Blockchain technologies could reduce banks' infrastructural costs by $15-20bn a year by 2022, a new report from Santander InnoVentures claims. http://www.coindesk.com/santander-blockchain-tech-can-save-banks-20-billion-a-year/Do you realise how much money is that? With such savings,the bank could raise bank deposits interest rate or lower the loans interest. That refers only to some banks,the majority are the ones who just want to keep the profits for themselves.  That is a lot of savings, the chances of it being passed to consumers is however very slim. On the other hand it might allow smaller banks to remain competitive and scale up, such as credit unions. Even if they find a way to make geat reductions of costs of running their banks, im sure they'll still keep charging the same ridiculous fees for the clients. Hopefully this pushes people into using Bitcoin instead of regular banking. |
|
|
|
Yes it is all about tax. If the Governments are earning tax and if they find it profitable then would directly start supporting bitcoins and they will force the people of the country to start using bitcoin even if they are not aware about it and even if they are not willing to use it. I mean Government can do anything they can even impose a compulsion on the use of Bitcoins if they see profit out of it.
Since a transaction fee is essentially a tax, couldn't governments setup mining operations and become the majority of the miners then require that all transactions have large transaction fees otherwise they won't include them in blocks? This would essentially be taxing any and every Bitcoin transaction, and they could earn even more from all of the shady illegal stuff that occurs through Bitcoin but isn't taxed when using fiat. They wouldn't have a way to precisely tax in any way they want. You can't say "we are going to tax x% for the wealthy, y% for mid wealthy, z% for poor" or whatever. You don't have control over it as a miner, at the levels a government want to. |
|
|
|
|
Back in 2013, I heard BTC for the first time ever, in a mainstream online newsite. The headlines was something like "Underground deep web market functions under crypto currency made by mysterious creator". Needless to say it sounded pretty interesting. I started learning from there and became hooked.
|
|
|
|
instead enter on this game that will lead several people to loose they precious money ,bitcoin.
It is indeed not a game to begin with, it is the same as normal daytrading despite that you could take up "loan" which ofcourse will either double up your profit or double up or lose as well. This is how most daytrader do a quickswing for profit , in which you can see that two days ago price was around $227-228 and yesterday we hit $230. Instead of 1 BTC with this you could get x10 of it and gain $20 quickswing profit. Its nothing more than a number in database and ithas no effect to the market When you do leverage you are also always a lot more scared and prone to cut loses because you can end up owning money to the exchange. There is no middle ground. It's very tempting to do leverage and wait for the almost daily up and down of 10 USD and get a ton of money, but you never know when things can screw you up really bad. |
|
|
|
Btc is just a speculative instrument without a real use case scenario right now.
If it will find its place in the economy then yeah, it could probably go higher than that. You want to throw 1% of your portfolio and hope for the best? Do it. Are you bagholding from when the price was more than two times of what it is now? Then something is not going well with your equity management and there are no reason right now to take even more risk and loss.
You are talking 10 years in the future, but do a reality check and think about how many things will happen and how technology will change in ten years. The only thing that can and will grow exponentially in this world is technological advancement. It means that everything you hold today is most likely not to increase in value because things tend to become obsolete faster and faster.
But you are comparing Bitcoin to the regular technological advancement that happens every X year, you are underrating it greatly. Your post sounds like, "why buy an Iphone 1 when there will be Iphone 6's in a couple of years". When we are talking about one of the most important technological advancements in the last 100 years. The network effect is already strong enough to become the most powerful computing power network in the world, imagine in a couple of years. Any advancements that happens will always be smaller than what Bitcoin solved because of simple statistics, therefore Bitcoin can implement any of these changes withing itself. |
|
|
|
That said, getting 10 million new users will be quite tough.
There are 12 million millionaires in the world. The coffee drinkers are a drop in the ocean. there are a lot more than 12 million millionaires. If you include assets it should be quite a few more than that but there's no reliable way of really knowing. Anyway no one needs millionaires. Just plenty of regular folks finding a proper use for it. Actually it's either a couple whales jumping in, or tons of regular using Bitcoin that can sky rocket it. And considering how common millonaires are out there, if you own a decent 10 BTC stack right now, who knows, you've got pretty reasonable chances of it having the purchasing power of 1 million dollars. |
|
|
|
For a newcomer price doesn't matter really
You are definitely wrong on this. The first thing that attract people into wanting to know more about BTC is that its value, its significant price, no doubt about it and it has been some sort of measurement to measure if BTC is dead or no by some people indeed. It is not about its chain technology and/or how secure it is but it is because of its value and to be honest most people will not even consider wanting to know about this thing if the price is only a few cents or lower (well it is not the same case with early adopter of course) Yeah, as a newb all you care is making some money off BTC, but if you go a bit deeper you'll see Bitcon is interesting because it has an endpoint production so assuming the human race continues to be productive the currency should increase in value if it is pegged to the sum total of goods and services. Too bad most newbs will sell way too soon as soon as they get some BTC in exchange of some beermoney. |
|
|
|
Amount of gold that can be mined has no limit(literally). The supply of gold is roughly increasing by 2-4% per year.
So on a shorrt term basis there can perchance be a lot of volatility in the price of gold. But total number of bitcoins that can be mined is capped at
21million.
But since Bitcoin is a new technology, it is subject to more volatility as compared to gold.
But over the long run as no more bitcoins will me mined after the 21th million, we can expect it to be more stable and serve as a better value for storing than gold.
The formation of gold is not enough for it to guarantee that we will never run out of gold. Mining gold becomes way harder and harder each year, which means more aggression in nature, while Bitcoin gets harder each year to mine too, but the impact in nature will never be as heavy as the big mining expeditions. |
|
|
|
I will like I just did, you're saying the increased block size will lead to less nodes, the only thing changing with an increased blocksize is the POSSIBILITY of larger blocks. The large amount of time it would take to get those blocks full will negated by the always decreasing price per gigabyte.  The only other reason people wouldn't keep their full nodes is out of some sort of spite or vindictive attitude. Bitcoin Core has many downsides. The main one is it's really RAM heavy/CPU heavy. HDD space like you point, is the least of the worries. It takes ages to sync, often it stops downloading blocks and you need to reopen it, which means waiting again for the blocks to be validated. A lot of people have problems even when they make sure connections aren't being blocked by firewalls and whatnot. Finally, since you need to create one new address to receive and send payments each time, it means you need to backup your wallet every time you make a new address... overall, it needs a lot of work, making it more accessible will make more people run full nodes instead of resorting to third party wallets. |
|
|
|
i quit mining. pointless to pay income taxes on it when the price is this low. buy and hold, pay the taxes on the difference later. paying income taxes on mined coins pretty much makes mining pointless. great for the irs though since they tax you twice on your coins if they worth more when u spend them.
How do you pay the difference later if you don't know the difference? I forgot were I got some of my coins, I think some come from Mintpal which is a defunct exchange. I've seen a lot of people commenting on the same. Getting your Bitcoins properly taxed seems like a big nightmare. |
|
|
|
Amir Taaki hasn't been heard from in months.
https://github.com/darkwallet/darkwalletLatest modifications on there have been from months ago too. Is it safe to assume Darkwallet is abandoned at this point? It sucks because Bitcoin's anonymity needs a lot of work. |
|
|
|
|
In the present, I would say about a 6, because of the stagnant price, but for long term, 10. I believe in 500.000 to 1 million per coin in a decade or two when Bitcoin takes over the world, and im not alone in this, the founder of Xapo sees this scenario too. All or nothing, that's how I see it, and if you choose all, you better aim high.
|
|
|
|
|
You should post the graph and point exactly what you are talking about. If you aren't very familiar with trading you'll just think about a shampoo.
|
|
|
|
Why would bitcoin surpass gold?  Give it time. Even if bitcoin is here to stay, Rome wasn't built in a day. But hey, I'm not one to believe that BTC is about to become world reserve currency, or some craziness like that, either. people like to fantasize about bitcoin taking over fiat currency and gold. it's only not going to happen. what's wrong with bitcoin being an alternative instead of saying it will take over this and that. +1 A scarce digital alternative asset class. Very possible and i don't mind this either. Question is, would its value escalate wildly if its use as an alternative became mainstream? that's the point, it won't raise for nothing, if it would remain only a mere alternative, and maybe a niche alternative, well it depend how big you can see this alternative going mainstream and being alternative are two things that can live together then again, what do people consider mainstream bitcoin usage? world wide accepted by merchants? being able to have a bitcoin balance in your bank account and thus spending it as easily as fiat currency? Mainstream usage is when most people use it, like at least 5/10 transactions being done in BTC. It would need to reach a popularity level within the culture. When a mainstream comedian like Jimmy Kimmel drops a joke about Bitcoin and everyone gets it, then it will be mainstream. |
|
|
|
|
Wall Street and the Fed will take this market higher until all retail is in. However long that takes.
All about the transfer of wealth.
|
|
|
|
Everything will run under the blockchain which implies a higher price in Bitcoin. People will be making transactions without being aware they are even using Bitcoin. Bitcoin will be the "brains" under every electronic transaction in the future. Thats why anyone not owning some now is missing the big picture.
I agree with your first sentence. But I think you miss the important property of Bitcoin as a digital asset. So I think people will be very well aware that they use Bitcoin, because it is a safe store of value. So for normal transactions there will be "Bitcoin awareness". Of course there will be other applications running on the blockchain without such awareness. ya.ya.yo! It's hard to see what will happen. Honestly it would suck that Bitcoin gets reduced to some technological tool and the actual usage currency is done by a small niche. I hope it becomes solid currency which was its original intent. |
|
|
|
The thing people are missing is that most users will stick to transacting in BTC, period. It's a very nice idea, i am actual porting and running a testnet by tonight but don't you see, instead of making BTC easier to use and explain, it just got a thousand times harder. This in no way improves the 1 MB situation or the mass adoption goal.
I think that this release was hurriedly pushed forward to try and counter the advocates of the 20/8 MB increase, even some of the stuff i am looking at now make no real sense. I'll keep trying to grasp it, maybe i'll change my mind, but i'm so far unimpressed (with regard to fixing tx issue).
What kind of transaction per second volume will BTC have when sidechains are running? Will it be able to compete vs the big boys (mastercard/visa)? |
|
|
|
|
Go to coinwarz.com to do an estimate of how many gains a month you would have given your khash and electricity cost. I can guarantee you it is not worth it unless you have an a couple of antminers ready to rock 24/7.
|
|
|
|
dont despair, it took me arround 3-4 days to my laptop to have it fully sync, was more hard than on my current pc. but is just a question of time, soon orlater it will sync, just be patient  sometimes on my laptop it seems like was frozen but it was not btw you can check it the database it is increasing, if it is, then you just need to w8 a little bit more  It took ages to me too and this was before 0.0.9 when it was even slower 3-4 days to download the blockchain is not viable tho, we are losing a TON of potential nodes with such a sloppy client. |
|
|
|
Isn't a similar thing happening in NY and NJ? They're regulating the 3rd parties built around cryptocurrencies, not the cryptocurrencies themselves(As that's likely "impossible").
Yes it's impossible that they can regulate Bitcoin or any cryptocurrency as it is, specially Monero. How are they going to control transactions that don't show in any sort of ledger? good look with that lol. Yes it's probably impossible to fully regulate crypto, but they seem to be attempting to tax crypto businesses and take a cut of their proceeds via license fees. All the US states will probably develop their own bitLicense now and require you to buy one if you want to operate a crypto business there, or do business with its residents. That could quickly get very expensive. Even if they put regulations and force to inform every bank of any transaction that is suspicious of having a Bitcoin origin it would still be useless against transactions for cash in person like LocalBitcoins. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
