Do you really believe in bitcoin as a currency?

[niothor]

Yeah , it's called investment.

That is also what Charles Ponzi and Bernie Madoff claimed.

Quoting only a part of discussion to throw in a remark that has nothing to do with the current thread , well i call that need for attention.

[1714176355]

1714176355

[1714176355]

1714176355

[1714176355]

1714176355

[1714176355]

1714176355

[Evolvex]

I think bitcoin as a currency will help promote spending awareness. For instance, 2 years ago I spent 400 bitcoins on a $200 item that has since been long gone.. That was a really bad decision. Today, I spend my btc alot more cautiously, or just use fiat. Which then makes me question.. Will everyone start doing the same thing? Does deflation encourage hoarding? And if so, how will we be able to promote wealth redistribution?

I'm going to jump in here. The way I see it, IF bitcoin does take off in a big way, I think people would spend less money on things they dont need, only spending there precious bitcoins on things they NEED. This I hope will bring in a long overdue change to society, from care free spenders of debt riddled money, to something more careful, perhaps even beautiful.

[troy112]

Well if its going to go over 1 million per bitcoin they have to lower the dlfees at least because you can't pay 1000 dollars for a single transaction...

[AnonyMint]

No.

[Siegfried]

No.

If bitcoin proves to be fundamentally impractical for small, high-volume transactions, why couldn't it still have great value for use in large transactions such as real-estate, yachts, gold, etc. and as a secure store of value?

[AnonyMint]

No.

If bitcoin proves to be fundamentally impractical for small, high-volume transactions, why couldn't it still have great value for use in large transactions such as real-estate, yachts, gold, etc. and as a secure store of value?

Because that would be an incredibly small market cap. One fact is the richest 3% control most of the money, but the masses (the 97%) spend most of the money that is spent.

 "Exponential and power-law probability distributions of wealth and income in the United Kingdom and the United States" by A. A. Dragulescu and V. M. Yakovenko

[Siegfried]

No.

If bitcoin proves to be fundamentally impractical for small, high-volume transactions, why couldn't it still have great value for use in large transactions such as real-estate, yachts, gold, etc. and as a secure store of value?

Because that would be an incredibly small market cap. One fact is the richest 3% control most of the money, but the masses (the 97%) spend most of the money that is spent.

 "Exponential and power-law probability distributions of wealth and income in the United Kingdom and the United States" by A. A. Dragulescu and V. M. Yakovenko

I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that it would be an incredibly small market cap. It is already approaching 10 billion dollars, and its use as a store of wealth is minuscule compared to things like gold and offshore bank accounts. Why couldn't it increase in popularity for this purpose tenfold or one hundredfold?

[AnonyMint]

No.

If bitcoin proves to be fundamentally impractical for small, high-volume transactions, why couldn't it still have great value for use in large transactions such as real-estate, yachts, gold, etc. and as a secure store of value?

Because that would be an incredibly small market cap. One fact is the richest 3% control most of the money, but the masses (the 97%) spend most of the money that is spent.

 "Exponential and power-law probability distributions of wealth and income in the United Kingdom and the United States" by A. A. Dragulescu and V. M. Yakovenko

I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that it would be an incredibly small market cap. It is already approaching 10 billion dollars, and its use as a store of wealth is minuscule compared to things like gold and offshore bank accounts. Why couldn't it increase in popularity for this purpose tenfold or one hundredfold?

Ponzi-bubbles eventually return to their intrinsic value. The logic is presented in that linked thread. I don't know why it is so difficult for readers to comprehend that investors only stay invested while gains accrue. Eventually the supply of greater fools ends, then the value has to be supported by those who hold it not for gain, instead for use as a currency, i.e. its intrinsic value. An investor would sell that point (retaining only enough needed for spending and rest moved to an investment which can accrue more gains), because gains would not continue to accrue and Bitcoin pays no dividend because it has no income (note BitShares is an altcoin that claims it will have an income and pay dividends).

If you could argue that the masses will use it as a currency (which I think is impossible), then that value could be higher than the current price. However, you are asking what the valuation will be otherwise.

Edit: I did an estimate of Bitcoin's intrinsic value earlier this year.  Compare with the past performance of wider-eyed estimates.

[Siegfried]

No.

If bitcoin proves to be fundamentally impractical for small, high-volume transactions, why couldn't it still have great value for use in large transactions such as real-estate, yachts, gold, etc. and as a secure store of value?

Because that would be an incredibly small market cap. One fact is the richest 3% control most of the money, but the masses (the 97%) spend most of the money that is spent.

 "Exponential and power-law probability distributions of wealth and income in the United Kingdom and the United States" by A. A. Dragulescu and V. M. Yakovenko

I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that it would be an incredibly small market cap. It is already approaching 10 billion dollars, and its use as a store of wealth is minuscule compared to things like gold and offshore bank accounts. Why couldn't it increase in popularity for this purpose tenfold or one hundredfold?

Ponzi-bubbles eventually return to their intrinsic value. The logic is presented in that linked thread. I don't know why it is so difficult for readers to comprehend that investors only stay invested while gains accrue. Eventually the supply of greater fools ends, then the value has to be supported by those who hold it not for gain, instead for use as a currency, i.e. its intrinsic value. An investor would sell that point (retaining only enough needed for spending and rest moved to an investment which can accrue more gains), because gains would not continue to accrue and Bitcoin pays no dividend because it has no income (note BitShares is an altcoin that claims it will have an income and pay dividends).

If you could argue that the masses will use it as a currency (which I think is impossible), then that value could be higher than the current price. However, you are asking what the valuation will be otherwise.

Edit: I did an estimate of Bitcoin's intrinsic value earlier this year.  Compare with the past performance of wider-eyed estimates.

Why wouldn't investors remain partially invested in bitcoin as a hedge against government confiscation (gold, real estate, bank deposits, cash, can be confiscated) even if the gains stopped accruing? I think that demand will remain and support a very high value. I just don't think your money velocity equations cannot accurately calculate the value of bitcoin because bitcoin is much more than that.

[morphKET]

i believe bitcoin as a currency. why? a few simple reasons. first off, the the obvious upsides.

no middle (parasitic and psychopathic banking financial mafia) man to deal with.
low transfer rates from one exchange or online wallet (compared to traditional system)
fast transfers from country to country with minimal fees
no way to charge back or reverse charge (as a business, you HATE dealing with this)
no international exchanges
we live in a digital age, so why do we not have a digital currency for the people by the people

the downsides of course:
not accepted everywhere
very volatile (when pegged to say USD, GBP, EURO, CNY, etc
little tech savy knowledge required
US suppression and hurdles

but with all those listed ups and downs (course i have missed a lot) but the point is, if you accept it as money, your neighbor, the stores you shop at, then it is a currency. and we are inching towards that. virgin now accepts btc, and starbucks will begin accepting next year. so it is a free money for a free people. even if the us gov't decides to create a btc like currency, it won't work. it's too late. if they wanted to stop it, they should have done so back in 2009. and even if btc does fail, it is the idea behind it that will keep it alive.

when the time comes for an idea, nothing can stop it. NOTHING.

[AnonyMint]

No.

If bitcoin proves to be fundamentally impractical for small, high-volume transactions, why couldn't it still have great value for use in large transactions such as real-estate, yachts, gold, etc. and as a secure store of value?

Because that would be an incredibly small market cap. One fact is the richest 3% control most of the money, but the masses (the 97%) spend most of the money that is spent.

 "Exponential and power-law probability distributions of wealth and income in the United Kingdom and the United States" by A. A. Dragulescu and V. M. Yakovenko

I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that it would be an incredibly small market cap. It is already approaching 10 billion dollars, and its use as a store of wealth is minuscule compared to things like gold and offshore bank accounts. Why couldn't it increase in popularity for this purpose tenfold or one hundredfold?

Ponzi-bubbles eventually return to their intrinsic value. The logic is presented in that linked thread. I don't know why it is so difficult for readers to comprehend that investors only stay invested while gains accrue. Eventually the supply of greater fools ends, then the value has to be supported by those who hold it not for gain, instead for use as a currency, i.e. its intrinsic value. An investor would sell that point (retaining only enough needed for spending and rest moved to an investment which can accrue more gains), because gains would not continue to accrue and Bitcoin pays no dividend because it has no income (note BitShares is an altcoin that claims it will have an income and pay dividends).

If you could argue that the masses will use it as a currency (which I think is impossible), then that value could be higher than the current price. However, you are asking what the valuation will be otherwise.

Edit: I did an estimate of Bitcoin's intrinsic value earlier this year.  Compare with the past performance of wider-eyed estimates.

Why wouldn't investors remain partially invested in bitcoin as a hedge against government confiscation (gold, real estate, bank deposits, cash, can be confiscated) even if the gains stopped accruing? I think that demand will remain and support a very high value. I just don't think your money velocity equations cannot accurately calculate the value of bitcoin because bitcoin is much more than that.

That is a reasonably strong counter-point. I have also thinking there would be a rush into crypto-currencies to avoid the coming wave of confiscations as the global sovereign debt crisis reaches the SHTF end game.

However, I am observing that the vast majority of investment money in Bitcoin is from people who expect gains, and do not expect the doomsday outcome of confiscation. Thus they will exit and since the float is so minuscule even they were a tiny minority, it won't take much cashing out to prick the bubble and send a stampede to the exits.

So our concept of holding value as a safe haven won't work if the value is collapsing.

Thus I am speculating that a collapse of Bitcoin circa 2015 +/- 1 year, will send massive stampede into gold and silver (the capital that wasn't already in Bitcoin when it collapses), assuming there is no viably superior altcoin.

[AnonyMint]

i believe bitcoin as a currency. why? a few simple reasons. first off, the the obvious upsides.

no middle (parasitic and psychopathic banking financial mafia) man to deal with.
low transfer rates from one exchange or online wallet (compared to traditional system)
fast transfers from country to country with minimal fees
no way to charge back or reverse charge (as a business, you HATE dealing with this)
no international exchanges
we live in a digital age, so why do we not have a digital currency for the people by the people

Yes we all love those, except I don't think we will have low transactions fees.

Chargebacks aren't necessarily good for customers, yet no worries on that one, because Bitcoin supports M of N signers for decentralized escrow.

Problem is none of the above is a reason to remain a long-term value investor if it isn't leading to high use of BTC as a currency, which is impossible as I have outlined in my recent posts in various threads.

the downsides of course:
not accepted everywhere
very volatile (when pegged to say USD, GBP, EURO, CNY, etc
little tech savy knowledge required
US suppression and hurdles

You've missed many of the threats. Search my recent posts. Also add a new one yesterday:

http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/11/25/block-propagation-speeds/

but with all those listed ups and downs (course i have missed a lot) but the point is, if you accept it as money, your neighbor, the stores you shop at, then it is a currency. and we are inching towards that. virgin now accepts btc, and starbucks will begin accepting next year. so it is a free money for a free people. even if the us gov't decides to create a btc like currency, it won't work. it's too late. if they wanted to stop it, they should have done so back in 2009. and even if btc does fail, it is the idea behind it that will keep it alive.

when the time comes for an idea, nothing can stop it. NOTHING.

None of that matters if the transactions can not possibly grow, because of the concentration of the currency. I don't understand why people can't do that logic in their mind. I guess I don't understand what it is like to have an average IQ. Seems so obvious to me that it is impossible. I guess someone will need write a "Bitcoin Ponzi Primer for Dummies" 15 page guide. I don't have time to write that.

You could try to argue that as investors cash out to numerous consumers, then the concentration diminishes. Well that is what happens before a ponzi bubble pops. The few rich silently exit (that is why they are rich, they aren't foolish). But due to the tiny float, it is impossible for all (nor even a minority of) the investors to cash out while transitioning the ownership to the consumers. And to draw in enough consumers to make that not so, we would need to see transactions increasing faster than they are. And if that was the case, then investors wouldn't sell. It is vicious circle. There is no way out other than collapse.

The only other argument is society will significantly transfer to using this new currency, then the investors can invest their BTC directly and no need to cash out to dollars in order to buy stocks, etc.. Problem is for that to happen, then society would need to agree to be impoverished relative to the early adopters of this new currency. Society simply won't agree. And they have all the means they need to make it sure they don't have to agree.

The only possible way to make a new currency is to continuously debasement the existing investors and distribute new coin rewards to new entrants, especially not ASIC miners. That is the only chance. Bitcoin will never do that.

Note Bitcoin's 12.5% per annum debasement is not preventing gains from accruing. Debasement doesn't stop appreciation of value!

[Siegfried]

No.

If bitcoin proves to be fundamentally impractical for small, high-volume transactions, why couldn't it still have great value for use in large transactions such as real-estate, yachts, gold, etc. and as a secure store of value?

Because that would be an incredibly small market cap. One fact is the richest 3% control most of the money, but the masses (the 97%) spend most of the money that is spent.

 "Exponential and power-law probability distributions of wealth and income in the United Kingdom and the United States" by A. A. Dragulescu and V. M. Yakovenko

I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that it would be an incredibly small market cap. It is already approaching 10 billion dollars, and its use as a store of wealth is minuscule compared to things like gold and offshore bank accounts. Why couldn't it increase in popularity for this purpose tenfold or one hundredfold?

Ponzi-bubbles eventually return to their intrinsic value. The logic is presented in that linked thread. I don't know why it is so difficult for readers to comprehend that investors only stay invested while gains accrue. Eventually the supply of greater fools ends, then the value has to be supported by those who hold it not for gain, instead for use as a currency, i.e. its intrinsic value. An investor would sell that point (retaining only enough needed for spending and rest moved to an investment which can accrue more gains), because gains would not continue to accrue and Bitcoin pays no dividend because it has no income (note BitShares is an altcoin that claims it will have an income and pay dividends).

If you could argue that the masses will use it as a currency (which I think is impossible), then that value could be higher than the current price. However, you are asking what the valuation will be otherwise.

Edit: I did an estimate of Bitcoin's intrinsic value earlier this year.  Compare with the past performance of wider-eyed estimates.

Why wouldn't investors remain partially invested in bitcoin as a hedge against government confiscation (gold, real estate, bank deposits, cash, can be confiscated) even if the gains stopped accruing? I think that demand will remain and support a very high value. I just don't think your money velocity equations cannot accurately calculate the value of bitcoin because bitcoin is much more than that.

That is a reasonably strong counter-point. I have also thinking there would be a rush into crypto-currencies to avoid the coming wave of confiscations as the global sovereign debt crisis reaches the SHTF end game.

However, I am observing that the vast majority of investment money in Bitcoin is from people who expect gains, and do not expect the doomsday outcome of confiscation. Thus they will exit and since the float is so minuscule even they were a tiny minority, it won't take much cashing out to prick the bubble and send a stampede to the exits.

So our concept of holding value as a safe haven won't work if the value is collapsing.

Thus I am speculating that a collapse of Bitcoin circa 2015 +/- 1 year, will send massive stampede into gold and silver (the capital that wasn't already in Bitcoin when it collapses), assuming there is no viably superior altcoin.

Your observation NOW is that most of the money flowing into bitcoin is for short-term speculation, but I would suggest that as the "bubble" rapidly inflates over the next year or two, more and more people will realize its use as a secure store of value and a means to circumvent capital controls, not just as a speculative investment, and this will support its high valuation.

Personally, a prick of the bubble would not send me stampeding to the exit, and I don't see why others who individually invested only a small percentage of their portfolio as a hedge against confiscation (but who collectively would have a massive amount invested) would stampede either. Thus I do not believe a prick of the bubble would be fatal.

[AnonyMint]

No.

If bitcoin proves to be fundamentally impractical for small, high-volume transactions, why couldn't it still have great value for use in large transactions such as real-estate, yachts, gold, etc. and as a secure store of value?

Because that would be an incredibly small market cap. One fact is the richest 3% control most of the money, but the masses (the 97%) spend most of the money that is spent.

 "Exponential and power-law probability distributions of wealth and income in the United Kingdom and the United States" by A. A. Dragulescu and V. M. Yakovenko

I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that it would be an incredibly small market cap. It is already approaching 10 billion dollars, and its use as a store of wealth is minuscule compared to things like gold and offshore bank accounts. Why couldn't it increase in popularity for this purpose tenfold or one hundredfold?

Ponzi-bubbles eventually return to their intrinsic value. The logic is presented in that linked thread. I don't know why it is so difficult for readers to comprehend that investors only stay invested while gains accrue. Eventually the supply of greater fools ends, then the value has to be supported by those who hold it not for gain, instead for use as a currency, i.e. its intrinsic value. An investor would sell that point (retaining only enough needed for spending and rest moved to an investment which can accrue more gains), because gains would not continue to accrue and Bitcoin pays no dividend because it has no income (note BitShares is an altcoin that claims it will have an income and pay dividends).

If you could argue that the masses will use it as a currency (which I think is impossible), then that value could be higher than the current price. However, you are asking what the valuation will be otherwise.

Edit: I did an estimate of Bitcoin's intrinsic value earlier this year.  Compare with the past performance of wider-eyed estimates.

Why wouldn't investors remain partially invested in bitcoin as a hedge against government confiscation (gold, real estate, bank deposits, cash, can be confiscated) even if the gains stopped accruing? I think that demand will remain and support a very high value. I just don't think your money velocity equations cannot accurately calculate the value of bitcoin because bitcoin is much more than that.

That is a reasonably strong counter-point. I have also thinking there would be a rush into crypto-currencies to avoid the coming wave of confiscations as the global sovereign debt crisis reaches the SHTF end game.

However, I am observing that the vast majority of investment money in Bitcoin is from people who expect gains, and do not expect the doomsday outcome of confiscation. Thus they will exit and since the float is so minuscule even they were a tiny minority, it won't take much cashing out to prick the bubble and send a stampede to the exits.

So our concept of holding value as a safe haven won't work if the value is collapsing.

Thus I am speculating that a collapse of Bitcoin circa 2015 +/- 1 year, will send massive stampede into gold and silver (the capital that wasn't already in Bitcoin when it collapses), assuming there is no viably superior altcoin.

Your observation NOW is that most of the money flowing into bitcoin is for short-term speculation, but I would suggest that as the "bubble" rapidly inflates over the next year or two, more and more people will realize its use as a secure store of value and a means to circumvent capital controls, not just as a speculative investment, and this will support its high valuation.

Personally, a prick of the bubble would not send me stampeding to the exit, and I don't see why others who individually invested only a small percentage of their portfolio as a hedge against confiscation (but who collectively would have a massive amount invested) would stampede either. Thus I do not believe a prick of the bubble would be fatal.

If that is the case, the government will go after it aggressively, and then you won't have merchants to spend to, especially considering Bitcoin is very weak on anonymity.

And Bitcoin has so many points of failure for the government and others to attack it.

Thus I would not trust it as a safe haven with my money.

If nothing better comes along, I will hold gold coins and Yuan paper cash. The Yuan is going to skyrocket in value.

If there was a reliable altcoin, there is the advantage of being able to move value across borders more easily, etc.. Bitcoin is not reliable as far as I can see looking at the many technological weaknesses, such as the Transactions Withholding Attack, the Spiraling Transactions Fees tragedy of the commons (which may be occurring), the Selfish-Mining attack which has now been confirmed, concentration of mining pools, etc, etc.

I wasn't joking when I said Bitcoin's developers suck.

[romerun]

no, not yet, now as wealth storage, who wants to spend coins when it will be 100 times worth in 2 years?

When the exp growth stops, transaction fee would become huge, and it's not suitable for buy everyday good(well maybe offchain), but more for transfering wealth from bank to bank or cross country

[beetcoin]

no, not yet, now as wealth storage, who wants to spend coins when it will be 100 times worth in 2 years?

When the exp growth stops, transaction fee would become huge, and it's not suitable for buy everyday good(well maybe offchain), but more for transfering wealth from bank to bank or cross country

wha? transaction fee would adjust accordingly.

i think BTC is a viable currency, but for more expensive goods. buying $5 worth of something in BTC takes confirmation times, and people usually want to get in and out as soon as possible.

[NewLiberty]

I wasn't joking when I said Bitcoin's developers suck.

Bitcoin is in beta.  That fact should be in front of every news story and public appearance.
I wouldn't say the developers suck so much as they are overwhelmed with too many priorities, due to a too-fast growth.
Bitcoin is being overextended, partly by its supporters, but also by its opposition.

There is a risk that the broader cryptocurrency effort will be discredited by a great failing of its most noteworthy example.  Killing the ponzi element would not be a bad thing.  If Bitcoin grows in its season, blooms, casts off its seeds and browns for the winter, we ought yet look forward to seeing what may come.  Its in beta.

[Ekaros]

I wasn't joking when I said Bitcoin's developers suck.

Bitcoin is in beta.  That fact should be in front of every news story and public appearance.
I wouldn't say the developers suck so much as they are overwhelmed with too many priorities, due to a too-fast growth.
Bitcoin is being overextended, partly by its supporters, but also by its opposition.

There is a risk that the broader cryptocurrency effort will be discredited by a great failing of its most noteworthy example.  Killing the ponzi element would not be a bad thing.  If Bitcoin grows in its season, blooms, casts off its seeds and browns for the winter, we ought yet look forward to seeing what may come.  Its in beta.

The true advocates of cryptocurrencies should give up notion that because they were early adopters they are entitled to massive gains.

Bitcoin has many real issue, these are likely only solved with more advanced versions. Like we are slowly replacing IPv4 with v6.

It's good proof of concepts which can also show the issues with such systems...

[AnonyMint]

The prior two posts made me smile in spite of my 62+ ignores. At least my nose isn't brown.  

The ignore browning is the most inane, asinine feature of this otherwise excellent forum design. So with 10,000 members, one gets 62, i.e. 0.5% ignore rate then that is supposed to be meaninful? How about showing our non-ignore rate instead, i.e. 99.5%.

Lack of browning should logically be embarrassing. It can be interpreted to mean one hasn't stuck their neck out at all. Played it ultra-safe, not written enough controversial statements to justify the wrath of the groupthink.

Ultra-safe is not how you win big in this life. No risk, no cookies.

[Rassah]

The prior two posts made me smile in spite of my 62+ ignores. At least my nose isn't brown.  

The ignore browning is the most inane, asinine feature of this otherwise excellent forum design. So with 10,000 members, one gets 62, i.e. 0.5% ignore rate then that is supposed to be meaninful? How about showing our non-ignore rate instead, i.e. 99.5%.

Lack of browning should logically be embarrassing. It can be interpreted to mean one hasn't stuck their neck out at all. Played it ultra-safe, not written enough controversial statements to justify the wrath of the groupthink.

Ultra-safe is not how you win big in this life. No risk, no cookies.

Typically, people ignore you not for sticking your neck out, but for being a complete douchebag about it. Also, it's rather difficult to get 62 people to think you are so not worth their time, that they actually take the time to click the "Ignore" button instead of simply scrolling past your post.