What Keeps You in BTC for the Long Haul?

[Heathrow]

The vast majority of the population never has any hope of mining BTC's.  They don't have the tech skills or the tech savvy.  And soon, most GPU miners will give up.  Currently, transaction fees are minimal.  So BTC generation is going to reside primarily in the hands of the wealthy 1% for a long while in the near future.  Fractional BTC generation won't be profitable unless the value of BTC rises significantly.  But with so few people generating the new BTCs, what's going to keep the rest of the population in the BTC game?  What's going to bring new BTC adopters into the game?  And once transaction fees replace mining, those will also be primarily accrued by those wealthy few who can run ASICs.  I'm having trouble seeing what's supposed to keep most folks in the BTC game for the long haul.

[1715016278]

1715016278

[1715016278]

1715016278

[1715016278]

1715016278

[BitPirate]

http://www.paypalsucks.com

^^ This is.

Specifically, we're moving towards a future where everything is "in the cloud". Supported by microtransactions. Also, increasing numbers of freelancers looking for work who want to be paid.

Couple that with a tech-savvy group of people with BTCs in their wallets rather than $, because they provably hold more value over the long run.

[Heathrow]

http://www.paypalsucks.com

^^ This is.

Specifically, we're moving towards a future where everything is "in the cloud". Supported by microtransactions. Also, increasing numbers of freelancers looking for work who want to be paid.

Couple that with a tech-savvy group of people with BTCs in their wallets rather than $, because they provably hold more value over the long run.

I see.  So the idea is that folks will pay USD to purchase BitCoins to avoid Paypal problems?  Only the tiniest handful of the population will ever do that.  The amount of tech savvy you have to have in order to use BitCoins would have to drop by about three thousand orders of magnitude before more than .1% of the US population would consider avoiding potential Paypal issues by converting USD into BitCoins.  But maybe you're expecting that to happen?

[BitPirate]

http://www.paypalsucks.com

^^ This is.

Specifically, we're moving towards a future where everything is "in the cloud". Supported by microtransactions. Also, increasing numbers of freelancers looking for work who want to be paid.

Couple that with a tech-savvy group of people with BTCs in their wallets rather than $, because they provably hold more value over the long run.

I see.  So the idea is that folks will pay USD to purchase BitCoins to avoid Paypal problems?  Only the tiniest handful of the population will ever do that.  The amount of tech savvy you have to have in order to use BitCoins would have to drop by about three thousand orders of magnitude before more than .1% of the US population would consider avoiding potential Paypal issues by converting USD into BitCoins.  But maybe you're expecting that to happen?

No, not at all.

Folks -- particularly the tech-savvy -- will put their residual income into BTC because it will hold its value better.

The target market of online companies intersects neatly with these potential customers with a surplus of Bitcoins.

Once they can actually pay for more things with BTC, they will start to transfer more in -- their residual + some of the money they would spend on services.

Clearly, the market is very far from being tapped in this respect.


Personally speaking, as someone who does a bit of freelancing, I've started to offer BTC payment as an option. I'd rather get a BTC in my wallet than some USD or foreign currency in my PayPal. I'm sure more people will feel the same.

Fear of PayPal freezing my sellers account > fear of long-term value decline of BTC.

It's a win-win situation for both service providers and customers.

[Lethn]

Open source, it's the wave of the future, especially if anyone can make any currency they like I wouldn't have taken an interest in Bitcoin if they hadn't released the source code for everyone to tinker with.

[hawkeye]

The vast majority of the population never has any hope of mining BTC's gold.  They don't have the necessary tech skills or the tech savvy.  

Early adopters will do well, no doubt, and have already done, but that's true for any new technology.  The guys that get in first make a motza.

But most people will want them for their utility.  That's what it's all about in the end.  Governments force us to to transact in their currencies by making them legal tender and blocking other currencies including those based on Gold.  That makes them high utility for many of us, (critically by force not choice) but as more and more trade migrates to the internet and becomes more global in nature it benefits having a truly global currency.  No country can provide this and, thank god, world government won't happen so it is going to take a market solution.  Hence, Bitcoin.

Whether it will replace government currencies I don't know, but it will take more and more market share from them as time goes on.  They sure don't help their case by debasing their currencies every chance they get either.   

It's just a great solution.  Better than Gold because it is more predictable.  Who knows where they will be able to get gold from as technology improves and we achieve true energy abundance.   But Bitcoin is a known quantity.  The best qualities of cash and gold without the drawbacks of either, plus improvements that neither have.

[Heathrow]

The vast majority of the population never has any hope of mining BTC's gold.  They don't have the necessary tech skills or the tech savvy.

Your substitution would hold up if we didn't need a lot of folks mining.  You don't need a lot of people mining gold in order for gold to have value.  But we do need a lot of people "mining" BTC in order for BTC to have value.  If the blockchain doesn't get built, BTC has no value.  So what's going to happen when their are only a few people building the blockchain?  If only a few people are generating BTCs isn't that a problem?

You might respond, "If only a few people are mining gold, that's not a problem, because gold will still have value."  But that response doesn't work.  Gold will continue to have value whether or not anybody mines it.  (Why?  Who cares.)  BTCs will have NO value unless the blockchain is stably built.  The value of BTC requires their being a lot of "mining" (I use "mining" as shorthand for "helping build the blockchain").  When the vast majority of miners get cut out of business, what's going to happen to BTC?

[bonker]

Interesting question.

I have faith in the free market... just offer goods and services to tempt bitcoins away from those millionaires!

[josiahgarber]

The vast majority of the population never has any hope of mining BTC's.  They don't have the tech skills or the tech savvy.  And soon, most GPU miners will give up.  Currently, transaction fees are minimal.  So BTC generation is going to reside primarily in the hands of the wealthy 1% for a long while in the near future.  Fractional BTC generation won't be profitable unless the value of BTC rises significantly.  But with so few people generating the new BTCs, what's going to keep the rest of the population in the BTC game?  What's going to bring new BTC adopters into the game?  And once transaction fees replace mining, those will also be primarily accrued by those wealthy few who can run ASICs.  I'm having trouble seeing what's supposed to keep most folks in the BTC game for the long haul.

Ridiculously high potential upside.  That's why I'm here.

[hawkeye]

The vast majority of the population never has any hope of mining BTC's gold.  They don't have the necessary tech skills or the tech savvy.

Your substitution would hold up if we didn't need a lot of folks mining.  You don't need a lot of people mining gold in order for gold to have value.  But we do need a lot of people "mining" BTC in order for BTC to have value.  If the blockchain doesn't get built, BTC has no value.  So what's going to happen when their are only a few people building the blockchain?  If only a few people are generating BTCs isn't that a problem?

You might respond, "If only a few people are mining gold, that's not a problem, because gold will still have value."  But that response doesn't work.  Gold will continue to have value whether or not anybody mines it.  (Why?  Who cares.)  BTCs will have NO value unless the blockchain is stably built.  The value of BTC requires their being a lot of "mining" (I use "mining" as shorthand for "helping build the blockchain").  When the vast majority of miners get cut out of business, what's going to happen to BTC?

Only while Bitcoin doesn't have much utility for most of the population.  Which it doesn't at the moment because the infrastructure and businesses that surround it are still building up.  Let's face it, it's mostly not usable or accessible for the average person who just wants to buy stuff.  It's at least in large part populated by speculators at the moment.

That's why I'm in it for the long haul, because I can see the possibility of it catching on.  If it was only about mining, then I'd at least have sold part of my holding by now.

My point stands, the vast majority of people were never involved in mining gold when we were on the gold standard and nor will the vast majority of bitcoin users ever be involved in mining.  I myself have never been involved in mining and probably never will be, I bought mine on the market, just as most people will.

[hawkeye]

Why will there only be a few people mining at some point?  My understanding is that there will be transaction fees beyond mining anyway. 

[xisnotx]

with me, it's get in, win/lose 50%, get out. if not, 1 year.
long haul? with the way the world changes these days, 3 weeks is the "long haul"...

[mccorvic]

I believe in a better tomorrow.

[johnyj]

I never think that bitcoin will replace fiat currency, it is just another payment method and fits much better for part of people's interest, pirate party even get a seat in EU parliament, the society is taking a change slowly, the borderless virtual economy will outgrow real economy sooner or later

Thinking about future, in a very realistic virtual reality, virtual car sell could possibly pass the sell of the real car, since it has so much configurable options and many of its functionalities are impossible to implement in a real car. So far everything in virtual world is not scarce and can be easily duplicated, that aboundant supply prevented economy shift from physical goods production to virtual goods production, bitcoin is just a great example that if you limited the supply for virtual things, the value can surpass its physical counterpart

[darkmethod]

My view is that Bitcoin serves a particular purpose very well: A means to exchange value across the internet for goods/services which was made precisely for the internet.

Fiat currency serves it's purpose extremely well: It enables governments to offer it's citizen's the ability to exchange value for goods/services in a tightly controlled manor (which isn't a bad or good thing in my opinion).

I like having options.

[Humanxlemming]

What keeps me here is a few reasons.

1. The part of the UK I live in has the worst job rate in the country.
2. I have been fixing computers since I was a child so bitcoin mining really helps put all those hours spent fixing computers into currency.
3. My bank/fiances are not the greatest but it is what I'm stuck with.
4. The greatest of them I mine the coins I keep the coins no one can ever touch or move them besides me

[Elwar]

So the wealthiest 1% are currently the only ones mining?

How astute.

Your choice at this very moment to not take a risk on Bitcoin is exactly why you will never be in the top 1%.

The Mark Zukerberg of today is on the forum right now figuring out the next big thing for Bitcoin. And s/he is probably living off of raman and bitcoin purchased pizza.

[BTC Books]

I'm in bitcoin for a simple reason

I think it was cbeast here, who said:  "It's a really, really good idea."

I like those.

[Tirapon]

I'm in bitcoin for a simple reason

I think it was cbeast here, who said:  "It's a really, really good idea."

I like those.

+1

[Piper67]

I'm in bitcoin for a simple reason

I think it was cbeast here, who said:  "It's a really, really good idea."

I like those.

It was me, though cbeast may have said it too.

Bitcoin is three things rolled into one:

1) a currency
2) a payment processor
3) a store of value

If it achieves 1% of its potential as any one of those three, I'll be a happy person and the world will be a better place. That's why I'm in it for the long haul.