Imagine 10000

[Rival]

My lifespan is a limiting factor on my ability to hoard coins. If I don't manage to ever benefit from them, my stupid kid will probably have a good time spending it on hookers and blow. It will get spent eventually one way or another.

[Sindelar1938]

10000 is eminently possible if the current adoption curve continues for another 3 to 5 years

Big if...

[Bitcopia]

The problem is that if they constantly appreciate, no one will ever spend them.

Do you mean that people would only buy what truly satisfied them? That is a very good problem to have!

+1

Maybe getting rid of the BUY MORE JUNK attitude is a blessing. And to the idea that economies must consume more and more and more forever in order to succeed is not only absurd, its destructive and unsustainable.

[kireinaha]

The problem is that if they constantly appreciate, no one will ever spend them.

Do you mean that people would only buy what truly satisfied them? That is a very good problem to have!

+1

Maybe getting rid of the BUY MORE JUNK attitude is a blessing. And to the idea that economies must consume more and more and more forever in order to succeed is not only absurd, its destructive and unsustainable.

You're saying economic growth is a bad thing? Can you extrapolate that logic a bit further for me? I agree that it's unsustainable; afterall, everything comes to an end eventually. But unless your ideal plan is to live in a hunter/gatherer society of 50 people in the Amazon, then economic growth is necessary for a healthy economy. I'm sure many in Greece would agree.

[ErisDiscordia]

You're saying economic growth is a bad thing? Can you extrapolate that logic a bit further for me?

I can.

What you (and many people I guess) need to realize is that our current financial system has a built in imperative for economic growth. Not sure how many people understand what is meant by "economic growth". It means supplying more products and services which can be bought for money to the economy. Thus when I grow some tomatoes on my balcony and consume them, we have no economic growth. But if I sell them to my neighbor for 10$ the GDP just grew by 10$. Does this tell us anything about whether the whole society participating in this economy is better of or not?

Do not forget that economic growth is imperative to the monetary system. It can not function without it. Thus it encourages consumption. It prefers a situation where you buy a 1K$ laptop every 2 years and a 2K@ fridge every 5 years to a situation where you buy both for the same price and they both last you 15 years. Besides the devastating consequences like planned obsolescence of consumer goods it is pure insanity to demand perpetual "growth" on a planet with finite resources. At this rate the system will burn through all the resources and eventually collapse or be forced into something more sustainable. The point is we can't have a sustainable economy without a monetary system which creates an incentive to save ("hoard" if you want to cast it in a bad light) as opposed to an incentive to spend.

I applaud BTC for providing such a model and am happy to see all the HOARDERS saving their money and thinking twice before making a purchase. The consumer fetishism needs to go.

[Miz4r]

You're saying economic growth is a bad thing? Can you extrapolate that logic a bit further for me?

I can.

What you (and many people I guess) need to realize is that our current financial system has a built in imperative for economic growth. Not sure how many people understand what is meant by "economic growth". It means supplying more products and services which can be bought for money to the economy. Thus when I grow some tomatoes on my balcony and consume them, we have no economic growth. But if I sell them to my neighbor for 10$ the GDP just grew by 10$. Does this tell us anything about whether the whole society participating in this economy is better of or not?

Do not forget that economic growth is imperative to the monetary system. It can not function without it. Thus it encourages consumption. It prefers a situation where you buy a 1K$ laptop every 2 years and a 2K@ fridge every 5 years to a situation where you buy both for the same price and they both last you 15 years. Besides the devastating consequences like planned obsolescence of consumer goods it is pure insanity to demand perpetual "growth" on a planet with finite resources. At this rate the system will burn through all the resources and eventually collapse or be forced into something more sustainable. The point is we can't have a sustainable economy without a monetary system which creates an incentive to save ("hoard" if you want to cast it in a bad light) as opposed to an incentive to spend.

I applaud BTC for providing such a model and am happy to see all the HOARDERS saving their money and thinking twice before making a purchase. The consumer fetishism needs to go.

+1

Well said, hopefully more and more people will be able to step outside of the matrix and see it for what it really is. A true economy that is healthy doesn't need to grow. Don't believe all the newspapers and so called economic experts who want to make us think that without a growing economy we are all doomed. Yeah the current financial system we have surely depends on growth to sustain its debt and pay the interest, but it's an unhealthy and self-destructive system that is rotten to the core and it just has to go.

[ErisDiscordia]

We need a cultural reprogramming!

SAVING IS SEXY! 

[Pruden]

At this rate the system will burn through all the resources and eventually collapse or be forced into something more sustainable. The point is we can't have a sustainable economy without a monetary system which creates an incentive to save ("hoard" if you want to cast it in a bad light) as opposed to an incentive to spend.

I applaud BTC for providing such a model and am happy to see all the HOARDERS saving their money and thinking twice before making a purchase. The consumer fetishism needs to go.

I applaud you. I thought the same but had failed to make the connection between BTC and the money needed for the new era. An era that Mr Money Moustache described beautifully:

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/07/16/a-badass-utopia/

[Bitcopia]

You're saying economic growth is a bad thing? Can you extrapolate that logic a bit further for me?

I can.

What you (and many people I guess) need to realize is that our current financial system has a built in imperative for economic growth. Not sure how many people understand what is meant by "economic growth". It means supplying more products and services which can be bought for money to the economy. Thus when I grow some tomatoes on my balcony and consume them, we have no economic growth. But if I sell them to my neighbor for 10$ the GDP just grew by 10$. Does this tell us anything about whether the whole society participating in this economy is better of or not?

Do not forget that economic growth is imperative to the monetary system. It can not function without it. Thus it encourages consumption. It prefers a situation where you buy a 1K$ laptop every 2 years and a 2K@ fridge every 5 years to a situation where you buy both for the same price and they both last you 15 years. Besides the devastating consequences like planned obsolescence of consumer goods it is pure insanity to demand perpetual "growth" on a planet with finite resources. At this rate the system will burn through all the resources and eventually collapse or be forced into something more sustainable. The point is we can't have a sustainable economy without a monetary system which creates an incentive to save ("hoard" if you want to cast it in a bad light) as opposed to an incentive to spend.

I applaud BTC for providing such a model and am happy to see all the HOARDERS saving their money and thinking twice before making a purchase. The consumer fetishism needs to go.

Well said!!

[kireinaha]

You're saying economic growth is a bad thing? Can you extrapolate that logic a bit further for me?

I can.

What you (and many people I guess) need to realize is that our current financial system has a built in imperative for economic growth. Not sure how many people understand what is meant by "economic growth". It means supplying more products and services which can be bought for money to the economy. Thus when I grow some tomatoes on my balcony and consume them, we have no economic growth. But if I sell them to my neighbor for 10$ the GDP just grew by 10$. Does this tell us anything about whether the whole society participating in this economy is better of or not?

Do not forget that economic growth is imperative to the monetary system. It can not function without it. Thus it encourages consumption. It prefers a situation where you buy a 1K$ laptop every 2 years and a 2K@ fridge every 5 years to a situation where you buy both for the same price and they both last you 15 years. Besides the devastating consequences like planned obsolescence of consumer goods it is pure insanity to demand perpetual "growth" on a planet with finite resources. At this rate the system will burn through all the resources and eventually collapse or be forced into something more sustainable. The point is we can't have a sustainable economy without a monetary system which creates an incentive to save ("hoard" if you want to cast it in a bad light) as opposed to an incentive to spend.

I applaud BTC for providing such a model and am happy to see all the HOARDERS saving their money and thinking twice before making a purchase. The consumer fetishism needs to go.

Well said!!

Not really. The fact remains that unless your ultimate goal is to return to a small, self sufficient hunter/gatherer society, economies must grow in order to prosper. As more people are born, grow up, and become adults, there must be jobs for them in order to contribute to society and attain wealth. Wealth is then created and distributed amongst members of society through the act of trade. Without growth, unemployment and social strife always ensure.

[Miz4r]

Not really. The fact remains that unless your ultimate goal is to return to a small, self sufficient hunter/gatherer society, economies must grow in order to prosper. As more people are born, grow up, and become adults, there must be jobs for them in order to contribute to society and attain wealth. Wealth is then created and distributed amongst members of society through the act of trade. Without growth, unemployment and social strife always ensure.

Wrong. But I guess you can't help it, not everyone is able to think outside of their box.

[piramida]

I applaud BTC for providing such a model and am happy to see all the HOARDERS saving their money and thinking twice before making a purchase. The consumer fetishism needs to go.

Exactly my thoughts! The current fiat money are like hot stones - you are forced to get rid of them as fast as possible, in fact, most western states encourage credit systems to enslave citizens - where you get rid of your fiat *before you even get it* and are forced to work to get what you already spent... Free people need bitcoins.

[Ibian]

To put the value, growth and eventual spending point of bitcoin into simple terms: as long as new people are buying bitcoins, the price will go up. When new people are no longer entering the system, or at a greatly reduced rate, the value will stabilize and spending will begin. Therefore as long as the value is rising, hoarding is the correct answer if your goal is to maximize the value of your investment and the future utility of bitcoin.

[interlagos]

You're saying economic growth is a bad thing? Can you extrapolate that logic a bit further for me?

I can.

What you (and many people I guess) need to realize is that our current financial system has a built in imperative for economic growth. Not sure how many people understand what is meant by "economic growth". It means supplying more products and services which can be bought for money to the economy. Thus when I grow some tomatoes on my balcony and consume them, we have no economic growth. But if I sell them to my neighbor for 10$ the GDP just grew by 10$. Does this tell us anything about whether the whole society participating in this economy is better of or not?

Do not forget that economic growth is imperative to the monetary system. It can not function without it. Thus it encourages consumption. It prefers a situation where you buy a 1K$ laptop every 2 years and a 2K@ fridge every 5 years to a situation where you buy both for the same price and they both last you 15 years. Besides the devastating consequences like planned obsolescence of consumer goods it is pure insanity to demand perpetual "growth" on a planet with finite resources. At this rate the system will burn through all the resources and eventually collapse or be forced into something more sustainable. The point is we can't have a sustainable economy without a monetary system which creates an incentive to save ("hoard" if you want to cast it in a bad light) as opposed to an incentive to spend.

I applaud BTC for providing such a model and am happy to see all the HOARDERS saving their money and thinking twice before making a purchase. The consumer fetishism needs to go.

Well said!!

Not really. The fact remains that unless your ultimate goal is to return to a small, self sufficient hunter/gatherer society, economies must grow in order to prosper. As more people are born, grow up, and become adults, there must be jobs for them in order to contribute to society and attain wealth. Wealth is then created and distributed amongst members of society through the act of trade. Without growth, unemployment and social strife always ensure.

Technological advancements don't necessarily imply growth. You can still develop science and technology in a balanced economy to achieve better efficiency. Basically, you can do the same for less or do more with the same.

[Rygon]

Not really. The fact remains that unless your ultimate goal is to return to a small, self sufficient hunter/gatherer society, economies must grow in order to prosper. As more people are born, grow up, and become adults, there must be jobs for them in order to contribute to society and attain wealth. Wealth is then created and distributed amongst members of society through the act of trade. Without growth, unemployment and social strife always ensure.

Well what do you think the goal of society should be? Is it employment and a lack of social strife? At the risk of sounding like a bleeding-heart liberal, I think it should be peace and personal fulfillment. Which starts with everyone not having to worry about obtaining food, clothing, and shelter. And then having as many people as possible pursue their passions and do what it is that makes them happy. Having 100% employment isn't even vaguely correlated with those goals. Just look at North Korea for an example of high employment and awful living conditions. And economic trade (such as GDP) has a lousy correlation with the ability to feed oneself, as Miz4r pointed out earlier. GDP is useful as a general measure to understand hthe quantity of trading happening in an economy, but doesn't tell me anything about the quality of that trading - whether or not each side is significantly better off due to an exchange of goods and services.

[kireinaha]

Not really. The fact remains that unless your ultimate goal is to return to a small, self sufficient hunter/gatherer society, economies must grow in order to prosper. As more people are born, grow up, and become adults, there must be jobs for them in order to contribute to society and attain wealth. Wealth is then created and distributed amongst members of society through the act of trade. Without growth, unemployment and social strife always ensure.

Well what do you think the goal of society should be? Is it employment and a lack of social strife? At the risk of sounding like a bleeding-heart liberal, I think it should be peace and personal fulfillment. Which starts with everyone not having to worry about obtaining food, clothing, and shelter. And then having as many people as possible pursue their passions and do what it is that makes them happy. Having 100% employment isn't even vaguely correlated with those goals. Just look at North Korea for an example of high employment and awful living conditions. And economic trade (such as GDP) has a lousy correlation with the ability to feed oneself, as Miz4r pointed out earlier. GDP is useful as a general measure to understand hthe quantity of trading happening in an economy, but doesn't tell me anything about the quality of that trading - whether or not each side is significantly better off due to an exchange of goods and services.

The only reason that North Korea has high employment (at least in the "official" state books) is that people are "employed" by the Worker's Party (but their only real job is roaming the hillsides searching for tree bark to boil and eat). I agree -- from a philosophical standpoint -- that the ultimate goal of life is to live a peaceful existence with personal fulfillment. But there are certain realities that must be carried out from an economic standpoint to attain this state. Without economic growth, no new jobs would be created, and those existing jobs would eventually become obsolete as uncertainty caused people to curtail their spending and freeze up market activity. The goal of living without worry about where our next meal will come from and paying for our house and mortgages is noble, but the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Ibian]

Please define what, precisely, "economic growth" means in practical terms. Give examples.

[BitchicksHusband]

If none of you plan on actually using your bitcoins, how do you expect them to ever be successful as a form of currency? It's a paradox. You don't actually think you're the only ones who will hoard them, do you?

As long as prices keep shooting up, more or less everyone will hold on to them (not that I blame them)... but it's something that needs to be acknowledged. It seems nobody really even cares about the future of bitcoin, other than potentially getting rich from them. Which is the ultimate irony, given that many bitcoin adherents believe the dollar and other FIAT currencies are mismanaged by governments and fat cat, greedy Wall Street types.

People in the ETF will put their retirement money in.  Someday, they will retire.  They will then take their money out to live off of.

Also, at some point, whether it be $10,000 (minimum if you ask me), $40,000 (like the Winklevoss twins think) or $300,000 (rpietila), it will level off and become stable.  At that point, it makes a lot of sense to just spend them since the volatility will be gone.

[Miz4r]

Not really. The fact remains that unless your ultimate goal is to return to a small, self sufficient hunter/gatherer society, economies must grow in order to prosper. As more people are born, grow up, and become adults, there must be jobs for them in order to contribute to society and attain wealth. Wealth is then created and distributed amongst members of society through the act of trade. Without growth, unemployment and social strife always ensure.

Well what do you think the goal of society should be? Is it employment and a lack of social strife? At the risk of sounding like a bleeding-heart liberal, I think it should be peace and personal fulfillment. Which starts with everyone not having to worry about obtaining food, clothing, and shelter. And then having as many people as possible pursue their passions and do what it is that makes them happy. Having 100% employment isn't even vaguely correlated with those goals. Just look at North Korea for an example of high employment and awful living conditions. And economic trade (such as GDP) has a lousy correlation with the ability to feed oneself, as Miz4r pointed out earlier. GDP is useful as a general measure to understand hthe quantity of trading happening in an economy, but doesn't tell me anything about the quality of that trading - whether or not each side is significantly better off due to an exchange of goods and services.

The only reason that North Korea has high employment (at least in the "official" state books) is that people are "employed" by the Worker's Party (but their only real job is roaming the hillsides searching for tree bark to boil and eat). I agree -- from a philosophical standpoint -- that the ultimate goal of life is to live a peaceful existence with personal fulfillment. But there are certain realities that must be carried out from an economic standpoint to attain this state. Without economic growth, no new jobs would be created, and those existing jobs would eventually become obsolete as uncertainty caused people to curtail their spending and freeze up market activity. The goal of living without worry about where our next meal will come from and paying for our house and mortgages is noble, but the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

You're still stuck thinking within the existing model, as if that model could not be changed/adapted to fit our modern digital world with a digital currency like bitcoin better. The powers that be may not like it, but change is inevitable and it is coming from the bottom up now because the top is unable and unwilling to change things themselves.

[DoomDumas]

IMO, 10k within few years is realistic.  A lot more in a decade if it goes mainstream, or if a country like China start buying their oil with BTC !

Wont touch my cold storge under 10k for sure..