if bitcoin goes mainstream, it'll really just be the global tech-finance hub.

I hope It'll be in Asia, say Shanghai/Singapore/Tokyo/Seoul, or a combination of those.

This shows your self-centeredness and lack of foresight. I find no value in having the letters "LV" on a bag. So what? That doesn't mean other people won't. You, I and most people probably can't see value in the vast majority of items produced in the world. Lame toys, little widgets that hardly work. But that's why you are (probably) not a rich and successful entrepreneur.

That you can't see a realistic parallel doesn't mean it doesn't exist; it means you can't see it. Not that there's anything to parallel with anyway, since I gave specific examples of how bitcoin might gain value, not "parallels".

You find personal value in the entertainment from a movie. Some might find value in quick and secure transactions around the globe. If enough do, bitcoin will rise above $300. If you choose to ignore all of the possibilities because you personally don't find it useful, that's your own choice.

I'll be honest, I don't personally find any value in bitcoin either. But I've learned that just because I don't value something, doesn't mean it doesn't have value to other people. I can see that it's possible bitcoin will become valuable to a good number of people. If you don't, whatever. Bitcoin doesn't depend on you to succeed.

Finally, the exact same argument you're using here could've been used before bitcoin reached $1; before bitcoin reached $10; before bitcoin reached $50; or even before bitcoin reached $1000. But it did.

What's the "real value" of a movie? The cost of making the movie?

Your argument seems to imply that a movie would never make any more (or less) than the cost of producing the movie. This is obviously not true.

Just because electricity and hardware costs were involved in producing bitcoins, doesn't mean bitcoins will retain that value, just as putting money to produce a movie doesn't guarantee people will pay to watch it.

Similarly, just as movies might have make more value than was put in when producing it, bitcoin could do the same.

Perhaps at some point in the future, there will be a paradigm shift and people will really value decentralization. At that time, a decentralized cryptocurrency (or a number of them) will be used as the main currencies of trade. Then the cryptocurrencies must have value equivalent of a few trillions of USD current value.

Perhaps bitcoin will gain some sort of collector's value in the future. Or become the main currency used in black markets, which again, would give it extra value.

What you said may sound logical to you, but really it's quite flawed. It may be that bitcoin never goes over $300 USD again. But there are any number of scenarios in which it would go past $300.

YOu know whether 21 inc is gonna do that or not, I think it really is a pretty great idea. It'll make profit for the company and bring bitcoin to more people. Win-Win.

If miners can't make a profit, there will simply be less miners, and then at that time, they'll be able to make a profit again.

There is a problem if it's so unprofitable that there are only a few miners left, and then a 51% attack can be executed cheaply.

I think it's not so much about the price as about transaction volume. If the volume lowers significantly, I think people really have stopped believing.

We not only have this planned in the future, but we will also roll out a revolutionary "auto-claw back" feature, that "claws back" after every purchase you make automatically. This way you don't have to waste time doing it yourself every single time.

That's the secret behind the technology of 22 inc, and what makes it so valuable. If you become a big enough investor, perhaps we'd be able to reveal our white paper on full transaction reversibility enabled by a completely centralized ledger.

(Note that I've joined this company earlier as the Marketing and growth strategy officer)

I am applying for the marketing and growth strategy officer. The first thing to do is to move the headquarters to Mars, that way 22 inc WILL be the most valuable company on the planet with the second biggest economy in the solar system; not only "one of".

Read some of the other posts by the OP; this officially confirms it, he is a troll with a lot of time.

The problem is, people won't do that with bitcoin until bitcoin is already mainstream. They want to know the money they're getting is "real money".

@^

Can you explain the details of why miners might not want to include transactions? Does it make it harder to solve a block? Or something else?

Either way, when the block rewards lower significantly, at that time, miners will be forced to accept more transactions, no?

Let me get this straight. I'm not technical at all, and I didn't really read any of the previous arguments on this topic. But just from the OP (and some common sense), this is what I gather:

So the trade off is either to make bitcoin unscalable, which obviously means it can't go mainstream, and will probably die off.

OR

Having a few less people/companies with a full copy of the blockchain, though there will probably still be many, many, many companies, mining operators, and individuals in more developed parts who will keep this "redundancy".

Is that correct?

I'm not lucky enough to be from sweden, but for me, it'll look like this:

For networth 0-100k: 100% in bitcoin
for networth 100k-1M: 58% of the amount over 100k in bitcoin
For networth over 1M: No point getting extra.

When you have a very low net worth, even if you lose it all, whatever. It doesn't help you much, and you can earn it back relatively quickly. But for the possibility of reaching financial freedom, I think it's very much worth the risk.

Er that's exactly the OP's point... most people have heard about it, yet bitcoin is still quite small. How do we fix that?

I think that if every single person who has heard of bitcoin uses it, bitcoin is already mainstream.

People have heard about bitcoin, but doesn't really know what it is. So in that sense, they still need to "hear" about "what" it is.

But yeah, bitcoin needs more big names for the general population to have any chance of trusting it.

That's what "not ready" means....

Where are you going to get people if 99% of the world can't *use* bitcoin currently? If I was in a small city in China or Africa, heck, even Japan/US there probably wouldn't be a single store that accepts bitcoin. Even if there was 1, people don't like being limited in choices. What if I don't like the coffee in that store?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA yeah right.

Bitcoiners need to stop being so delusional. Bitcoin isn't going to solve all of the world's problems. It's not going to solve most of the world's problems. It's going to make a few things better, and that's it. The idea that bitcoin can stop wars is utterly insane, and spewing this kind of garbage is what keeps normal people away from the bitcoin cult.

I don't get why to everyone that 'proves" that dorian satoshi nakamoto is not THE satoshi nakamoto.

I mean if they were the same person, and he wanted to remain anonymous, what else would he say?

I was going to summarize for you, but then I realized there's nothing to summarize. It's pretty much the same whether you read it or not; pointless drivel.

I guess the "conclusion" is him asking can bitcoin be a mainstream currency if it's super volatile.

Hmmm.. You mean $10,000 right?