$1 Trillion Bitcoin

[ThatDGuy]

It's gonna be bitcoin for sure. It cannot be stopped anymore, no way. I think it will reach $1M (per BTC) before Christmas this year, but the long-term value is not so high.

we all wish this could become true. but...

how should the bitcoin infrastructure cope with that ? remember the spike a few weeks ago ? mt.gox couldn´t handle it. lag. laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag... panic sell lemming stunt. while at the same time bitcointalk went offline, bitcoincharts went offline, no more prices, other exchanges getting in trouble because users went away from mt.gox ... it was a desaster.

at 250 $

what would happen at 2500,- ? imagine the media coverage. everything would get really crazy at a 2500 level. but what about 25 000,- ? pure madness. it would be in daily news, some news would start to broadcast live from tokyo 24/7. people would go nuts. every scammer would sell to every grandma, people would start killing each other over bitcoins. how would mt.gox and the rest of the infrastructure do at this point ? if all this and much more complete madness is going on, what is to expect at 250 000,- $ ? mt.gox would be in smoking ruins.

let´s say mt.gox pulls all the way through 1 btc = 1 million $  
if one cashes out his 100 btc he would have 100 mio $ on his account. (would sure look nice)
with the current rate of withdrawel of 10 000,- $ a month...  hm...  nice income for the next 833 years.  


much more likely: failing infrastructure making it bumpy all the way up to....  (?)

I think that's what rpietila is getting to though: infrastructure is one of the roadblocks holding cryptocurrency back, currently.  With the recent growth there is significant areas for individuals or groups to use their knowledge and increasing financial weight to aggressively remove those barriers to entry and primary points of failure.  

[1714778233]

1714778233

[1714778233]

1714778233

[1714778233]

1714778233

[uMMcQxCWELNzkt]

Anything over $10,000 by the end of this years is a bold claim in my opinion, no way will we hit $1mil per BTC, at least not within the next couple of years(most likely ever). Think about it, how will Bitcoin users shift down to those kind of decimals within a space months, just the psychological impact of such an increase is difficult to accept.

[notme]

Anything over $10,000 by the end of this years is a bold claim in my opinion, no way will we hit $1mil per BTC, at least not within the next couple of years(most likely ever). Think about it, how will Bitcoin users shift down to those kind of decimals within a space months, just the psychological impact of such an increase is difficult to accept.

Because for such a thing to happen there current userbase will become 0.01% or less of the new userbase.

Not being bullish enough has always been and continues to be my biggest mistake regarding bitcoin.

[uMMcQxCWELNzkt]

Anything over $10,000 by the end of this years is a bold claim in my opinion, no way will we hit $1mil per BTC, at least not within the next couple of years(most likely ever). Think about it, how will Bitcoin users shift down to those kind of decimals within a space months, just the psychological impact of such an increase is difficult to accept.

Because for such a thing to happen there current userbase will become 0.01% or less of the new userbase.

Not being bullish enough has always been and continues to be my biggest mistake regarding bitcoin.

I do consider myself Bullish, I am in Bitcoin for the long term however what would that kind of value do to the economic system? Will the bankers and corrupt governments sit back and watch some new kids make billions from their BTC wallet? Perhaps in 10 years BTC would be widely adopted and worth huge sums but no way within this year.

If I am wrong then I will send everyone in this thread (up to this point) 1BTC lol.

[notme]

Anything over $10,000 by the end of this years is a bold claim in my opinion, no way will we hit $1mil per BTC, at least not within the next couple of years(most likely ever). Think about it, how will Bitcoin users shift down to those kind of decimals within a space months, just the psychological impact of such an increase is difficult to accept.

Because for such a thing to happen there current userbase will become 0.01% or less of the new userbase.

Not being bullish enough has always been and continues to be my biggest mistake regarding bitcoin.

I do consider myself Bullish, I am in Bitcoin for the long term however what would that kind of value do to the economic system? Will the bankers and corrupt governments sit back and watch some new kids make billions from their BTC wallet? Perhaps in 10 years BTC would be widely adopted and worth huge sums but no way within this year.

If I am wrong then I will send everyone in this thread (up to this point) 1BTC lol.

Awesome.  Looking forward to my free $1 million coin .

No, I don't think they will sit back.  I think they will resist but be unable to stop it.  Eventually, they will have to jump in and adapt or go extinct.  Corrupt governments should love it since it is easier to launder than digital fiat transactions.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Nonsense words are the main currency of theoretical math and physics: words like point, set, line, plane, mass, force, gravity, momentum, space, infinity, time, and most of the rest - words that seem like they have a definite single meaning but actually don't. (Fortunately engineering, where math and physics actually hit road, has real-world/market tests that largely weed that stuff out or work around it in a way that sequesters the silliness.)

To bring this back on topic, speculation is another nonsense word. Or rather a word that has multiple, subtly different definitions that people will switch between as is convenient for their argument (same as math/physics people do with the word infinity). To speak of speculation (or infinity) "as such" with no elaboration in what is supposed to be a rigorous context is then effectively nonsense - uninterpretable.

Speculation means variously "investing for short-term gains," "investing in something as a store of value," or both. People use the equivocation to rope all the people covered by the latter definition under the umbrella of those who only invest for short-term gains. They'll act like "speculation" is bad, using the implied argument that of course weak hands are bad (first definition), but then use that to reach the conclusion that therefore Bitcoin should only be valued for its medium-of-exchange uses, and that all the store-of-value ("speculation" definition #2) imputed value is somehow illegitimate.

When people try to make a careful/rigorous argument this way, they end up spouting nonsense. It is of course expensive for an investor to harbor nonsense notions about the value of an asset.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

If you want to defend any terms (be they investing terms or scientific ones) as "not nonsense," the place to start is by supplying definitions of them.

Saying X has been observed doesn't communicate anything until we both know what we are talking about when we say "X."

Once definitions have been supplied, the key question is whether the definitions can be used consistently.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

While I think I get where Mr. Pietila is really coming up with the $1 million figure, I'd really like to hear his thoughts on how it could be possible for the infrastructure to adapt to that. Even with his supernodes idea, it seems just too fast for human structures to form, be vetted, and reach full capacity. So many things would have to change so incredibly quickly.

I don't see that really being addressed except by invoking "Supernodes!" In other words, I'd like a clear and detailed explanation of how supernodes could form quickly enough for all this to happen within the year. Why aren't there all sorts of other infrastructural challenges that would realistically limit growth to the merely exponential ($10,000 by year end)?

[rpietila]

While I think I get where Mr. Pietila is really coming up with the $1 million figure, I'd really like to hear his thoughts on how it could be possible for the infrastructure to adapt to that. Even with his supernodes idea, it seems just too fast for human structures to form, be vetted, and reach full capacity. So many things would have to change so incredibly quickly.

I don't see that really being addressed except by invoking "Supernodes!" In other words, I'd like a clear and detailed explanation of how supernodes could form quickly enough for all this to happen within the year. Why aren't there all sorts of other infrastructural challenges that would realistically limit growth to the merely exponential ($10,000 by year end)?

There is a conference dedicated to all this, and you are not yet enrolled.

[rpietila]

Here's a hint: those people might want to use some of that new found wealth.

That is correct. And as they do, they create a ripple effect which increases the bitcoin adoption, and increases its price, creating a virtuous cycle.

The fact that Casascius coins, quality weed, hotel rooms, world class office space, champagne, etc. will start to command very high prices in the immediate future, is in no way a detriment to the continuing adoption of Bitcoin. The prices will just effect an increased production of these types of goods and services, and there will no more be need to produce lower quality stuff at all, since nobody is willing to use it, no matter the price.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

There is a conference dedicated to all this, and you are not yet enrolled.

Unfortunately I still don't have enough to quit my day job and fly to Finland. Maybe next year

[Valerian77]

I want to contribute some small thoughts to this discussion:

1. the amount of calculated BTC is split into two parts - one part which is in use and another part which people store in a safe space, which may in a later phase have a heavy impact on the BTC market

2. the current value of money derives from two aspects: firstly the summed up goods and services available for the money in use (see pt.1); and secondly the money users (owners) expectation on the value development - the harbour safed BTC amount is no more or less a speculation on increasing value

3. the course (value) balance for BTC therefore is a game between circulating BTC, market growth and number of market partitipants. Always with the overlay of the impact safed BTC amount have when they are flooded into the market which is especially high due to the fact that many people seem to be in a gold rush (which may also end up in a cold rush )

My personal expectation is that BTC has a good chance to grow quite quickly in value if the market base grows quite quickly. That means if people adopt the currency and start to trade their goods and services also in BTC. Also projects like Bitmit or BitcoinATM have key influence on this.

On the other side goverments, financial institutes and everybody who profits from the currently installed interest based monetary system will start to fight Bitcoins with whatever they find to suppress it - e.g. legal attacks (criminalisation of BTC users and markets for money laundering), technical infrastructure attacks (DoS attacks, crypto attacks, social attacks etc.) and what else they might find.

The interesting question is if this money virus like concept will find a market stability which create more trust than rumors and attacks can destroy.

To forecast any course development in a market which is in the current phase dominated by speculation is simply ridiculus. I expect growing rates with growing volatility which again has a negative impact on peoples trust. Maybe it would be good if some potential market participants would take over the role of market makers to stabilize the course development.