Snapchat first investor thinks bitcoin could realistically be worth $500,000

[AngryDwarf]

Re: Snapchat first investor thinks bitcoin could realistically be worth $500,000

I have read the article, unfortunatelly I do not agree to their theory.
400 million people using bitcoin in the year 2030 seems very unlikely to me.
I an sure bitcoin will grow, but not in such a magintude.

They don't have to actually be using Bitcoin. They can be using any service for which BTC is the reserve currency that the whales of that services settle their commerce in BTC.

This is why scaling doesn't need to be on Bitcoin in order for Bitcoin to benefit.

The maximum transaction rate is still too low for an effective commercial settlement system. It can't handle SWIFT traffic levels for example, and that is just for settlement between financial institutions. Then its status as a reserve cryptocurrency becomes under threat.

[iamnotback]

Re: Snapchat first investor thinks bitcoin could realistically be worth $500,000

I have read the article, unfortunatelly I do not agree to their theory.
400 million people using bitcoin in the year 2030 seems very unlikely to me.
I an sure bitcoin will grow, but not in such a magintude.

They don't have to actually be using Bitcoin. They can be using any service for which BTC is the reserve currency that the whales of that services settle their commerce in BTC.

This is why scaling doesn't need to be on Bitcoin in order for Bitcoin to benefit.

The maximum transaction rate is still too low for an effective commercial settlement system. It can't handle SWIFT traffic levels for example, and that is just for settlement between financial institutions. Then its status as a reserve cryptocurrency becomes under threat.

SWIFT is not restricted to power brokers. SWIFT allows any Joe Blow to wire $1000.

Bitcoin's block size is more than sufficient.

The entire point is to keep the riff-raff off of Bitcoin, so it doesn't need to be regulated. And isn't constantly assailed with such nonsense as UASF.

[InCryptoWeTrust]

I think if at future will be many situations like Panama offshore, BTC can be over 66.000$, but 500.000$ too much, because at some news i saw, that American companies hide around 1,4 trillion dollars at Panama islands...It's only USA...
So 1,4 trillion / 21 mln Btc(at the end of mining) ~ 66,666 dollars.

[Kizaki]

I think bitcoin may worth more than $10,000 mark but would never ever reach that sick $500,000 mark in market.Yeah bitcoins and bitcoin community is a evergrowing community but think of it if bitcoin reaches that price it would be a threat to our old financial system,government financial system maybe gone and replace by bitcoin and i think that will cause problems

[Dorky]

The entire point is to keep the riff-raff off of Bitcoin, so it doesn't need to be regulated. And isn't constantly assailed with such nonsense as UASF.

So if a riff-raff like me (and many others) are still holding onto bitcoins, then what are the shadow elites gonna do about it, in your opinion?

[iamnotback]

The entire point is to keep the riff-raff off of Bitcoin, so it doesn't need to be regulated. And isn't constantly assailed with such nonsense as UASF.

So if a riff-raff like me (and many others) are still holding onto bitcoins, then what are the shadow elites gonna do about it, in your opinion?

They will raise the transaction fees so high that your BTC isn't even enough to pay the transaction fee, so it will be impossible for you to spend them on chain.

So you'll be forced to move your BTC to an exchange (or off chain in centralized hubs of Lightning Network), so you can be regulated and taxed (maybe even confiscated/hacked/lost in "bank run" on fractional reserves). The blockchain won't be regulated, but you won't be able to afford to transact there, only the $billionaires will.

I think they want the SegWit and Lightning Networks stuff to be not on Bitcoin, so that highly variable block size load doesn't pollute the reliability of Bitcoin. They'd rather push the masses onto another "Lite" blockchain (e.g. Litecoin). This reliability issue is why power brokers will hold their net balances (i.e. reserves) in BTC on the Bitcoin blockchain. This is why I foresee that Bitcoin will still attain huge demand even if scaling is on Litecoin.

I'm included in the "riff-raff".

[AngryDwarf]

They will raise the transaction fees so high that your BTC isn't even enough to pay the transaction fee, so it will be impossible for you to spend them on chain.

So you'll be forced to move your BTC to an exchange (or off chain in centralized hubs of Lightning Network), so you can be regulated and taxed (maybe even confiscated/hacked/lost in "bank run" on fractional reserves). The blockchain won't be regulated, but you won't be able to afford to transact there, only the $billionaires will.

Contradiction in the two paragraphs there. If the transaction fees are so high that he cannot move his BTC, then he cannot move them to an exchange or to a segwit/LN address.

[iamnotback]

They will raise the transaction fees so high that your BTC isn't even enough to pay the transaction fee, so it will be impossible for you to spend them on chain.

So you'll be forced to move your BTC to an exchange (or off chain in centralized hubs of Lightning Network), so you can be regulated and taxed (maybe even confiscated/hacked/lost in "bank run" on fractional reserves). The blockchain won't be regulated, but you won't be able to afford to transact there, only the $billionaires will.

Contradiction in the two paragraphs there. If the transaction fees are so high that he cannot move his BTC, then he cannot move them to an exchange or to a segwit/LN address.

No contradiction. I thought of that. He would of course move them before the fees become too high.

Smart people realize they don't have to write the obvious. Conserves keystrokes.

Those who have something to prove about ego, are all elbows and acrimony and lacking of cogent substance.

[Dorky]

They will raise the transaction fees so high that your BTC isn't even enough to pay the transaction fee, so it will be impossible for you to spend them on chain.

I don't have problem with high transaction fee, if 20,000 satoshis are worth $100, because that would mean each BTC will be worth 6 to 7 digits in figure.
Imagine if 0.1 BTC is $100, I don't think even the power brokers would tolerate such high fee.

[Gilliam]

You will put some very big money in an investment of course it's normal that you will look into positive things that will happen on bitcoin disregarding the close to reality.

Hope that his expectations can gather more investors.

[miscreanity]

They will raise the transaction fees so high that your BTC isn't even enough to pay the transaction fee, so it will be impossible for you to spend them on chain.

What might that threshold be - 10 BTC, 100, 1000...?

At the point where there may be only a few million Bitcoin-holding entities, wouldn't anonymity be broken due to blockchain analysis methods combined with the reduced user base? Or would agreements be adhered to at the top, creating a glass ceiling barrier to the Bitcoin billionaire gentleman's club?

[titibach]

I think the BTC price will increase, but for $ 500,000 I have not thought about it

The age old question what will the 500k be worth compared to todays 500k in or around 2030.
i save bitcoin not because of statments and predictions like this though.

[ahmedjamal1998]

Well the past few years have been amazing for Bitcoins as a whole (disregarding what ever happened through them from issues/problems) and it gained a pretty much good price (from nothing to $1000+).
So yes it has a lot of potential but saying such numbers is a bit ridiculous simply because you can't even predict tomorrow's price ! lol  

He is optimistic because of the recent approach of a lot of ppl towards crypto currency in the world (taking Japan's recent acceptance of btc into consideration). All we can do right now is just hope he is right.
                    ^
To the moon   ^
                    ^  

[BillyBobZorton]

$500,000 per coin? count me in!!

Also BTC will not be used by billionaires only, that's stupid, people will demand changes so bitcoin cannot be used only by a handful of people on earth. If it takes UASF then UASF will happen so segwit + LN can happen and everyone can use bitcoin, additional blocksize increases will come too. Nobody will support the "billionares only blockchain", that's stupid.

[iamnotback]

They will raise the transaction fees so high that your BTC isn't even enough to pay the transaction fee, so it will be impossible for you to spend them on chain.

I don't have problem with high transaction fee, if 20,000 satoshis are worth $100, because that would mean each BTC will be worth 6 to 7 digits in figure.
Imagine if 0.1 BTC is $100, I don't think even the power brokers would tolerate such high fee.

You don't seem to understand the issue properly. With a constrained blocksize if the transactions that fill up that block are all $100 million transactions then they can pay very easily a $10,000 fee to keep your transactions off the blockchain. If BTC is worth $100,000 at that point and you have 10 BTC, you are not going to want to spend that many times at $10,000 per spend.

At some point, the riff-raff is removed. If you can manage to remain in the super wealthy, then you can stay on chain Bitcoin.

Generally speaking most people will lose their BTC in one way or another. They will get hacked. They will have an emergency. They will get old and need to sell. They will sell too soon because they can afford a Ferrari. You not being a member of the wealthy class, may get targeted by your government for tax evasion or money laundering and thrown in prison in this crazy sovereign debt crisis that is coming. Also as people become wealthy for the first time, they tend to waste their money on prostitutes, whiskey, and other consumables (not to mention the healthcare costs that follow such behavior). Etc...

[iamnotback]

Also BTC will not be used by billionaires only, that's stupid, people will demand changes so bitcoin cannot be used only by a handful of people on earth. If it takes UASF then UASF will happen so segwit + LN can happen and everyone can use bitcoin, additional blocksize increases will come too. Nobody will support the "billionares only blockchain", that's stupid.

Sorry you can't do anything to stop it:

...such nonsense as UASF.

Cry and scream all you want. You are wasting your time fighting what is inevitable.

Soon you will realize this. Go ahead and try. My popcorn is laughing.

[iamnotback]

They will raise the transaction fees so high that your BTC isn't even enough to pay the transaction fee, so it will be impossible for you to spend them on chain.

What might that threshold be - 10 BTC, 100, 1000...?

I reckon base it on the percentage of total supply held and how that distributes within a typical power-law (Zipf's law) distribution.

I think you won't be able to hold on chain BTC unless you own at least 100 BTC and perhaps the threshold will be much higher. It depends how centralized is the control of the economy that is settled in Bitcoins. If it becomes centralized into 10 whales, they can make huge transactions with huge fees that block all other transactions.

At the point where there may be only a few million Bitcoin-holding entities, wouldn't anonymity be broken due to blockchain analysis methods combined with the reduced user base? Or would agreements be adhered to at the top, creating a glass ceiling barrier to the Bitcoin billionaire gentleman's club?

There are only ~2000 billionaires in the world. I think it will be a much smaller demographic than a few million, maybe 100,000.

They can mix their transactions with CoinJoin to obscure from the public (the jamming issue I pointed out to @gmaxwell won't be a problem for their club where everyone is known to each other). I don't think they will be allowed to obscure from each other. The elite want to know what is going on with their underlings.

Thus you can see how the all seeing eye takes form with Bitcoin and why I say it was created by the global elite and why I was curious what symbolic (even unwittingly) or actual role John Nash played in it.

[BillyBobZorton]

Also BTC will not be used by billionaires only, that's stupid, people will demand changes so bitcoin cannot be used only by a handful of people on earth. If it takes UASF then UASF will happen so segwit + LN can happen and everyone can use bitcoin, additional blocksize increases will come too. Nobody will support the "billionares only blockchain", that's stupid.

Sorry you can't do anything to stop it:

...such nonsense as UASF.

Cry and scream all you want. You are wasting your time fighting what is inevitable.

Soon you will realize this. Go ahead and try. My popcorn is laughing.

It's as easy as UASF + PoW change with a new solution such as randomly changing algorithm to avoid efficient ASIC stacking.

"BillionaireChain" used by 2,000 people on earth will be seen as a joke by the rest of the population and it will no longer be Bitcoin. Progress will move on.

[erikalui]

With the price increase of bitcoins, there would be so many problems that would follow and the abuse of this currency would be on a rise. With more and more brands accepting bitcoins, it's value would be very high and this would make it inaccessible by common middle-class users. Nobody would afford to buy even 1 BTC then and this was not the original objective of BTC. The current price is just fine.

Tried to access the news article but it gives a 404 error.

[QuestionAuthority]

I can see the price going that high by 2030 if a loaf of bread is $200,000.

The only thing that makes me question this analysis is the fact that he pulled bitcoins userbase numbers straight out of his ass. Daily transaction volume for the last few years certainly doesn't support his numbers.