The only reason the price will go to 0 is if there ends up being more than 21 million coins meaning someone has cracked the underlying encryption which allows them to print bitcoins at will.
Let's just suppose the worst case scenario  Some people provide goods/services and accept btc payment, if they could still accept btc payment even btc exchange price is zero, that will give it some basic support, but is there any merchant provide exchange rate independant btc price for their service today? |
|
|
|
|
Low liquidity market always performs like this, this wave is over, we need to consolidate a long time before re-challenge the ATH
|
|
|
|
|
Everytime, when I tried to advertise bitcoin to my friends, the typical question they asked is: What is this thing backed by? What's the use of it?
Although I can explain to them that it is backed by mathematics and P2P network, and you can use it to buy anything online, it still does not make them feel safe enough, since that is real money, they are afraid of it's just a scam or a bubble
Just like MBS, CDS, eventually they are backed by a house, which is needed by majority of people, so no matter how abstract in concept and construction they are, they still get accepted. Because a house is a house, even the price crashed to 0, it still can provide some utility and that is the reason the price will never drop too much
"If the USD exchange price of this thing drop to 0, what is the use of it?"
There is an answer for gold/silver/diamond/house, even WoW gold
But there is no answer for bond/stock/options/futures
So it seems bitcoin fall into the second category, e.g. a financial security, and unlike bond/stock/options/futures, it has no underlying base instrument, or to say it is based purely on some promises
If we could find some good use of bitcoin even when the exchange price is 0, then it will flourish for sure
|
|
|
|
After a hard fork, even there are only 4 people hashing on the original chain with old client, it will quickly develop into a popular chain and most possibly knock out the new chain
It is a no brainer: One chain has limited resource (expensive), another chain has abundant resource (cheap), btc on which chain will worth more?
Not necessarily,people also need to consider long term success of which fork. Gold seldom get moved more than once a year Fiat money moves thousands of times a second around the world Remove the block size limit won't make the scalability any better, since then you have exponential growth of bandwidth and disk space, and fall into the exactly the trajectory as today's monetary system: If bandwidth and disk space did not grow, bitcoin will die, in order for bitcoin to survive, the internet must grow... |
|
|
|
|
If the scaling is correct, at difficulty 2m, price reached 31 (average 15), so at difficulty 4m as it is going to be soon, price should be somewhere around 62 (average 30)
|
|
|
|
|
After a hard fork, even there are only 4 people hashing on the original chain with old client, it will quickly develop into a popular chain and most possibly knock out the new chain
It is a no brainer: One chain has limited resource (expensive), another chain has abundant resource (cheap), btc on which chain will worth more?
|
|
|
|
|
Debt based monetary system do not allow saving, one man's saving is another one's debt, you have to spend every dollar you earned to keep the balance of whole society, only man allowed to save is central bankers
Bitcoin bring the possibility of saving back
|
|
|
|
Either way, Helicopter Ben would be risking price inflation, and you can't eat bitcoins.
A country's economy is a complex beast. Trying to 'stimulate' it by controlling just one variable is a questionable endeavour at the best of times. One could naively hope that the money eventually trickles down to innovators who want to borrow cash in order to finance their big project. But what if:
-the banks aren't lending money to the public? Instead, they're just giving themselves fat bonuses and spending it overseas?
-regulations are stifling innovation?
-there is low public morale, making the business environment more difficult for innovators?
People in the US already own a large proportion of the available bitcoins. Imagine that the FED keeps adding more and more trillions to the balance sheets, thus causing a crisis, and people try to save their wealth from the hyperinflation by buying bitcoins. Sure, Bitcoin would then be worth a huge amount, but it would still only equal whatever value is required for the US economy to subsist. You might get lucky if you manage to convince other countries of Bitcoin's value, and you'll be able to gain a lot by exporting your new currency overseas (and thus continuing to import lots of oil, Chinese manufactured goods, and so on). However, a) Bitcoin is open-source, b) I doubt people will fall for the same trick twice.
You can not eat gold either Same as gold and stock, theoretically they worth a lot, but if everyone is going to sell them for real goods, their value will drop like a falling stone, holding them and feel getting richer and safer is an illusion, but people like this illusion and they will spend more when they have this illusion A human body is also a complex beast, but you just need some common sense to know his reaction without need to know how his brain works |
|
|
|
|
During recent rally there were two fast drop, followed by an immediate push back
One possibility is that some big player earned enough and tried to cash out, but the market liquidity is so low that he could not sell all of his coins without cause a heavy drop in price, so he immediately bought them back and keep pushing the price up until later he can sell at a much higher price, then even price dropped a lot, he would still be able to make some good profit
So be careful
|
|
|
|
Once above old high, it is all free sail
Up sail or down sail?  The old high is just a psychological barrier, there were not so many coins traded there, the sell presure is almost zero, beyond that, no existing sell presure |
|
|
|
Based on author it failed after the split (technically), if he spend bitcoin on one chain, it will be broadcasted to another chain thus invalidate the coin's spendability on another chain, maybe his code is not enough good to run a seperate chain I can imagine, if it really worked, there will be many people hashing on that chain by now, since it doesn't hurt to be able to double spend the old bitcoin on another chain, no matter how little value that chain has |
|
|
|
Why hard fork in your opinion is a inflation, hard fork essentailly make two versions of bitcoin, and in the end, only one could win or both lose.
Same money, now you can spend them twice in two different network, isn't that inflation? After the fork, it is very difficult to explain to people why they need to know which version of bitcoin they are using, and since old coin can be used on both network, they will worth more than the new coin... and business owner have to give two price for their product: one for old coin and one for new coin... All of these will create confusion and the normal business owner will regard this as a result of failed experiment by computer geeks, and they just drop it At least the adoption rate will drop for several years until people forget about this fork More than half of bitcoins have been mined, so if I were the business, simple, only accept old coin, same amount in both chain, using the highest exchange rate of the two, the guy having old coin is not paying me twice, since ultimately only fork become longer than the other and miners would jump to and hash for it so it gains more hashing power and dominate again later. How do you identify which coin is old and which coin is new? BTW, there will be two chain, the length will be the same |
|
|
|
I think vote is good, due to the complexity of technical details, even technical experts have different value, vote is the only way to keep the network from spliting. Even some people do not agree with the majority, if there is a vote result, they have the incentive to follow that result thus keep the integrity of bitcoin community So far, there is no clear political structure in bitcoin community, and this will be needed sooner or later. We can establish a decision making mechanism by a process of maybe "poll - debate - vote", no senators, no house, no president Of course such kind of vote could develope into a situation of "mass's stupidity take majority", that is the weakness of today's political system. I think there should be a test of each person's knowledge about block-chain and then decide what kind of weighting his vote could have |
|
|
|
Why hard fork in your opinion is a inflation, hard fork essentailly make two versions of bitcoin, and in the end, only one could win or both lose.
Same money, now you can spend them twice in two different network, isn't that inflation? After the fork, it is very difficult to explain to people why they need to know which version of bitcoin they are using, and since old coin can be used on both network, they will worth more than the new coin... and business owner have to give two price for their product: one for old coin and one for new coin... All of these will create confusion and the normal business owner will regard this as a result of failed experiment by computer geeks, and they just drop it At least the adoption rate will drop for several years until people forget about this fork |
|
|
|
That's not the first hardfork. Not even in recent times. Remember the reward halving. There was made a fork by some where the reward didn't halve.
So this was a 100% inflation immediately, too? OMG!
1. Tell me where is that fork, I'm interested to mine some coin on that fork, I just don't know it even existed 2. That fork is not driven by core developers 3. It diviate from the bitcoin protocol that much so it not even can be called bitcoin, it has unlimited suppply |
|
|
|
This debate on the maximum block size is getting more religious everyday. Now we beg the Creator for His Second Coming, or at least to speak to His prophet here on earth to tell us, humble mortals, how we should deal with this issue. And if He doesn't come soon, we will get into a debate on how we should interpret His Holy Scriptures.
Awww, I was thinking the same thing, but you beat me to it. It is interesting, on the one side Bitcoin is attracting the libertarian and crypto-anarchist crowd, but we also got the religious zealots just looking for a Leader to submit their will to.  I had a poll with satoshi decide option, seems not so many people support it https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140516.0 |
|
|
|
Why is this even a thing?
So we're going to solve a deficit issue by jumping right to inflation?
Great way to show off your principle, Bitcoin.
Full retard mode engage
You really do not understand what you are talking about. Block size increases do not cause bitcoin inflation. This allows more transactions to be processed per block. If we reach block size limit we could slow the adoption of bitcoin which would limit economic activity. You seem to be confusing increasing block size with increasing block reward. No, block size increase will cause a hard fork, and that is a 100% inflation immediately, and once it started, it could happen again, so the promise of limited supply is forever broken, bitcoin will be no more different than any fiat currency |
|
|
|
And, if price dropped, the people's interest (and thus transaction volume) will decrease, then the system will become good again
...and doomed to stagnation. No more innovation would occur, no more moderately sized and up businesses would start accepting bitcoins, and the businesses that do accept it would phase it out over time. Interest in bitcoin would drop, and it would be declared a failure. Because of that stigma, businesses would become even more hesitant about accepting crypocurrency in general than they already are, and it would stay that way until either something radically different from bitcoin was created or several generations passed. Later on, people would look back in awe about how Bitcoin was far ahead of its time and wonder what happened. That is our worst-case scenario, and it's more likely than you might think. As long as price stay strong, I don't worry any of this. Businesses will have much higher incentive to receive a high valued but difficult to transfer coin vs low valued but easy to transfer coin. If the price is enough strong, there will be commercial solution to overcome the transaction problem, if the price do not stay strong, they will abandon it, no matter how fast the transaction is Bitcoin gained mainstream acceptance is because it's value get stable increase, despite the fact that now people have to download 7G blockchain |
|
|
|
I think the price of Bitcoin will drop like a hot potato as soon as people can't spend them Due to the low transaction limit. There's absolutely no question that the transaction limit will go up , because Bitcoin will become practically worthless If people can never spend them At a reasonable cost and miners will Miss out on getting Small fees from many many many many more transactions.
If a lot of people is rushing to sell, due to transaction limit, they won't be able to sell, only one person per hour can sell his coin, so the price will stay stable And, if price dropped, the people's interest (and thus transaction volume) will decrease, then the system will become good again So the block size limit will function like a valve to stop the mass volume sell off and constantly lock the bitcoin price higher and higher. It is the most genius design in human history to stable the exchange price  |
|
|
|
If Bitcoin does fork, does that mean we would all have coins on two Bitcoin networks?
You can imagine there being multiple different Bitcoin networks each with a higher number of transactions per second, and An associated exchange rate between them.
Just like european union before |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
