No one ignores the supreme universal bitcoin chancellor!  |
|
|
|
If you think the average bitcoiner will have 160000$ holdings you are deeply wrong.
As you would be wrong thinking the average bitcoiner now has 270$ holdings...
Wealth of bitcoiners doesn't reflect ANYTHING about their wealth.
So in this "thought experiment" you should only imagine HOW MUCH REQUEST FOR BITCOINS THERE WILL BE
1. I am not deeply wrong, that is the definition of average. total amount divided by the number of people. That's what average means. 21M * 160k / 21M = 160k. It's very simple math, if you can't understand that, there's no point in continuing this conversation. 2. I don't think the average bitcoiner holds $270 worth of bitcoins, because the number of bitcoiners are not exactly the same as the number of coins. Again, you should probably learn what "average" means. To clarify, I am not talking about the median or mode. I am talking about the average, or "mean". 3. Sure it does. If a person owns $10 worth of bitcoins, his net worth is AT LEAST $10. It can't be less. Unless he has liabilities of course, but that's a completely different topic. 4. If you're going to ignore the OP and completely change the question to your own, then, well, you're free to do that, but you should probably just start your own thread instead. |
|
|
|
if we have a private ledger, people doing illicit activities will simply go there, and nobody will know a thing of what they're doing...
governments can just carry on putting money that's not their in their pocket:
no honest government has anything to fear towards their citizens, and a government should be transparent. a private ledger won't do anyone any good, they'll keep on putting money under the carpet as they do now. for a private ledger we already have fiat...
What you said is true, and a completely private blockchain will be used for a lot of such activities, and tax evasion. But if cryptocurrencies become widely accepted in the future, such a blockchain will 100% be developed for such purposes anyway. It's not something you can prevent. The question is, are you going to cash in on the profit, or are you going to watch on the sidelines? |
|
|
|
Man, think in fractions.
If one Bitcoin in future will value 1 million dollars, this means you will be able to buy with one Bitcoin, 1 million dollars of stuff.
That doesn't mean that a person that has 50000$ can't buy a fraction of Bitcoin: that fraction that evaluates to 50000$, and still buy stuff for 50000$ worth of Bitcoins.
Can you understand this mechanism?
It's only difficult to accept it because of the STRETCH that will be reached by Bitcoin value.
You are regurgitating common answers to common misconceptions about bitcoin that has nothing to do with what I said. It has nothing to do with fractions or satoshis. If there are 21 million bitcoins, and there are 21 million bitcoin users, and each bitcoin is worth 160k, then by default of those parameters, the average holdings per bitcoin user is worth 160k USD. That is the definition of average. And because the wealth of bitcoiners closely reflect the wealth of average people, the above scenario is VERY unlikely to happen. The key here is the limiter of 21 million bitcoin users. Without that assumption, then anything goes. But that assumption limits a lot of scenarios. |
|
|
|
if 21 million users meant a BTC value of 160,000, that would imply that the average btc owner has 160k in bitcoins.
Is that realistic? I don't think so. What's a more realistic number? Probably somewhere around 1,000-2,000. So that's what the price will stabilize at, assuming the number of users stay at 21 million long enough for stabilization, but not so long that bitcoin stagnates and becomes irrelevant.
But if it was during a huge pump, perhaps because some garage geniuses created killer apps for bitcoin, then it could go an order of magnitude higher.
The problem is: what do you mean by realistic? Maybe in 2011 people bought or mined Bitcoin in hope to have, one day, 10$ per Bitcoin. Now they have 270$ per Bitcoin. Now, if you think that in a not too far future Bitcoin will see a future of in increased market request, price will rise accordingly. There's no escape to that. So yes, now your BTC values around 270$, but while the system gains reputation around the world, price will rise. And nobody can know how much it will end up reaching. Exactly, we can't talk about what is or isn't realistic when brand new technology that can discover we can do now things we didn't even thought about before. The price is indeed invaluable. If you told anyone back in 2009 that BTC would reach 100 you would be deemed mentally insane. Imagine if you said 1000, or higher than gold. Thing is, the future is an white paper not written yet, anything is possible. Ye, still predictions can be made, and the game is fun  That is not true. I never said bitcoins can't reach 160k/coin. I'm not talking about the value per coin. I'm talking about the amount of wealth the average bitcoiner holds. We know that bitcoiners are pretty much average or slightly above average in terms of wealth, based on surveys taking by coindesk etc. The average person is worth ~50k USD. So how can the average bitcoiner have more than triple that amount in bitcoins? Note that we're not even considering their other assets. They won't be putting absolutely everything they own into bitcoin. It just isn't possible. It has nothing to do with the technology or how much bitcoin blockchain should be worth. Simply that given only 21 million users, a value of 160k isn't possible. But with 2.1 Billion users, 160k is totally possible. |
|
|
|
The jobs directly involved with Bitcoin development will require you an engineer degree minimum, so it's a small %.
The rest of the jobs are also coding related, and then trading, not much else. Anything that doesn't involve coding is basically gambling, not a "true" job in the classic sense (for me someone that makes crypto trading for a living doesn't have a "true" job), sure skill is needed but it's too unstable. Sig campaign is obviously not a true job, just nice extra.
No, there's also bitcoin journalism. And customer support. |
|
|
|
The best way to define its fungibility is that 1 bitcoin will always be equal to another bitcoin. All the speculations and calculations about how 1 bitcoin is equal to 283 USD etc is determining its price, not its value. So in terms of value, 1 btc = 1 btc always. Regarding the anonymity of bitcoin, yes bitcoins cannot be tracked as they are exchanged between private keys, but the transaction is always recorded publicly.
The key word here is that 1 bitcoin will always be equal to ANOTHER bitcoin. So its not 1 btc = 1 btc, but 1 btc = ANOTHER btc. And this might not always remain true for all bitcoins. For example, the value of bitcoins that has been to a certain known address might be auctioned off as some sort of an antique item in the future. Perhaps the first address Satoshi spends from after he goes public. Who knows. |
|
|
|
|
if 21 million users meant a BTC value of 160,000, that would imply that the average btc owner has 160k in bitcoins.
Is that realistic? I don't think so. What's a more realistic number? Probably somewhere around 1,000-2,000. So that's what the price will stabilize at, assuming the number of users stay at 21 million long enough for stabilization, but not so long that bitcoin stagnates and becomes irrelevant.
But if it was during a huge pump, perhaps because some garage geniuses created killer apps for bitcoin, then it could go an order of magnitude higher.
|
|
|
|
lol it makes me jealous, why i'm not mining in 2008 and know in 2014 the price will be $700.
i will mine thousand bitcoin and get f*ck with vicky vette now
because mining didn't exist in 2008. Chances are you won't know how to mine in 2009 either. |
|
|
|
there isn't a good way, it's all about luck, otherwise everyone should've been rich already, but since it isn't the case, if you aren't rich it mean that you are not lucky enough
even those rich guys that who have struggled to achieve their position, they had a big luck somehow in their life, that helped them
No it isn't. That's a defeatist attitude. Luck may be a component, but if bill gates or warren buffet kept their current knowledge but suddenly lost all their contacts/wealth and became a 20 yr old again, do you think they would not succeed? I mean they might not become multi billionaires, but I'm certain they could at least easily earn millions. Like Amph said, yeah I think luck has big effect in the way making someone to get rich. Bill Gates could be success because he was born at right moment, which there was no many computer technology at that time. Then he grabbed his chance to build Microsoft. Luck is not main point to make us get rich, but it has bigger portion than other things. As I said, if he wasn't born in the right time, he would still be a millionaire, if not billionaire. Far above average people. Getting rich is not a 1 shot thing. Even people who buy lottery tickets can buy one every draw. They can experience many draws in their lives, and if they play enough, they'll probably even get a $1000 dollar win or so (of course the net loss will be much greater). People who create their own lotteries (as in, figuratively, like building a start-up or something) create their own chances, and if it fails once, or fails twice, or even fails three times, they only need to get lucky once. If they have what it takes, they'll get that luck eventually. |
|
|
|
In modern society, very often majority of the demand is fulfilled, each producer are dumping excessive goods in an attempt to get most liquid assets (usually money) from the other, then it does not benefit anyone
Even in a modern society, imagine Alice produces californian sparkling wine, and sells them for $10/bottle to Bob. Bob buys 100 bottles, pays a $10 dollar shipping fee and sells them for $12 dollars/bottle in Japan. Then 100 people buys Bob's wine. Alice made money, Bob made money, and the 100 people made money because otherwise they would have to pay $20 dollars to get that bottle of sparkling wine shipped to them. So in effect, they each saved 8 dollars. |
|
|
|
That is rather fascinating. What are the money supplies for these game currencies? CKG has only 1 million units so it could surpass 1 XMR (or even BTC for that matter) with a smaller market cap. They are bitcoin clones. That is, twenty one million coins each. Oh except for bitNicKeLs (NKL), which have 20 times that many coins, which was intended to make them worth 1/20th of what the others were worth. At least initially at startup. When first they came to me about making coins for them I simply hacked at the -testnet part of the bitcoin code, so that for each nation there was a bitcoin client whose "testnet" switch made it use that nation's blockchain instead of bitcoin's testnet blockchain, so that they could use bitcoins and their national/company coin with the same client. (This was way back in the beginning, even before namecoin maybe. Before merged mining came along too of course. It was what I learned of the code doing this stuff that led to Unthinkingbit hiring me to help him figure out how to create DeVCoin.) The massive problem with Proof of Work blockchains though is they are insanely expensive to secure. If any enemy had discovered their handshake bytes (magic bytes) and port number to connect to, they could have been attacked by anyone with more computer power. In the game of course we can simply stipulate that only the hypothetical " Ancients" (represented in off the shelf Freeciv software by the Antarcticans) and the Hackers (from whom the Martians claimed to have obtained blockchain technology) are likely to be able to out-compute the Martians, who quite likely could out-compute even a combined alliance of the Brits and Canucks. But of course since the national currency of the Hackers is bitcoin, of course the bitcoin miners could out-compute the miners of any of these game-currencies. Even if we can get them to be merged-mined, the bitcoin miners have more hashing power than the most-hashed merged mined coin (namecoin) and a heck of a lot more than a less-commonly-merged-mined coin such as I0Coin. So I do not think we can reasonably expect to be able to secure these national/company coins by proof of work mining. Plus, of course, they already mined all their coins long ago. (The Martians developed warp drive centuries ago, it has been more than 140 years since their blockchain started.) So no minting to pay miners. Now that things like NXT are coming along though, maybe the nations and multigalactics will be able to create such a network of their own, purely for game-asset purposes, on which to run all these game-coins as assets... -MarkM- Can you give a simple explanation of what these things are? I clicked the link and read the wiki a bit, and still had absolutely 0 understanding of what it is. I've played battle of wesnoth when I was 12, apparently its a part of this universe? How are the games interrelated? How are these currencies obtained? Used? etc. |
|
|
|
But even ignoring the fact that your arguments have nothing to do with the topic, your arguments are flat out illogical. Why do you assume that they could've exchanged the goods at a higher price? If Bob and Alice both needs 4 hours' worth of food and 4 hours' worth of water to survive, neither will be willing to let go of more than 4 hours' worth of each resource no matter what medium of exchange your using, whether that is barter or through fiat, bitcoins, gold, or anything else. They are not going to agree to starve to death.
(Red colorization mine.) 1. The topic is money, and I'm (more-than-less) keyboarding about money. 2. It would seem that there is no true Scotsman after all. (I.e., you changed the hypothetical, post initial proposition, to specifically preclude my objection - indulging the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.) 3+. (I evaluate discourse in that manner wherein one would evaluate a mathematical proof: address objection [2].) lol, just give up. It has nothing to do with the "scotsman fallacy". What it is, is proof by contradiction. I've shown cases where your argument is invalid, and therefore it is invalid. Again, it has nothing to do with the argument to begin with even if what you said is internationally logically consistent. You haven't given a clear, concise and UNDERSTANDABLE statement/description of what it is you are trying to argue. "About money" is not an argument. And a word of advice: I hope you don't talk like this in real life. Besides, language is a means of communication. If you can't communicate your message clearly to the intended audience, it isn't the fault of the audience, but your own fault for not being smart enough to communicate effectively. |
|
|
|
there isn't a good way, it's all about luck, otherwise everyone should've been rich already, but since it isn't the case, if you aren't rich it mean that you are not lucky enough
even those rich guys that who have struggled to achieve their position, they had a big luck somehow in their life, that helped them
No it isn't. That's a defeatist attitude. Luck may be a component, but if bill gates or warren buffet kept their current knowledge but suddenly lost all their contacts/wealth and became a 20 yr old again, do you think they would not succeed? I mean they might not become multi billionaires, but I'm certain they could at least easily earn millions. |
|
|
|
|
Name: futureofbitcoin
Posts: 716
Activity: 154
Position: Full Member
Address: 1D5JBVEWrAaeWL87pwzdtTmCt3BHSuwqm9
I would like to join the campaign, if possible. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Name: futureofbitcoin
Posts: 16
Activity: 14
Position: Newbie
Address: 1D5JBVEWrAaeWL87pwzdtTmCt3BHSuwqm9
I would like to join both signature and pm campaigns, thanks.
jr. member now, posts: 228 activity: 42 Member Posts: 388 Activity: 70 Hello, I would like to exit from both campaigns. Thank you. |
|
|
|
1. "the amount of time it would have taken Alice and Bob to acquire them after having starved and dehydrated respectively" ( username18333) 2. " to acquire [food and water]" (username18333) 3.a) Exchanging the goods at a higher price. 3.b) No. 3.c) No. The amount of time it would have taken for Alice and Bob to acquire anything would be infinite, after already starving and dehydrating to death. In regards to your point that they may have been able to exchange the goods at a higher price, first of all, let's assume you're right. How does that in any way invalidate my point? Or johnyj's point? (which was the original post that started the debate). It seems that you are, in an effort to sound smart, typing extremely convoluted sentences that has nothing to do with the posts you're arguing against. But even ignoring the fact that your arguments have nothing to do with the topic, your arguments are flat out illogical. Why do you assume that they could've exchanged the goods at a higher price? If Bob and Alice both needs 4 hours' worth of food and 4 hours' worth of water to survive, neither will be willing to let go of more than 4 hours' worth of each resource no matter what medium of exchange your using, whether that is barter or through fiat, bitcoins, gold, or anything else. They are not going to agree to starve to death. But they will happily exchange 4 hours' worth of their resource for another essential resource they need, because it will allow them to survive, and they still have enough of the original resource they worked for for themselves. Both Alice and Bob would make such a "fair" transaction, because they would both benefit from it, or die otherwise. If everyone considered the "opportunity costs" of possibly being able to exchange goods at a higher price, there would never be any trade happening. It's simply neither practical, nor optimal. For example, go to any local corner store, and look at the pricing of their items. Then go to Walmart. Are they the same? Or is it more expensive at the corner store? Clearly people do buy at the corner store; or else it would go out of business. So why doesn't Walmart raise all their prices? They're losing out on opportunity costs! Of course it's fairly obvious that Walmart would earn a greater profit operating the way they do now. Oh, and don't try to bring in extraneous arguments like "Well, the corner store is closer to the 80 yr old's home, and has locational advantage." Not relevant. |
|
|
|
You did not account for opportunity costs: each of those items were "worth" (futureofbitcoin) - to use your phraseology - the amount of time it would have taken Alice and Bob to acquire them after having starved and dehydrated respectively. However, neither Alice nor Bob forsook that quantity of time. So, the assurance of profit deprived each participant of what they "needed" and assured them only of what they already had in (at least, relative) excess.
Money extrapolates such deprivation to international markets.
An extremely convoluted argument is not necessarily a good argument. "Neither Alice nor Bob forsook that quantity of time" Which quantity of time? For what? Alice did in fact spend a whole 8 hours gathering drinking water, while Bob did in fact spend a whole 8 hours hunting for food. That time was spent. What opportunity costs are you talking about? That Alice could have gathered drinking water for 4 hours, proceed to travel for 2 hours to the hunting grounds, and hunt for another 4 hours, to get what she needed? Or that Bob could've hunted for 4 hours and proceed to travel 2 hours to the river, and spend another 4 hours gathering water in order to get what he needed? |
|
|
|
Hello guys, I am very depressed. I live in China mainland, each time when I try to login to Bitcoin client(I use portable Electrum most) I must seek for a proxy or VPN. Without a proxy or vpn, the client can't hardly connect to the network. Sometimes, I cannot even access Bitcointalk and Blockchain freely without using a proxy or vpn, and yes, at the moment, I am using a vpn browsing Bitcointalk and starting this topic.
Have you ever travel to China? We get no access to Twitter, Facebook, Gmail and many many many other websites that are hosted abroad.
Can you use Bitcoin freely and access Bitcointalk and Blockchain freely without using a proxy/VPN in your country?
I went to china for the first half of this year, and I had to get a VPN for bitcointalk, facebook, youtube etc. Not only that, I had to pay some bitcoins to register an account from a known VPN address. |
|
|
|
|
does the egifter gift card work in canada?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
