Juggling with numbers can lead to more interesting thoughts.

We know that in 2033, no additional BTC will be available. Let's assume that it will take up to 2033 to spread BTC:

*to the entire population of 6 billion people; or

*in exchange of the global total money supply of USD 60 trillion

To make our life simple, we assume that the annual factor and the base number (people, money supply) remain constant.

The graphs are inserted below.

**people****money supply**The factor [people] is 3,6 (remarkable close to

*phi*), the factor [money supply] is 7,8. Of course, if the total time frame is less than 2009 to 2033, the factor to be used would have to be higher to meet the target.

An interesting aspect is the nature of these graphs, or better to say, the math behind it. The graphs are build up by assuming a constant factor that increases the total number, but halfway, the same factor is used to decrease the increase (=still growth, but less and less annually until it is a flat line). This is based on the assumption that, at first, there will be a low number of participants/money invested in BTC. Moving on, the numbers explode after which the increase will slow down again.

Since it follows from the formula, it is no surprise that the biggest increase is made around 2019-2020. It is clear that if you compress the total time frame to, let's say, 2022, the biggest increase would be round and about 2016. That's not the interesting part.

The interesting part (as far as I am concerned) is that, on the basis of these premises, the number will be approximately 10% of the total number to be reached just when the increase is at its maximum velocity. Above, I already presented the link to a study showing that, for an idea to be accepted, a

*critical mass* of 10% (or 13%) of all people should accept the idea. If the critical mass is reached, the rest will follow as a rule.

**spread of new idea**The curve used in that study aligns with the formula used in my numbers-juggling-exercise. First the slow start, then the increase, then the top and the following decrease.

To end this

*pick-your-number-and-base-your-argument-on-that-number* exercise, it seems fair to assume that the actual factor of the BTC spread (in terms of people or committed cash) is way higher than the numbers in my projection. At least, in this stage. It remains to be seen whether the actual factor remains very high over the course of the next years.

Someone else may calculate the

**actual** average factor to project the predicted date on which the critical mass of 10% will be reached. It could be a lot sooner than we think, prone to error as we humans are in understanding the exponential factor.

However, another thing to ponder is the known history of inventions, dating back to the 19th century. Usually, an invention lingers for about 10-15 years, before it suddenly gets adopted massively. Nowadays we see shorter time frames (Facebook, Youtube etc), but I think it is reasonable to assume that Bitcoin will stay in the dark for at least two more years before taking off.

Buyin' time