rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[rpietila]

I see that your username is no longer "rpietila, the Vassal of the Mighty Caesar Imperator Discombobulator Goat III,  Esq".

I felt it was good to have it for testimony, for the duration that we were setting up the CryptoCrypt forum together, and it also was funny.

Now Goat has stepped down from the active management and I am a mod there (among others) so it was a good opportunity to renounce vassalage and claim sovereignty

Goat didn't "invest" in the manor "project" ?

Well if he does, he is the one to receive a fancy title, not me. 

Bitcoins are for sale for less than 600.

[aminorex]

Bitcoins are for sale for less than 600.

It is truly amazing to me.  Consider:  While there are many unknowns and unforeseen eventualities, BTC is currently the only candidate for replacing the entire fiat monetary system.  There is no fundamental reason why it cannot do so, the opportunity to do so remains open, and the eventual replacement of that system by a successor technology is essentially inevitable, be it bitcoin or a modification of bitcoin, or a revolutionary expansion built upon bitcoin technology -- which would probably be most accessible via bitcoin in its initial stages in any case. 

I will make what I consider to be pessimistic assumptions:  (1) No growth in GDP globally, ever.  (2) 5% chance of bitcoin evolving to replace fiat currency and gold.  (3) 20 year horizon for the replacement.  (4) 8% discounting rate, 5.5% USD inflation.  In that case there is a 5% chance that the net present value of a bitcoin spent 20 years from today is some number north of 500k.  On those assumptions, a fair present price for a single bitcoin would be at least 25k.  Bitcoin appears to be undervalued by a factor on ther order of 100x.

But, humans tend to discount the future rather more aggressively than is rational (Areily), and to discount low probability events rather more aggressively than is rational (Taleb).  So it is not terribly surprising, in that case.

[hdbuck]

Bitcoins are for sale for less than 600.

It is truly amazing to me.  Consider:  While there are many unknowns and unforeseen eventualities, BTC is currently the only candidate for replacing the entire fiat monetary system.  There is no fundamental reason why it cannot do so, the opportunity to do so remains open, and the eventual replacement of that system by a successor technology is essentially inevitable, be it bitcoin or a modification of bitcoin, or a revolutionary expansion built upon bitcoin technology -- which would probably be most accessible via bitcoin in its initial stages in any case.  

I will make what I consider to be pessimistic assumptions:  (1) No growth in GDP globally, ever.  (2) 5% chance of bitcoin evolving to replace fiat currency and gold.  (3) 20 year horizon for the replacement.  (4) 8% discounting rate, 5.5% USD inflation.  In that case there is a 5% chance that the net present value of a bitcoin spent 20 years from today is some number north of 500k.  On those assumptions, a fair present price for a single bitcoin would be at least 25k.  Bitcoin appears to be undervalued by a factor on ther order of 100x.

But, humans tend to discount the future rather more aggressively than is rational (Areily), and to discount low probability events rather more aggressively than is rational (Taleb).  So it is not terribly surprising, in that case.

whilst i tend to agree, i also think you can wait quite a long time before the entire monetary system collapses and get replaced by anything. banksters and politics just wont let that happen. And if it happens, i'd be far less worry about BTC because of the chaos and madness it should generate.

[Peter R]

I will make what I consider to be pessimistic assumptions:  (1) No growth in GDP globally, ever.  (2) 5% chance of bitcoin evolving to replace fiat currency and gold.  (3) 20 year horizon for the replacement.  (4) 8% discounting rate, 5.5% USD inflation.  In that case there is a 5% chance that the net present value of a bitcoin spent 20 years from today is some number north of 500k.  On those assumptions, a fair present price for a single bitcoin would be at least 25k.  Bitcoin appears to be undervalued by a factor on ther order of 100x.

Since bitcoin is undervalued (for the reasons you point out), its price and user-base will continue to grow.  The probability that it succeeds increases with a growing user-base (all other variables held constant) such that your net present-value calculation remains greater than its present trading value.  The dynamics of bitcoin growth represent an unstable feedback system with only two equilibrium points: becoming the dominant global currency, becoming nothing at all.  

The only way I can imagine the bitcoin network would stop growing (over the long term) would be for it to become no longer useful.  It would be no longer useful if secp256k1/sha256 was quickly broken, if the network was constantly under relentless 51% and Sybil attacks, if efficient and coordinated government action made it extremely onerous to use, or if a much better idea came around.    

i also think you can wait quite a long time before the entire monetary system collapses and get replaced by anything. banksters and politics just wont let that happen. And if it happens, i'd be far less worry about BTC because of the chaos and madness it should generate.

I disagree.  

I think we could transition from fiat to bitcoin reasonably peacefully and quickly.  The important thing is that bitcoin can still facilitate the global trade required to provide a constant flow of goods and energy into the major cities (unlike a sudden transition to a gold standard).  As long as global trade doesn't quickly break down, reasonable social order will be maintained.  

Most people will benefit from the "collapse" and will work to make it happen.

1.  The Average Joe will win.  He will be jealous of his friend who had the foresight to purchase coins at $10,000 / BTC, but he will see that a transition to bitcoin represents a jubilee for his unmanageable debt load.

2.  The already rich will win.  They will retain ownership of the productive capital they already control.  The will also read the writing on the wall before average Joe and possibly amplify their financial assets too.  

3.  The already politically-powerful will win.  Why fight to destroy bitcoin when you can stealthily work to make it grow and increase your independent power and wealth?

4.  Established institutions like the IRS, Fed, NSA, IMF will lose.  However, many of the talented individuals currently working in such institutions will win by hastening their demise and exploiting their insider knowledge.  

5.  People reliant on government entitlement spending for lavish pensions will lose, but hopefully their kids were bitcoiners!

A few billionaires will be demoted to 100 millionaires, and a few (some from the forum no doubt) will take their place.  But otherwise, the social mobility will be a lot less than what people imagine.  

It's only money after all.  

[rpietila]

After comments like this it almost seems that I don't need to write to my thread at all - which of course is fine for me after just having bought a castle which needs repairs, and it would be nice to have some rest from worrying

[AnonyMint]

Quote:


"White is a factor because browner people are too busy enjoying the outdoor and natural life. The white males are stuck inside with winter and find indoor male hobbies. Females in general aren't going to adopt anything that is not super easy, not threatening, available in pink, and lovingly accepted by their peers."

"First of all Bitcoin (as it currently stands unless morphed as I say above) will be limited to reasonably affluent, white males mostly under age 50. Thus figure the upper limit of adoption is several hundred million. Note NE Asians are white."

Anonymint. If you want to break out of the rather small racial / misogynistic  bubble

My knowledge is based on wide-range of real world experiences and having actually lived in the third world for nearly 2 decades.

I grew up in all black inner city slums in New Orleans and Baton Rouge, and my mother and stepfather were very liberal. And I grew up believing that women and men are equal.

Later on life taught me the truth the hard way.

A racist or misogynist is someone who discriminates illogically against race or gender. Rather I am forming rational conclusions by employing falsifiable tests. This is known as the scientific method.

you are opining from you could research what Mpesa (Kenya based, with hundreds of millions of Africans as a customer base, skin color other-than-white) is doing with bitcoin. Implementation being lead by a young woman who spends more time with African bankers than barbies.

Or not. Your choice.

Someone mentioned tersely "1 in 3 Kenyans use Bitcoin" in another thread 2 days ago, and two of us requested a citation and the poster did not reply, so I didn't google it. That was the first time I'd heard that claim. Your post incited me to dig:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/05/economist-explains-18

Dozens of mobile-money systems have been launched, so why has Kenya’s been the most successful? It had several factors in its favour, including the exceptionally high cost of sending money by other methods; the dominant market position of Safaricom; the regulator's initial decision to allow the scheme to proceed on an experimental basis, without formal approval; a clear and effective marketing campaign (“Send money home”); an efficient system to move cash around behind the scenes; and, most intriguingly, the post-election violence in the country in early 2008. M-PESA was used to transfer money to people trapped in Nairobi's slums at the time, and some Kenyans regarded M-PESA as a safer place to store their money than the banks, which were entangled in ethnic disputes. Having established a base of initial users, M-PESA then benefitted from network effects: the more people who used it, the more it made sense for others to sign up for it.

So now I see why it succeeded there but failed here in the Philippines. We have SmartMoney and Globe Cash here but it is not widely used. Filipinos prefer cash, even though they are SMS capital of the world and top 3 country in the world for using digital media. There are also vendors here every where for loading your cell phone prepaid balance.

But there isn't a big incentive to move away from cash. Cash works and when you need to send cash money, there are peso padala branches on every other block.

Whereas in Kenya the chaos meant they didn't have these well developed cash markets, so they needed something. And this monopoly by one phone carrier made it possible to get the economies-of-scale whereas we have 3 main phone carriers here.


But whoever says Kenyans are using Bitcoin is smoking dope:

http://www.bankinnovation.net/2014/02/mpesa-is-smoking-bitcoin-in-number-of-transactions/

In spite of the correction to the chart on that page, Bitcoin transactions are not a significant percentage of M-PESA transactions. That is global Bitcoin txs shown in comparison and besides upt 59% of BTC txs were SatoshiDice at some point in the past and many txs are mixers, etc.. Lets try to find some hard data on BTX txs in Kenya? Scientific method.

You fundamentally don't understand relative wealth. This is not a mistake I would expect rpietila to make:

http://www.cgap.org/blog/10-things-you-thought-you-knew-about-m-pesa

4 – You thought M-PESA’s success meant it is now a huge systemic risk The accumulated balance of all the M-PESA accounts represents just 0.2% of bank deposits by value. M-PESA is far from exerting a systemic risk. In June 2010, M-PESA transactions amounted to about 70% of the volume of electronic transactions in the country but were only 2.3% in value. M-PESA’s success means there is a real need for small electronic transactions and storage of value. It was designed with limits on how much can be transacted (no more than 70,000Ksh leaving the account daily) and stored (maximum account balance is 50,000Ksh). Cash-in, cash-out and P2P transfers are limited to 35,000Ksh per transaction.

So again, I stand by my original statement. Only the white boys have a need for the illogical 10 minute transaction system called Bitcoin.

Still feeling smug white boy?

[AnonyMint]

... Still, I do wonder what you really think about the adoption rate of bitcoin since it seems like you are contradicting yourself at times. Stating things like bitcoin will become the elites new monetary system for global surveillance of all transactions, bitcoin is perhaps the mark of the beast, Satoshi Nakamoto was the US government etc. Those type of comments don't scale well when assuming bitcoin is only a geek phenomenon for white males bellow 50.

I wrote upthread that if Bitcoin doesn't morph into an offchain currency with all the conveniences provided for the masses, then it appears to be limited to the white male demographic. So that would limit the upside price to much less than the projections of $100,000+. If it morphs, then it can become those other things. Two scenarios.

Perhaps you are having a hard time estimating the adoption rate in which I understand since it's basically what we are all discussing here. A continued exponential increase in bitcoin users will automatically lead to price increases (even if some exchanges start utilizing fractional reserve banking, which probably already has happened by the way). Will the exponential increase continue? I think so and have not seen anything that shows otherwise as of yet.

My premise is western civilization is collapsing, and the governments will lock down every exchange.

For example after 2016, they can declare capital controls, and they can require the exchanges to only let you take say $300 per day out.

So then what happens to price...

There is no way you attack the government out in the open and win, unless the win benefits the masses. But the masses are against you because they have no capital and for Bitcoin to take over the world, you want them to agree to be destitute. They will never agree.

INstead they will demand the government make everything fair.

The only way to win is with decentralized exchanges and anonymity. We don't have that in Bitcoin, so you can kiss you capital good bye.

That is my firm opinion of what the world looks like after 2015.

Everyone is entitled to ignore history and ignore the $273 trillion global debt, $quadrillion of derivatives and $quadrillion of unfunded government social welfare promises.

The chaos is coming...

If Bitcoin was technologically capable of withstanding what is coming, I would be more stoic about it.



Bitcoin appears to hand to the government in a gifted wrapped package all those idealistic white males who are a threat to totalitarianism. It is the perfect honey pot. And you guys are attracted to like flies on honey.

An intoxicating mix of "we will become billionaires for doing nothing but sitting on our ass" and "we are defeating evil and making a better world".

That honey is so sweet, and then the trapdoor will close after you enter.

Not to disagree, but to discuss (see comments in text and below).
I found some very strange statistics: apparently, average number of transactions barely budged in the last 12 mo (to my eye it looks like 10-15% growth max).
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=1year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
If bitcoin is growing in utility-why transactions are barely growing?

Number of transactions is not important.  Number of participants and total value transferred are important.  (Mid-2013 dust transactions < 5430 satoshi were effectively stopped.)  For a useful transaction value, multiply estimated transaction volume by BTCUSD rate, adjusted for USD inflation.

Excuse my prose I haven't slept and am delirious .

Just want to point that how do we know if that isn't mostly investment flow in and out of speculation on BTC's price?  I don't consider that to be commerce, rather just the BTC speculation bubble itself.

Bitcoin tx data is basically useless as a metric because it costs near 0 to send a tx. If there is no cost to something, then it can done with repetition, e.g. Coinbase has a feature to send BTC to friend in email and you can send any tiny amount you want.

Or mixers to send BTC to yourself over and over and over and over again.

[Peter R]

Bitcoin tx data is basically useless as a metric because it costs near 0 to send a tx. If there is no cost to something, then it can done with repetition, e.g. Coinbase has a feature to send BTC to friend in email and you can send any tiny amount you want.

The data you claim is useless is highly correlated with bitcoin market cap and seems to obey Metcalfe's Law: V ~ N² .

[AnonyMint]

I was just preparing to reply to your upthread post about Metcalf's law.

I referred to Reed's Law at my copute.com since 2010 so I was aware of that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed%27s_law

However, the point I am making is those might just be mostly transactions involving our speculation on BTC, and thus we are pumping the price up expecting it to be used for real commerce, when our speculation transactions might be the commerce.

How do we know that isn't the case?

I keep trying to find the real commerce with Bitcoin.

There is Overstock and TigerDirect:

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/231134

Those retailers appear to be targeting the while male geek demographic investors of BTC. I am reminded of this:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/bitcoin-is-the-segway-of-currency/281625/ (Bitcoin Is the Segway of Currency)

DigitalRiver added Bitcoin as an option for download software merchants who want to add it. But that isn't saying too much because I tried 900# payments, e-checks, etc when I was selling download software. Those didn't go mainstream.

For something to be a currency then it needs to be accepted by many different types of merchants. A few dozens of merchants targeting us white males who are invested and want to spend using BTC to show support for our investment isn't necessarily going to the critical mass needed.


Hey I would be all in favor of a crypto-currency even if it had limited adoption. But to have utility to me, I would need to be confident that the government can't just shut it down at-will by regulating the exchanges. Otherwise what is the point?

You all are rather betting big. You require that Bitcoin changes the world in 2 years. Your extrapolations are that severe.


Add: let me put it another way. I believe you showed meaningfully that Bitcoin is obeying Metcalf's Law, and my point is this can serve as a honey pot. It doesn't mean we are actually building a platform for all of society. The growth doesn't necessarily have to continue past saturation of our demographic.

We need some evidence of adoption outside our demographic. And for me, I would demand evidence that it is not trending to be offchain and thus just another fiat any way. All the signs are overly centralized: the few pools, tiny % of population that owns the ASICs, the Coinbase and Mt.Gox, the Bitpay, the localbitcoins. Few big names. Centralization.

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/12992
http://www.coindesk.com/directpool-prevent-51attack-community-approach/
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-miners-ditch-ghash-io-pool-51-attack/

My assumption is government won't allow it unless it trends to offchain. If it becomes offchain or at least controlled at the entry and exit gate (exchanges), then I don't believe the government will allow you to take large gains out. For those who think they too large gains out and bought an old manor, I have one word:

clawback

[CurbsideProphet]

Bitcoins are for sale for less than 600.

It is truly amazing to me.  Consider:  While there are many unknowns and unforeseen eventualities, BTC is currently the only candidate for replacing the entire fiat monetary system.  There is no fundamental reason why it cannot do so, the opportunity to do so remains open, and the eventual replacement of that system by a successor technology is essentially inevitable, be it bitcoin or a modification of bitcoin, or a revolutionary expansion built upon bitcoin technology -- which would probably be most accessible via bitcoin in its initial stages in any case. 

I will make what I consider to be pessimistic assumptions:  (1) No growth in GDP globally, ever.  (2) 5% chance of bitcoin evolving to replace fiat currency and gold.  (3) 20 year horizon for the replacement.  (4) 8% discounting rate, 5.5% USD inflation.  In that case there is a 5% chance that the net present value of a bitcoin spent 20 years from today is some number north of 500k.  On those assumptions, a fair present price for a single bitcoin would be at least 25k.  Bitcoin appears to be undervalued by a factor on ther order of 100x.

But, humans tend to discount the future rather more aggressively than is rational (Areily), and to discount low probability events rather more aggressively than is rational (Taleb).  So it is not terribly surprising, in that case.

Actually what Taleb says is that risk is near impossible to predict and therefore should be more or less discounted.  Investments should be done via extremes or a "barbell" approach as he calls it, ultra-conservative and ultra-risky.  Bitcoin should fall in the ultra-risky category but make sure you have the other side of the barbell covered too 

[aminorex]

I wrote upthread that if Bitcoin doesn't morph into an offchain currency with all the conveniences provided for the masses, then it appears to be limited to the white male demographic. So that would limit the upside price to much less than the projections of $100,000+. If it morphs, then it can become those other things. Two scenarios.

I like scenario analysis, but rational valuation requires assigning probabilities.  We really should build a graphical model for this, and isolate factors systematically.  But it's a lot of work to do a proper job.  I'm adding it to my todo list. Also a good full-fledged game theoretical model for the players a la de Mesquita would be super useful.  And challenging in itself.  Without that kind of formalization systems this complex tend to get oversimplified, and surprises arise largely as a result.  I know I have made blunders based on a poor understanding of the dominating strategies of the FRB board, for example.

Number of participants and total value transferred are important.

Just want to point that how do we know if that isn't mostly investment flow in and out of speculation on BTC's price?  I don't consider that to be commerce, rather just the BTC speculation bubble itself.

Two points relevant to that issue:  

(1) It doesn't matter, on the naive assumption that the financial and non-financial transaction labels are conditionally independent:  The proportions remaining the same, the same rate of growth applies to each.  If you want to conditionalize, you're going to need more entropy to maximize.

(2) Comparable analyses of fiat currency gross product also include financial flows, which are even more dominant (as witness crumbling velocity of USD).  In general, it's not a problem unless the velocities of the units allocated to the sector labels are widely divergent.  (Another way of expressing at the conditional factor.)

I am very nearly in agreement with your SHTF timing.  I was contemplating ca. 12-2017 for a major fiat crisis.  I understand Armstrong's influence on your thinking leads you to a somewhat earlier, and more geographically incremental advent than I had contemplated.  I've not seen enough justification for Armstrong's material to assign it usable provenance/confidence intervals, so I have been under-motivated to investigate further.  I may need to reassess.

So far it remains relatively trivial to anonymize wealth, if you are aware of a few technical details.  Of course it can be a high-risk activity, so excruciating caution is always warranted. When it becomes technically difficult, it will do so gradually, since there are so many channels that would need to be rendered prohibitively costly to employ.

[aminorex]

humans tend to discount ... low probability events rather more aggressively than is rational (Taleb).  

Actually what Taleb says is that risk is near impossible to predict and therefore should be more or less discounted.  Investments should be done via extremes or a "barbell" approach as he calls it, ultra-conservative and ultra-risky.  Bitcoin should fall in the ultra-risky category but make sure you have the other side of the barbell covered too  

That is another aspect of his theses, yes.  My low-cost hedge for the non-hyperinflationary scenario is long Russell LEAP puts (qua rolling diagonal spreads) until 2024 when the P/Es should bottom out.  It wins unless the numeraire goes into the toilet.  The leverage gained is pretty large if you plan your strikes and rolls competently.

[aminorex]

For something to be a currency then it needs to be accepted by many different types of merchants. A few dozens of merchants targeting us white males who are invested and want to spend using BTC to show support for our investment isn't necessarily going to the critical mass needed.

Do not despise small beginnings.  Exponential growth is generally considered respectable.  Nothing is really competitive with BTC for at least a year or two. You have to play the hand you are dealt, unless you can find a way to change the rules.

Hey I would be all in favor of a crypto-currency even if it had limited adoption. But to have utility to me, I would need to be confident that the government can't just shut it down at-will by regulating the exchanges. Otherwise what is the point?

Hence counterparty, ethereum, nxt, mastercoin, coinjoin, stealth payments, zerocoin.  Web of trust, local exchange, escrowed darknet exchanges are the historical approach, and remain viable.  A diversity of channels is a good thing.  It makes the story less suited to soundbites, but it is a form of defense in depth, with many failover scenarios. 

I have read some comments of yours which infer that you are working on a rigorously anonymous crypto which is strictly cpu-mined and has perhaps other interesting features.  If so, I'm curious how you intend to bootstrap it.  Some chain entanglement with other crypto, perhaps?

You all are rather betting big. You require that Bitcoin changes the world in 2 years. Your extrapolations are that severe.

On the 2016 SHTF schedule, is there any viable alternative to avoid confiscation?  I am skeptical.  It has already changed the world dramatically.  It hasn't changed any important macro forces yet, but the mere awareness of the technology is having subtle and pervasive effects.  It has changed the worlds of many individuals quite dramatically.  That impact will continue to radiate and infect.  What do you consider the requirements of usefulness? 

[aminorex]

Excuse my prose I haven't slept and am delirious .

You should be informed that there is a substantial body of evidence that inadequate sleep can result in permanent brain damage.

[AnonyMint]

I better sleep, I can't even read as I am slipping in and out of coherence.

To simplify...


I agree on potential of the crypto-currency ecosystem and I wrote recently I am grateful Bitcoin provided this large ecosystem. To bootstrap you produce something that people will virally clamor for.

I don't disagree with BTC as an investment for over "next year". I believe there is very good chance of Bitcoin going to $10,000. My concern is after that.

Bitcoin serves no need for the masses. What does it improve for them? Nothing.

Bitcoin is for us because we think it will end the corruption of fiat. But the reality is Bitcoin (itself, not the potential of the ecosystem) is already failing to do that, as it is highly centralized.

How is it easy to anonymize wealth? Please tell me so I can protect myself. I really want to hear this, because I thought I knew everything about this.

I have a post in the Dark Enlightenment thread where I listed Armstrong's record on predictions. It is quite amazing. He predicted the 87' crash to the day. He predicted 9/11. He predicted the recent fall in gold. Etc.. Any way, he hasn't said 2016 will be the most chaotic year. His model says Sept 2015 is when the USA peaks on this current bounce.

What if counter parties default on the LEAPs.

There won't be any hyperinflation. Zero chance. Never happened in the history of the world that the reserve currency hyperinflated. Rome had a brief hyperinflation of silver which is just a blip on the 500 year chart. Rome fell into deflation.

Agreed nothing will stop the coming confiscations. Doesn't that mean we really need anonymous money?

My brain is probably already severely damaged from neuropathy, lack of sleep, etc.. Thanks for the concern.

[AnonyMint]

Peter R no offense please, but I think this post is illogical, but I can't articulate until after I get some sleep.

I will make what I consider to be pessimistic assumptions:  (1) No growth in GDP globally, ever.  (2) 5% chance of bitcoin evolving to replace fiat currency and gold.  (3) 20 year horizon for the replacement.  (4) 8% discounting rate, 5.5% USD inflation.  In that case there is a 5% chance that the net present value of a bitcoin spent 20 years from today is some number north of 500k.  On those assumptions, a fair present price for a single bitcoin would be at least 25k.  Bitcoin appears to be undervalued by a factor on ther order of 100x.

Since bitcoin is undervalued (for the reasons you point out), its price and user-base will continue to grow.  The probability that it succeeds increases with a growing user-base (all other variables held constant) such that your net present-value calculation remains greater than its present trading value.  The dynamics of bitcoin growth represent an unstable feedback system with only two equilibrium points: becoming the dominant global currency, becoming nothing at all.  

The only way I can imagine the bitcoin network would stop growing (over the long term) would be for it to become no longer useful.  It would be no longer useful if secp256k1/sha256 was quickly broken, if the network was constantly under relentless 51% and Sybil attacks, if efficient and coordinated government action made it extremely onerous to use, or if a much better idea came around.    

i also think you can wait quite a long time before the entire monetary system collapses and get replaced by anything. banksters and politics just wont let that happen. And if it happens, i'd be far less worry about BTC because of the chaos and madness it should generate.

I disagree.  

I think we could transition from fiat to bitcoin reasonably peacefully and quickly.  The important thing is that bitcoin can still facilitate the global trade required to provide a constant flow of goods and energy into the major cities (unlike a sudden transition to a gold standard).  As long as global trade doesn't quickly break down, reasonable social order will be maintained.  

Most people will benefit from the "collapse" and will work to make it happen.

1.  The Average Joe will win.  He will be jealous of his friend who had the foresight to purchase coins at $10,000 / BTC, but he will see that a transition to bitcoin represents a jubilee for his unmanageable debt load.

2.  The already rich will win.  They will retain ownership of the productive capital they already control.  The will also read the writing on the wall before average Joe and possibly amplify their financial assets too.  

3.  The already politically-powerful will win.  Why fight to destroy bitcoin when you can stealthily work to make it grow and increase your independent power and wealth?

4.  Established institutions like the IRS, Fed, NSA, IMF will lose.  However, many of the talented individuals currently working in such institutions will win by hastening their demise and exploiting their insider knowledge.  

5.  People reliant on government entitlement spending for lavish pensions will lose, but hopefully their kids were bitcoiners!

A few billionaires will be demoted to 100 millionaires, and a few (some from the forum no doubt) will take their place.  But otherwise, the social mobility will be a lot less than what people imagine.  

It's only money after all.  

[Peter R]

Peter R no offense please, but I think this post is illogical, but I can't articulate until after I get some sleep.

Here's my take AnonyMint:

We both think cryptocurrency is here to stay, for when has a useful technology ever been abandoned?  

We both agree that there are two "end states" for government in a high-technology word:

(1) a totalitarian one-world government with vast surveillance infrastructure and abusive control;

(2) a highly-decentralized world with small local self-governed communities interacting freely with other communities.  

You think (1) is more likely while I think (2) is.  AnonyMint, we are witnessing the beginnings of a social movement to break free from oppressive bureaucracy, regulation, and invasion of privacy.  We are choosing to "opt-out," we are choosing to decentralize. 

[creekbore]

We both think cryptocurrency is here to stay, for when has a useful technology ever been abandoned? 

We both agree that there are two "end states" for government in a high-technology word:

(1) a totalitarian one-world government with vast surveillance infrastructure and abusive control;

(2) a highly-decentralized world with small local self-governed communities interacting freely with other communities. 

You think (1) is more likely while I think (2) is.  AnonyMint, we are witnessing the beginnings of a social movement to break free from oppressive bureaucracy, regulation, and invasion of privacy.  We are choosing to "opt-out," we are choosing to decentralize.     

Except people are choosing to 'opt-in' -- they are embracing social media, posting details about themselves that would have been considered a totalitarian nightmare 20 years ago, willingly carrying what amounts to a personal tracking device with them everywhere they go (and paying for the service and hardware upgrades), nationalism is rising, defence spending rises as healthcare systems are allowed to fail...the list goes on.

Most of the believers in scenario (2) are from the demographic who will rule in scenario (1) -- that dream (2) is their panacea while (1) comes to pass.

[Peter R]

Which would you prefer, Creekbore?  #1 or #2. 

[creekbore]

Which would you prefer, Creekbore?  #1 or #2.  

My preference is (sadly) irrelevant.
But for arguments sake #2 is clearly a utopian dream, #1 a rapidly coalescing nightmare.

Hopefully, I'll be plant food before #1 comes to pass.