Why Bitcoin cannot drop in price

[amar32]

Bitcoin being a first decentralized currency is more reliable, and now getting lot more investment from the countries and acceptance by nation are making it secure as a digital currency

[v0rtecxz]

Yes currently bitcoin holds the peak of the crypto currency, however bitcoins are still trusted by many people in terms of security and other things, but for now many of the other coins show their performance, it is not unlikely that one of these altcoins Shifting the bitcoin position and replacing it, when bitcoin is at the lowest point in the market price, but that's just an estimate, so far the bitcoin state of the market is still in great shape I think it will last for a long time

[Anarchist]

Saying that Bitcoin cannot drop in price is a bit wrong, we saw a good exemple some weeks ago. Bitcoin may be from now at the top of crypto  because it has managed to attract the biggest amount of fiat (dollars, euro, etc) as you say but keep in mind that compared to other currencies Bitcoin is the oldest, it wuold be better to compare them at the same stage

[Mikehills101]

I agree bitcoin has it up and down. But I still believe that it is stable and reliable.

[d5000]

In fact, it may happen even without external and deliberate influence but just because of Bitcoin price declining for a sufficient amount of time on its own. And this is the point I want to discuss

This is definitively a possibility. If Bitcoin's main usage was that of a "store of value", then a constantly falling price would mean it failed in this use case.

That is also the problem I have with approaches that want to reduce Bitcoin to a store of value or digital gold. It can fail any time when there are not enough fools left to invest and hodl. Every altcoin could then take the lead as the new "digital gold", but that new contender would also eventually fail when its bull cycle ends.

So my conclusion is: If Bitcoin wants to be a strong and robust currency, then it must be used for purchases. It doesn't matter if it's used for "morally good" purchases or "bad" ones. The essence is that it must be in constant circulation, because only then it can sustain itself as a global payment network - otherwise merchants would rapidly lose interest and a vicious cycle could begin that would end with Bitcoin's fall into irrelevance.

That is where also the real importance of scaling solutions is: As a "digital gold" Bitcoin does not need much transaction capacity - but it also loses a large part of its potential. It does need sidechains and other similar solutions if it wants to be a medium of exchange for hundreds of millions or billions of people and sustain itself as a payment network.

[krishnapramod]

Bitcoin is at the top of cryptocurrencies simply because it has managed to attract the biggest amount of fiat (dollars, euro, etc) compared to other currencies.

no not at all.
bitcoin is on top because it is the most secure and the most decentralized cryptocurrency. it has the best developers team which kept the code good and powerful and it is the most reviewed code out there.
then it attracted a lot of real usage as a currency by lots of merchants.
then it attracted a lot of fiat no the other way around

I think the real usage of Bitcoin as a means of payment is inconsequential at best

Since most of Bitcoin value comes via speculation (i.e. "those who see bitcoin as a "cash cow" to milk for more money"). You personally may not not quite like it (I certainly understand your pains), but your dislike can't change anything in this department. That's why I said that we should cut the crap and face the facts in the first place. Apart from that, I can't possibly agree that Bitcoin is "the most secure and the most decentralized cryptocurrency" out there. If you disagree with this, namely, that Bitcoin today cannot be considered as safe and decentralized, then "there is no point even arguing with you". In fact, by "some other coin" I meant Litecoin as the most likely candidate to take Bitcoin's place if the latter fails to scale up properly (I changed my post to reflect that)

That inconsequential thing is the whole purpose of bitcoin. I don't think Satoshi created bitcoin with the intent it to be a store of value, more as a currency to challenge the banking system. I had mentioned in one of my last posts that the store of value aspect of bitcoin is just an extension of it being a decentralized peer-to-peer payment system. If bitcoin fails as a medium of exchange there would be no store of value.

Speculation would die sooner or later and once that happens bitcoin would become entirely dependent on its utilization as a currency to stay in the game.

The analogy is speculators are milking bitoin as a cow without giving any fodder and on top of that expecting it to have an infinite supply of milk.

[deisik]

That is where also the real importance of scaling solutions is: As a "digital gold" Bitcoin does not need much transaction capacity - but it also loses a large part of its potential. It does need sidechains and other similar solutions if it wants to be a medium of exchange for hundreds of millions or billions of people and sustain itself as a payment network

Bitcoin is not and cannot be digital gold

It lacks intrinsic value which makes gold into a store of value and the lack of which will never make Bitcoin into a digital twin of gold. If Bitcoin is not transacted (traded, used as a means of payment, etc), it will lose any value and significance since the value that it has follows from its specific use, not from its qualities directly. In other words, it is not Bitcoin's value, it is the value of its use, that of a speculative asset. It fits perfectly for this end, but it fails absolutely as a store of value. As it follows from the OP, if some coin takes Bitcoin's place as a speculative asset, Bitcoin will get quickly abandoned. There is nothing unique about Bitcoin that could potentially make it into another gold

[skorupi17]

As for what I believe, Bitcoin's price will not drop (a very harsh one that might lead to its death or something bad) because of its users. Bitcoin had established strong foundation and in return, its users trust it compared to other cryptocurrencies. It had been around for years and despite of its young age, it shows everyone that it is worthy for their trust and worthy for being the king of cryptos.

[erasmusjoe]

bitcoin has its up and down, but until now we have seen btc going up despite all the problems.
and yet the august 1 issue is coming.

bitcoin has its users, from the time its coming up and until today. those users helping bitcoin to grow like today.
and in the future, i believe btc will become more important. countries will adapt btc, ppl will use it as a payment method.

[deisik]

I think the real usage of Bitcoin as a means of payment is inconsequential at best

Since most of Bitcoin value comes via speculation (i.e. "those who see bitcoin as a "cash cow" to milk for more money"). You personally may not not quite like it (I certainly understand your pains), but your dislike can't change anything in this department. That's why I said that we should cut the crap and face the facts in the first place. Apart from that, I can't possibly agree that Bitcoin is "the most secure and the most decentralized cryptocurrency" out there. If you disagree with this, namely, that Bitcoin today cannot be considered as safe and decentralized, then "there is no point even arguing with you". In fact, by "some other coin" I meant Litecoin as the most likely candidate to take Bitcoin's place if the latter fails to scale up properly (I changed my post to reflect that)

That inconsequential thing is the whole purpose of bitcoin. I don't think Satoshi created bitcoin with the intent it to be a store of value, more as a currency to challenge the banking system. I had mentioned in one of my last posts that the store of value aspect of bitcoin is just an extension of it being a decentralized peer-to-peer payment system. If bitcoin fails as a medium of exchange there would be no store of value

If wishes were horses, beggars might ride

Just because Satoshi deemed Bitcoin as a means of payment doesn't magically make it into one. We have what we have, that's why I told that we should stick to actual facts. And the facts are not very good since even when Bitcoin is seemingly used as a medium of exchange, it is no more than illusion. It gets sold as soon as it is paid with. Further, Bitcoin can never become a genuine store of value even if it gets accepted as a true means of payment in a sort of Bitcoin economy, pretty much for the same reasons why no fiat currency can be a store of value, i.e. for the lack of this very value

[FasTroy]

bitcoin has its up and down, but until now we have seen btc going up despite all the problems.
and yet the august 1 issue is coming.

bitcoin has its users, from the time its coming up and until today. those users helping bitcoin to grow like today.
and in the future, i believe btc will become more important. countries will adapt btc, ppl will use it as a payment method.

I agree with you, bitcoin is more powerful than dying. At least it's not the time for dying. It is still strong. because of people and the millions of people around the world bitcoin become as we see in 2017. An amazing coins, too valuable with price of 2417$ now according to preev. There is no chance to dying now, it's just the beggining of the power of cryptocurrencies.

[krishnapramod]

I think the real usage of Bitcoin as a means of payment is inconsequential at best

Since most of Bitcoin value comes via speculation (i.e. "those who see bitcoin as a "cash cow" to milk for more money"). You personally may not not quite like it (I certainly understand your pains), but your dislike can't change anything in this department. That's why I said that we should cut the crap and face the facts in the first place. Apart from that, I can't possibly agree that Bitcoin is "the most secure and the most decentralized cryptocurrency" out there. If you disagree with this, namely, that Bitcoin today cannot be considered as safe and decentralized, then "there is no point even arguing with you". In fact, by "some other coin" I meant Litecoin as the most likely candidate to take Bitcoin's place if the latter fails to scale up properly (I changed my post to reflect that)

That inconsequential thing is the whole purpose of bitcoin. I don't think Satoshi created bitcoin with the intent it to be a store of value, more as a currency to challenge the banking system. I had mentioned in one of my last posts that the store of value aspect of bitcoin is just an extension of it being a decentralized peer-to-peer payment system. If bitcoin fails as a medium of exchange there would be no store of value

If wishes were horses, beggars might ride

Just because Satoshi deemed Bitcoin as a means of payment doesn't magically make it into one. We have what we have, that's why I told that we should stick to actual facts. And the facts are not very good since even when Bitcoin is seemingly used as a medium of exchange, it is no more than illusion. It gets sold as soon as it is paid with. Further, Bitcoin can never become a genuine store of value even if it gets accepted as a true means of payment in a sort of Bitcoin economy, pretty much for the same reasons why no fiat currency can be a store of value, i.e. for the lack of this very value

Still a good number of people believe bitcoin is a bubble, a speculative bubble. People who would like to use it as a currency are staying away from it for the time being because of volatility, who are using it, converts it instantly because of the same reason.

A speculative currency would be a good store of value, but it would always prevent it from becoming a true means of payment. Would speculation be enough to keep bitcoin as the top cryptocurrency in the long run?

Or bitcoin gains momentum as a P2P currency, less speculation, less volatile, more stability, not a good store of value. Would that be in the best interests of bitcoin?

It comes down to speculation/store of value vs stability/medium of exchange.

Yeah, we have what we have and we don't know what we might have in future.

[OROBTC]

...

I see two main risks to Bitcoin price:

1)  [Short Term]  If they fail to solve the scaling problem(s) or make major errors or have ugly "civil wars" then many people will drop BTC like a rock (get rid of it), and new people will not join in.  That is why, IMO, it is VERY IMPORTANT to get an solid agreement ASAP on this issue that is OK with the Developers and the Miners.

2)  [Longer Term]  Yes, given enough time, another crypto is likely to come along with better features, solid financial & technical backing, etc. to supplant Bitcoin.  Technological progress almost always has losers too.

[squatz1]

The high level of demand for bitcoin may not last forever. Why invest money in something than you don't use and that has no capitalization. If you will not develop trade with bitcoin we may be witnessing the collapse of bitcoin.

Oh there is no chance it hell that this demand is able to pull through forever, there's just no way that people are going to be dumb enough to keep buying into a currency which is unable to come to a conclusion on fixing an issue which they have at the moment when it comes to network congestion and overprices fees, this alongside the miners cheating and such. People are just going to invest to be able to make money, they THINK the price is just going to keep going up and up while the price is going to need to fall at some point, the lord only know when it's going to come crashing down though.

Bitcoin can drop and price, and drop it price it will do at some point.

[ximply]

You can see in the news of the etherium price bubble. Most of the person who invested in etherium thinks that is is the next bitcoin so they rushed to buy. Soon the water will clear up and people will panic. Will it affect Bitcoin if etherium price collapse? Because therr are also people who bought etherium sold their Bitcoin to get the former. What would happen next??

[DoublerHunter]

You can see in the news of the etherium price bubble. Most of the person who invested in etherium thinks that is is the next bitcoin so they rushed to buy. Soon the water will clear up and people will panic. Will it affect Bitcoin if etherium price collapse? Because therr are also people who bought etherium sold their Bitcoin to get the former. What would happen next??

We can't blame them if they buy ethereum because that was a result of the hype of the news and also the ICOs that are keep on growing and because of that craze, a lot of people are buying ethereum and not thinking about their possible outcome, now the price of ethereum is slowly going down and the only thing that they can do is hold or else they will get a dramatic loss.

[d5000]

Bitcoin is not and cannot be digital gold [...] If Bitcoin is not transacted (traded, used as a means of payment, etc), it will lose any value and significance since the value that it has follows from its specific use, not from its qualities directly.

Exactly that's what I wanted to say with my post.

My conclusion: If Bitcoiners want to maintain Bitcoin's leadership, they MUST care about the ecosystem of "Bitcoin as a currency" and encourage real-world usage. They must also care about scaling, because the ecosystem growth will be "capped" in a state that is probably much too small for a serious payment network, if we keep with a transaction capacity of less than, let's say, 100 tx/sec.

Otherwise, Bitcoin will fail  - or be a niche currency/play money forever, with occasional speculative bubbles.

[ximply]

Bitcoin is not and cannot be digital gold [...] If Bitcoin is not transacted (traded, used as a means of payment, etc), it will lose any value and significance since the value that it has follows from its specific use, not from its qualities directly.

Exactly that's what I wanted to say with my post.

My conclusion: If Bitcoiners want to maintain Bitcoin's leadership, they MUST care about the ecosystem of "Bitcoin as a currency" and encourage real-world usage. They must also care about scaling, because the ecosystem growth will be "capped" in a state that is probably much too small for a serious payment network, if we keep with a transaction capacity of less than, let's say, 100 tx/sec.

Otherwise, Bitcoin will fail  - or be a niche currency/play money forever, with occasional speculative bubbles.

I agree with that. Real world usage and bitcoin as a currency is the way to do it. Capped in terms of speed but not in quantity. But still Bitcoin is still fast compare to banks which takes 2-3 days and with no weekend transactions. Bitcoin will not die and a solution will present itself.

[Yakamoto]

Bitcoin being a first decentralized currency is more reliable, and now getting lot more investment from the countries and acceptance by nation are making it secure as a digital currency

But something like that would still pump the value of Bitcoin and make sure that it retains its position as the #1 market cap in crypto as people seek to buy more of it for use within their daily lives, or at least speculate on what is going to happen now that more countries are open to the idea of having Bitcoin as a legitimate means of exchanging value. It doesn't keep the market cap the same and it will keep moving upwards as more people invest in it, either with their time or with their money.

[Troller Durden]

...

I see two main risks to Bitcoin price:

1)  [Short Term]  If they fail to solve the scaling problem(s) or make major errors or have ugly "civil wars" then many people will drop BTC like a rock (get rid of it), and new people will not join in.  That is why, IMO, it is VERY IMPORTANT to get an solid agreement ASAP on this issue that is OK with the Developers and the Miners.

2)  [Longer Term]  Yes, given enough time, another crypto is likely to come along with better features, solid financial & technical backing, etc. to supplant Bitcoin.  Technological progress almost always has losers too.

It is obvious the rise in market cap from ETH and the other alts is a direct result of the inaction of consensus to scale with the pace of demand. I also am of the belief that segwit and lightning networks is not enough, and possibly a wrong move when increasing the block size would work and has been begged for.