Bitcoin could hit $10M in 9 years but more sidechains needed: Blockstream CEO

[_act_]

Can bitcoin marketcap get to 200 trillion? Expecting the price to be around $10 million at the time.

https://www.reddit.com/r/StockMarket/comments/1111f9w/bitcoin_could_hit_10m_in_9_years_but_more/

If Back and Finney’s $10 million price prediction becomes true, the BTC market cap will reach approximately $200 trillion.

Blockstream CEO Adam Back believes the price of Bitcoin (BTC) could reach $10 million by the end of the sixth halvening in 2032, as long as Bitcoin layer-2 technology and wallet infrastructure improves.

Bitcoin was less than $1 before when it was created, the price increased multiple times and now at $21800. If anyone told me that time that bitcoin price will get to $20000, I will not believe.

As the price of bitcoin is increasing, the more money pumped can not make its price increase up to when the marketcap was low, this is the reason altcoins with low marketcap but with low money pumped into it had more effect on the price. This makes me think this time again that can bitcoin get to 10 million in 9 years to come?

I look at the history of gold marketcap which is the highest among all assets, I was surprised about how significantly it has been increasing, but gold marketcap as of today is still $12.344 trillion. This makes me think bitcoin marketcap can not get to $200 trillion in just 9 years to come, but I know bitcoin may get to $5 trillion market cap as it gets to 1 trillion in the last all-time-high. I am not expecting the price to be that more than $1 million or less.

[mk4]

This makes me think bitcoin marketcap can not get to $200 trillion in just 9 years to come,

Same thought. For bitcoin to defeat gold in terms of marketcap, I'm pretty sure money should be in people from the current generation's pockets as people in the current technology-filled generation are highly more likely to buy BTC, not the boomers.

[franky1]

bitcoins bottom line value was about $15k in 2022 (based on most efficient mining(acquisition method) on the planet causing a non zero bottom (no one wants to sell at a loss below worlds lowest acquisition cost
and was about $99k max range of possibility based on most expensive on planet for same time period

so imagine mining stayed at the same $15k per btc (240exahsah at $0.04 per kwh)

now: ($15k/btc)
2024: halvening  ($30k/btc)
2028: halvening ($60k/btc <-non zero bottom limit)
2029=same

now lets say no new efficient upgrades of hardware, no electric hikes. but where there was a change per year of hashrate was +50%
(last year was 26 diff to 39diff )(26 X 1.5x=39)

using excel for range of possibility for market per 1btc
          hashrate  min             max
2022   240exa   $14,994       $99,474
2023   360exa   $22,491       $149,211
2024   540exa   $33,737       $223,817
2024   540exa   $67,474       $447,634 half coin
2025   810exa   $101,211     $671,451
2026   1215 ex  $151,817     $1,007,177
2027   1822 ex  $227,726     $1,510,766
2028   2734 ex  $341,589     $2,266,149
2028   2734 ex  $683,177     $4,532,297 half coin
2029   4101 ex  $1,024,766  $6,798,446

note this is if there was no efficiency gain of hardware and no higher electric cost
so ill leave you to factor in asic gains and electric  losses that can also change the min max regions of possibility

i might post later an update with more details included
but have fun with the possible realms of trade window.. (these are no expectations of price per year , just a possible window the market moves within

[bitcoindusts]

I think the title is exaggerated.  No matter how many sidechain is created on Bitcoin, it won't reach that price in just a matter of 9 years.  I am always open to the possibilities but we should also look at the target timeframe.  In 9 years time, I doubt Bitcoin will be adopted by develop countries because Bitcoin has a feature that is the main issue why majority of the countries are not accepting it as legal tender. 

It is the decentralization that prevents government to control it completely.  I would say $1M  bitcoin is still vague to happen even after 9 years what more $10m.

[Lucius]

Another speculation that serves no other purpose than to provide a little publicity to the person who made it public - with the difference that he wants to be someone who will be talked about more than Cathie Wood, who recently stated that by 2030 one BTC will be worth between $250k and $1.5 million. Personally, I think that the price of $10 million for 1 BTC is excessive, regardless of how many sidechains have existed and what will happen in the next 10 years.

The only thing that would lead to such a strong increase in prices would be the decision of the most powerful countries in the world to start buying Bitcoin, and I don't think something like that is likely, especially in countries like the US, UK, EU, India, China or Japan. Of course, maybe a few more countries will follow the example of El Salvador, but globally this has little or almost no impact on the price.

[yazher]

Honestly, this is not impossible because if we keep pushing forward terms of adoptions and implementations for the next years to come, then surely bitcoins price will spike up to the point we never expected it to be. Just like its old price where it didn't even reach a hundred dollars per BTC, we will gonna witness progress in the future if we don't have such cases like the FTX and we finally move on from that. In that case, I see the other people that are hostile against bitcoins will finally be outnumbered and their opinions will not really matter anymore for the majority of the people.

[franky1]

the reason why they say the price is possible is:
because my math of just 50% hashrate rises per year are reasonable amounts not extremes
so the possibility is maybe with other factors(10% efficiency per year)
~$800k-$5m without extremes

the reason said about sidechains by blockstream(obvious common sense):
a. blockstream ceo does not make money from people moving coin p2p on the bitcoin network
b. he owns liquid and also has major stake in (core-lightning) which he can if his employees and his businesses are the federations and payment routers/hubs respectively he can make profits on fees their subnetworks
c thats the whole game going on.. its why blockstream employees, sponsored influncers, fans, affiliates,  were pushing to get everyone over to subnetworks while hyping up things that restrict and expense BITCOIN utility)

b. also if 1btc was $10m then 10sat would be $1
(1btc=100000000sat
 1btc=$10000000
10sat=$1)
meaning onchain fees of lean tx 250bytes(1sat per byte) 250sats =$25 which no one wants to pay as a minimum fee(1sat/byte) to make payments

so he thinks people will want/need to use sidechains (locked to only function and service bitcoin as a sole bitcoin feature network(no cross boarder)
would be the only way to offer people "cheap fees"

[NeuroticFish]

That speculation only in form of a tweet though. But news media (cointelegraph in this case) decide to create news based on few tweets and amplify this weak speculation.

Even more, the point of that speculation pretty much was that Bitcoin needs more side chains (which may be counted also as a biased conclusion), not the yet-another-very-high-price-in-the-future...

[PrivacyG]

Bitcoin can do this on its own.  No side chains necessary for it.  Please keep in mind that money is changing.  And its value too, pretty quickly in fact.  And then there are Coins that are being lost forever.

Is any body even really using the existing Bitcoin side chains?  I experimented with them a while ago and they seem less interesting even than Shit coins do.  Bitcoin should in my view pretty much only be mostly used as it is.  The default coin.  By implementing side chains, we risk inserting vector attacks on Bitcoin too.  Not necessarily an attack on the Bitcoin infrastructure, but on its trust and market.  Because if we get side chains that end up being brutally attacked like we have recently seen LUNA, then Bitcoin will directly be affected by it.

So why bother even trying to do this just for a price increase when we already know Bitcoin can do it all by itself.  I mean it had the most incredible price increase of all Coins that ever existed.  It will continue to do wonders in the future as well.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

[bettercrypto]

Can bitcoin marketcap get to 200 trillion? Expecting the price to be around $10 million at the time.

https://www.reddit.com/r/StockMarket/comments/1111f9w/bitcoin_could_hit_10m_in_9_years_but_more/

If Back and Finney’s $10 million price prediction becomes true, the BTC market cap will reach approximately $200 trillion.

Blockstream CEO Adam Back believes the price of Bitcoin (BTC) could reach $10 million by the end of the sixth halvening in 2032, as long as Bitcoin layer-2 technology and wallet infrastructure improves.

Bitcoin was less than $1 before when it was created, the price increased multiple times and now at $21800. If anyone told me that time that bitcoin price will get to $20000, I will not believe.

As the price of bitcoin is increasing, the more money pumped can not make its price increase up to when the marketcap was low, this is the reason altcoins with low marketcap but with low money pumped into it had more effect on the price. This makes me think this time again that can bitcoin get to 10 million in 9 years to come?

I look at the history of gold marketcap which is the highest among all assets, I was surprised about how significantly it has been increasing, but gold marketcap as of today is still $12.344 trillion. This makes me think bitcoin marketcap can not get to $200 trillion in just 9 years to come, but I know bitcoin may get to $5 trillion market cap as it gets to 1 trillion in the last all-time-high. I am not expecting the price to be that more than $1 million or less.

Luckily, a bitcoin reached below 1$, I'm sure all the buyers who held bitcoin for a long time are now rich.

    Now, I can't understand clearly how you calculated that it will be 10M$ each bitcoin after 9 years. Maybe it's too good to be true, of course. No one knows how much bitcoin will be worth in the future even though it is volatile.

[GeorgeJohn]

I think the title is exaggerated.  No matter how many sidechain is created on Bitcoin, it won't reach that price in just a matter of 9 years.  I am always open to the possibilities but we should also look at the target timeframe.  In 9 years time, I doubt Bitcoin will be adopted by develop countries because Bitcoin has a feature that is the main issue why majority of the countries are not accepting it as legal tender. 

It is the decentralization that prevents government to control it completely.  I would say $1M  bitcoin is still vague to happen even after 9 years what more $10m.

Bitcoin market can get higher at any point, because no specific time that's been enshrined for speed increment of Bitcoin the way i see things. The possibilities is there for Bitcoin to reach up to one million dollars in nine years intervals. Everything about the market is dependable on the market. So i believe that Bitcoin have to do gravities of demands in annual, and when you cross check Bitcoin market you will notice that the market always get increase every year. So it's believable that the market can get to $1m before the stipulated year if possible.

[digaran]

By these measures, all Satoshi has to do is to sit and wait 9 more years to own 10 trillion $ worth of bitcoin? Don't mind the inflation rate globally, This means that I could have 1M $ by then if I hold 0.1BTC. What am I waiting for?🤑

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

Can bitcoin marketcap get to 200 trillion? Expecting the price to be around $10 million at the time.

One of the things we need to get familiar with about a decentralized network like bitcoin is the fact that it is very volatile, the price can change anytime, if we can look into the history of time from its inception since 2009, bitcoin has been very volatile rising and falling and despite that the value has always been found increasing along side, all hope is not dashed out about believing if in few years time bitcoin can arrived at this milestone, remember when we are talking about bullrun, if takes speed within a short time frame to rise sporadically in price, who knows maybe after this $68k ATH we are heading towards $200k or beyond and so continuously with every four years after or before halving, we can continue to having something big in pushing the price to ATH till we are close to the said rate as thought by OP.

[livingfree]

No doubt that bitcoin can grow exponentially and but giving timeframes is already off the radar. We'll just see it then if it happens.

I cannot imagine how much the inflation rate would that be by that time when bitcoin is up to that price. We can't remove that fact that as the price increases for bitcoin, there goes the other factors that will certainly have its own move just as how it moves as well.

That speculation only in form of a tweet though. But news media (cointelegraph in this case) decide to create news based on few tweets and amplify this weak speculation.

That's what they do. Every single tweet by a known individual in the community or by those ceo's that are giving their insights and opinions, they're putting it as a content and making it interesting as a headline.

[BitcoinPanther]

If we are talking about the exponential growth of Bitcoin, it become smaller and smaller as the price of Bitcoin goes up.  Just look at the discrepancy of growth of each all time high, meaning every 4 year Bitcoin ATH % growth gain will be smaller than the previous ATH growth gain.  So following the % of growth gain every 4 years of ATH, it will fall short in calculation.  I don't even think that Bitcoin will reach $3m in the next two halving.  and the 9th year will be on 2032 which is one year short for the next record breaking ATH event where new ATH is always happen after 1 year (2033) of Bitcoin halving.

[BenCodie]

Bitcoin can do this on its own.  No side chains necessary for it.  Please keep in mind that money is changing.  And its value too, pretty quickly in fact.  And then there are Coins that are being lost forever.

Is any body even really using the existing Bitcoin side chains?  I experimented with them a while ago and they seem less interesting even than Shit coins do.  Bitcoin should in my view pretty much only be mostly used as it is.  The default coin.  By implementing side chains, we risk inserting vector attacks on Bitcoin too.  Not necessarily an attack on the Bitcoin infrastructure, but on its trust and market.  Because if we get side chains that end up being brutally attacked like we have recently seen LUNA, then Bitcoin will directly be affected by it.

So why bother even trying to do this just for a price increase when we already know Bitcoin can do it all by itself.  I mean it had the most incredible price increase of all Coins that ever existed.  It will continue to do wonders in the future as well.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

I agree. Bitcoin itself is enough to revolutionize money. Sidechains are just increasing its efficiency at best, though with good enough scaling upgrades then what's the point other than more niche/private purposes for them? Sidechains aside, the fall of a global reserve currency and a race to take its place (presumably lead by Bitcoin) can lead to this kind of meteoric rise quite easily under the right circumstances. The only variable that might put a speed bump in the process, is war. I don't think people factor this (likely) variable into the equation while making predictions like this.

[seoincorporation]

200 Trillion market cap, i would say that's impossible, Look at the market cap, is close to 1T. and has been really hard for It to get until that point, and the max has been 2T. So, 200 trillion is just impossible from my point of view, even if big companies like Mac or Tesla decide to sell all their shares and invest in BTC the goal will not be even close. I just can't imagine where all that money will come from.

[buwaytress]

That infrastructure improves is a given, but all those improvements won't mean much if we don't also maintain trajectory for utility (and that's to me without custodial services) as well as fundamentals securing the network (hashrate for sure, but probably also node numbers and diversity). Of course it has to be more complex than that but I tend to see these as more important.

[masyari]

We already have L1 and LN networks. Why we need anymore?

[Lucius]

We already have L1 and LN networks. Why we need anymore?

Because a person has to build his story around something, and what is better than some new solutions that would enable billions of new users to use Bitcoin every day, as if this is impossible today with the technology we already have. It's not that I'm against development, but I don't think it's necessary to invent something new in that direction in order to increase the demand for Bitcoin - because let's be honest, what percentage of people today bought it because it's something new, innovative and technologically advanced?

That speculation only in form of a tweet though. But news media (cointelegraph in this case) decide to create news based on few tweets and amplify this weak speculation.

When I just remember how much effort was needed to eliminate those who were paid to shill their link, and we are still bombarded with low-value news from that source. Kudos to the OP though for bypassing the direct link.