A Possible BTC Future by Gavin Andresen

[Fundamentals Of]

Has anybody read this article?

Just lately, Gavin Andresen, the person to whom Satoshi entrusted Bitcoin before he left, wrote an article about the future of Bitcoin. Gavin published it on his website, gavinandresen.ninja, around a week ago.

In the article, he predicted that the network will come to an end in 2061. But not before the price would reach as high as $6,000,000.

Do you think this is possible?

http://gavinandresen.ninja/a-possible-btc-future

[Charles-Tim]

Do you think this is possible?

No, yet the strongest blockchain is bitcoin blockchain. The mining reward has been reducing every 210000 blocks mined, right from 50BTC, now at 6.25 BTC, but the blockchain mining hashrates has been increasing. This is as a result of increase bitcoin adoption which makes its price increase and making miners still making profit just like before. I am wondering it is predicted that bitcoin price by 2061 could be $6 million, if bitcoin price increase to such extent, or if the price of bitcoin continues to increase, we have nothing to worry about, even their will be a time miners will be satisfied with only the transaction fee.

Also I am wondering why that site is not having SSL/TSL certificate.

[Fundamentals Of]

Do you think this is possible?

No, yet the strongest blockchain is bitcoin blockchain. The mining reward has been reducing every 210000 blocks mined, right from 50BTC, now at 6.25 BTC, but the blockchain mining hashrates has been increasing. This is as a result of increase bitcoin adoption which makes its price increase and making miners still making profit just like before. I am wondering it is predicted that bitcoin price by 2061 could be $6 million, if bitcoin price increase to such extent, or if the price of bitcoin continues to increase, we have nothing to worry about, even their will be a time miners will be satisfied with only the transaction fee.

The article predicts that time will come Bitcoin transactions are mostly done outside the Bitcoin network for reasons such as "faster transactions, lower fees, more privacy, or want to invest their BTC in decentralized financial stuff." This early, we are already using wrapped versions of Bitcoin and also the Lightning Network. Both of these technologies could dominate in the future. So despite adoption, the article says there will come a time when the network will only have very few transactions that they will finally decide to shut down. 

Also I am wondering why that site is not having SSL/TSL certificate.

I also do. The site is a little unsecure.

[Charles-Tim]

---snipped---

Do not always believe in what you read. About lightning network, even opening and closing of channel required on-chain transaction fee which is paid to miners, which means without the on-chain, lightning network was designed not to be possible.

If you check the exchanges addresses, institutional whales addresses and other whales addresses and most other bitcoin users addresses, they basically make use of the blockchain for bitcoin transaction as most people are making use of the bitcoin blockchain addresses, only few are making use of the others which you are talking about, you can make use of Coinmarketcap to check the marketcap of individual, the number 1 which represents bitcoin blockchain is having the largest marketcap even larger two times more and more than the whole ethereum and ethereum tokens marketcap, while the one you are talking about (DeFi like wrappedBTC and BEP2 and others) just make a very small portion of bitcoin marketcap.

There is nothing indicating that would be true, make your own research.

[d5000]

In the article, he predicted that the network will come to an end in 2061. But not before the price would reach as high as $6,000,000.

Small correction: I read that in 2061 the price will reach 6 million, and in 2100 the whales will shut the network down.

Do you think this is possible?

Possible, yes. Likely, no.

First I don't think Bitcoin will ever reach a value of more than a million. My personal prediction would be between 0,5 and two times the current Gold market cap, i.e. prices of 250000 to 800-900000. A million would surprise me, even if it doesn't seem far away. (But definitively it can go higher than now.) The reason is for me that this would only happen in two cases:

1) Bitcoin becomes the "one and only" world currency. (Won't happen for me. Traditional fiat has advantages, and altcoins will always exist, even if they aren't likely to challenge Bitcoin's leadership.)
2) Bitcoin doesn't become the "one and only" world currency, but "absorbs" capital from other markets. This can in my opinion only happen temporarily (because otherwise, "real world" assets would become undervalued), and won't be enough for $6M.

A consequence is that transaction fees on the main chain won't exceed "a couple of hundred USD", maybe 1000 in extreme cases. In the case of a $250K-1M Bitcoin most of the time they will be between $10 and $200 - thus not that much higher than at the end of 2017 (but definitively too high for a coffee, so LN will thrive).

Second, the scenario of sidechains, "wrapped" Bitcoins and Lightning as the places where the value transactions are taking place mostly is definitively one I have in mind too. But if the tx fees stay acceptable like I estimated above, it will be always interesting to transact on the main chain, as all other cases have security trade-offs.

Now let's speculate if the main network shuts down, what will give Bitcoin its value then? My estimation is that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to ensure a "peg" between the different Bitcoin chains.

These chains will likely have some differences with respect to security, decentralization and functions, and so there will be a lot of speculation against the peg. First that could be slight fluctuations, but eventually I guess there will be a successful attack on the peg of one of the chains or "wrapped tokens", and then the whole rest of the system will slowly implode, because the "reference chain" isn't there anymore (no 2-way peg is possible).


PS: If the "mainchainless" scenario was possible, this would mean that one-way pegs would work, and we could solve all scalability problems instantly starting lots of chains with Counterparty (XCP)-like, Proof-of-Burn-backed bitcoin tokens. But you can already see, observing the price of Counterparty, that the scenario doesn't work that well - otherwise the XCP/BTC price should be stable.

[OgNasty]

I read the article when it came out. I think Gavin Andresen is a really intelligent person and his thoughts would be wise to be taken into account. His value to the Bitcoin project in it’s early days can’t be overstated and I think his vision makes a lot of sense. Without some massive changes to how Bitcoin works, this may be the best case scenario.

[Lucius]

Has anybody read this article?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5362752.0

Already posted 3 days ago, it's hard not to notice considering where it is.


I’m not against science fiction, I actually like to watch a good movie or series of that type - but GA long ago spent its credits with the crypto community to now sell us some fairy tales about what will be in 40 or 80 years. In addition, GA believes that CW (Faketoshi) is the real Satoshi Nakamoto - which means they are both the same, traitors from the beginning.

"I’m still convinced he’s Satoshi despite the really weird proof he’s put in his blog post," says Andresen. He stands by a statement he published on his website this morning: "I believe Craig Steven Wright is the person who invented Bitcoin."

[Wind_FURY]

I read the article when it came out. I think Gavin Andresen is a really intelligent person and his thoughts would be wise to be taken into account. His value to the Bitcoin project in it’s early days can’t be overstated and I think his vision makes a lot of sense. Without some massive changes to how Bitcoin works, this may be the best case scenario.

With all due respect,ser, that’s very debatable. He gave Craig Wright the fame, and the attention he needed because Gavin, an ex-Core Developer, said Craig was Satoshi Nakamoto. One of the reasons? Because in their chats/emails he said “he felt he was talking to Satoshi”.

[NeuroticFish]

He gave Craig Wright the fame

1. This topic is also discussed in Gavin Andresen prediction for Bitcoin in 2061
2. Imho one idea would be that CSW has rejected him lately, hence he's trying something "shocking" in order to draw attention (and maybe new friends too).

[Ararbermas]

Has anybody read this article?

Just lately, Gavin Andresen, the person to whom Satoshi entrusted Bitcoin before he left, wrote an article about the future of Bitcoin. Gavin published it on his website, gavinandresen.ninja, around a week ago.

In the article, he predicted that the network will come to an end in 2061. But not before the price would reach as high as $6,000,000.

Do you think this is possible?

http://gavinandresen.ninja/a-possible-btc-future

for me in my personal opinion the blockchain is now very different compared before wherein seems don't have strong support and quite skeptical because of some factors.. but now there's a big changes and  probably we all knows about that because its getting more stronger every time when there's an adaption and something good that can that can give an impact in the space.  So probably it's impossible to happen on this situation. . Indeed its just a prediction so probably its nothing. I mean to see is to believe.. Lol

[sujonali1819]

Nice article. A lot of thinks are coming to my mind after reading this article. I don't know ever this will reach 1 million or 5 millions. But BTC will rise some more X from now. Lets think about some more x from now About $200k. Then how much will be the bitcoin fees? To be honest when BTC start to pump are not usable for transaction due to high transaction fees. So I think sooner or later there will be time when people will afraid about the fees and there is a possibility of coming the situation what was said in the article.

[el kaka22]

To think that network of bitcoin would be down because of the high fees is just taking all the possible improvements on bitcoin blockchain out of conversation. That is not logical if you ask me, I like gain a lot and he is a great bitcoin maximalist and I think he would definitely be someone I would love to see defend bitcoin against politicians and corporations because he understand what it was made for and not how it is used right now.

However that just doesn't make sense to me that bitcoin blockchain would stay like this and would never improve. That is just illogical, even right now people are working on lightning network and I have no idea why it is not used right now and why it is not ready and globally adopted, but at least someone is working on it. Which means that it is possible that we would see transactions cheaper and faster eventually.

[thecodebear]

I think Gavin lost his way. Despite taking over as lead developer of Bitcoin from Satoshi, Gavin later abandoned Bitcoin and supported a fraudster (CSW). I give all due credit to Gavin in his work on Bitcoin in the early years, but considering he abandoned Bitcoin and became a fraud-and-shitcoin supporter I don't think his distant future take on Bitcoin is very relevant.

I mean his whole idea is based around nobody using the blockchain anymore, and instead using off-chain transactions. Yes most transactions will be off-chain, that's how Bitcoin scales to global usage. We are already seeing Lightning scaling Bitcoin even though it is still early days for Lightning with much work needed on it. So obviously in the future 2nd layer and third party platform txs will account for most of the Bitcoin transactions. But in no way does that means blocks won't be full.

Blocks will ALWAYS be full. If blocks were empty it'd be nearly free to transact on-chain again, which means blocks would go from empty to full very quickly as people would take advantage of super cheap on-chain fees. That's the balancing the fee market creates. If blocks ever start to not be full then on-chain txs get super cheap so more people use them so blocks stay full and never empty out. There is no reason why this wouldn't be the case just because off-chain txs allow all sorts of other use cases for cheap transactions.

Basically, people will use LN or other platforms like Paypal for everyday payments, like a checking account. These are all off-chain. But people will occasionally interact between the blockchain and these networks, which uses on-chain txs. Plus, anyone who has significant amounts of Bitcoin in savings will be keeping that secure in cold storage. Occasionally that money will get moved around though for whatever reasons. When there are billions of people and tens of thousands of companies, institutions, and nations using Bitcoin, occasionally they will want to move that money around. This will easily keep blocks full. I just hope that in the distant future on-chain fees can be held to the double digits through continued efficiency tech upgrades to the bitcoin protocol so that we don't end up one day with like a $200 fee for transacting on-chain.



Even though he is off-base here, what this viewpoint says to me is that Bitcoin was undeniably right in choosing small blocks and efficient networks built on top of Bitcoin over giant blocks that would centralize bitcoin and make it insecure. The second lead dev of Bitcoin thinks Bitcoin's model is so efficient that the small Bitcoin blocks won't even be full in the future haha! Makes the big-block altcoins that still have "bitcoin" names attached to them seem even more silly than they already do.

[Hippocrypto]

Has anybody read this article?

Just lately, Gavin Andresen, the person to whom Satoshi entrusted Bitcoin before he left, wrote an article about the future of Bitcoin. Gavin published it on his website, gavinandresen.ninja, around a week ago.

In the article, he predicted that the network will come to an end in 2061. But not before the price would reach as high as $6,000,000.

Do you think this is possible?

http://gavinandresen.ninja/a-possible-btc-future

There's nothing impossible for bitcoin, but I can't really believe we're going to reach that very top value. We're still struggling to reach $100k by now how much more with that raging millions of btc. Let's just be realistic, cryptocurrency is a growing world of digital money as well as cashless identity and nowadays it has been so popular, so there's no possiblity for Blockchain network to end because internet era continues to evolve.

[stomachgrowls]

I read the article when it came out. I think Gavin Andresen is a really intelligent person and his thoughts would be wise to be taken into account. His value to the Bitcoin project in it’s early days can’t be overstated and I think his vision makes a lot of sense. Without some massive changes to how Bitcoin works, this may be the best case scenario.

Some people might really say that this is exaggerated but only into those people who doesnt know Gavin Andresen.Yes, theres no certain thing or guarantees about on what are the things that would happen in the future and even he's into the project into those early days but demand is something that cant be predicted which do simply means that 6m on year 2061 and would really be ending up
on that year then it will be always unknown.

Yes, i do agree that this vision makes a lot sense compared into those who do guess up on 1M price for this year.You could really have different impressions
which i cant really blame off people to have this opinion on.

[Lucius]

I think Gavin lost his way. Despite taking over as lead developer of Bitcoin from Satoshi, Gavin later abandoned Bitcoin and supported a fraudster (CSW). I give all due credit to Gavin in his work on Bitcoin in the early years, but considering he abandoned Bitcoin and became a fraud-and-shitcoin supporter I don't think his distant future take on Bitcoin is very relevant.

He was, at least from what I read, one of the biggest mistakes Satoshi made when choosing his associates - and I don't just mean what happened after 2016 when he supported Faketoshi, but from the very beginning when he was persistent to find out who Satoshi really was, not to mention his connections to intelligence agencies, for which he later himself admitted that it may have been the reason that frightened Satoshi.

When you think about it, what kind of genius do you have to be to claim that CW Faketoshi and Satoshi Nakamoto are the same person, especially from the position of someone who was so close to him? These are two diametrically opposed characters who have nothing in common, a genius mind who left the world something big completely free, as opposed to a greedy liar who wants to profit by destroying it.

[Wind_FURY]

I think Gavin lost his way. Despite taking over as lead developer of Bitcoin from Satoshi, Gavin later abandoned Bitcoin and supported a fraudster (CSW). I give all due credit to Gavin in his work on Bitcoin in the early years, but considering he abandoned Bitcoin and became a fraud-and-shitcoin supporter I don't think his distant future take on Bitcoin is very relevant.

Roger Ver too did support that Craig Wright “is Satoshi”. Then forked his forked-shitcoin to Bcash SV. Currently a minority in the community are left HODLing shitcoins they believe to be “the real Bitcoin”, and shilling them to newbies.

[eaLiTy]

Just lately, Gavin Andresen, the person to whom Satoshi entrusted Bitcoin before he left, wrote an article about the future of Bitcoin. Gavin published it on his website, gavinandresen.ninja, around a week ago.

In the article, he predicted that the network will come to an end in 2061. But not before the price would reach as high as $6,000,000.
Do you think this is possible?

That is not a prediction, he is just trolling the way in which BTCitcoin is moving and have you read the entire article . My criticism is that he could not predict what would happen to the cryptocurrency market in a short period of time and you think he really predicted what will happen 40 years later  . I am not sure what he is doing now a days but he is writing articles and having a bit of fun.

[Johnyz]

I think Gavin lost his way. Despite taking over as lead developer of Bitcoin from Satoshi, Gavin later abandoned Bitcoin and supported a fraudster (CSW). I give all due credit to Gavin in his work on Bitcoin in the early years, but considering he abandoned Bitcoin and became a fraud-and-shitcoin supporter I don't think his distant future take on Bitcoin is very relevant.

Roger Ver too did support that Craig Wright “is Satoshi”. Then forked his forked-shitcoin to Bcash SV. Currently a minority in the community are left HODLing shitcoins they believe to be “the real Bitcoin”, and shilling them to newbies.

They are just taking advantage of the market and pretending to be someone that they are not just to attract investors. After Gavin spread news about the shitcoin and even supported it, I don’t believe on this guy anymore and seriously everything is possible since we are talking about the situations 40 years from now.

[rhomelmabini]

Has anybody read this article?

Just lately, Gavin Andresen, the person to whom Satoshi entrusted Bitcoin before he left, wrote an article about the future of Bitcoin. Gavin published it on his website, gavinandresen.ninja, around a week ago.

In the article, he predicted that the network will come to an end in 2061. But not before the price would reach as high as $6,000,000.

Do you think this is possible?

http://gavinandresen.ninja/a-possible-btc-future

That's a bold statement becoming from one of the contributor on the early days of Bitcoin and I guess even up this day he still continue on the development of it. That's a whopping speculation was just out of the chart but more likely a possibility but not expecting it will be that high or if we ever reached a million but fingers crossed, I wonder on how much we flipped the market cap of every assets, this could be the huge upset to the critics.