have been replaced. That is, automation enriches the wealthy at the direct expense of the working class. |
|
|
|
We all know that there is corruption everywhere, like in government or any other organization. Because of money, corruption can always happen with greedy people who always wants more money to them. Since bitcoin can be considered as money, can it also lead to corruption?
Bitcoin doesn't even have to be considered money to be related to or directly cause corruption. Anything with value can do this. In fact, I would argue that Bitcoin is not money (it is a commodity), and it does cause corruption. A more interesting question is does blockchain reduce the likelihood of corruption because it is generally more transparent system, but even there I would tend to doubt it. The amount of money at stake (USD, not BTC) with Bitcoin makes corruption inevitable. |
|
|
|
I don't know what to say on this effect but it's like and the price is going up the peoples are getting more interested in Bitcoin. Even from my locality many people have requested they want to know about Bitcoin, so I think Bitcoin is being adopted more frequently in all over the world and with this page I think we can cross $10,000 in around 2 years.
Without the massive price appreciation, most people would not be interested. The people buying bitcoin aren't buying because they think it's a system that is better than fiat or the USD, but because they view it as a system for acquiring more fiat in a fast and risk-free manner. The price appreciation has made people irrational. So you're right, the price going up is getting more and more people interested, and it's the wrong type of people because of the reason they're getting interested. |
|
|
|
On an economical point of view Bitcoin Cash is a bubble and so as Bitcoin, a bubble is defined to being an overpriced asset in which it is far away from its real value. The problem with Bitcoin or BCH in this matter is that we don't really know what is the real fair market value for it as we are the only once who are determining the price of Bitcoin. The price of them is so played out that their is no stable price for them. That is why not all people are buying Bitcoin because it is hard to set a foot on.
If you don't have a basis what the price should be, you can't be sure it's a bubble. Not having a basis for the price doesn't mean something is a bubble, but it could be a red flag. The fair market value is generally what the market decides is the price for it, and there is currently a lot of support for both the price of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. But fair market value is not the same as inherent value, and I'm not sure that either BTC or BCH has any inherent value. So where there is a huge disparity between inherent value and market value, I would be worried that something arbitrary can crash the price for no reason and without warning. |
|
|
|
A $25,000 price is fun to think about, even though I don't believe it's in the cards.
Your last line interested me the most...but why dont you think its in the cards? Surely people didnt think at the beginning of this year that 8k bitcoin was possible even 6k or even 4k. However all of that happened and now it is the 10k target that is near. Soon we will be saying 15k, 20k, and 25k respectively. I think this is the beginning of things to come and we should embrace and enjoy the whole rid to the top (wherever that is). It's a valuation question for me at this point. On the one hand, it's easy to look back at what has happened with the price over the last 8 years and say at any point "well, we never thought X price was possible, but look at it now." That's a rather faulty logic that would suppose that the price will never stop going up, and nothing in economics works that way, so accepting it as a given makes me nervous to start. But on the valuation front, Bitcoin has a market cap of $136 billion with a price of $8100 per coin. To reach $25,000 per coin, the market cap would be $408 billion if the number of coins remains the same, but there will be more coins at that point so the market cap will actually be higher. So the question to me is do I see Bitcoin reaching a total worth of $450ish billion? The threats to that are the fact that Bitcoin currently hasn't been able to scale and is susceptible to spam attack and there are worthy competitors that even at this point may be better at being Bitcoin than Bitcoin is, so future money coming into crypto might not go to Bitcoin but to other cryptocurrencies. That gives me enough doubt to wonder if Bitcoin can actually reach a price of $25,000 per coin. At this point, I wouldn't bet on it. That's not to say that I would bet against it, but I'm not putting more money into right now, and that's just a decision based on my personal appetite for risk. The potential reward here isn't worth the risk of buying at this price. |
|
|
|
Well, Segwit2x seems to have failed definitively. The miners' support is simply too small. I think this is the best for both small blockers and big blockers (they have their BCH anyway), and maybe even opens the way for a block size increase in the far future (2019+) with Core support, but for now Segwit is sufficient (it must be used more, however ...). By the way, I see that my BCH call in this thread ... Now that Segwit2x failed*, "hardcore" big blockers will likely try to push Bitcoin Cash up, for it to become a serious Bitcoin competitor. That's why I expect stable and even higher BCH prices in the near future - $1000 are not out of reach, I think.
... wasn't that bad, I was even conservative  That was a good call. I don't think I would have been as bullish on BCH given how biased I was against the need to split the chain in the first place. I'm less biased against it now at this point, I just want a stable ecosystem. I am becoming more and more tired of BTC's inability to handle the crush of transactions. I still don't want to have to support BCH, but they have 8 times the capacity to handle transactions at this point, and that lends to more stability. If BTC can't get its act together, I'm not going to be particularly sad to see it supplanted by a coin that can scale. |
|
|
|
Is it enough to be smart with just nothing to lean on and go on with your life? Because i feel that there are a lot of people who doesn't know how to handle their money with regards to see in the future. Is it enough to be smart and not be strategical or somewhat a person who has a lot of experience. Who would you choose?
For me it is required to be a master of both things like of course you can not have experience if you are not going to try and some people would think it's a waste of their time if they are doing what they know already like repeating their work over and over again. So it should be in a balance.
An inability to strategically plan is why a large portion of the American public spends their golden years in poverty. People can't/won't delay gratification, and don't spend their lives accumulating the money that will be needed to take them throw retirement, or think (wrongly) that social security is supposed to be an income source designed to allow them to maintain their lifestyle (as opposed to being a supplemental income source that keeps them out of poverty with their savings). So no, I don't think being smart is sufficient. There are plenty of smart poor people. You have to be strategic. |
|
|
|
soon there will be a crash since the segwit2x fork will come soon and that will end the price bubble there's a lot of panic sellers mostly first time in trading industry even tho they only have little profit they will gonna sell it asap when the price starts dumping. but for me no matter what happen im gonna hold my coins. holding it for a long term is more profitable .
Well, we certainly had the SegWit2x crash you called for, though probably not for the reason you anticipated (the cancellation of SegWit instead of the implementation of it). Also worth pointing out that the market has recovered from that SegWit-related crash back to it's pre-crash highs in the upper $7000s. It hasn't done anything to alleviate my concern that this may be a bubble. The thing about bubbles is you only get confirmation they were a bubble long after they've popped and sanity is restored in the market. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
