because of growing that is too big, especially in chian with 1M+ births per year
Hmmm... your stats are wrong. Number of births in China: 16,870,000 (2014) Number of births in India: 27,379,500 (2013) Number of births in Pakistan: 4,964,000 (2014) Number of births in Sub-Saharan Africa: 32,584,000 (2014) As you can see, China well behind India and Sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, the number of births in India is almost 62% higher than the same in China. i must have confused it with another number, but sub-saharn africa isn't a country, it is almost a continent, not really a fair comparison So it's fair to compare China with the vatican city then? If you really wanted to be fair, you should compare population or births per square kilometer. In which case China isn't even close to being the most populated country in the world. China's population isn't a problem. India's might be, but even India isn't the most populated per sq. kilometer. |
|
|
|
I agree absolutely with it. Somebody who is trying to get rich by all available means will not getting rich anyway because s(he) will do to much mistakes. The things about getting rich is, those who chase money don't always get it, it's better to start finding projects and work which has potential and most importantly what you love doing, money follows sooner or later.
This is another one of those phrases for the masses. Sounds smart, but actually isn't. You won't get good at swimming by cooking. You won't get good at piano by skydiving. The point is, the best way to get good at something is to directly do that thing, and not through some roundabout way. If your goal is money, then you should directly work towards that. If you don't achieve it like this, you'll certainly not achieve it through some roundabout wishy washy "do what you love to do" kind of mentality. |
|
|
|
Middle East is also a part of Asia, but China is being tackled upon by most of the news because Chinese businessmen are the people who made some significant moves economically. Also, don't forget the quote "God made the world; the rest was made in China." No wonder most of the millionaires of today came from China, because obviously we support their products which in turn make them rich. Chinese people also are good in handling business. Well in case you didn't know, the majority of the elite and wealthy people here in our country (the Philippines) are Chinese--Henry Sy, owner of the SM Supermaket chains; John Gokongwei, one of the people who controls Robinsons Land, a large property developer in our country and; Lucio Tan, one of the major stockholders in the country's (the Philippines) national flag carrier, the Philippine Airlines.
Yeah chinese people prefer to build a business than be an employee, thats why there are many big companies from China and other country where these are led by chinese. I don't know exactly what make chinese people special and what the strategy has taken by them when making a business, since there were people from other ethnic or country that built a business, but failed in the end. Nah. The vast majority of Chinese people think that the ONLY way to live is by working for someone for a wage. Came from the time when no one was allowed to own their own business, and everyone worked for the state. Especially the older generation, they almost cannot comprehend the concept of working for yourself, or living without a "job". |
|
|
|
|
If anything, too many people in that survey has used bitcoin or is planning to, not too few. The thing is, if bitcoin is already used by 100% of the population, then while that sounds like an impressive number, what it really means is that bitcoin has no more room for growth, and it only has potential for a ~3 billion marketcap. Pretty insignificant.
What would be good, is that a very very small percentage of the population uses bitcoin. That would imply that there is still a lot of room for growth.
|
|
|
|
$1.000 is shit nothing. If BTC isn't 5 figures in 10-20 years it'll be dead. BTC aims to surpass Visa, Mastercard and Paypal, therefore, it's impossible that in 20 years BTC will be only $1.000. It's mathematically impossible that it isn't 5 figures by the time it surpasses them, if not more.
I don't think all that many folks on this thread can summon up the effort to process a handful of straightforward numbers. Good luck to them all anyway. I'm really interested in what sane people has to say about this topic, so I always come back to read the comments, but unfortunately what ends up happening the vast majority of time is I become extremely depressed about the future of humanity, seeing the complete lack of common sense and elementary arithmetic knowledge... |
|
|
|
two things:
1. Perhaps it was because of the backlash they received here, because they were concerned for innocent bitcoiners as well, that they did not do a full 24 hours as they had originally promised.
2. increasing fees isn't a solution; it'll cause less people to use bitcoin which is detrimental.
Storing data is not "free". The marginal cost of a transaction is a very real metric; especially in a system that expects that data to be stored by all participants for an extended period of time. Ignoring this fact, does not make it go away. The Bitcoin "ledger" and block chain is a globally replicated database. Expecting to store your transaction data in it for little or no fees is irresponsible and selfish. And ignoring the fact that as a currency, fees should be sufficiently low does not make it go away. I thought bitcoin wants to succeed as a currency, not just a database storage system? |
|
|
|
|
two things:
1. Perhaps it was because of the backlash they received here, because they were concerned for innocent bitcoiners as well, that they did not do a full 24 hours as they had originally promised.
2. increasing fees isn't a solution; it'll cause less people to use bitcoin which is detrimental.
|
|
|
|
It will be interesting to see if this stress test brings about a solution to the block size problem. Hopefully we can find a solution to ensure that the blockchain continues to function without any issues or unnecessary delays.
This test isn't really going to change anything, or bring any solutions... This is only raising awareness of a problem we already know we have, it isn't proposing anything new. It's an interesting test, but with a predictable outcome for which the solution is already in discussion for quite some time, and there is already code ready to be deployed that helps prevent a situation like this. Yes, the test is meaningless - it's an annoyance aiming at price manipulation. The solution to stop spam attacks like this is certainly not a max_blocksize increase, because even at 20x times the blocksize the resources needed to perform such an attack are still extremely small for any serious attacker. The practical solution for now is: Prioritize your transaction by sending it with an adequate fee. The general solution is: Increase fees for spam transactions, i.e. fees should rise non-linearly (maybe exponentially) for small-value transactions with big data size. ya.ya.yo! Uh.. NO. If they wanted to manipulate the price, they wouldn't have announced this; then people might start panicking not knowing who is attacking the system. That will manipulate the price. |
|
|
|
I was talking about current value..
not like future 20 years thats unrealistic like most would probably sell by then.
At least read the thread title if you want to contribute. The amount of people who post without thinking on here really makes me have second thoughts about bitcoin... |
|
|
|
|
You don't actually need a trillion dollars to have a trillion dollar marketcap for bitcoin. That's what people are not getting.
Let's say 4 million coins are already lost, and another 10 million coins are in the hands of hodlers that won't sell until bitcoin is 10mill each. Okay, the numbers are obviously exaggerated, but it's to show a point.
Currently there are 14,289,199 BTC bitcoins, taking away 14 million of them, we have 289,199 left in circulation. If 2,891,990,000 (so about 3 billion) dollars went into bitcoin the currency, what would happen? Well, since there are only 289,199 of them, so they're worth 10,000 each.
What happens to bitcoin's market cap? Well, 10k * 14 mil = 142,891,990,000, or about 143 billion dollars market cap. If 28.9 billion dollars went into bitcoin the currency, the market cap would be 1.4 trillion.
So you don't need to have a trillion dollars disappear from elsewhere. a good part of the market cap is "created from thin air".
|
|
|
|
If the block reward is maintained at 1 Satoshi after 2140, the value of BTC will not drop. These extra Bitcoin (0.0005256 bitcoin) shall only be enough to account for the lost coin every year.
Why? And why would the price drop anyway? I believe that the reward from the transaction fees will be more than enough. No new Bitcoins needed. You BELIEVE. But that's not necessarily what will happen. It could be that it won't be nearly enough. To decide now that bitcoin will NEVER need a better emissions schedule is just silly. |
|
|
|
increasing emissions won't destroy bitcoin's price if there is a clear purpose for it, as opposed to simply enriching the miners. Not increasing emissions could destroy the price, if it becomes a necessary thing to do. We can't really predict or know what will happen in the future, we'll have to see. But there needs to be a flexibility to deal with changes in society and the addition of new knowledge and technology. If bitcoin can't adapt, something else will simply take over its place. Pretty sure that in nearly all scenarios increasing supply will see a fall in price unless you have an appropriate increase in demand to maintain that price level. Contrary to your point, I simply cannot see a scenario where raising the limit is actually necessary - given bitcoin is divisible down to the satoshi you don't actually need to go any further unless you run out of units to state. And that'll only happen if a single person for some reason needs to hold less than a single satoshi (i.e. a single satoshi has a significant value). It's not about rising the limit. It's about giving enough incentive to miners so that the network is secure enough. That said, there is a psychological problem with having 0.00000000000000000000001 units of a currency, it's very real. Saying that you can keep dividing it isn't necessarily the best solution. In the first place, allowing finer divisions would require a fork, anyway. Perhaps at that time a better solution will have been discovered. And perhaps that involves increasing emissions. |
|
|
|
All the people who think that increasing the limit is against the "purpose and objective" of bitcoin and will make everyone completely lose confidence in it has no idea what bitcoin is about in the first place.
Bitcoin is not about having 0 adaptability and flexibility, eventually becoming unsuitable since society is always changing. Bitcoin is about programmable money; it's about having the flexibility to change and make it adapt to changing conditions, to add functionality that previous generations have not thought of before. That's where it beats out inflexible and unchanging government money. And that's what makes bitcoin valuable.
There's no reason having a set schedule of some small amount of emissions every block after 2140 would completely destroy the price. Such an update will only be made if it's near certain that it is required to keep the blockchain alive, probably because miner fees are simply not sufficient to keep the blockchain secure enough.
Perhaps there will be a small segment in the population who will be against such an increase. They can have their original fork. But those people would only be a small fraction of bitcoin users; probably only a fraction of the users today. They might have their 1 billion market cap, while the new chain can have a trillion dollar market cap.
I don't agree that only a small segment will be against an increase. Why would that be the case since everyone (not just early adopters) would suffer from inflation? Also, regarding if transaction fees alone will be able to secure the network, consider the average daily transaction volume is already $50M USD. https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usd. Say in the future this only becomes $200M usd. Then you could still raise $500,000 in transaction fees using a quarter of one percent transaction fee. I think anyway you slice it, transaction fees will be adequate in all but the most bleak of scenarios. The fact is, bitcoin would have taken over the world already if normal people think like you guys do. But they don't. They aren't deathly afraid of the government or government money. They don't think USD is a scam. They're completely fine with it. They'll be completely fine with increasing bitcoin emissions too, when the time comes. increasing emissions won't destroy bitcoin's price if there is a clear purpose for it, as opposed to simply enriching the miners. Not increasing emissions could destroy the price, if it becomes a necessary thing to do. We can't really predict or know what will happen in the future, we'll have to see. But there needs to be a flexibility to deal with changes in society and the addition of new knowledge and technology. If bitcoin can't adapt, something else will simply take over its place. Also, as I've said before, transcation volume doesn't matter if most of that volume is off-chain and made within companies like coinbase or xapo. |
|
|
|
|
definitely not all wealth will transfer into bitcoin. I mean houses for example will never be replaced by bitcoin.
At the same time though, bitcoin may create many new wealthy people. I bet hundreds of that first group got there with the internet, and thousands of the 100M or 50M groups got there via the internet.
so bitcoin may do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
All the people who think that increasing the limit is against the "purpose and objective" of bitcoin and will make everyone completely lose confidence in it has no idea what bitcoin is about in the first place.
Bitcoin is not about having 0 adaptability and flexibility, eventually becoming unsuitable since society is always changing. Bitcoin is about programmable money; it's about having the flexibility to change and make it adapt to changing conditions, to add functionality that previous generations have not thought of before. That's where it beats out inflexible and unchanging government money. And that's what makes bitcoin valuable.
There's no reason having a set schedule of some small amount of emissions every block after 2140 would completely destroy the price. Such an update will only be made if it's near certain that it is required to keep the blockchain alive, probably because miner fees are simply not sufficient to keep the blockchain secure enough.
Perhaps there will be a small segment in the population who will be against such an increase. They can have their original fork. But those people would only be a small fraction of bitcoin users; probably only a fraction of the users today. They might have their 1 billion market cap, while the new chain can have a trillion dollar market cap.
|
|
|
|
Dataispower, I actually have an altcoin I just made right now, and it's marketcap is currently at about $0.00001 US Dollars.
Do you agree that my coin has a higher chance of increasing its price by 1 million-fold than dogecoin does?
It's not even a competition! my coin is clearly MUCH better than dogecoin! You should put all your money in my coin! Don't miss out on such a great opportunity!
Try harder. Looks like you have no argument to back up your idiocy. YOu're the one who should try harder. |
|
|
|
And he comes with an Asian chick. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq_WkRrX178Goldman Sachs you got to drop mascot Vitalik Buterin like a hot potato (beside she's getting older and instead of cute teenage boy look, looks like aged pervert now  ). Whit Jack is the next Vitalik Buterin. Mark my words - Coindesk and Cointelegraph will soon be pumping out weekly articles about Jack and he will be running multi-million dollar $IPOs. At least until another younger prodigy genius emerges.. Respect to bass, if i had to sit next to that girl for 6 minutes when i was 15 i would have been busted scoping her rack at least once ... bass was very professional Whats up with you people? Beat of your frustration to some internet movies instead of posting how you would grope a normal woman in a movie like this.. FFS, whats wrong with you kids? What ... don't you like looking at pretty girls? My point was he didn't hardly look at her, just light hearted observation I think you're a bit upright dude, who said anything about groping? I like looking at pretty girls, but the girl in the video? No thanks. |
|
|
|
If wisdom and knowledge was the key to become rich then why we are having many rich but stupid people running around? Why scientists and educated men are poor while idiots are millionaires?
If you want to become rich you need to be a man like Jordan Belfort, because people like the great Nicola Tesla live and die in poverty.
Most of the scientists are not billionaires, because they are not money-driven (in 99% of the cases). They are mad about making new inventions, but they are not mad about getting rich. Also, they will be working for some corporations, for a fixed salary. The corporations give them the amenities, so that they could make the inventions. So in most of the cases, it is other people who get rich from their inventions. Inventors and scientists are different things. And I'm sure both are at least somewhat motivated by money. |
|
|
|
Your statement would've made sense in 2010 or early 2011. But the "risk" of bitcoin going to zero is very low now. Bitcoin has an actual economy that is proven and growing.
The chance to make FORTY THOUSAND times your money ($10,000,000/250) is now gone. Bitcoin would need to take over all international trade. How much international trade did bitcoin take over in 2014? How much will it take over in 2015? Near zero. Do you think that one day everyone in the world will decide that it's time to start using bitcoin? No, we're going to see the trend growing over time.
This market is more mature now. If you want a potentially lifechanging number of bitcoin, you need to accumulate enough bitcoin so that $1,000 to $2,000 per bitcoin in 2021 can change your life. Is 100 bitcoin a lot of money? To most people, yes it is. But that's the kind of money you are going to have to put down to change your life.
167 bitcoins sounds more like it. That's what can take you from living a normal life to having a full-time cook preparing your meals and a part-time captain to drive your yacht. That's a life change.
I agree that the market is more mature, and that bitcoin going to zero is a lot less likely than it was in 2010 or 2011. I also agree that the upside is much smaller than it was in 2010 or 2011. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that the risk is small now. Even if bitcoin doesn't go to zero, there's no guarantee it won't drop by 90% again, like it has in the past year. Even a 30% drop would be big, compared to "normal" investments. That's why for bitcoin to be attractive, it needs to have a HUGE upside. And I believe it does. The problem with what you're saying is, people who can potentially make a life-changing amount from a $1000 dollar bitcoin does not exist. What do I mean? Well, you said hire a full-time cook, part-time captain and your own yacht. That would probably require a few deca-million. But let's go for a more modest $5,000,000. With a $1k bitcoin, that's 5,000 bitcoins now, or $1,250,000 USD. If you can invest over 1 million USD today, then 5 million dollars WILL NOT be a life-changing amount for you. You probably already have a networth at least close to that, and while it will be a nice windfall, it won't be life changing. 5 mil will only be life changing for people who are not already decently wealthy right now. These people cannot afford thousands of bitcoins. So for someone to be able to make a life-changing amount from bitcoin, bitcoin MUST increase by 100x or even more. |
|
|
|
|
Dataispower, I actually have an altcoin I just made right now, and it's marketcap is currently at about $0.00001 US Dollars.
Do you agree that my coin has a higher chance of increasing its price by 1 million-fold than dogecoin does?
It's not even a competition! my coin is clearly MUCH better than dogecoin! You should put all your money in my coin! Don't miss out on such a great opportunity!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
