I believe 10 million is a very conservative estimate.
So you think the total value of all bitcoins reaching the total worldwide household wealth is 'conservative'?
I think Hal was trying to estimate the
upper limit for btc price.
We should not be ascribing sorcery status to anyone, even smart peeps (whether Hal or Satoshi or whoever), especially for things that they said in early 2009 when bitcoin was merely just getting off the ground. They are giving broad and overview ideas, but they cannot really know some of the specific branches that might grow in the future or even some specific attributes that might get incorporated into main aspects of the tree.
Accordingly, I would suspect that Hal was attempting to give a ballpark figure of various aspects of what he understood to have been then storage of wealth and monies.. so I doubt that it necessarily accounts for some various kinds of innovative storage of wealth and monies (even if they might remain a relatively smaller component), and I would think that his ballparking was based on 2009 valuations - so inflation would surely affect his figure - $10million today is not what $10million was in 2009, and likely $10million in 10 to 30 years from now is likely going to be considerably degraded based con what we currently see happening (and doubts about whether there are desires (or will develop desires) within traditional systems to reign in aspects of the ongoing denigration of the dollar to allow it to continue to survive - if that is even possible).
I believe that within 30 years bitcoin will be worth around 1billion USD in todays money.
So the total value of all bitcoins would be... 100x of worldwide wealth?
Seems that Arriemoller is accounting for ongoing denigration of the dollar - so maybe $10million and $1billion will be the same? hahahahahaha.. but I see your point, Phil_S.. Arriemoller does seem to have lost some degree of tether (not the currency) to reality, which is not really unusual for him (based on his post history), for whatever that's worth..
I believe 10 million is a very conservative estimate.
So you think the total value of all bitcoins reaching the total worldwide household wealth is 'conservative'?
I think Hal was trying to estimate the
upper limit for btc price.
I believe that within 30 years bitcoin will be worth around 1billion USD in todays money.
So the total value of all bitcoins would be... 100x of worldwide wealth?
I think Bitcoin reaching $1M by 2030 will be a truly life-changing event for most (almost all) of us WOers. This will be "fuck you" richness x10 for most, giving us both wealth
and safety.
Now, if only it would come by 2025... Dreams, dreams...
Huh? Why you so bearish AlcoHoDL?
Historically, we have had in the ballpark of 80x to 150x for each of the 4 year cycles (referring to 2011 150x(+) (maybe does not count), 2013 = 100x, 2017 = 80x, and 2021 so far = 16x).** Of course, with decreasing multiples with the passage of time, but still, even if there are far from any guarantees, why would we be expecting outrageous curtailment of the upward leg of the s-curve. It's like you are prematurely suggesting that we are getting to the flat portion of the s-curve. Yeah.. I know that there is no guarantees, but why presume that we are at the top of the s-curve without any real or meaningful evidence of such?
**By the way, to some degree, I can appreciate criticisms that my numbers are a bit loosey goosey, but I give few fucks, because I believe that my numbers are largely fair and reasonable because they attempt to go off of reasonable floor starting points for each cycle to provide estimates for the top of each of the previous cycles, the current cycle and attempting to project where future cycles may well go (without guarantees, of course). So, if we concede that $64,895 is the top of this cycle at 16x, then maybe we get to your numbers of $1million by 2030, but it seems quite reasonable that this cycle is not over and it is NOT going to bring us only 16x.
For this cycle, relatively conservative estimates still get us to $100k to $300k (so that would be 25x to 75x). There are more bold and bullish out there (maybe just referring to peeps like my lil selfie) that suggest over shootings in the $500k to $1.5million territory. which would either already deliver $1million or would be within 2x of your $1million target - even though if something like $500k, were to be reached, $500k would not be the bouncing off point for the next cycle, but instead we would have to see where its floor ends up, which may well be anywhere between $40k and $100k as starting off point for the next cycle, which would still allow for $1million to be reached with 10x to 25x in the 2025 cycle's culmination.
In regards to the relatively more conservative estimates of $100k to $300k for this cycle, then for the next cycle we would likely have bouncing off points of $20k to $60k, so I am thinking that still $1million would still be within reasonable reach of the next cycle because $20k to $60k would be 16.6x to 50x for that cycle.. And, so (as I type) I can start to see that presuming 50x for the next cycle to be a bit presumptuous, even though I consider it to be reasonable.. and I will also say that reaching a million by 2029 or 2030 would be reasonable, too, even though it is likely not necessary to attempt to extract too much about what might happen two additional cycles down the road when we still have not finished this cycle nor have seen what the next cycle might have in store for us (which none of us longer term observers of the BTC space, including ur lil selfie, AlcoHoDL, would be surprised by $1million in the next cycle - even if we might be surprised by it in this cycle).
Regarding your point about reaching 10x fuck you status, so yeah sure, there is likely a kind of entry level fuck you status and then there are multiples of that, but I am going to stick with my guns in terms of continuing to accuse you, and likely others too, of problematic thinking when continuing to asserts the price of tops as fuck you status level because of at least two reasons: 1) we know that tops have tended to be quite unreliable in bitcoin so 2) based on 1, you end up having to rely upon either cashing out some bitcoin or overly valuing your wealth in dollars to consider tops as your fuck you status achievements.
I will continue to agree with you and others (including that I do the same thing) about tops having importance and significance in terms of showing us where bitcoin is capable of going and showing where it is likely to go in future cycles, and also tops providing cushion regarding how much DOWNity would be feasibly within the cards and also there are likely going to be some cashing outs (shavings) of some of our BTC value at various price points on the way up, even if NOT being able to (nor wanting to) time the price top with any kind of precision.
Quoting the entirety of your long, but well laid out post. Too little time to dissect it into parts, too little time for a proper reply, so I'll just post some general comments.
Yeah, I sound bearish, don't I? The thing is, whenever I refer to "moon", "fuck-you", "fuck-you"x10, or whatever other level of Bitcoin price, I usually refer to what I call
stable prices. By
stable I mean very strong lower bounds on BTC price. I.e., a $1M / BTC
stable price point could mean an instantaneous (unstable) price that varies between $2M and $3M / BTC. As an example, one could say that the current
stable BTC price is around $20k, meaning that there is a near-certainty that the price of Bitcoin will not fall below said level. I'm talking about the kind of certainty that can enable one to make life-changing decisions, such as quitting a job, buying a house, relocating to another city or even to another country. And as Bitcoin price rises, the distance (or safety margin) between stable and unstable levels should be larger, or at least
I would like it to be larger, the reason being that this is not pocket money anymore, nor is it a matter of picking a Playboy bunny vs.
Frenchie, or whatever other side activity or secondary, reversible decision. At $millions / BTC price levels, things can get much more serious, to the point of making irreversible decisions, once you flick the "fuck-you" switch, so you should aim to have a rock-solid foundation upon which to base said decisions.
If we take Saylor's 200% (
4x 3x) per year Bitcoin price appreciation figure, that is based on past performance, we end up with an instantaneous (unstable) price of around
$3.5M $1.5M / BTC by mid-2024. But, does past performance guarantee future performance (cliché, but...)? Add to that the possibility of long winter years ahead, such as 2018-2019. Will we reach a stable price of $1M / BTC by 2024? I hope so, and it's certainly doable. Saylor predicts it, S2F models predict it, you predict it, who am I to disagree? Will it take a few more years to get there? Maybe, it's quite possible, and it's my realistic (albeit a little bearish) guess. Will we
ever get there? This one is a sure bet, and that's what really matters.
Edit: Corrected wrong numbers in Saylor's case: 200% growth = 4x 3x growth!
Poll
