Where do you see bitcoin in 10 years

[Mickeyb]

Even Satoshi said it that either there will be a lot of transactions in about 10 years or very few transactions. This you can translate to either Bitcoin will be worth a lot or nothing and of course either Bitcoin will be used by many or by nobody.

So this is pretty much your answer OP. I don't see it being somewhere in the middle at all!

[Hunyadi]

10 Years from now... I hope all signature campaigns will be dead by then. I fucking hate them.
They ruined bitcointalk and no one is willing to do something about it.

People should step up, show some decency, and remove all these stupid scam campaigns from their profiles.
Not because it is mandatory, but because it is the right thing to do.

Tell me about it. I put a recommendation in my sig that I think could be really useful for newcomers, but I'm always wondering if it'll just be seen as another one of those paid ad campaigns, and actually has the opposite effect of what I'm trying to achieve. /shrug

Signature campaigns are the cancer of the bitcointalk. I really hate them.

[anthonycamp]

signature campaigns tell us that advertisment subliminary even if the site its doublfull its willing to give connection and money to advertize into btc world in order to have some users that are scammed or not and be willing to use more the BTC as reward i mean the signatures campaigns got less good than bad but its sitll a way of us in future to like btc cause we have it. my opinin of no major income.

[minerbit hill]

It will still be struggling on around 400 $ and there will be people making these threads again at that time and same answers in the appear in those threads.
mass adaptation requires centuries not some years.. its pinnacle is not sooner than 100-200 years.

[Slark]

signature campaigns tell us that advertisment subliminary even if the site its doublfull its willing to give connection and money to advertize into btc world in order to have some users that are scammed or not and be willing to use more the BTC as reward i mean the signatures campaigns got less good than bad but its sitll a way of us in future to like btc cause we have it. my opinin of no major income.

What are you trying to say? Is this google translator or something?
Anyway. Bitcoin is hard nut to crack. We may agree that future is not grim, bitcoin won't fail - that is certain.
Amount of money invested in btc technology is just too much to waste. Whether btc price will be $100 or $1000 is hard to predict.

[g-unit]

Even Satoshi said it that either there will be a lot of transactions in about 10 years or very few transactions. This you can translate to either Bitcoin will be worth a lot or nothing and of course either Bitcoin will be used by many or by nobody.

So this is pretty much your answer OP. I don't see it being somewhere in the middle at all!

He said 20 years, not 10.

[Snail2]

10 Years from now... I hope all signature campaigns will be dead by then. I fucking hate them.
They ruined bitcointalk and no one is willing to do something about it.

People should step up, show some decency, and remove all these stupid scam campaigns from their profiles.
Not because it is mandatory, but because it is the right thing to do.

Tell me about it. I put a recommendation in my sig that I think could be really useful for newcomers, but I'm always wondering if it'll just be seen as another one of those paid ad campaigns, and actually has the opposite effect of what I'm trying to achieve. /shrug

Signature campaigns are the cancer of the bitcointalk. I really hate them.

Why we shouldn't make some "free" bitcoins, from signature campaigns if we can? Most us would be here and would keep posting anyway, but even better if we get paid for that .

Regarding OP, I think bitcoin not going to be run by a bank. Until bitcoin opensource and the development is heavily influenced by the community it would be "too open" for a bank. They would do better by buying up major exchanges.

[pereira4]

A "bank" for Bitcoin already exists, it is called Xapo. They will store your Bitcoin for you in secret underground vaults. It seems pretty legit if you ask me. But im a purist, so I think Bitcoin's major points is it allows you to being your own bank, so I would rather trust myself and store them myself, than trust a third party.
It's definitely better than current banks tho.

[bitgolden]

A "bank" for Bitcoin already exists, it is called Xapo. They will store your Bitcoin for you in secret underground vaults. It seems pretty legit if you ask me. But im a purist, so I think Bitcoin's major points is it allows you to being your own bank, so I would rather trust myself and store them myself, than trust a third party.
It's definitely better than current banks tho.

A bitcoin bank must be an existing bank system who also accepts bitcoin for fund deposit as well as withdraw. Online wallet services are not bitcoin banks. Even Xapo offers debit card to spend bitcoin. All the debit card providers are not banking providers.

[Denker]

Even Satoshi said it that either there will be a lot of transactions in about 10 years or very few transactions. This you can translate to either Bitcoin will be worth a lot or nothing and of course either Bitcoin will be used by many or by nobody.

So this is pretty much your answer OP. I don't see it being somewhere in the middle at all!

Yepp that's it.Either this baby goes moon or higher, or it ends up in oblivion.Let's hope for the first one to happen!

[Erkallys]

the usually two result will happnen, it will die or it will skyrocket, it must be one of this because of the halving, for every new halving the price must increase or the efficiency must increase otherwise the network will remain unsecure

because every miners will simply leave, and i doubt that the efficiency can double every 4 years, but i may be wrong, if this would be the case, the price can remain where it is, while miners can maintain their today profit

In 10 years the numbers of transactions will have more than doubled, but the number of miners will drop, so this is quite worrying. I'm not the pro of how Bitcoin works exactly, but tell me : the more the transactions did each the more hashrate needed ?

[gentlemand]

In 10 years the numbers of transactions will have more than doubled, but the number of miners will drop, so this is quite worrying. I'm not the pro of how Bitcoin works exactly, but tell me : the more the transactions did each the more hashrate needed ?

Nope. It's the block size that dictates the number of potential transactions which is why everyone's up in arms about it. You could have a far, far lower hashrate and the same number of transactions would go through.

[Erkallys]

In 10 years the numbers of transactions will have more than doubled, but the number of miners will drop, so this is quite worrying. I'm not the pro of how Bitcoin works exactly, but tell me : the more the transactions did each the more hashrate needed ?

Nope. It's the block size that dictates the number of potential transactions which is why everyone's up in arms about it. You could have a far, far lower hashrate and the same number of transactions would go through.

Ok I see what's you mean. So why was Amph worrying about the number of miner ? There is no difference at all if there is 1 Ph/s or 80 Ph/s ?

[gentlemand]

Ok I see what's you mean. So why was Amph worrying about the number of miner ? There is no difference at all if there is 1 Ph/s or 80 Ph/s ?

There is the security aspect. The more miners there are and the higher the hashrate is, the more difficult it would be for someone to attack the network by overpowering it with their own machinery, although recent events like the spamming and malleability show you can cause inconvenience with far less hassle.

[Erkallys]

Ok I see what's you mean. So why was Amph worrying about the number of miner ? There is no difference at all if there is 1 Ph/s or 80 Ph/s ?

There is the security aspect. The more miners there are and the higher the hashrate is, the more difficult it would be for someone to attack the network by overpowering it with their own machinery, although recent events like the spamming and malleability show you can cause inconvenience with far less hassle.

I have absolutely no idea of the total hashrate at the moment, but let's say it is 100 Ph/s, I don't see possible for someone to raise at least 100,1 Ph/s. This would be absolute too costly ! I don't think (but since 20 minutes I am not a pro yet) that it will be a major problem, since there will have less miner, but that will have more hashrate.

[gentlemand]

I have absolutely no idea of the total hashrate at the moment, but let's say it is 100 Ph/s, I don't see possible for someone to raise at least 100,1 Ph/s. This would be absolute too costly ! I don't think (but since 20 minutes I am not a pro yet) that it will be a major problem, since there will have less miner, but that will have more hashrate.

It's a far fetched scenario indeed, but there is a ton of machinery out there and if it did become uneconomic to mine it has zero use for anything else. Someone could buy up a pile and have a go. What possible reason they'd have to do so is beyond me at this moment in time.

[Hugroll]

in 10 years bitcoin will either florish and everyone will start using it, or it will die and everyone will stop using it, lets just hope its not the latter.

[Erkallys]

I have absolutely no idea of the total hashrate at the moment, but let's say it is 100 Ph/s, I don't see possible for someone to raise at least 100,1 Ph/s. This would be absolute too costly ! I don't think (but since 20 minutes I am not a pro yet) that it will be a major problem, since there will have less miner, but that will have more hashrate.

It's a far fetched scenario indeed, but there is a ton of machinery out there and if it did become uneconomic to mine it has zero use for anything else. Someone could buy up a pile and have a go. What possible reason they'd have to do so is beyond me at this moment in time.

If I follow you, when Bitcoin mining will become unenomic, Bitcoin will surely die ? In 2050 or 2060, when there will have not a lot of Bitcoin mined at each block, no one will mine it because everyone, even the one that have free electricity will lose money. But maybe people will mine just to make the Bitcoin network work, like some are already doing by running Bitcoin nodes.

[gentlemand]

If I follow you, when Bitcoin mining will become unenomic, Bitcoin will surely die ? In 2050 or 2060, when there will have not a lot of Bitcoin mined at each block, no one will mine it because everyone, even the one that have free electricity will lose money. But maybe people will mine just to make the Bitcoin network work, like some are already doing by running Bitcoin nodes.

There are miners out there with access to free electricity or very, very cheap electricity. Those will still be in profit just fine whereas other current players will have to throw in the towel unless they can find a similar set up. That's a tough thing to find.

Most assume that transaction fees will make up for the block reward in the far future. That makes sense if it catches on and succeeds and there are far more users than there are now. I think at present fees are often 0.2 BTC per block or less. If it doesn't then mining it will become increasingly thankless as the block reward diminishes further. There'd come a point where it's only mined for altruistic reasons which most people aren't going to consider.

[Nami]

I see it ran by a bank, What do you think?

Yes I can see established in the future and many people will be using it.
I t is a great advantage that we have known it right now, and we start collecting it right now.