Bitcoin vs. Altcoins – projected Marketcap

[Darker45]

Isn't a fork some sort of "inflation" as well?

Technically no. Imagine you want to purchase something from a vendor that accepts bitcoin payments. You have no way of paying them using bsv simply because bsv is not bitcoin, ergo creating the copy did not cause inflation. They are just cheap useless ripoffs.

Technically, it's not affecting Bitcoin because it's a different coin.
So indeed, the bold part is important, leading us to:

That's why a Shitfork can't be scarce in my opinion. It's just a copy from the original. Only the Original can be scarce.

I don't seem to see the logic. In this case, being a copy or original doesn't have anything to do with scarcity. A copy could be as scarce as the original as the case of BCH and BSV shows. They all have 21 million in total supply. Please note that I'm just referring to the supply here, not their respective demand.

But this so because these coins we call copies aren't really literal copies. They're not literally counterfeit. They're different coins, as you've pointed out, hence BCH and BSV and not anymore BTC.

So, strictly speaking, they aren't inflation. We could have a million forks of BTC which are as scarce as BTC but they're not BTC anymore.

[1715402375]

1715402375

[1715402375]

1715402375

[1715402375]

1715402375

[philipma1957]

Dudes and dudettes.

Not one word about Pow vs pos.

shameful.

all pos = piece of shit.

some pow may be good.

if you don’t believe this you are missing the entire basis of why btc was made pow.

hint pow can be decentralized and trustless.

pos can not be decentralized and trustless.

as to future value of btc because it shrinks maybe it works.

but look at doge in 2113

it is 100 years old.

and x coins were printed each and every years.

so 100 x coins
next year

101x which is a mere 1% inflation rate.  so there will always be an identical reward every year that does not vanish

but inflation  rate shrinks every year.

and btc in 2100 reward will almost have vanished with all the ½ ings

2024  = 3.125
2028 = 1.5625
2032 = 0.78125
2036 = 0.390625
2040 = 0.1953125
2044 = 0.09765625
2048 = 0.048828125
2052 = 0.0244140625. if it cost 20000 to mine a btc we need 819000 price  btc
2056 = 0.0122070313
2060 = 0.00610351565
2064 = 0.00305175783
2068 = 0.00152587892
2072 = 0.00076293946
2076 = 0.00038146973
2080 = 0.000190734865
2084 = 0.0000953674325
2088 = 0.0000476837163
2092 = 0.0000238418581
2096 = 0.000011920929
2100 = 0.0000059604645

when you see these numbers btc may be in very serious trouble unless LN works and feeds enough fees back to the main chain.

no mining = no security or low security.

look at btc and the 2100 lookout vs doge and the 2100 look out.

87x mintings by 2100 then 88x mintings seems to me that doges 2100 outlook is more stable and predictable than btcs 2100 outlook.

[pooya87]

when you see these numbers btc may be in very serious trouble unless LN works and feeds enough fees back to the main chain.

no mining = no security or low security.

People say this in every cycle and they even named it "downward spiral" at some point claiming that because the reward was cut half from 50 to 25 then bitcoin must die because miners no longer make any profit. Today the reward is 6.25 and miners are still making a lot of profit and the hashrate is unbelievably high compared to when they were making 8 times more bitcoins for each block.

[tranthidung]

...

If anyone want to have more information, check Controlled supply and How is the 21 Million Bitcoin Cap Defined and Enforced?

People say this in every cycle and they even named it "downward spiral" at some point claiming that because the reward was cut half from 50 to 25 then bitcoin must die because miners no longer make any profit. Today the reward is 6.25 and miners are still making a lot of profit and the hashrate is unbelievably high compared to when they were making 8 times more bitcoins for each block.

The question was answered by satoshi years ago. satoshi predicted that there are two possible scenarios for Bitcoin and it seems we have a positive one because the Bitcoin network has become bigger (in total hashrate) and more decentralized (after the Great Hash Migration from China) as well as it has gotten more adoption (more use cases and higher trading volume).

Right.  Otherwise we couldn't have a finite limit of 21 million coins, because there would always need to be some minimum reward for generating.  In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for nodes.  I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Yearly inflation is the most important part from damaging inflation. The more inflation, the more dangerous. That's what I've explained above.

I meant inflation in general, not currency inflation schedule.

Of course, governance could change metrics like inflation if things are getting bad but there's no guarantee for that.

If there's no guarantee for that, at the same time there's guarantee that bitcoin won't change monetary policy, then it is a flawed comparison.

But instead it's even worse to rely on a few guys "managing" the Altcoins and especially in PoS coins, developers are owners of a large chunk of the premined coins as a "foundation" and it's giving them much power.

Great, so moral of the story: don't use altcoins.

People say this in every cycle and they even named it "downward spiral" at some point claiming that because the reward was cut half from 50 to 25 then bitcoin must die because miners no longer make any profit. Today the reward is 6.25 and miners are still making a lot of profit and the hashrate is unbelievably high compared to when they were making 8 times more bitcoins for each block.

Which doesn't necessarily mean it'll continue ad infinitum. It's more complicated than it seems, linking to: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5405755.0

[philipma1957]

Yearly inflation is the most important part from damaging inflation. The more inflation, the more dangerous. That's what I've explained above.

I meant inflation in general, not currency inflation schedule.

Of course, governance could change metrics like inflation if things are getting bad but there's no guarantee for that.

If there's no guarantee for that, at the same time there's guarantee that bitcoin won't change monetary policy, then it is a flawed comparison.

But instead it's even worse to rely on a few guys "managing" the Altcoins and especially in PoS coins, developers are owners of a large chunk of the premined coins as a "foundation" and it's giving them much power.

Great, so moral of the story: don't use altcoins.

People say this in every cycle and they even named it "downward spiral" at some point claiming that because the reward was cut half from 50 to 25 then bitcoin must die because miners no longer make any profit. Today the reward is 6.25 and miners are still making a lot of profit and the hashrate is unbelievably high compared to when they were making 8 times more bitcoins for each block.

Which doesn't necessarily mean it'll continue ad infinitum. It's more complicated than it seems, linking to: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5405755.0

None of us will understand what the ½ ing will do by 2052 until we make it to 2052.

but in order for mining to work in 2052 we need 819,000 a btc price unless we can figure out how to balance LN fees and standard block fees.

If we move towards LN fees staying with LN and not going somewhat towards standard block fees we push BTC closer and closer to POS

as it is BTC is now a POW / POS hybrid since LN has pulled some small change fees away from the miners.

[cryptosize]

Yearly inflation is the most important part from damaging inflation. The more inflation, the more dangerous. That's what I've explained above.

I meant inflation in general, not currency inflation schedule.

Of course, governance could change metrics like inflation if things are getting bad but there's no guarantee for that.

If there's no guarantee for that, at the same time there's guarantee that bitcoin won't change monetary policy, then it is a flawed comparison.

But instead it's even worse to rely on a few guys "managing" the Altcoins and especially in PoS coins, developers are owners of a large chunk of the premined coins as a "foundation" and it's giving them much power.

Great, so moral of the story: don't use altcoins.

People say this in every cycle and they even named it "downward spiral" at some point claiming that because the reward was cut half from 50 to 25 then bitcoin must die because miners no longer make any profit. Today the reward is 6.25 and miners are still making a lot of profit and the hashrate is unbelievably high compared to when they were making 8 times more bitcoins for each block.

Which doesn't necessarily mean it'll continue ad infinitum. It's more complicated than it seems, linking to: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5405755.0

None of us will understand what the ½ ing will do by 2052 until we make it to 2052.

but in order for mining to work in 2052 we need 819,000 a btc price unless we can figure out how to balance LN fees and standard block fees.

If we move towards LN fees staying with LN and not going somewhat towards standard block fees we push BTC closer and closer to POS

as it is BTC is now a POW / POS hybrid since LN has pulled some small change fees away from the miners.

819k USD by 2052 seems easy-peasy. We will hit 7 digits later this decade.

The dollar won't even exist by then though...

[BlackHatCoiner]

None of us will understand what the ½ ing will do by 2052 until we make it to 2052.

It most likely won't do much, because the system must already be dependent on transaction fees by 2052.

If we move towards LN fees staying with LN and not going somewhat towards standard block fees we push BTC closer and closer to POS

Not at all. Proof-of-Work is a necessity for lightning to work. On-chain activity is also necessary, otherwise people will just utilize it due to empty mempools. For lightning to have effect, there have to be lots of on-chain transactions.

as it is BTC is now a POW / POS hybrid since LN has pulled some small change fees away from the miners

But over all, if you zoom out, you can see that it does benefit miners, because it benefits the users, and therefore the miners due to rise in demand.

[pooya87]

as it is BTC is now a POW / POS hybrid since LN has pulled some small change fees away from the miners.

Not really!
In PoS you are generally receiving a "reward" for having a balance that is printed out of thin air. In LN you receive a fee for processing the transaction that is paid by the sender not out of thin air. Not to mention that the amount of fees are too small that it is negligible.

[1miau]

Isn't a fork some sort of "inflation" as well?

Technically no. Imagine you want to purchase something from a vendor that accepts bitcoin payments. You have no way of paying them using bsv simply because bsv is not bitcoin, ergo creating the copy did not cause inflation. They are just cheap useless ripoffs.

Technically, it's not affecting Bitcoin because it's a different coin.
So indeed, the bold part is important, leading us to:

That's why a Shitfork can't be scarce in my opinion. It's just a copy from the original. Only the Original can be scarce.

I don't seem to see the logic. In this case, being a copy or original doesn't have anything to do with scarcity. A copy could be as scarce as the original as the case of BCH and BSV shows. They all have 21 million in total supply. Please note that I'm just referring to the supply here, not their respective demand.

You are right that such fork coins are from a numeric perspective scarce, only 21M BCH, only 21M BSV, so technically scarce.
But all of them pretend to be BTC and there are several ones pretending that. It's up to the people to decide which one is real Bitcoin and people have decided to go for BTC - currently all Bitcoin Shitforks are below 1% of Bitcoin's market cap. 
= The Shitfork "inflation", as forks are done from time to time, doesn't affect Bitcoin.

But this so because these coins we call copies aren't really literal copies. They're not literally counterfeit. They're different coins, as you've pointed out, hence BCH and BSV and not anymore BTC.

Yes, BCH and BSV are different coins but Faketoshi launched it as forged copy.

So, strictly speaking, they aren't inflation. We could have a million forks of BTC which are as scarce as BTC but they're not BTC anymore.

The problem is when they wrongly pretend to be BTC.
But luckily, people will reject such Fork-Altcoins as cheap Shitcoins. 

Dudes and dudettes.

Not one word about Pow vs pos.

shameful.

all pos = piece of shit.

I'm not a friend of PoS as well and I agree that PoS has many flaws.
But we haven't discussed PoS here so far because my topic is just about marketcap and inflation (where Polkadot, a PoS coins, is also showing weakness).

Discussing dangers of PoS might be interesting, too. 

819k USD by 2052 seems easy-peasy.

Well, if 819k USD will only buy you a hand sanitizer in 2052 and 1 BTC will be 819k USD, too, then it would be an issue. 

[philipma1957]

Isn't a fork some sort of "inflation" as well?

Technically no. Imagine you want to purchase something from a vendor that accepts bitcoin payments. You have no way of paying them using bsv simply because bsv is not bitcoin, ergo creating the copy did not cause inflation. They are just cheap useless ripoffs.

Technically, it's not affecting Bitcoin because it's a different coin.
So indeed, the bold part is important, leading us to:

That's why a Shitfork can't be scarce in my opinion. It's just a copy from the original. Only the Original can be scarce.

I don't seem to see the logic. In this case, being a copy or original doesn't have anything to do with scarcity. A copy could be as scarce as the original as the case of BCH and BSV shows. They all have 21 million in total supply. Please note that I'm just referring to the supply here, not their respective demand.

You are right that such fork coins are from a numeric perspective scarce, only 21M BCH, only 21M BSV, so technically scarce.
But all of them pretend to be BTC and there are several ones pretending that. It's up to the people to decide which one is real Bitcoin and people have decided to go for BTC - currently all Bitcoin Shitforks are below 1% of Bitcoin's market cap. 
= The Shitfork "inflation", as forks are done from time to time, doesn't affect Bitcoin.

But this so because these coins we call copies aren't really literal copies. They're not literally counterfeit. They're different coins, as you've pointed out, hence BCH and BSV and not anymore BTC.

Yes, BCH and BSV are different coins but Faketoshi launched it as forged copy.

So, strictly speaking, they aren't inflation. We could have a million forks of BTC which are as scarce as BTC but they're not BTC anymore.

The problem is when they wrongly pretend to be BTC.
But luckily, people will reject such Fork-Altcoins as cheap Shitcoins. 

Dudes and dudettes.

Not one word about Pow vs pos.

shameful.

all pos = piece of shit.

I'm not a friend of PoS as well and I agree that PoS has many flaws.
But we haven't discussed PoS here so far because my topic is just about marketcap and inflation (where Polkadot, a PoS coins, is also showing weakness).

Discussing dangers of PoS might be interesting, too. 

819k USD by 2052 seems easy-peasy.

Well, if 819k USD will only buy you a hand sanitizer in 2052 and 1 BTC will be 819k USD, too, then it would be an issue. 

Well inflation from 2022 to 2052 in the USA if it is 5%

a 1 dollar bottle of hand sanitizer will become $4.32

So Ath of 69 k would need be $298k

 So to me 819k would work nicely if we get there.

[Hamza2424]

I doubt you can get an even slight picture of a centralized-governed cryptocurrency in 25 years from now. Especially with a history full of centralized-governed cryptocurrencies that reached the bottom after a few hyped years, which brings me to my point again: a hyped, recently appreciated cryptocurrency doesn't mean it'll keep it going in the long run.

Hmm, Senior is it mean that only a decentralized cryptocurrency can survive in the long run? I'm sure only decentralization also cant help in a long journey, what's the offer in it matters (Narrative)  I do agree that recently appreciated cryptocurrency doesn't mean it'll keep gaining, Shitcoins can be used for a better explanation but I don't think this is what we are discussing.

In the Altcoin space, the Bubble theory works, I can still mention a couple of projects that are centralized and they're still surviving, I can be sure about their progress but at least they are surviving, as NEO, EOS, BNB can be one of them but with Binance, I can they'll maybe one of those proving this that even a centralized-governed crypto-currency can be progressive.

[Dzwaafu11]

From a speculative point of view, it is essential to understand how to review market capitalisations of cryptocurrencies. Because current market capitalisations will only partially reflect if a cryptocurrency is suitable as a good store of value long term.  
Current market capitalisations are very deceptive, especially for Shitcoins – caution!


Current market capitalization vs. projected market capitalization


When considering market capitalisation, a distinction should be made between current market capitalisation and projected market capitalization.


Current market capitalisation only includes all coins having so far entered the circulating supply. Potential inflation by additionally issued coins is not taken into consideration here.


Very important to know:

• Circulating supply:
  Current circulating supply (also including inaccessible coins, such as from lost private keys, etc.).
• Total supply:
  Current number of all existing coins, including coins which are currently already existing but still blocked by coin developers (e.g. at XRP) or coins which are not yet mined. Burnt coins are not part of it, as such coins do not exist (anymore).
• Max(imum) supply:
  The definitive (coded) maximum number of coins which can ever exist. For some coins, total supply and maximum supply are identical.
• Infinite supply:
  Some coins don’t have a caped supply at all and there will be issued more coins constantly.
  For such coins, we need to look up properly how many of them will be in circulation at some point of time because such coins are at risk of MASSIVE INFLATION.  
  

Keep in mind when a circulating market capitalisation is given because it’s very deceptive, as it only depicts a temporary state of coins in circulation and possibly many new coins will come inti existence later.


It is more reliable to consider an adjusted market capitalisation, where we will always choose a time in the future and look what a specified circulating supply and the resulting market capitalisation will look like.

= > Adjusted market capitalization = choosing a time in the future (for example 2050) and comparing how the projected circulating supply and the resulting market capitalisation will look like between two or more coins.



Example Bitcoin:

For example, it is known that Bitcoin will have approximately 20,980,000 Bitcoin in circulation in 2050, which at current prices of $20,000 would result in an adjusted market capitalisation of approximately $420,000,000,000. Compared to the current situation of a market capitalisation of approx. 382,800,000,000 USD (at 19,140,000 BTC), it would only be a difference of just under 10 percent.
The closer this number goes to 0, the better for storing value. Practically, all other competitors of Bitcoin have significantly higher numbers here.



Example Polkadot:

Polkadot is considered a highly inflationary altcoin based on nPoS (which is practically dPoS). According to current sources, Polkadot's inflation amounts to about 10% annually, which depends on how much Polkadot is staked. But normally it’s around 10% annually.
In addition, excess Polkadot from inflation can circulate back to Polkadot founders even with a different amount of staked Polkadot, as well as confiscated Polkadot, which can be used or burned by Polkadot developers.

However, there are only a few sources about Polkadot's inflation, since Polkadot's statements of most official sources are limited to the first year or Polkadot even completely deleted most previously available sources, like here: https://w3f-research.readthedocs.io/en/latest/polkadot/economics/1-token-economics.html#inflation-model.
It’s not available anymore.  
Which is definitely a very big red flag!!!!
Some information is only available on third-party sites anymore which analyzed Polkaot’s documents when they were still up, such as here: https://www.coinbase.com/de/cloud/discover/solutions/polkadot-token-economics.

Currently, Polkadot has a circulating supply of approximately 1,150,000,000 Polkadot at a price of $7.36 per Polkadot, which results in a current market capitalisation of approximately $8,464,000,000.

Assuming 10% annual inflation, the amount of Polkadot would increase to an amount of about 16,500,000,000 Polkadot by 2050, which is 12 times more compared to now.
At current prices of $7.36 per Polkadot, it would mean an adjusted market capitalisation of approximately $120,000,000,000, which would be worrisome 1400 percent above today's market capitalisation.
As a reminder: Bitcoin is only just under 10 percent here.
Anyone who knows about markets can only conclude that the price per Polkadot will decrease massively by 2050. Considering the same market capitalisation in 2022 vs. 2050, the price per Polkadot would have to decrease from $7.36 today to $0.51 (!) in 2050.

Conclusion: Polkadot is an inflationary Shitcoin where large quantities of Polkadot Coins coming into circulation in the future will go to rich stakers...
The price per Polkadot Coin will drop massively when looking at Polkadot's adjusted market capitalisation (for example 2050).


Summary

Finally, it can be said for solid coins, such as Bitcoin, current market capitalisation and adjusted market capitalisation are very close. For inflationary Shitcoins, current market capitalisation and adjusted market capitalisation is far apart.


Predictability of projected market capitalisations


Predictability of the adjusted market capitalisation means if it’s possible for us to find out if the amount of a certain cryptocurrency in circulation will be known in the future. We will need the number of coins in order to be able to classify a certain market capitalisation in the future.

If the amount of coins in circulation of a cryptocurrency cannot be predicted properly even in 20 years, such a cryptocurrency can be considered dangerous or unpredictable and this is an important reason to avoid this cryptocurrency. Because Altcoin developers already know why they are not disclosing such important information.
If there is no predictability of the projected market capitalisation, you therefore buy the cat in a bag.


Lesson of my article: analyzing the long-term assessment of a cryptocurrency as a store of value – by evaluating market capitalisation – and if the Altcoin can match market leader Bitcoin.

Hello, @1miau I will like you to permit me to translate this wonderful topic to my local board (Nigeria) piidgin.

[1miau]

Hello, @1miau I will like you to permit me to translate this wonderful topic to my local board (Nigeria) piidgin.

Hello, Dzwaafu11 

I would be happy to have your translation and have officially reserved it in my list:

Language	translated by	Title
___________________________	_____________________	_______________________________________________________________________
Nigeria (Naija)	Dzwaafu11 (reserved)	reserved

When you are ready, please let us know by linking your translation here and I'll add it to my list.


Please also avoid pyramid quotes in my topic. 

[Dzwaafu11]

When you are ready, please let us know by linking your translation here and I'll add it to my list.

Hello, 1miau. My translation is ready here is the link https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5478294.msg63341462#msg63341462

[1miau]

When you are ready, please let us know by linking your translation here and I'll add it to my list.

Hello, 1miau. My translation is ready here is the link https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5478294.msg63341462#msg63341462

Hello, Dzwaafu11 
Nice to have your translation about a very important topic ready, now also available for our local Nigerian board.
Your translation got approved and it's added to my list now:

Language	translated by	Title
___________________________	_____________________	_______________________________________________________________________
Nigeria (Naija)	Dzwaafu11	Bitcoin vs altcoins-projected marketcap.

Also many thanks to Hatchy and your local community for being supportive of good quality translations.

[NewRanger]

Hmm, Senior is it mean that only a decentralized cryptocurrency can survive in the long run? I'm sure only decentralization also cant help in a long journey, what's the offer in it matters (Narrative)  I do agree that recently appreciated cryptocurrency doesn't mean it'll keep gaining, Shitcoins can be used for a better explanation but I don't think this is what we are discussing.

In the Altcoin space, the Bubble theory works, I can still mention a couple of projects that are centralized and they're still surviving, I can be sure about their progress but at least they are surviving, as NEO, EOS, BNB can be one of them but with Binance, I can they'll maybe one of those proving this that even a centralized-governed crypto-currency can be progressive.

I tried to give my opinion and there are many important points that you conveyed above, where a story like that could be a sign of a bubble market, but if so, when and how it will end is impossible to say, but what I am paying attention to if adaptability, the ability to evolve over time, and respond to market and technological changes, they will be able to survive even centrally regulated cryptocurrencies can become progressive.

[Publictalk792]

Dear 1miau sir,

I want to translate this topic in my local language Urdu. I want to reserve my seat for Urdu translation. If you will allow me then I will start my work.
My goal is to spread your words and your informative posts to my local community.

Waiting for your confirmation. Thanks.

Publictalk...

[1miau]

Dear 1miau sir,

I want to translate this topic in my local language Urdu. I want to reserve my seat for Urdu translation. If you will allow me then I will start my work.
My goal is to spread your words and your informative posts to my local community.

Waiting for your confirmation. Thanks.

Publictalk...

Hello 

Unfortunately, reserving new translations is still not available for now until further notice.
So far, we have just settled old ones or pending ones and the message in my OP is still valid:

Reserving new translations is currently not available.

But I'm sure you'll find plenty interesting topics in this forum for translation to your local board. 

[1miau]

Translations are available for my topic again.
We will accept and check translations manually to prevent any abuse and we reserve the right to check each translation diligently by local board native speakers.

Please always check OP if translations are available:

Reserving new translations is currently available.