The supply will be constant after the halving no matter how many miners there are. There will be 12.5 bitcoins produced every ten minutes whether there are a billion miners or a million miners. Supply production will be constant, it will just be half of what it was before the halving.
Less than 3% of the daily Bitcoin volumes are taken up by the newly mined coins (looking at the transaction volumes in the major exchanges). So I am not sure whether there will be a sudden supply / demand inequality once the block halving occurs. And also, the block reward halving is still some 7 months away. A lot can happen before that.  For sure. If anything, the disruptions to supply (to the extent they occur) will more likely be caused by expectation of what should be happening to the price and the perception of what is happening with supply, as opposed to what is actually happening. |
|
|
|
Should I believe in Bitcoin ?
I have 10k $ and maybe going to buy , but I doubt the further development of Bitcoin and I'm afraid to lose money! Can you convince me or dissuaded from buying?
There's no such thing as a risk-free investment. The risk of losing money in bitcoin is extremely high. You could make a decent amount of money, but you're just as likely to lose a decent amount of money. If you're worried about loss of capital, you're far better served investing in a company that generates actual profits, not gambling on an asset like a currency. Be careful. |
|
|
|
The banks will not want to replace fiat with bitcoin. With fiat, the supply is unlimited. They can leverage many times with fiat with borrowed money from Central Banks.
If banks hold from start enough BTC them can borrow a lot... simply impossible that bank were among early adopter, because the value was zero back then, and banks hate bitcoin even now, why they should love it back then? no sense Banks have put lot of milion $ in startup for bitcoin services... You said the key thing yourself: the venture capitalists aren't investing in bitcoin as an asset, they're investing in bitcoin businesses. Real investors don't care about the speculation game surrounding the price of the currency, because ultimately it's just gambling. It could go up, it could go down, and there's no real logic surrounding it. (If bitcoin was such a slam dunk "investment" the price would be much higher than it is now.) Investors invest in businesses that earn a return on the investment. That's where the smart money is going, not in the currency itself. |
|
|
|
The price will not rise to $1M in 10 years. It might be $100,000 in 10 years, depending on adoption. If it cannot reach $10k. It means it has failed.
If btc is trading above $1000 in 10 years, I'd be surprised. |
|
|
|
Blockchain.info doesn't offer the exchange service, they have partnered with other financial institutions that offer exchange services that will deposit to your btc address. But you have to use one of their partner services, which most likely means you have to initiate the transfer from that website or ecosystem, not from Blockchain.info. |
|
|
|
to bubble or not to bubble - this still is the question. compare these two charts. It is one of the most widely cited charts about market bubbles in the world. It focuses on investor psychology and the mindsets that prevail.  the other one is a print screen from bitstamp  i think it was not a bubble. although the moves are correct. The magnitude is not strong enough. The first chart is about sentiment and trends, and the price moves are exaggerated for illustrative purposes. Just because the price graph you posted doesn't look exactly like it is not proof it's not a bubble. |
|
|
|
The nomination came from Bhagwan Chowdhry, who has a PhD in Finance from the University of Chicago, and who was asked by the Prize Committee to nominate someone. Chowdry picked Nakamoto: I am completely serious in suggesting Satoshi Nakamoto for the Prize. The invention of bitcoin -- a digital currency -- is nothing short of revolutionary. Many physical currencies have been used historically -- from beads, sea-shells to precious metals such as gold or silver, to even consumables such as cigarettes in times of hyperinflations, to sports cards. Paper money, or what is formally known as Fiat currencies, are what are now ubiquitous all over the world with different regions and countries issuing their own currencies for facilitating trade and exchange.
Bitcoin, the currency, sometimes referred to as Digital Gold, on the other hand is digital and exists purely as a mathematical object. It offers many advantages over both physical and paper currencies. It is secure, relying on almost unbreakable cryptographic code, can be divided into millions of smaller sub-units, and can be transferred securely and nearly instantaneously from one person to any other person in the world with access to internet bypassing governments, central banks and financial intermediaries such as Visa, Mastercard, Paypal or commercial banks eliminating time delays and transactions costs.
But beyond demonstrating the possibility of creating a reliable digital currency, Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin Protocol has spawned exciting innovations in the FinTech space by showing how many financial contracts -- not just currencies -- can be digitized, securely verified and stored, and transferred instantaneously from one party to another. The implications of this are immense. This will likely create an open, decentralized, public infrastructure for moving both money -- as Stellar.org is trying to create - as well as other smart contracts -- as Ethereum.org is attempting to foster -- as easily as email but with security and nearly zero transactions costs. The cover and a lead story in the October 31, 2015 issue of the Economist magazine explain this well and in some detail.
Not only will Satoshi Nakamoto's contribution change the way we think about money, it is likely to upend the role central banks play in conducting monetary policy, destroy high-cost money transfer services such as Western Union, eliminate the 2-4% transactions tax imposed by intermediaries such as Visa, MasterCard and Paypal, eliminate the time-consuming and expensive notary and escrow services and indeed transform the landscape of legal contracts completely. Many industries such as Banking, Finance, Law will see a big upheaval. The consumers will be big beneficiaries and indeed the poor and marginal sections of the society will reap the benefits of financial and social inclusion in the coming decades. I can barely think of another innovation in Economic and Finance in the last several decades whose influence surpasses the welfare increases that will be engendered by Satoshi Nakamoto's brilliant, path-breaking invention. That is why I am nominating him for the Nobel Prize in Economics.
Full article available here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bhagwan-chowdry/i-shall-happily-accept-th_b_8462028.html |
|
|
|
Again, no where near this in any foreseeable future. You're talking about a single currency that does a couple hundred millions dollars of trade on its most dramatically active days, versus an exchange comprised of hundreds of billion dollar companies, and which turns over hundreds of billions of dollars of value in a 7 hour period on its slowest days. Bitcoin is literally thousands of times smaller, and the presently unbanked will join the traditional banking system in larger numbers than bitcoin, thus ensuring bitcoin trade never overtakes NYSE.
Never? So when you will have thousands of online businesses, tons of new concepts and many new members. Foxes market volatility is dying, they print so much money that all fiat currencies will die in a stalemate. Forex traders will love bitcoin they are already joining us. Then it will still be dwarfed by the magnitude of the NYSE, which is home to hundreds of multi-billion dollar companies. The largest company on NYSE right now is 60 times larger than the entirety of bitcoin, and that's only one company. And there are at least 49 other companies that are each, by themselves, 20 times bigger than the entirety of bitcoin. And then that's still only the first 50 companies, there are more than 3200 companies listed on the NYSE. You're comparing as equals two things that are staggeringly nowhere near being equal. It becomes evident just how great the discrepancy is when you look at hard numbers and don't speak in abstract generalities, or lofty (and generous) estimations on what the future is going to hold for bitcoin adoption. |
|
|
|
I think this is the new price of bitcoin: around 380. From here we will start to build up the price of bitcoin because this won't be the final price of it as the halving is coming soon
just in my opinion, halving will make bitcoin price goes up because pretty much miners will stop mining and bitcoin supply will be less than demand The supply will be constant after the halving no matter how many miners there are. There will be 12.5 bitcoins produced every ten minutes whether there are a billion miners or a million miners. Supply production will be constant, it will just be half of what it was before the halving. |
|
|
|
Yes, deflation for me is monetary deflation: the supply of money shrinks. (in a keynesian system due to defaults, as the debt is the money itself)
In bitcoin we wont see that, we will see however price deflation, due to strenghtening: denominated things in bitcoin will shrink in price : both wages & expenditures.
We already see that: as bitcoin price went up, faucets pay out less, but advertising on faucets is also cheaper.
Uhh we almost definitely will see monetary deflation where the supply of money shrinks, Bitcoin being a deflationary currency is one of its critical foundations. Monetary deflation isn't as common in real life, if deflation does occur it is usually price deflation just due to a shrink of the economy and heavily reduced consumer spending. Bitcoin's money supply doesnt shrink, it grows in a logarithmic curve and it stops at 20,999,999,9769 BTCOnly the rate of inflation decreases, that is not =/= to deflation. Keynesianists like to say that rate of inflation decrease is deflation, when its not. They are not familiar with the terms, and these are PHD economists. There will be deflation any time coins are unrecoverable due to lost keys or death of owners who leave no contingency for private keys in their estate planning. Once the last fraction of a bitcoin is minted, there is guaranteed deflation unless you're taking the position that a private key will never be lost under any circumstance. (I personally wouldn't bet on that.) |
|
|
|
A house, like any asset or holding is always a good investment on the long term.
A house (your house, or even a second rental house) is not an asset. It's a liability. Houses cost money... even after you bought it and paid the extra notary and registration taxes: real estate taxes, insurance, maintenance, keeping it heated in the winter to prevent the plumbing to freeze over, if it's a rental house good luck in getting a 100% occupancy. Even been stuck with a bad tenant who decided to trash the house after not paying the rent for 3 months and then 2 months of court to get him evicted? If the house is empty for a certain period, depending on in which country/city the house is located, there are various government penalties and taxes are levied on vacancy. A house, like any liability is not always a good investment on the long term. It's a common misconception spread by real estate agents and mortgage providers to lure in the punters. If you buy a house to live in, make sure you have a steady income to pay for real estate taxes, insurance, maintenance and keeping it heated an connected to the electricity grid. A house costing money to maintain doesn't make it not an asset. If the house has any value, it's an asset. That's literally the definition of an asset. If you want to dispute whether it's a good investment, fair enough, but it is factually an asset. |
|
|
|
The price is so volatile right now, that nothing is guaranteed. Honestly, I think it will level off around 380-390. I don't think it will hold above 400 yet. It is also too early to make any decisions to sell yet since the price keeps swinging. It's all over the place.
It touched $354 and is now sitting at around $365. When the price was going up people were soo excited and predicted the price to go to $600-$700 and now they are comming back on their words. Wow, your people were much more tempered in their optimism. I frequently see people talking about 5-digit bitcoin prices. The irrationality and hyperbole is shocking, and even more shocking is how pervasive it is! |
|
|
|
Fascinating, we almost hit the volume of the NYSE  Soon bitcoin will be the biggest financial market in the world. Source on what you're referring to here? NYSE dwarfs bitcoin in terms of number of trades, and most especially, value of trade. It's not even close. I said almost, that means we are not there yet. But if this continues , bitcoin volume will exceed NYSE. Because it's global. Imagine the 3.5 billion unbanked, starting trading /moving bitcoins around, the NYSE will become the dwarf. Again, no where near this in any foreseeable future. You're talking about a single currency that does a couple hundred millions dollars of trade on its most dramatically active days, versus an exchange comprised of hundreds of billion dollar companies, and which turns over hundreds of billions of dollars of value in a 7 hour period on its slowest days. Bitcoin is literally thousands of times smaller, and the presently unbanked will join the traditional banking system in larger numbers than bitcoin, thus ensuring bitcoin trade never overtakes NYSE. |
|
|
|
|
I've completely missed something here... what is the 4400 btc auction everyone is referring to?
|
|
|
|
i'm not saying that no one should pay taxes, i'm saying that i want to pay for what i use, not for what others use, why i should pay for the privileges of the other?
In economics, there is a term called "public good", which has to be paid for through taxes or collections from individuals, whether they use the good or not. Consider a street with ten houses with a streetlight. A particular user (say X) might claim that he does not want to pay for the streetlight because he does not use it. But it is impossible to deny him the benefit of the streetlight, even if he does not pay for it. Moreover, because X benefits from the streetlight does not mean that the remaining users are negatively impacted in any way (the resource does not decrease because X uses it). These "public goods" have to be financed through taxes; there is no other way.  well that is wrong for me, this is not fair at all, and it is the reason why i hate taxes, and because of this i will make everything in my power to avoid paying tax as much as possible, on every little things your example is more biased because streetlight are everywhere(so i actually need them too), but there are things that i'm not using at all anymore, like bus in the city, or subway like i said, i'm travelling only with my bicycle so why i should pay for something that i'll never use? no sense, if they don't want to fix this, i'm going to evade in some way, i don't care You have to pay for public goods because public goods are things a society needs to be functional and stable (i.e. necessary), and thus their cost must be borne by all people in the society. Even if you don't directly use public transportation, the economic benefits of having a public transit system indirectly benefits you because public transit is beneficial to the economy you participate in, and you reap economic benefits from participating in a more robust economy. Everyone indirectly benefits from public goods, so society has decided it is fair for all people to split the cost of the public goods. |
|
|
|
There are a shortage of seats in this case irrespective of scalpers. Face value is the price of the tickets set by the venue, and there is always a shortage of seats at the true price. Scalpers rush in to speculate and artificially drive up the price. This does not do anything to alleviate the shortage, just capitalize on the money the venue willingly left on the table, because the shortage of seats at the true price remains. This does not make the market more efficient. The scalpers provide an artificial price after creating more of a shortage than would otherwise be with artificial demand/speculative demand. This is not efficiency.
The "true price" set by the venue is far more artificial than the prices arrived at through scalping. This would be like describing the Federal funds rate as the "true interest rate" while viewing the market rate of interest to be an artificial deviation. With "there is always a shortage of seats at the true price" are you implying that venues always try to leave money "on the table"? If so, why do you imagine they do that? Profitable scalping does alleviate artificial shortages created by venues. It does not increase the number of seats but it does decrease the demand for those seats. Yes, companies always purposefully leave money on the table. Obviously, when the face value of a ticket is $120 and it is selling for over $700 on the secondary market, the venue knows they are leaving money on the table. You can't have that level of disparity and be oblivious to it. Most likely, it is a gesture of goodwill to the fans. Kid Rock does the same thing at his concerts, intentionally setting tickets below what he knows the scalpers will sell them at: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/06/27/196277836/kid-rock-takes-on-the-scalpers. Nike does the same thing with its special edition shoes which they produce in limited runs and which sell for tens of times more than the list price on the secondary market. Nike knows this happens, but doesn't adjust prices, thus intentionally leaving money on the table. |
|
|
|
The price will keep on rising as the main stream news media are reporting the rise, that will fuel further rise.
I hope the price will rise slowly.
Slow and steady would probably be more sustainable than rapid increases. But everyone thinks Bitcoin is going to make them rich, which is why you have rapid crashes, like the $80 drop we've seen in the last 24 hours after a rapid rise to almost $500 this week. This kind of rapid rise isn't sustainable, and you get these dramatic drops when people get scared of holding the bag when another bubble bursts. |
|
|
|
we are already in hyper inflation, notice cost of living going up alot, exponentially.
Sigh... I assure you, this is not the case. "The latest inflation rate for the United States is 0.0% (unchanged) through the 12 months ended September 2015 as published by the US government on October 15, 2015." Similar things in the UK too, we actually were in deflation for a short while. We are definitely nowhere near hyper inflation, we are infinitely closer to deflation itself. I think those numbers are rigged. The outpacing of robitics and automation caused deflation cannot be greater than the printed money that creates inflation. So i think we are going to hyperinflation, not deflation. If prices aren't hyper inflating, then we don't have hyperinflation. Does a gallon of milk cost the same today as it did yesterday? Then you don't have hyperinflation. |
|
|
|
When you deduct out the housing bubble, houses have generally appreciated at the rate of inflation, so you're not making anything so much as keeping what you started with in terms of purchasing power.
Much depends on what country you're in. In the UK you would've multiplied your buying power quite radically if you'd bought in the right places. This is true of any asset. Hindsight is always 20/20, and pretty worthless for investing in the future. |
|
|
|
The chances of the bitcoin price falling at this point is not very high so I would suggest you hold on to your coins.
Actually, the price is extremely volatile, and has been pretty much since inception. The chances of bitcoin falling at any given time are probably pretty close to 50%. One data point in support of this is that bitcoin has fallen about $80 in the last 24 hours, despite everyone getting super hyped about how fast it was rising. Trade with extreme caution. Bitcoin doesn't trade like stocks, and the momentum swings are much more violent. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
