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

[BlackHatCoiner]

I'll also agree that $10M by 2031 is very romantic.

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?

Not many, but more than a few years ago. People who gamble with it, end up selling it to those who don't.

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

Sidechains can help in sustainability on the long-term, and probably in scaling as well. I don't argue we need them, but if there might be a need.

[franky1]

current side-subnetworks are not the best,, by a long shot, in many many ways not. thats why not many are using them after 7 years of the waiting for promises to flourish

im not saying saying side/subnetworks as a concept are useless.. but the current options dont meet their promises nor have the security policies needed for people to want to trust them

new side and subnetworks will come about offering different niche use cases in the future. but thinking we should wait around for a few years on current side/sub networks dreams and hopes wont help

for now bitcoin devs should work on hardening bitcoin consensus (network security)
because things are going backwards (softrules causing less tx count and more expense)

and then expand utility for funky features for other networks
one major flaw of both side and sub networks both beginning with L
by processing payments via "federated managers" or "routers"
those entities are classing themselves as fiduciaries(money service businesses)
offering the management and handling of payments for a third party for a fee

(google:"expensive licence and regulatory compliance please because im a fiduciary")
and enjoy the hole you dug yourselves into legally
..
so yea sidechains and subnetworks that are not silly schemes like that will come about in the future to escape things like regulations.. but just not those ones

[Sarah Azhari]

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

It could be changed if we don't compare it with fiat or dollar USD.

I don't know why bitcoin has a price?. the white paper said, bitcoin is currency which mean don't have price and stand alone.

I just dream in the future people might compare bitcoin with goods. example: tesla car price BTC0.01, iPhone BTC0.01, etc.
today all people think bitcoins is goods, not currency that can compare with USD or another currency. We have homework for our descendants to change their mind if bitcoin is a currency, not goods in that always have a price.

1 bitcoin = 1 bitcoin, 1 sat = 1 sat, not $10 million or $23K.

[Fundamentals Of]

That's a very optimistic prediction. $10 million per Bitcoin in just 9 years is too high I have difficulty agreeing with it. I think this is the highest price prediction of Bitcoin that I have encountered. Even $1 million per Bitcoin in a decade is a far-fetched idea to me. I'm not saying it won't happen but it is hard to imagine. But you are right that when Bitcoin was in its infancy days, nobody would also have imagined that it could grow as high as $69,000.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

No matter what the know-it-alls say, the truth is that nobody knows where the price will be in 2032.

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.

This

Have we already forgotten? Do we remember the price predictions made in 2021? They all failed. Price performance has in the end been much lower than predicted by apparently very sophisticated analyses.

I'm not saying it won't happen but it is hard to imagine. But you are right that when Bitcoin was in its infancy days, nobody would also have imagined that it could grow as high as $69,000.

The point is that impressive growth usually occurs in the first few years of the life of a business project or whatever it is that has a market valuation. Going from being worth USD 1 to USD 2 is much easier than going from being worth USD 10,000 to USD 20,000. It is even much more difficult if we are talking about millions.


 
 

[Franctoshi]

$10  million dollars in 9 years to come isn't gonna be possible just with a normal environment for Bitcoin, definitely something will trigger such dramatic price increase, Like world wide adoption, Regulation, a World war 3 event that will cause a lot of devastation around world ,where people will be looking for save heaven asset like Bitcoin, because a lot of countries currency and economy is going to crumble.

But in a normal circumstances, I do believe that Bitcoin price will hit $1 million dollars in 9 years to come, If we have those money sitting right there in Bonds, 1-2 % of money sitting in Real Estate and Gold , money used in buying expensive watches ,jewelries and Cars etc begins to melt into Bitcoin, the price will likely be above 1$ Million in 9 years time.

[Kakmakr]

Well, more sidechains can have positive and negative consequences, because it can add more use cases and reasons for people to buy it, but it can also take more transactions off-chain and that will reduce miners fees for miners. Now, people might say.. but we do not care if miners gets less miners fees, but that will be a terrible mistake.

We know the Block reward are reduced by 50% at every Halving ..every 4 years, so that means in a couple of years miners will receive almost zero block rewards and they will then rely on miners fees to pay for their hashing power. This is why we should look into ways to increase the miners fees.. not in ways to reduce it with off-chain or sidechain technologies.

[davis196]

Adam Back is making a price speculation. This topic should be moved in the Speculations forum.
Bitcoin market cap hitting a value, that is above the global GDP? 200 trillion dollars? Not going to happen, if you ask me.
How would the sidechains help for pumping the BTC price? By making BTC more accessible? By increasing the amount of daily transactions?
Relying on second-layer solutions(which are centralized) is against the core concept of  Bitcoin. It's like relying on the fiat banks and investment funds to pump the BTC price. Many Bitcoiners are actually waiting for this to happen, but I think that it won't happen. The fiat financial system will always remain hostile towards Bitcoin/crypto.

[NotATether]

Why mindlessly create sidechains that have no functional value? What we have already is good enough: LN, Liquid(?), and now, Ordinals (to appease the critics who want NFTs on Bitcoin).

There's no blueprint for making Bitcoin price to go up and that should not be the reason why you develop anyway - it's to make the service work out, In other words, making Bitcoin a practical payment method for the masses.

[franky1]

@NotATether
for one moment. please take the adoration of LN and set it aside.

LN is a flawed network. even liquid and RSK have flaws (but LN is the worse of the lot based on network security, pack of monetary policy, many attack vectors and vulnerabilities) where even the main LN devs cant fix certain things and they admit to it, and have spent years trying to find work arounds and telling people to be patient

liquid and LN are the products of blockstream and even adam back (ceo of blockstream) is suggesting that new sidechains and subnetworks are needed

no one is saying side/sub networks have no niche/utility.. but certain existing ones fail to meet their promises and dont have he network security and protocols and monetary policy to be trusted and deemed suitable for mass adoption/ popular use

stop feeling the warm feelings by listening to other fans naive adoration as confirmation bias. and have a real hard independant and critical look at it and listen when the devs of such are even themselves saying there are flaws

dont rely on the confirmation bias that something is great simply because another fan says so.

or carry on patiently waiting for dreams to come true and let the future show you the hard way

[slaman29]

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?

Exactly. This isn't like an iphone or a new Samsung Galaxy with new features, so people buy them just because it's the latest, and it can take photos at night or it can make you look beautiful while you're walking.

This is Bitcoin. People buy it not to flash or to fit a cool thing, that's altcoins and NFTs. Bitcoin is a lifestyle choice and you don't make it more attractive with bigger better newer tech.

[NotATether]

@NotATether
for one moment. please take the adoration of LN and set it aside.

LN is a flawed network. even liquid and RSK have flaws (but LN is the worse of the lot based on network security, pack of monetary policy, many attack vectors and vulnerabilities) where even the main LN devs cant fix certain things and they admit to it, and have spent years trying to find work arounds and telling people to be patient

liquid and LN are the products of blockstream and even adam back (ceo of blockstream) is suggesting that new sidechains and subnetworks are needed

no one is saying side/sub networks have no niche/utility.. but certain existing ones fail to meet their promises and dont have he network security and protocols and monetary policy to be trusted and deemed suitable for mass adoption/ popular use

stop feeling the warm feelings by listening to other fans naive adoration as confirmation bias. and have a real hard independant and critical look at it and listen when the devs of such are even themselves saying there are flaws

dont rely on the confirmation bias that something is great simply because another fan says so.

or carry on patiently waiting for dreams to come true and let the future show you the hard way

I know it has flaws; my point was that we don't need to keep making bogus sidechains to keep the bitcoin price relevant to average joe.

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?

Exactly. This isn't like an iphone or a new Samsung Galaxy with new features, so people buy them just because it's the latest, and it can take photos at night or it can make you look beautiful while you're walking.

This is Bitcoin. People buy it not to flash or to fit a cool thing, that's altcoins and NFTs. Bitcoin is a lifestyle choice and you don't make it more attractive with bigger better newer tech.

Funny thing about this analogy was that someone was talking to me about buying the latest iPhone and then I mentioned how I was going to buy a Mac for development purposes (XCode mainly) and he just laughed.

People only really care about phones.

[Lucius]

Bitcoin market cap hitting a value, that is above the global GDP? 200 trillion dollars? Not going to happen, if you ask me.

According to some calculations, even twice as much as the global GDP, which is estimated to have been around $100 trillion for last year. If we take this information into account, then it really seems that someone is exaggerating and wants to be in the center of attention, regardless of the fact that he himself may be aware that what he is talking about is not real.

Exactly. This isn't like an iphone or a new Samsung Galaxy with new features, so people buy them just because it's the latest, and it can take photos at night or it can make you look beautiful while you're walking.

Maybe it's not a good comparison since Bitcoin is not a physical object to show around, unless you have one of those expensive watches that have some interesting features that you can certainly flaunt around. Maybe some will disagree, but I have never considered Bitcoin a status symbol, but those who think differently obviously do not understand that they are endangering the personal safety of themselves and their loved ones - of course I mean us mere mortals, not people like Saylor or the famous W twins.

[kryptqnick]

Global wealth is estimated to be at $360 trillion, which means that Bitcoin being worth $200 trillion would require the global economy to grow a lot, otherwise it's just way big of a share covered solely by Bitcoin. I don't see it happening any time soon, not even close. If anything, the economic growth seems to be slowing down, and even if it grows, say, 5% a year, I don't think that would be enough to accomodate such incredible value of Bitcoin and its cut in the grand scheme of things. Gold market cap is $12.3 trillion, and that's a fraction of what Bitcoin needs to achieve. I honestly think it's unrealistic because, while the global economy is growing, it's not happening nearly fast enough, and I don't see Bitcoin taking up, like, half of the global wealth.

[NotATether]

Global wealth is estimated to be at $360 trillion, which means that Bitcoin being worth $200 trillion would require the global economy to grow a lot, otherwise it's just way big of a share covered solely by Bitcoin. I don't see it happening any time soon, not even close. If anything, the economic growth seems to be slowing down, and even if it grows, say, 5% a year, I don't think that would be enough to accomodate such incredible value of Bitcoin and its cut in the grand scheme of things. Gold market cap is $12.3 trillion, and that's a fraction of what Bitcoin needs to achieve. I honestly think it's unrealistic because, while the global economy is growing, it's not happening nearly fast enough, and I don't see Bitcoin taking up, like, half of the global wealth.

Besides, all that money that people use to buy bitcoins have to go somewhere - its stored with the exchanges. And as people run out of money to buy Bitcoins with, exchanges will have more and more of the world's fiat money.

At this point, you'd expect Bitcoin to be less volatile, but when you see exchanges with the capacity to hold billions and just wipe it off the market, it kind of makes you think that such exchanges can still send similar-sized shockwaves if we get to that point in the future. To the tune of trillions of dollars wiped out (meaning people have less monetary value in their bitcoins but exchanges are left holding the majority of the world's wealth, making a depression of some sorts.)

[franky1]

I know it has flaws; my point was that we don't need to keep making bogus sidechains to keep the bitcoin price relevant to average joe.

my views are the blockstream/dcg adoration group want to make bitcoin irrelevant to make subnetworks the main thing people use so the "group" can profit off other peoples nativity

however bitcoin should remain as a payment network but have subnetworks for other fun stuff
subnetworks can add utility.
not about "making bitcoin relevant" or "making bitcoin irrelevant"

its about treat bitcoin as bitcoin and add utility to subnetworks of other niche uses

EG imagine the company Hasbro
where people can lock 0.03($600) on bitcoin to a stanfard publickey lock

and then on a "hasbro" decentralised subnetwork all customers can have a subchain they all account. audit and validate colectively thwir value

and then they can use their balance to play hasbro games using their value
so instead of play-money monopoly bank paper crap. people can bank up value and play monopoly for real winnings. and create leagues of entry level gamers, amateurs where the 'kitty' goes up and people can play each other at their own tier 'buy in amount'

all without relying on just paying hasbro as a custodian. but paying into a international network of hasbro customers self funding and self accounting

..
same goes for meta
where different cloud services rent their servers (as virtual 3d meta towns) where they can use a subnetwork as the currency of the virtual meta planet

and able to take their funds buy and spend funds as they move from virtual town to town or street to street or visit different virtual 3d stores to buy things. which if done right people are buying things in the meta 3d landscapes of virtual malls. which at payment results in real world goods delivered to their home (instead of boring webpages

where this "meta" subnetwork of currency is for the things under $100

there are a multitude of idea's and utility for niche services and systems

[Bobrox]

Still not stable with Bitcoin price but the early investor brave holding Bitcoin for the first time launching have earn much profit, but don't forget with investor entry when Bitcoin have all time high price last year got much loss right now after Bitcoin drop under $23,000. Based on your expectation about Bitcoin price back to higher price seems need longer time and hope at the next halving time have moment for Bitcoin can back to the top price again.

Actually not easy to be long term holding in Bitcoin, actually after raising profit about 40% until 60% every one have decision for selling their assets without think for long term holding.

[AverageGlabella]

I would not trust this prediction it is speculation and them being the blockstream ceo does not make their speculation or predictions any more accurate then random members on this forum. I have seen many of these predictions over the years that I have been involved in btc and none of them have been accurate. A lot of the people saying their predictions have other motivations why they do it and some of them do it just to stay relevant.

But what they are saying is kind of true we do need more infrastructure but the infrastructure will grow as btc gets more adoption and I do not think we are in trouble of not enough nodes or miners that it will become a problem. btc was designed to operate with lack of infrastructure the lack of miners will push the difficulty down and allow less funded people to mine instead. Nodes do not offer any incentive of running for the person and I think that is something we might need to change in the future to encourage people to run nodes.

[darkangel11]

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.

I agree he's looking for those headlines and taking strange numbers out of air makes journalists want to confront you. Michael Saylor wasn't interviewed so much in 2022 because he knows a lot about bitcoin but all the hyenas wanted to ask him if he changed his mind about bitcoin after it fell 50%. If he wasn't as confident as he is they'd make it a headline "bitcoin believer cracking under pressure".

Don't forget about Russia. They were willing to accept bitcoin in exchange for oil last year. Those who are doing good are the least eager to make changes.

[Fundamentals Of]

I'm not saying it won't happen but it is hard to imagine. But you are right that when Bitcoin was in its infancy days, nobody would also have imagined that it could grow as high as $69,000.

The point is that impressive growth usually occurs in the first few years of the life of a business project or whatever it is that has a market valuation. Going from being worth USD 1 to USD 2 is much easier than going from being worth USD 10,000 to USD 20,000. It is even much more difficult if we are talking about millions.

That's why I think it is hard to compare the acceleration of Bitcoin's price growth before when it was only worth a few dollars and today when the price is already above $20,000. Indeed it was easy for the price of Bitcoin to double if it is only worth $1. It could even grow 100% in just a day. Today, it simply isn't possible at all. Nobody would believe that Bitcoin's price would rise as high as $40,000 within 24 hours. So it is difficult to set as basis Bitcoin's past price increases for potential price increases in the future.