In my signature there is a detailed analysis
Even all the existing person have already fully invested in bitcoin, there are still 370,000 babies born every day. Suppose that each day same amount of person start to invest in bitcoin after they get their first job, then they are competing for those 5000 coins supply per day, they would averagely get 0.0135 coin per person per life time
Suppose that each person need $1,350,000 for a comfortable retirement, and they put all those savings into bitcoin and get 0.0135 coin, e.g. 1,350,000 satoshi, this means 1 Satoshi = 1 USD, 1 BTC will worth 100 million dollars, this might be the highest possible value bitcoin can achieve
Why bitcoin will appreciate forever? Bitcoin stopped appreciating in 2013. That fact kinda undermines the credibility of any analysis that promises bitcoin will appreciate forever. |
|
|
|
For 1 Bitcoin to be worth $1,000,000, the total market cap of Bitcoin would have to be $21 trillion dollars. What are the odds of this happening?
For reference, the amount of physical $dollars and coins in circulation are around $1.2 trillion. The global M2 money supply of all currencies are around $45 trillion. The market cap of all mined gold is around $7 trillion.
Will 1 Bitcoin be worth a million dollars? Half a million? Thoughts?
Nah, never going to happen. There was just another thread I was reading where someone was saying bitcoin should be worth a billion dollars because it's innovative and better than fiat, which would give it a valuation 1200 times larger than the US M2 number (14,700 trillion dollars!). People need to live in reality. The "to the moon" sentiment is destructive. What if Bitcoin went "to the moon" when it hit $1100 in 2013, and now low to mid 200's is the reality? I'm quite skeptical that bitcoin will ever reach $1,000 again, let alone the lofty (i.e. "insane") numbers that are routinely thrown around on this board. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is objectively the best form of money  the problem is we lack the insane monstrious infraestructure of the state, and that's violence monopoly and basically mass acceptance. Those two things are the only things that aren't allowing making 1 Bitcoin = 1 Billion dollars, where it should be if people used the objectively, best, most updated version of money we've ever seen. This is a great chart, I'll be saving this for future reference. But the idea that bitcoin should be at a billion dollars is the type of statement that proves how untethered to reality the bitcoin community is. Just because bitcoin may be an improvement over fiat does not give it such a ridiculous value. As a follow-up on just how unreasonable a billion dollar bitcoin price is, M2 - which is the broadest measure of money in the US economy - is 12.138 trillion dollars. There are currently 14.7 million bitcoins. If each one was worth a billion dollars, that would be 14,700 trillion dollars, or 1200 times the amount of money currently in circulation. Simply put, there aren't enough USD in the world to even make a billion dollar bitcoin price possible. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is objectively the best form of money the problem is we lack the insane monstrious infraestructure of the state, and that's violence monopoly and basically mass acceptance. Those two things are the only things that aren't allowing making 1 Bitcoin = 1 Billion dollars, where it should be if people used the objectively, best, most updated version of money we've ever seen. This is a great chart, I'll be saving this for future reference. But the idea that bitcoin should be at a billion dollars is the type of statement that proves how untethered to reality the bitcoin community is. Just because bitcoin may be an improvement over fiat does not give it such a ridiculous value. |
|
|
|
|
It seems like the fortunes in bitcoin were made long before any of us heard about it. The early adopters, who were mining bitcoin when it was super easy and when bitcoin was worth mere pennies, are the ones who benefited from bitcoin's rise in popularity. It's unlikely we will see that level of increase in usage again. The currency isn't even the biggest benefit to the world, the blockchain technology will have a far larger impact. People "investing" in bitcoin for the long term are just gambling on a commodity. You'd be better off investing in a business that produces income.
|
|
|
|
i would say yes. reason being that after the halving happens next year, the supply should decrease quite significantly and your btc would be worth alot more than it is today (~240usd).
If it was as simple or obvious as this, the market would already have priced the expectation into the current price. That is, if (and it's a big if) the halving will translate into a higher bitcoin price, you should expect that the current price is already elevated in anticipation of this happening. |
|
|
|
What benefit do they have in playing dumb when asked questions about the economy or finance? Wouldn't it benefit them to demonstrate how smart they are (in addition to their beauty and poise)?
exactly but then again maybe thats all ppl wanna see on the tv is beauty and who cares about intelligence? People want the substance as well, otherwise they wouldn't pretend with a charade if no one actually cared about it. A bad answer to the question is not evidence of stupidity, but more of a weakness in the format. These women are highly coached on how to answer questions to the point where they're just following a formula in their answer, regardless of whether or not the topic on which they're speaking translates well to the formula. Also, they're asked questions of incredible complexity that our world leaders cannot solve with all the benefit of time and resources, and expected to come up with an on-the-spot answer and fit it in 30 seconds? That's one of the dumbest criteria for judging intelligence I can think of. If you can distill a complex answer into a 30 second soundbite, you probably haven't addressed the issues in the question in any meaningful way. |
|
|
|
|
^ That idea actually sounds worth pursuing. Another idea is how bitcoin operates outside the traditional banking model, and how the old model will change or incorporate bitcoin technology in the future.
|
|
|
|
Hundreds of millions of people are moving into the middle class in China. The increased economic activity is going to benefit the people who innovate and those who own the means of production the same way it did in America over the last 100 years, but it is happening on a vastly larger scale. |
|
|
|
Proxie, did you make any money on the move? What do you predict next, a correction?
if you forex trader, you will know how to make money on the move price  im sure we will go back to Rp.12.000/$1 now price is RP13.488/$1 http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USDIDR:CURWhat makes you think it will return to the 12.000 price and that this isn't a longer term move? |
|
|
|
There really is some fishy shit going on in that poker room of theirs.
Can you be any more specific than that? There's no useful information here to really know what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
How are the functions of money being a store of value and means of exchange mutually exclusive?
To be a good store of value money needs to be appreciating (the more the better). Conversely, to be a good means of exchange money should be depreciating at a slow (and low) but constant rate. The former contributes to hoarding while the latter to spending. Hoarding and spending don't live well together and are, in fact, mutually exclusive. In other words, you can't hoard and spend the same (amount of) money at the same time... I don't understand what you mean here. To be a good store of value, money only needs to be a stable store of value. When you say it needs to be "appreciating," do you mean appreciating in value- as in a deflationary currency (less in circulation over time)? That wouldn't be a stable store of value. Appreciating value isn't stable, and a stable currency is superior to a deflationary currency because as you point out, deflationary currencies would incentivize hoarding and harm economic activity. On the flip side of your point, a currency doesn't need to depreciate in value (be inflationary) to be a good means of exchange. The only requirement to be a means of exchange is wide availability. A stable value, widely accepted currency would satisfy both the store of value function and the means of exchange function of money. These two aspects don't have to be, and most commonly are not, mutually exclusive at all. |
|
|
|
Switzerland has had negative interest rates for a stretch now. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/switzerland/interest-rate However, I don't know if consumers are being charged a negative rate, or if it's only the banks being charged a negative rate by the central bank, and the banks are just eating the loss to keep from alienating consumers. I believe the rates are only mildly negative and only between the banks and the central bank. They can't really go significantly negative since, ultimately, savers have the option to hold physical cash. Even a mildly negative rate should cause consumers to hold cash over depositing it. It must be insignificant enough that the banks will eat the loss and not pass it on to consumers, however the point of negative interest rates still confuse me. In theory, it depletes the money supply, so actually rewards savers; as long as consumers aren't bearing the cost of the negative interest and it is only between banks and the central bank. |
|
|
|
Reading the responses to the recent topic titled, "I would sell all my bitcoins if…." has left me concerned.
The kinds of responses on that thread reveal a deep misunderstanding of bitcoin and the current monetary system in many of those who are speculating. Let's consider the scenario in which bitcoin reaches $1000 or let's say $10,000 per bitcoin. Many have said they will cash out if bitcoin reaches this point. Why??
If bitcoin reaches $10,000 it will have to be because the fiat currencies of the world are tumbling to worthlessness via a hyperinflation type scenario and bitcoin is the safe haven, which if you know anything about the current monetary systems of the world, you know this is inevitable. (there have been 3800 fiat currencies throughout history and EVERY SINGLE LAST ONE has crashed to worthlessness; a value of zero) Why would you then sell all of your sound money (Bitcoin) for a bunch of fiat money that is inevitably becoming worthless? I don't understand the logic in doing that.
If bitcoin ever reaches $10,000 per bitcoin, you will NEVER see me selling for fiat paper money. You may however see me having a shopping spree at Overstock.com or TigerDirect.com or NewEgg.com! I will be buying things I want with my bitcoin profits DIRECTLY WITH BITCOIN, not selling my bitcoin for paper fiat. Hopefully by then there will be many more options, perhaps even Amazon.com will be accepting bitcoin for goods and I can have my shopping spree there.
Point being, selling bitcoin for dollars seems counterproductive. Why convert your paper fiat currency into sound value storing superior bitcoin, only to sell all of your superior bitcoin back for worthless antiquated fiat currency again? Why not just spend the bitcoin itself to buy what you want instead of taking a loss by converting back into dollars which will inflate away eventually anyway?
First, every single fiat currency has not "crashed to worthlessness; a value of zero." USD may be worth less than it used to be, but it's not worth zero. Ditto the Euro, Yen, Yuan, Ruble, etc. etc. You get the point. All these currencies currently have a value more than zero; your hyperbole got the best of you. Second, you say that if Bitcoin ever reaches $10,000, it will have to be because the fiat currencies of the world are tumbling to worthlessness via hyperinflation. This isn't true. Bitcoin reached $1100 in 2013 as part of a hysterical bubble before coming back down to a reasonable level. It had nothing to do with faulty currency and everything to do with speculation and hysteria by people with an unreasonable expectation of what Bitcoin is and how fast it's going to become what it's eventually going to be. Bitcoin's price history has operated in defiance of fiat policy to this point, not correlated to it. Third, and most importantly, you directly counter the logic of your post later on when you say that if bitcoin goes to 10 grand, you'll be buying things "with your bitcoin profits." However, as you earlier asserted, if bitcoin were ever to get to 10 grand, it MUST be because all the fiat is failing. Assuming you were to be right about that for a second, you wouldn't be making any profit at all, you'd simply be staying where you were. If hyperinflation is happening around you, but you're in a stable currency, that doesn't give you more value than you had before hyperinflation because the prices of everything denominated in USD will be hyperinflating with the currency. And anything denominated in bitcoin will stay stable, the same as your value in bitcoin. So fiat inflation gives you no more buying power than you had before. That's a pretty critical thing not to understand. |
|
|
|
I almost ready to open a small general store and I have been going back and forth with myself on rather its of more importance to make the store exclusively for Bitcoin, include the local currency as well as BTC, or if it makes a difference one way or other? Thoughts? Experiences? Suggestions?
In my view, it won't be harmful for bitcoin, as it provides more buisness for bitcoin, even marginally, but it will be harmful for the seller, as he will find trouble finding someone with bitcoin/wanting to spend their bitcoin Virtually all merchants who accept bitcoin immediately convert to fiat through a payment processor, so they're never actually receiving the bitcoin, just offering it as a payment option. This is true, but in the case of OP, the question is whether or not to only offer BTC as a payment method. In this case, it is unlikely that the store owner is going to convert their BTC to a local currency right away, since they would also accept said local currency in addition to Bitcoin. Either way, in this case, it certainly is harmful. Bitcoin users are an extremely small minority, and I highly doubt that any mainstream business could survive through exclusive acceptance of Bitcoin. Ah, good point. I can't imagine anyone being able to run a physical storefront accepting only bitcoin either. Even a virtual store space would be difficult to run on only bitcoin. It would be a fine compliment, but I agree with you. |
|
|
|
I almost ready to open a small general store and I have been going back and forth with myself on rather its of more importance to make the store exclusively for Bitcoin, include the local currency as well as BTC, or if it makes a difference one way or other? Thoughts? Experiences? Suggestions?
In my view, it won't be harmful for bitcoin, as it provides more buisness for bitcoin, even marginally, but it will be harmful for the seller, as he will find trouble finding someone with bitcoin/wanting to spend their bitcoin Virtually all merchants who accept bitcoin immediately convert to fiat through a payment processor, so they're never actually receiving the bitcoin, just offering it as a payment option. |
|
|
|
I think the only solid choice is bitcoin really. If we just stop wasting our time and efforts on different coins and instead focus everything on bitcoin alone, bitcoin would rule right now. Instead we are divided and everyone want to share a cake for himself.
But just because there's other coins doesn't mean any meaningful attention is being zapped from Bitcoin. Bitcoin currently does rule right now. Bitcoin's market cap is 3.4 billion dollars, the next closest is Ripple at 182 million dollars, then Litecoin at 128 million. Every other coin combined after that wouldn't even get you another 100 million dollars. So you're looking at Bitcoin with 90+ percent of the crypto market cap, and the other 634 currencies (at current count) combined at less than 10 percent. No real Bitcoin potential is being lost with competing currencies. |
|
|
|
|
To be honest, after litecoin, there wasn't really a need for any other altcoins. 95% of them are pure garbage, and the very few that serve any kind of function are just derivative of bitcoin anyway. DASH at least provided a novel idea in the form of how anonymity is protected, but with few exceptions, every alt is just spam at this point.
|
|
|
|
MercadoLibre (literally translated to "free market") is a company I'm actually bullish on as a stock. It's kinda like eBay and a bit of Amazon, servicing Latin America. This new development is especially interesting to me, both for their willingness to embrace innovation, and the trends it suggests for Bitcoin for Latin America. Bitcoin Gains Deeper Foothold In Latin America Through MercadoLibre
Latin America's version of eBay Inc (NASDAQ: EBAY), MercadoLibre, has announced that it will be integrating bitcoin payments into its services. The move represents a big win for the cryptocurrency community, which has long promoted bitcoin usage in regions like Latin America where a large percentage of the population are still unbanked.
Bitcoin Improves Service
MercadoLibre sent an email notification to users announcing its plans to integrate bitcoin and saying that the decision will give merchants a wider reach and customers more options. The site is planning to make bitcoin integration subtle and said that merchants won't see much change to their user experience other than a note in their transaction history saying which payments were made via digital currencies.
Not Quite Yet
While MercadoLibre has announced its plans, it is still unclear how the rollout will take place. The site currently serves 13 Latin American countries and it is unknown how many will receive a bitcoin option. The site will also have to deal with the changing regulations regarding bitcoin payments as the cryptocurrency evolves and spreads across the globe.
Latin American Potential
Bitcoin has long been touted as a good option for countries where much of the population has limited access to banking facilities. Bitcoin has also proven to be a viable alternative for those living in a country where the currency is prone to volatility. For that reason, many believe that bitcoin's expansion into Latin America is an important step forward. However, the cryptocurrency is likely to face some obstacles there as well since over half of the population doesn't have access to the Internet. Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-gains-deeper-foothold-latin-105438445.html |
|
|
|
i choose bitcoin for investing and not gold even though bitcoin price is fluctuating much more i believe that its price can reach new heights in the near future
what your goal? when you will sell your bitcoin Bitcoin is good for Short investmen 10-20 year not for long like Gold, Gold doesn't seem to be a very good long term investment. It mostly just serves as a hedge against inflation long term, whereas stocks return more because they're based on profit production of the underlying businesses. To clarify: gold maintains value, stocks produce value. Depending on your investment objectives, gold may or may not be a suitable "investment," but for my liking, I'll take assets that produce income, and gold doesn't do that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
