$1,000,000 for a Bitcoin?

[BitcoinBarrel]

Will it ever happen? 

[1715519898]

1715519898

[1715519898]

1715519898

[Miz4r]

No, before that happens USD will have ceased to exist. I don't think we'll ever see the day someone pays $1M for a bitcoin.

[CanadianGuy]

Will it ever happen?  

thats a market cap of 22,000,000,000,000... that's exactly how much obama has spent during his term.  Who knows, maybe your next president will do the same but he will spend it all on bitcoin.  

(sarcastic way of saying no)

[Coinseeker]

An easy no, never, ever, ever will it happen.  The king of all delusions.

[Korbman]

Will it ever happen? 

No, simply because there will be billions of "Bitcoin bubbles" before then. The crash after $250 will happen again and again, just at different values...at least until Bitcoin gains enough popularity to help stabilize the currency a bit. I'd be impressed if I see $1,000 a coin in my lifetime.

thats a market cap of 22,000,000,000,000 21,000,000,000,000... that's exactly how much obama has spent during his term.

Interesting! That's nearly 30% of the global M3 money supply!

(sarcastic way of saying "think before you speak")

[Streets 2.0]

Start by knocking off three zero's and then we can talk about if that will be the bottom and is $5000USD a possibility (which is still most likely a no)

[dave111223]

No, before that happens USD will have ceased to exist. I don't think we'll ever see the day someone pays $1M for a bitcoin.

+1

The question should have been something more like "Will 1 Bitcoin ever be worth 730oz of gold"

[Welsh]

It will never happen, I don't think it will become close either, there will be hundreds of Bitcoin bubbles before then.

[Matthew N. Wright]

On one hand, if the USD tanked, anything is possible.

On the other hand, no one has mentioned technology. Why expect such a big boon to stop at bitcoin's current development team and code? Why wouldn't something better than bitcoin come along by then, fueled by the then common knowledge the developing such a solution would be profitable for the producer and participants?

Why is it everyone thinks bitcoin is the *end*? It's just the beginning.

[WishIStartedSooner]

I'm picturing a variety of altcoins, perhaps room for 5-10 in the worldwide market, led by bitcoin, whose price always has been traditionally the highest.

Buy a pack of gum with ppcoin, a house with bitcoin. Or who knows no telling how it will pan out. Maybe BTC will be a million, litecoin 100,000, and ppcoin a hundred.

Fiat would still exist, but it would be used primarily for the government to do the things it needs to do.

So many people in this world. It almost seems like an inevitability if this daydream comes true.

[Stormalong]

On the other hand, no one has mentioned technology. Why expect such a big boon to stop at bitcoin's current development team and code? Why wouldn't something better than bitcoin come along by then, fueled by the then common knowledge the developing such a solution would be profitable for the producer and participants?

Take this same argument and think Internet instead of Bitcoin. Or, more specifically, IPv4. Why hasn't someone developed a better protocol than IPv4 and have it take over the Internet? There is tons of money in it, think of all the routers you could sell!

It hasn't happened because IPv4 is entrenched. Switching to something else is too much work. A new protocol would have to be better than IPv4, and not a little bit better, but MASSIVELY better to make it worth while. And, and BTW, there IS a newer, better protocol and its called IPv6. And it is being adopted, but very very slowly, because its a bunch of work and IPv4 is working and is "good enough".

And that is why Bitcoin is in it for the long haul, its got the head start. In business terms this is called the first mover advantage. Sure, Bitcoin is really small compared to the Internet/IPv4, but in terms of cryptocurrency it is way out in front. For it to be replaced there will either have to be a catastrophic failure of Bitcoin, or the replacement will have to be massively better.

Its also why Litecoin will never get much traction. You could argue that it is better than Bitcoin (I wouldn't), but even if it is, its only *slightly* better, and that will never overcome Bitcoins head start.

Note: the first mover doesn't always win. In some kinds of business being the first mover is actually a disadvantage. But in terms of technology like this first mover almost always "wins". Unless they had the right idea, but screwed up a fundamental aspect of the technology. I think its pretty clear that Bitcoin is solid technology.

[Matthew N. Wright]

On the other hand, no one has mentioned technology. Why expect such a big boon to stop at bitcoin's current development team and code? Why wouldn't something better than bitcoin come along by then, fueled by the then common knowledge the developing such a solution would be profitable for the producer and participants?

Take this same argument and think Internet instead of Bitcoin. Or, more specifically, IPv4. Why hasn't someone developed a better protocol than IPv4 and have it take over the Internet? There is tons of money in it, think of all the routers you could sell!

It hasn't happened because IPv4 is entrenched. Switching to something else is too much work. A new protocol would have to be better than IPv4, and not a little bit better, but MASSIVELY better to make it worth while. And, and BTW, there IS a newer, better protocol and its called IPv6. And it is being adopted, but very very slowly, because its a bunch of work and IPv4 is working and is "good enough".

And that is why Bitcoin is in it for the long haul, its got the head start. In business terms this is called the first mover advantage. Sure, Bitcoin is really small compared to the Internet/IPv4, but in terms of cryptocurrency it is way out in front. For it to be replaced there will either have to be a catastrophic failure of Bitcoin, or the replacement will have to be massively better.

Its also why Litecoin will never get much traction. You could argue that it is better than Bitcoin (I wouldn't), but even if it is, its only *slightly* better, and that will never overcome Bitcoins head start.

Note: the first mover doesn't always win. In some kinds of business being the first mover is actually a disadvantage. But in terms of technology like this first mover almost always "wins". Unless they had the right idea, but screwed up a fundamental aspect of the technology. I think its pretty clear that Bitcoin is solid technology.

Key flaws in your argument:

• The internet is mainly hardware infrastructure. Swapping it out for fibre-optic (which is already happening) and upgrading the protocol (IPv6) is already happening, despite the costs. The costs of swapping out open-source bitcoin code with another code however are highly negligible.
• The internet isn't money; its inherent value is in information sharing. The market has decided that Bitcoin has a financial value for the bits and pieces of information it sends back and forth. Thanks to the versatility of technology such as the internet, there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from developing a smarter, safer system for value transfer and just releasing it as open source onto the internet.

[wormbog]

Start by knocking off three zero's and then we can talk about if that will be the bottom and is $5000USD a possibility (which is still most likely a no)

If the size of the bitcoin-using community grows 40x to 45x larger, and it's impossible to increase the amount of bitcoins in circulation (beyond the existing block reward system), then bitcoins will eventually trade for $5000/ea.

If USD continues to lose value it will happen even faster.

I predict $5000 by 2016.

[siggy]

Key flaws in your argument:

• The internet is mainly hardware infrastructure. Swapping it out for fibre-optic (which is already happening) and upgrading the protocol (IPv6) is already happening, despite the costs. The costs of swapping out open-source bitcoin code with another code however are highly negligible.

the cost of swapping out code may be negligable, however you will still meet like resistance with getting bitcoin users holding anything more than insignificant amounts to essentially throw away their BTC and put their support into better-coin.  In this case, momentum is gonna be a bitch.  The only way for this to happen would be if better-coin was built on top of bitcoin and automatically imported all BTC balances into the better-coin genisis block.
 

• The internet isn't money; its inherent value is in information sharing. The market has decided that Bitcoin has a financial value for the bits and pieces of information it sends back and forth. Thanks to the versatility of technology such as the internet, there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from developing a smarter, safer system for value transfer and just releasing it as open source onto the internet.

Once again, just because better-coin is smarter, safer doesn't automatically mean everyone will just drop bitcoin and start using it.  If you've got billions of value sitting in bitcion, you are going to need to seemlessly migrate that value into better-coin.

So, the question now becomes, if all BTC balances and wallets are already there the moment of better-coin's genisis, is better-coin really better-coin? or is it BTCv2 ?

Sigg

[Matthew N. Wright]

the cost of swapping out code may be negligable, however you will still meet like resistance with getting bitcoin users holding anything more than insignificant amounts to essentially throw away their BTC and put their support into better-coin.  In this case, momentum is gonna be a bitch.

You just described the process in which bitcoins are gaining adoption against other currencies-- slowly. (It takes a while to build trust and get over sunk cost fallacies.)

Once again, just because better-coin is smarter, safer doesn't automatically mean everyone will just drop bitcoin and start using it. If you've got billions of value sitting in bitcion...

Then you are left holding the bag, like every other failed investment in history. No single person holds billions of value in bitcoin. It is lots of people holding smaller amounts. The transition from a great concept to a great *flawless* concept is not as difficult as you think when the free market is at work and there are not regulations restricting said progress.

So, the question now becomes, if all BTC balances and wallets are already there the moment of better-coin's genisis, is better-coin really better-coin? or is it BTCv2 ?

You're suffering from sunk costs fallacy if you think bitcoin will be the end and not the beginning. A superior currency model to bitcoin would be one that does not share bitcoin's flaws (massive energy consumption, etc). Don't forget, the smartest minds in the world have not even started looking into bitcoin yet. This is just the beginning.

[massivebitman]

honestly, I'm sick of threads like this.

what's the point of talking about something so ridiculous?

[Matthew N. Wright]

honestly, I'm sick of threads like this.

what's the point of talking about something so ridiculous?

In my two years here, "circle jerking" is the best definition I can come up with.

[Zaih]

I'm a massive optimistic, so I voted yes 

[kooke]

Anybody who voted yes should consider checking themselves into that mental hospital that rpietila is in.

[CanadianGuy]

Will it ever happen? 

No, simply because there will be billions of "Bitcoin bubbles" before then. The crash after $250 will happen again and again, just at different values...at least until Bitcoin gains enough popularity to help stabilize the currency a bit. I'd be impressed if I see $1,000 a coin in my lifetime.

thats a market cap of 22,000,000,000,000 21,000,000,000,000... that's exactly how much obama has spent during his term.

Interesting! That's nearly 30% of the global M3 money supply!

(sarcastic way of saying "think before you speak")

uhh so i was 1 trillion off?  shit, i should watch my mouth!