[edited out]
Lol it's a fight between JJG Vs philipma or Silver Vs BTC
We are in a bitcoin thread. Are you referring to a fight to stay on topic or another fight?
Silver is there for you from Ancient time
BTC only 17 year's child , not even an adult😁.
Sure there is an age element in regards to Bitcoin, yet if you try to understand bitcoin's addressable market, it relates to sound money, and sure Silver has some sound money attributes and silver also has utility value through its physical attributes. Of course, bitcoin is not physical, yet it has some physical attributes related to securing the blocks and the issuance of new coins, such as electricity, computers and communication systems..
Surely bitcoin is a paradigm-shifting invention (discovery), so it takes time to get to know bitcoin, and it will continue to take time to get to know bitcoin, even though bitcoin has already had a very large impact (perhaps punching above its weight class) on existing financial and information systems.
You're expecting too much from a child.
Bitcoin did 1000x over 10 years , how much xxx crossed Silver or Gold?
I am not sure if it is fair to measure bitcoin from zero, even though surely there have been stupendous advantages that bitcoin has had in the department of the exponential s-curve adoption angle, even if we were to merely begin to measure bitcoin's price performance starting from January 2012 (with 14 years of data rather than 17 years of data. It is likely that bitcoin is going to continue to grow in great ways, even if the slope of the curve lessens in its steepness... so yeah, if part of your point is that there may be some noise in the relative short-term price performance of gold, silver and/or bitcoin, then I am not going to disagree or argue about those kinds of observations, even though the recent pumping of both silver and gold likely reflect uncertainties in the overall market and lack of confidence in the dollar and/or recent dollar policies and/or practices, yet neither gold or silver are very accurate in their price movements and price alignments due to the various perversions in their paper representations and likely needs to take possession in order to attempt to confirm the supply, which of course based on the ease in which possession can be taken of bitcoin, bitcoin does not suffer from those kinds of verification issues, even though so many paper bitcoin systems have still been set up with likely ongoing attempts to manipulate its quantity and potential risks for those who don't have the quantity of bitcoin that they are claiming to have...
So even though bitcoin is around 1,000x better or more than gold in terms of its monetary attributes, and perhaps 10,000x better than silver, it still could take 50 to 200 years or more for those realities to be reflected in spot prices...and it likely takes time for those various ongoing battles to play themselves out.
[edited out]
It is arguable we are still in the early phases of adoption. A very small number of people hold significant portions of their stored wealth in Bitcoin. And this is including the price-rise dampening paper bitcoin as well. I think we are still somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of the population.
Holy shit cAPSLOCK. That seems way too optimistic if you really think that 5-10% of the population (we are talking world population) owns anything close to significant quantities of their value in bitcoin. Think about it 5% to 10% of the population would be 400 million to 800 million people. Seems like a stretch to me to even get to 400 million people. But hey, what do I know?
By significant, you mean 1% of their networth? Oh yeah, I know that so many folks like have no networth - since so many folks are indebted... but still.
Maybe we can count individuals, insituations and governments, and perhaps we could imagine that each of them has some level of annual income.. and perhaps we could use 1% or more of their annual income held in bitcoin to be a sufficiently high enough amount in order to count as "significant"? Or do you want to use a smaller number? or do you just want to exaggerate the level of bitcoin adoption?
We have a small quantity of the population hoarding bitcoin and sure I suppose if the supply is inflated, then we could have 10x people who think that they own bitcoin as compared the actual bitcoin's available... so I am not necessarily against counting paper bitcoin, even though there could end up being some problematic reconciliations of those paper bitcoin.
And of those people who have put value into BTC the majority of them are doing it as a sort of speculative bet and allocating a very small amount of value.
No problem. The speculators count. We still might have to have a standard that if they held at least 1% of their annual income in bitcoin at any point in the past 5 years, then they count, but yeah, maybe you are counting the guys who earn $50k per year, and they have never owned more than $500 in bitcoin at any one time (even if it is just paper bitcoin)? You still want to count them? I think that they have to get over the 1% threshold at some point in the past 5-ish years, otherwise they can fuck off. They don't count.
There simply is no longer a viable argument against the idea that adoption is inevitable.
I agree with this, even though we likely disagree about the levels of adoptions.
We are in the beginning of that right now, and the balance has tipped beyond the ability for it to be tipped back at this point. Only in an extreme situation would that happen, and I think that would be something along the lines of Bitcoin failing technically.
So...
At the beginning of this new year, (humans like to assign some significance to the beginning and the end of an arbitrary time frame) we may be seeing an upswing that begins to ease the thoughts that we are in yet another giant multi-year bear.
- Tiny penetration (hush your jokes!) there is still so much money on the table.
- Institutional adoption. The ETFs, the corporate involvement, the nation state reserves cranking up. Yes, this is a two-edged sword, but the banks are bending the knee.
- FOMO there just aren't enough people understanding it and even just getting caught up in the excitement of watching their personal value rise as they've allocated a small amount. There's so much room for people to want to jump on board.
- Macroeconomic tailwinds - we have never been in a situation in our lifetimes where the US dollar and its various other fiat children have been in so much risk. And I believe Bitcoin benefits in the case the dollar collapses or in the case the current powers that be can revive it one more time. There is a lot of chaos in this particular point, but there's also a lot of favorable energy.
I agree with all of these points, including that there is likely recognition that the dollar has gotten itself in a perilous place, which surely relates to historical policies and practices going back to at least to the 70s - even though there could have had been places at various points along the way to stop the spiraling into greater and greater levels of irresponsibility in terms of the printing and/or attempts to at least peg printing (limit) it in various ways, but the short-term nature of politics makes longer term responsibility to be more difficult to attain.
Everyone is tired of the word "supercycle" right now.
Perfect!
This forum is full of innovators and early adopters. I suggest we are still in the relatively early stages of the early majority.
Secondly, I suggest that Bitcoin's price against all assets will follow the typical upswing of the adoption S curve.
Hard to know where we are at, exactly, yet based on presumptions of level of adoption, then I would end up having to conclude that we are earlier in the curve... and not yet to the early majority part.
Maybe between innovators and early adoption makes more sense to me based on my perceptions (and presumptions) regarding adoption levels.
Or we could just drift up slower and slower, but always up. I suppose that could happen, too.
Look, the sparkle fairy is bringing you something to catch your melting face in just in case.
Thanks for the kind gesture. I wouldn't want my melting face to be entering that bowl. I will just vomit in such bowl.
It is arguable we are still in the early phases of adoption. A very small number of people hold significant portions of their stored wealth in Bitcoin. And this is including the price-rise dampening paper bitcoin as well. I think we are still somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of the population.
Very good post, maybe I just here would say that total adoption is maybe 5 to 10 percent. But this counts people who bought a couple bucks of Bitcoin just for the sake of it too, so true adoption is even lower. The potential is still enormous. As we have been always, we are still very early.
You seem to want to define "significant" even lower than cAPSLOCK, which is probably the ONLY way that we might get close to 5-10% adoption.
I am willing to drop down my own 1% of annual income within the past 5-ish years requirement to maybe 0.5%, but I am not willing to accept that "a few bucks" constitutes "significant portions" of stored wealth. I am not even willing to accept that a few hundred dollars from a guy with $50k or higher annual income constitutes "significant portions" of stored wealth.
Call me an "elitist" if you like, but I have my doubts that if a guy cannot even get up to 0.5% of his annual income into bitcoin over the last 5 years, then he can fuck off in terms of being counted as a person who owns bitcoin.
By the way, I am not even talking about overall wealth.. I am willing to go with 0.5% of annual income for any year in the past 5 years which is a lower bar than counting overall wealth (even though sure others might agree with me that no one has much if any wealth anyhow since "everyone" is in debt, so a very large portion of the world's population has no actual and material networth).
[edited out]
Exactly. A much less wordy version of one of my main points.
We know, we know, we know.
You are wordyman version 2.0.
People who initially bought 1% of their liquid wealth's worth of Bitcoin on a lark are now probably somewhat pleased with the results and encouraged by price action in the beginning of a new year and are now considering upping the allocation to 3%.
Lol. Allocation for ants.
(mierenneuken)
O.k. o.k. in the earlier years, let's say prior to 2020, many of us regular bitcoiners might have had gotten into bitcoin thinking that if we get at least 1% of our quasi-liquid investment portfolio into bitcoin, then we are sufficiently allocated.. and then that 1% allocation might have turned into 5% to 20% merely due to BTC's price appreciation rather than increasing our allocation.
In any event, yes we consider 1%-ish allocations to be whimpy - so maybe you are on the same page as me in some sense, since I am even willing to start with an allocation that is much lower than the 1% to 3% that you are describing, so subliminally, you seem to be thinking about "significant portion" of wealth in terms of 1% to 3%, yet fuck all there is hardly anyone who actually started with such allocations, even if their bitcoin holdings might have appreciated into such territories (which I don't even mind counting those who started with much lower BTC quantities and appreciated themselves into holding a "significant portion" of their wealth in bitcoin or even bitcoin paper products.
Looks nice, but I expect a retest-dump back to 95-96k as soon as we hit 100k...
That wouldn't be unusual - even though bitcoin could go in punishment mode in terms of the corrections (if any?) ending up taking place in unexpected places... which means that there is no compelling reason that any kind of correction has to take place at or around $100k.
Poll
