OP, that has nothing to do with deflation. Strategy is just a buyer in the market, a larger buyer, but no different than any other buyer. You don't define if an asset is deflationary or not buy how many people are buying or selling, otherwise it's deflationary/inflationary status would change every day based on whether there was more buying or selling.

And the 450 newly mined bitcoins daily is nothing compared to the volumes that are traded daily.

So the whole thing is a pretty meaningless statement.

Honestly I can't imagine why anyone would have thought Bitcoin was topped out earlier this year. But there's always plenty of people who claim that every dip or correction in price means a bear market has started, so seeing a bear market in every dip is nothing new, happens all the time. People experienced in this market just know to tune these people out. In fact, people experienced in these markets know to tune out anyone who makes public predictions, both these 'bear market around every corner' people and the 'we're going to $500k this year!' people as well.


It's especially hard to predict movements in price now because the old retail hype driven, halving-created 4 year cycle is over at this point.

Retail is still around of course, and general adoption among the masses is gradually growing each year, and retail can occasionally throw the price up or down by 10-20% in a brief panic or elation, but gone are the massive hundreds of thousands of percent hype-fueled blow-off top frenzies of 2011, 2013, and 2017. But with that also gone are the giant long 75% 1-2 year bear markets, so that's a good thing. And now instead of retail dominating the market it's the big institutional players that are driving the market, both selling and buying, with US ETFs sometimes buying up a billion dollars a day, and companies sometimes buying up a billion dollars at a time.


Basically, the 4 year cycle is over, giant bull and bear markets are over, and so it is pretty meaningless from here on out to talk about 'the end of the bull market' or 'the end of the bear market' when the market no longer has these years long bull and bear markets, but rather as we've seen tends to have a short bullish pump to a new level when resistance breaks and then tends to consolidate for a number of months at a time before repeating - we saw it in $15k to $30k, $25/30k to $35/40k's, $40k to $70k, $60/70k to $100k, and again from $75k to $100k the past month. The market is tending to have several month long on/off periods these days, allowing for a gradually rising price rather than extreme ongoing market conditions.

By 20 years from now I just want to be able to spend Bitcoin where ever I want and without worrying about taxes for transactions, so I don't have to sell bitcoin to spend it or do any tax accounting for everyday purchases. In 20 years price should most likely be above $1M, so only tiny amounts of bitcoin will need to be spent to buy anything including even a car. I just want to go into a store (or website) and pay with bitcoin seamlessly over LN or some other instant second layer solution as easy as paying with a credit card or apple/google pay is today.


I think it is realistic that second layer solutions, tax law, and merchant adoption can be in place by 20 years from now in many nations to allow this so that bitcoin can by then already be fulfilling it's potential and design as humanity's global currency.

I think a range of $450k-$833k is doable by 2035, depending on how adoption proceeds the next 10 years. $833k I'd say is the high end of what is possible during that time. And I'd be fairly surprised if the price is under $450k in 2035.

$450k in 2030 would be very bullish, but more realistic for a lower end prediction for 2035.

I could see something like $250k-$300k in 2030 and $600k in 2035, and maybe passing $1M by 2040 as being pretty reasonable assuming nothing super bullish or super bearish happens to keep the price down or greatly speed up adoption.

Yes of course Bitcoin will get to one million dollars. Heck if you play out inflation over a couple centuries, assuming the dollar still exists by then, bitcoin will be worth billions of dollars, of course that will mostly be from the dollar's drop in value.

I think in today's dollars, one bitcoin can get up to several million dollars worth, maybe $3-$4 million, something like that, by end of the century once it is fully normalized and accepted in society as the world's store of value and the alternate daily usable currency for the world.

Of course even by the time it reaches that level of full adoption, thanks to dollar inflation bitcoin will be worth tens of millions in the dollars of that future day.

Point is, $1 million is not some sort of dream end goal for the price, it's just another arbitrary price benchmark that Bitcoin will reach on it's way to global adoption in the coming decades.

I think we'll see $1 million within 20 years, possibly even before 2040 if national reserves and corporate adoption of bitcoin really progress over the next 10 years, as just those two things alone would not only help normalize Bitcoin for society and make a lot more people start to feel like saving with bitcoin is not some outlandish risky concept, but also those two sources alone could eat up like 10% of the total supply in that timeframe.

I wouldn't be surprised to see $2 million or $3 million hit by 2050.

Yes large countries have more money to throw around, but also most of a nation's money is spent on running the govt/country, not on building reserves. Most govts, especially larger ones, are also answerable to the citizens, so a nation isn't going to say "let's throw $500 billion into Bitcoin!". They don't have the free money nor the political freedom to do so. And there are also only what like maybe 10-20 large nations that could buy a really significant amount of Bitcoin.

There are nearly 200 companies with market caps around $100 billion up to $3 trillion. The top companies sit on tens of billions of dollars at all times and could easily put many billions of dollars into bitcoin. While many dozens could easily put anywhere from a few hundred millions dollars to several billions dollars into bitcoin to strengthen their treasuries. There's also lots of private companies that could do the same. And then there are thousands and thousands of smaller companies that could put anywhere from tens of thousands of dollars into bitcoin to tens of millions of dollars into bitcoin, if every company were to adopt a partial Bitcoin treasury.

An new companies are made every year. While national reserve bitcoin adoption will garner a few big headlines and could end up buying up to like 2 million bitcoin total, corporate adoption of bitcoin treasuries will be a long lasting or permanent stream of billions of dollars into bitcoin. Both are going to suck up a lot of the bitcoin supply over the long term, but corporate adoption is likely going to be bigger overall. Companies may end up owning several million bitcoin eventually.

Not sure why the OP thinks everyone expected $150k-$200k last year. I don't think anyone expected that. At least no one serious.

Anyway, as far as this year, $150k could definitely still happen, but it's all speculative in that it depends on what happens in the world.

1. If the White House stops attacking the US and Global economy, that'll make markets and economies much stronger and help boost the Bitcoin price a lot.
2. If New Hampshire is just the first of several US states to pass Bitcoin reserve bills this year that'll help boost sentiment of wider adoption and help boost the price.
3. If the US govt and perhaps a couple other nations pass substantial Bitcoin reserve bills this year (a big IF), that would enormously boost sentiment of wider adoption and greatly boost the price as well as east up a significant amount of liquid supply over time.
4. If more and more corporations adopt Bitcoin treasuries, which is much more likely if #2 and #3 above happen, that will also boost sentiment that wider Bitcoin adoption is getting more serious at all levels of society and could suck up an additional hundreds of thousands of bitcoin from the liquid supply. Also Saylor keeps talking a big game about buying tens of billions of dollars more Bitcoin but has mostly been doing smaller buys these past few months, presumably Strategy put their big buys on hold once Trump's economic chaos started, and have gone with a wait and see strategy, but if #1 above happens then Strategy will likely start to gain confidence in general economic stability again and that may cause them to really start implementing this tens of billions of dollars of buying so we could see another 10-20 billion dollars of bitcoin buying come from Strategy alone this year.
5. If #1-#4 happen, that'll boost global Bitcoin sentiment enormously and we should see the ETFs suck up another few hundreds of thousand of Bitcoin the remainder of this year.
6. All the above would boost retail sentiment some, further increasing the price.


In a perfect storm, of all these things happening this year, $200k is a definite possibility this year. Though if it rose that rapidly, doubling in less than 8 months, that'll likely be a blow off top and we'd probably be looking at a good part of next year being a significant pullback as investors get scared of the rapid price increase and take profits and sit on the sidelines for a while to see how it plays out in the short term. Personally I'd rather see a more sustainable growth this year to $130k-$140k and continued appreciation next year, perhaps passing $200k in 2027, passing a quarter million in 2028, and getting well up into the three hundred thousands by end of the decade.

Yeah this is also what I understand the threat to be.

QC can break encryption from public key to get the private key. So QC is only a threat for when you reuse an address as the public key is only exposed when you send a transaction. Though it also means the ~2 million bitcoin sitting in addresses from back in the real early days of bitcoin (when bitcoin was sent directly to public keys rather than public addresses) are just sitting around ripe for the picking for when QC gets mature enough to break the encryption. So that is the main threat, the ~2 million btc that WILL eventually get stolen by QC at some point in the future. Of course some of that btc are still controlled by people and they can move it to new addresses, but the majority of those coins are likely lost coins, and so would eventually be stolen in a QC world.

I did see recently there is some proposal about eventually essentially blacklisting those QC-susceptible addresses basically, or I think maybe the proposal was actually to have everyone move to an even newer address type and not allowing any current address types in the future, i don't remember what the exact proposal was, but that is what I proposed on here maybe a couple years ago - that unless some action is taken there will be ~2 million bitcoin that get stolen at some point in the future from QC and so at the very least that original pay to public key transactions should be blacklisted, thus preventing the threat of QC stealing those ~2 million lost bitcoin from 2009/2010 time period.

lol what are you even talking about? Liquidated or financial crimes? It's not a crime to buy Bitcoin. And the majority of their Bitcoin they own without debt (or have already paid off the debt on the older collateral loans they took out years ago). There's pretty much no way they are at risk of any sort of liquidation event that would put them in any sort of trouble.

What is going to happen to Strategy is that by next decade they are literally going to have hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Bitcoin.



The only risky thing I see with Strategy is I keep seeing Saylor mention, whenever he talks about wanting to buy many tens of billions of dollars more Bitcoin (which so far they aren't really doing at all), is when they talk about like half of that future buying coming from interest bearing debt. They've done fine on very low interest bearing debt in the past, because they didn't do a whole lot of it and it had zero or very low interest, and they got those old debts paid off already. But when Saylor talks about interest paying debt on tens of billions of dollars of future purchases I'm like how the heck are they going to pay that interest considering the company only makes like ~$100 million revenue quarterly, and usually barely scrapes by on profit.

Maybe I'm not understanding how those financial instruments work, but that seems highly risky - i mean they'd end up just having to sell bitcoin to pay the interest cuz they don't have any other money. I assume Saylor knows what he is doing, but the future plans certainly sound silly to me if they are going to have to be paying interest on tens of billions of dollars considering the business doesn't really have any way of generating much profit and the annual interest payments would likely be more than their entire annual revenue. But if they stick to just selling stock to buy more Bitcoin then they are golden because that is a zero risk strategy, so they should absolutely continue with just that.

Yeah the entire Trump and Bitcoin thing is a joke. Only extremist clowns who already support the traitorous criminal fall for this BS.

He's just buying votes by saying whatever lies he thinks will help him get elected (god forbid!). He's "pro-bitcoin" and "pro-crypto" but doesn't know the first thing about it, has never touched bitcoin or crypto himself since the only cryptocurrencies he "owns" are campaign donations from gullible suckers giving this grifter their hard earned money, and he can't even use an app to scan a QR code and instead needs other people to make the bitcoin purchase for him.

The whole thing is one big obvious publicity stunt to get more gullible uneducated people to vote a traitor into the white house so he can avoid going to prison the rest of his rotten life.

Vote Harris, keep America safe and strong and ensure we don't get a wrecked economy and corrupted nation under Trump that would harm Bitcoin!

Much more importantly, if Harris wins America will be fine. Definitely can't say the same if the criminal wins.

Don't forget that the main reason most Bitcoin is held in a small amount of wallets is because tons of people, companies, and ETFs hold their Bitcoin on exchanges. So those 1.87% of wallets are not the bitcoin of a few people, they are the bitcoin of millions of people and many companies and institutions, held in exchange wallets. So the claim you are trying to make is the lie.

That's what happens when you blindly post statistics with zero understanding of context. Yes your stats may be right, but your conclusion is dead wrong because you have no understanding of the context.

It's just dumb retail talk. Mostly its looney toon Trump supporters who want to try to somehow tie global incorruptible money to their corrupt candidate. It's honestly pathetic. If Harris wins the election, the looney toon extremist right may briefly dump their Bitcoin but then the rest of the world is going to buy it up, it'll be a short lived buying opportunity. Anyone dumb enough to sell Bitcoin because Trump loses deserves the selling low and buying back in higher that they are going to get.

Bitcoin is going to to great no matter what happens, though with Harris as president the US is going to be a stronger, safer, more free, and more prosperous country so obviously that is good for investments and we're going to see Bitcoin do well during a Harris presidency, no matter how much the crazy right wants to convince people that's not true. Regardless, Bitcoin has absolutely nothing to do with US politics, and the election has absolutely nothing to do with Bitcoin. It's so pathetic seeing people try to tie Bitcoin's outcome to this election. Anyone doing that, or calling Trump the "Bitcoin President" is extremely gullible and supports a criminal conman a lot more than they support Bitcoin.

Yeah, as you suggest, the actual cost would be so far beyond that $18.6 billion figure.

It would take a LOT of time and money to set up the infrastructure to run a series of Bitcoin mining operations equal to the size of the entire global mining industry. And like you said there aren't millions of unused asics just sitting around lol. The attacker would have to compete for supply with the entirety of the global mining industry. That would drive up prices of the asics, making that $18.6B figure just for the mining machines potentially much higher, and it would take years to acquire them and set up the infrastructure. And presumably by the time they got it all set up, after likely several years, the hash rate will have increased significantly, so the attacker would have to keep buying asics well beyond that initial amount needed for a 51% attack when they started their plan. All told it would take numerous years and dozens of billions of dollars to engage in a 51% attack.

And after all that, the Bitcoin community could easily simply sidestep the attacked chain and keep going, making the attack worthless (though of course the simple fact of an attack happening, even though it could easily be sidestepped and not cause any lasting harm, would certainly at least temporarily hurt the reputation and market for Bitcoin).

The thing is that if everyone knows a 51% attack is happening and if the attackers were able to maintain their atttack, everyone would simply abandon the longest chain because it would then be corrupted.

The longest chain is considered the Bitcoin chain for the purposes of maintaining a consistent history when dealing with orphaned blocks. That doesn't mean the global Bitcoin community will just be forced to blindly follow a corrupted chain if a 51% attack occurred lol. Human beings are involved in the operation and use of Bitcoin, it's not just blind machines following rules. Those 51% attackers would quickly find themselves in 100% control of a completely useless blockchain and Bitcoin would keep going as normal. As soon as the 100% of honest miners switched away from the corrupted chain, the attackers would lose the chance to get the mining rewards they were hoping to get because the blockchain history they are using would be different from the blockchain history everyone else is using and so even if they kept running their chain they wouldn't be able to spend the money with anyone but themselves.

Now sure, they could keep doing the attack again and again, causing chaos for a short time, but they'd keep losing and burning huge sums of money for no monetary reward. Eventually they'd have to give up and it'd be an enormous financial ruin for the attackers.

Hopefully you realize she has no power to fire Gensler lol. This is the kind of nonsense lies Maga cultists spread, don't be one of those idiots. If you want to see someone completely changing their stance on crypto simply to buy votes and nothing more, look no further than convicted criminal and lifelong conman and traitor to America Donald Trump.

OP, not sure why you would think it has lost decentralization. Nothing has changed. It's decentralized as it has always been. Seems like you don't understand what decentralization means. Anyone can own Bitcoin, that doesn't change its decentralization.

No. That idea is laughable. The flippening gained popularity in 2017 when Ethereum surged to relevance and people thought it might create a whole global ecosystem of crypto apps. Didn't take long to realize the flippening had zero chance of ever happening. Honestly its crazy there are still people who think it'll happen.

Since 2017, it's been 7 years, and in that time Ethereum has gone through three fads that have all flopped hard, Ethereum became far more centralized and less secure with its change to PoS, the burning thing failed to contract supply since that required high congestion and users just use L2's now to avoid the ultra high fees on Ethereum, Ethereum's hoped-for high 6%+ staking rewards failed to materialize and instead settled at 2-3% which isn't that exciting for investors, ETFs launched and while TradFi and institutions are very interested in Bitcoin they have very LITTLE interest in Ethereum. And honestly it is unclear if Ethereum will even have another fad up its sleeve to give it a temporary huge pop in price like it got in 2017 and 2021.

At this point Ethereum is mostly just the graveyard where useless meme tokens die after some of them get their couple weeks in the spotlight.

Realistically the only direction the price of Ethereum is going against Bitcoin long term is down towards zero, like every single other cryptocurrency. Sure Ethereum will continue to increase in price, because it's the center of the Crypto world and people are gonna keep attempting to build projects on it, but its 2017-2021 heyday is gone and it'll no longer keep up with Bitcoin's price growth long term. In 20 years I wouldn't be surprised if Bitcoin has passed $1,000,000 (16x from here) while Ethereum is at like $30k (11x from here) or less. Ethereum is currently at 26% the market cap of Bitcoin, long term that'll probably drop to like 10%, going up to 100% is absurdly naive and impossible.

Did you seriously just try to argue that LTC and Doge should be used for payments???! lol.

This is exactly why people are maximalists. Because when you aren't you make mistakes like this - trying to claim that any old random cryptocurrency that nobody cares about or uses and is inherently terribly weak compared to Bitcoin, is actually better than Bitcoin simply because it's cheap...because nobody uses it.


Crypto has led to interesting experiments and ideas, but in the end the world doesn't need other cryptocurrencies. The few interesting ideas that have come out of the crypto world should just be built into the Bitcoin ecosystem. The weakness in Crypto is that there ARE different ones, when we only need Bitcoin. Why would anyone EVER want to use some random crypto when you can use a global secure (etc etc great qualities) currency for all of humanity: Bitcoin.

I don't like the maximalists who try to say stuff like literally everything in crypto is a scam, because obviously that's not true, but it is true that Crypto is basically just a distraction. So far not a single thing in Crypto has shown any real reason for existing. ICOs: failed as pump and dumps which then became illegal. DeFI: failed as nothing more than token schemes. NFT pictures: failed because the whole concept was flawed. Even actual crypto apps that tried to have some sort of business value failed because who the hell wants to deal with a different token for every single app lol. And the older cryptos who actually tried to compete with Bitcoin as money all failed because they all lack most or all of the things that make Bitcoin amazingly good money. Payments can be done with Bitcoin L2, you don't need anything else. Savings and moving money around can be done on Bitcoin L1, you don't need anything else. "Crypto apps" can simply be built using Bitcoin (and maybe with smart contracts with some more Bitcoin L1 or L2 upgrades), you don't need anything else.

It just makes a hell of a lot more sense to keep building on top of Bitcoin for anything that is actually useful and let all these weak Crypto attempts die out as doomed experiments.


Everyone goes through their own educational journey on Bitcoin/Crypto. Eventually, most people realize it has always been about Bitcoin, and Crypto is just an interesting proving ground to figure out the few good ideas that should be built into the Bitcoin ecosystem, while leaving all those tokens and their failed experiments to die out.



Even Ethereum, which for two cycles looked like it was actually following Bitcoin's growth thanks to a couple fads it had (ICOs in 2017, DeFi token schemes and NFTs in 2020/2021), is starting to look like it has kinda run its course and it no longer has any fads up its sleeve to keep up with Bitcoin growth.

The Ethereum upgrade formerly known as ETH 2.0 was supposed to make it better, but it massively increased Ethereum's centralization and therefore weakened it. The token burning was supposed to be a gimmick to get people to think it had a pseudo cap to its supply but since all the people still messing around with crypto apps just do stuff on ETH's second layers now there isn't even enough burning going on to balance out the issuance. For a while people thought staking might turn Ethereum into a dividend-like investment for the investment class, with people thinking it'd have 6% earnings or even some crazy predictions of 10% or 12% earnings, and that all fizzled and earnings are like 3% at best, and the recent ETFs don't even allow staking so the class of investor that may have been still somewhat interested in what would be somewhat decent stock earnings at 3%, can't even use ETH as an income generating asset, so the ETH ETFs have very little interest.

And compared to everything else in Crypto Ethereum was the golden shining example of massive success, it's the bright shining center of the Crypto world, and it's starting to look fairly dim now. So everything outside of Ethereum is far far worse off. And so we are seeing that outside of "crypto degens", people (aka the general public) are only really going to be interested in Bitcoin. And there is no reason for them to be interested in random crypto projects, hell it's hard enough for people to wrap their heads around what is obviously the alternate currency for the future of humanity.

Just want to point out this is not a good argument - the bitcoin as part of the nation's reserves thing. Nobody would care that Bitcoin price temporarily dropped. Do people freak out that the US owns hundreds of billions of dollars of Gold when the Gold price drops? Nope. These are permanent national reserves. US won't care one bit about the volatility of Bitcoin. The point of putting it in the national reserve is that it is hard money and is a useful asset, like Gold, for the nation to hold, simply in order to increase the value of the nation's permanent resources.

Your argument makes it sound like you think the US is gonna be trading Bitcoin or something haha. That is not what anyone is talking about.

Anyway, Trump is a corrupt traitorous deranged lying idiot criminal so nobody should put any stock in anything he says. He's just trying to buy votes from gullible people with his suddenly crypto-friendly talk. Best thing for Bitcoin is going to be a United States that still functions and remains a free country, so we need Trump behind bars for his crimes, definitely not in the White House again.

As far as Krugman goes, he clearly hasn't bothered to research what Bitcoin actually is. It's pretty dang common among economists to just assume Bitcoin is some sort of scam because it isn't part of the traditional financial system, and so they just write it off and never put any effort into understanding what it is.