Coinbase currently says it has more than 30 million users. One year ago, they said that they have more than 20 million users. That's a gain of 10 million, or about 30,000 per day. Keep in mind that these numbers are very imprecise, but you still can get an idea of the scale.

Don't be an ass. I may make some assumptions that you don't agree with, but that does not make me wrong.

I assume that Bitcoin is (or will be) a form of money, and that people will value it as a money. That is why I think it is valid to equate its value to the other monies in the world.

In contrast, you have yet to support your $10 million valuation by anything more than fantasy, wishful thinking, and irrational exuberance.

The key word here is "expression". You can copyright the expression of an idea, but you can't copyright the idea itself. Satoshi used the ideas of several other people to develop Bitcoin, but he did not copy the expressions of those ideas (the words that they wrote), so there is no basis for copyright infringement.

Here's an example of the difference: The Winklevoss twins did not sue Mark Zuckerberg because he turned their idea for a website into Facebook. They sued him because he worked with them on their idea and then used the results of that work (the intellectual property) to start Facebook.

Similarly, you can't patent an concept, but you can patent an implementation of the concept. Nobody can patent the concept of a decentralized peer-to-peer electronic cash system, but Satoshi can certainly patent Bitcoin, which is an implementation of that concept.

Anyway, although I have researched this subject extensively, I'm not an expert, so my post may contain some inaccuracies.

I believe that you are referring to the post in which he considers the possibility of Bitcoin replacing all the wealth of the world. Simply stated, he is wrong because money can't do that. He is conflating the "store of value" and "unit of account" aspects of money. For example, a house that you own has a value that is part of your wealth, but the house cannot not be replaced by Bitcoin.

It is also a mistake to compare Bitcoin to M1, M2, etc. because those money supply values include the result of fractional reserve banking. The correct comparison is the global monetary base. Matthew Mežinskis and Fernando Ulrich (cryptovoices.com) have done a lot of work along these lines and have come up with a maximum potential value of the Bitcoin money supply -- about 19 trillion USD, or about 900 thousand USD per bitcoin. Keep in mind that those values assume that Bitcoin will replace all of the money, which is not likely to ever happen. Note also that the values do not account for future economic growth and lost bitcoins.

You can't copyright an idea (at least, in the U.S.).

I'm not "debunking" anything. I'm just telling you that the encyclopedia is referring to Dome Argus, which is at about latitude 80°S., longitude 90°E and has an elevation of 13000 feet. Do you really think that an encyclopedia would mention the dome covering the earth? It's a mainstream publication written by mainstream scientists.

You should be more careful. That "dome" is not what you think it is:


It seems to me that many flat-earthers often quote information that they don't understand. It is apparent that most simply don't have the knowledge and skill in math and science to understand and evaluate what they are reading, so they tend to point to evidence that is invalid and sometimes even irrelevant (such as in this case).

A good example of this lack of knowledge and skill in math and science is the misuse of refraction and perspective to explain the setting sun. Refraction and perspective are both well-understood and have a solid mathematical foundations. Someone that understands the math and science of refraction and perspective would have to conclude that they cannot be used to explain the setting sun.

While I don't believe the earth is flat, I would certainly entertain the notion if only there were a rigorous mathematical and scientific foundation supporting the theory. It is disappointing that flat-earthers cannot provide this.

The "signals" service is a common scam that has been around for a long time.

If they can actually predict movements, they don't need to make money by providing a service. In fact if they were really legitimate, such a service would inhibit their own profits.

Typically, the signals service scam is a pump-and-dump scheme. They first invest in an asset and then they recommend it (the "pump"). When clients start buying, the price goes up and they dump theirs for a big profit. Eventually, nobody is buying and everybody is selling. The price plummets and everybody loses money.

A true physical bitcoin contains bitcoins. Yours doesn't. The coin can be bought on Amazon for $4.40 + shipping.

https://www.amazon.com/Authentic-BITCOIN-Commemorative-Round-Collectors/dp/B075FDGX48

That is not the flat earth model. Try again.

Cars, shoes, email and phones are all being used for crimes. Should we ensure accountability of those, also?

Despite the popularity of the myth, here is no correlation between halvings and bull runs.

Here is a simple way to show that: Take a log price chart, and without looking at the dates see if you can figure out from the chart when the halvings occurred. Next, assuming that there are certain features in the chart that indicate the times of the halving, note that those features also point to non-halvings. There is no correlation.

At 10% per week, it will take less than a year.

I've seen that written so many times by flat earthers, but I don't know what it means. I wonder if it isn't just a mantra. Can you explain what it means in more scientific terms?

Smells like a scam. If you can earn 10% per week, you don't need investors.

The key question is this: For an equivalent amount of generated energy, which produces a more dangerous amount of waste -- nuclear or fossil fuels? I believe the answer is that fossil fuels produce the more dangerous waste.

Also, which will cost more -- storing nuclear waste safely or mitigating the effects of global warming? I believe the answer is that mitigating the effects of global warming will cost more.

Sure, $20k was unexpected, but I don't think anyone thought it was impossible. On the other hand, you can't provide any facts or numbers that might support your $10 million value. I can see the price potentially reaching $300k someday, and even $1 million because of speculation, but $10 million would be hard to justify.

If you could justify a $10 million price, then I would have to agree with you. But I don't think you can. You are fooling yourself with your wishful thinking and unrealistic expectations.

The term "velocity" comes from the Equation of Exchange, MV = PQ, where M is the money supply, V is the velocity, and PQ is the total value of goods exchanged for the money. The velocity can be thought of the number of times a particular unit of the money is spent in the time period.

The velocity is important because it determines the value of the money supply. You can rewrite the equation as M = PQ / V. Since the number of bitcoins can be considered constant at 21 million (though we are actually not quite there yet), this shows that the value of a bitcoin depends on adoption (as measured by PQ) and the velocity. Assuming constant adoption, increasing the velocity results in a lower value and decreasing the velocity results in a higher value.

The velocity is affected by several factors, including hoarding, fractional reserve banking, and technology.

Hoarding: If a portion of the money supply is hoarded and thus spent very slowly, then that behavior, of course, reduces the velocity.

Fractional Reserve Banking: With fractional reserve banking, each actual bitcoin backs a larger number of apparent bitcoins. The ratio is called the money multiplier, and the velocity is increased by this ratio. You could instead apply the ratio to the number of bitcoins, but I think it is easier to apply it to the velocity and stick with a constant 21 million bitcoins.

Technology: One of the factors that affects the velocity is simply how quickly a person can spend money that they have received. For example, the artificial delay in money transfers in the U.S. ("3 to 5 business days") lowers the velocity. Technology can speed this up. Bitcoins can be spent again by a receiver even before the transaction has been confirmed. The Lightning Network allows bitcoins locked up in channels to be spent and respent over and over. Better technology increases the velocity.

Any real fundamental analysis starts with:  MV = PQ