[prediction] Next spike $560,000 14 {<-oops!} months from now (2017 Update!)

[cinder]

Are you selling everything you have to bet on bitcion?

560k prediction is just as absurd as 10 dollar prediction.

[jcoin200]

Are you selling everything you have to bet on bitcion?

560k prediction is just as absurd as 10 dollar prediction.

actually $10 seems completely reasonable right now.  might not stay for long, but its within the realm of possibility

[sgbett]

As adoption grows, every bubble will be smaller and bitcoin become more and more stable.

32->2 = 16x
260 -> 50  = 5x
1150 -> 275 = 4x

(maybe next 4,000 -> 1,300 = 3x )

If there will be bubble to $1,000,000 and then drop to $300,000 then it takes decades. (as with gold now)

This is a fair counterpoint. I guess EW people would probably back it too. They would have all of this as part of a much larger wave which not only scales up vertically (price) but horizontally (time). Its an appealing premise because it sounds reasonable and likely. Do you think that the fear/greed cycle can really be avoided though? Do you think adoption will be that slow?

Perhaps the truth is somewhere in-between.

[fewcoins]

GLTA we will def need it for the rest of the year...

[brg444]

As adoption grows, every bubble will be smaller and bitcoin become more and more stable.

32->2 = 16x
260 -> 50  = 5x
1150 -> 275 = 4x

(maybe next 4,000 -> 1,300 = 3x )

If there will be bubble to $1,000,000 and then drop to $300,000 then it takes decades. (as with gold now)

I don't know how anyone could think this, this seems so counterintuitive to me...

It ignores EVERY technology adoption curve out there.

As sgbett pointed out. It also ignores greed which is the biggest fuel for BTC's price rises.

This would suggest that as adoption grows and more people are acquainted with Bitcoin's value proposition the pool of potential adopter shrinks.

As far as I can understand it this is not how network effects behave. At least not until we have reached a halfway point in adoption where Bitcoin has become so widely spread there are fewer people not using/invested in it than there are Bitcoiners.

It seems so blatently obvious to me that the potential for a massive bubble increases every time Bitcoin becomes exposed to a more important percentage of the population and turns the eyes of bigger and bigger fiat whales.

Gold is a very bad comparison considering its physical nature and usability. The digital nature of Bitcoin and its infrastructure makes it enormously easier for a mainstream population to transition out of fiat.

[frienemy]

@sgbett:

If you chose 30.000 instead of 300.000 for the endgame, maybe then people wouldn't be so clueless here. The thread wouldn't be half as funny, though

[Biodom]

As adoption grows, every bubble will be smaller and bitcoin become more and more stable.

32->2 = 16x
260 -> 50  = 5x
1150 -> 275 = 4x

(maybe next 4,000 -> 1,300 = 3x )

If there will be bubble to $1,000,000 and then drop to $300,000 then it takes decades. (as with gold now)

This is a fair counterpoint. I guess EW people would probably back it too. They would have all of this as part of a much larger wave which not only scales up vertically (price) but horizontally (time). Its an appealing premise because it sounds reasonable and likely. Do you think that the fear/greed cycle can really be avoided though? Do you think adoption will be that slow?

Perhaps the truth is somewhere in-between.

it already went down much further than I expected. I thought that it would be above 340 (or 383 for 3X instead of 4X).
I think comparison of 2013 "bubble" in its entirety ($12 to $1150, disregarding initial bump to $266) and 2014 correction has to be made with 2011 "bubble" (from $0.1 to $32) and correction to $2. If we follow that, correction to either $240 (~X20 of base as in 2011) or above $72 (if same % as in 2011) would suffice.
Of course, $275 is close enough to $240, so we may have achieved the "proper" correction level, but anything between $72 and $240 is possible if we compare to 2011.

[brg444]

@sgbett:

If you chose 30.000 instead of 300.000 for the endgame, maybe then people wouldn't be so clueless here. The thread wouldn't be half as funny, though

but 30.000 makes much less sense than 300.000

[frienemy]

@sgbett:

If you chose 30.000 instead of 300.000 for the endgame, maybe then people wouldn't be so clueless here. The thread wouldn't be half as funny, though

but 30.000 makes much less sense than 300.000

Just for educational reasons

[pinksheep]

Will everyone be dissapoint if we only see 56k/coin

I won't be disappointed if we only see 56k/coin 

[Odalv]

As adoption grows, every bubble will be smaller and bitcoin become more and more stable.

32->2 = 16x
260 -> 50  = 5x
1150 -> 275 = 4x

(maybe next 4,000 -> 1,300 = 3x )

If there will be bubble to $1,000,000 and then drop to $300,000 then it takes decades. (as with gold now)

This is a fair counterpoint. I guess EW people would probably back it too. They would have all of this as part of a much larger wave which not only scales up vertically (price) but horizontally (time). Its an appealing premise because it sounds reasonable and likely. Do you think that the fear/greed cycle can really be avoided though? Do you think adoption will be that slow?

Perhaps the truth is somewhere in-between.

> Do you think adoption will be that slow?
550% / year is really not slow. :-)  ($12 - 2012, $66 - 2013, $363 - 2014, $1996 - 2015, $11k - 2016 ... )


> Do you think that the fear/greed cycle can really be avoided though?
I think, there are not more than 100,000 believers (real bitcoin users, investors, bulls with $$ ).

http://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html

A) 7,500,000 will be minted ... but not tomorrow :-)  ( few mining farms )

B) only 15,391 addresses control  9,042,676 bitcoins. ( investors )

C) only 620,000 addresses control 4,200,000 bitcoins.  ( I see this as real adoption. But looks like 2M BTC is owned by creator or lost )

D) the rest 1,900,000 addresses control only 21,000 coins. ( trolls )

==
Soon group A) and B) will stabilize price (decreases volatility, weak hands shaken out) and will "slowly" build new economy (increase count of C members)

[Biodom]

As adoption grows, every bubble will be smaller and bitcoin become more and more stable.

32->2 = 16x
260 -> 50  = 5x
1150 -> 275 = 4x

(maybe next 4,000 -> 1,300 = 3x )

If there will be bubble to $1,000,000 and then drop to $300,000 then it takes decades. (as with gold now)

This is a fair counterpoint. I guess EW people would probably back it too. They would have all of this as part of a much larger wave which not only scales up vertically (price) but horizontally (time). Its an appealing premise because it sounds reasonable and likely. Do you think that the fear/greed cycle can really be avoided though? Do you think adoption will be that slow?

Perhaps the truth is somewhere in-between.

> Do you think adoption will be that slow?
550% / year is really not slow. :-)  ($12 - 2012, $66 - 2013, $363 - 2014, $1996 - 2015, $11k - 2016 ... )


> Do you think that the fear/greed cycle can really be avoided though?
I think, there are not more than 100,000 believers (real bitcoin users, investors, bulls with $$ ).

http://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html

A) 7,500,000 will be minted ... but not tomorrow :-)  ( few mining farms )

B) only 15,391 addresses control  9,042,676 bitcoins. ( investors )

C) only 620,000 addresses control 4,200,000 bitcoins.  ( I see this as real adoption. But looks like 2M BTC is owned by creator or lost )

D) the rest 1,900,000 addresses control only 21,000 coins. ( trolls )

==
Soon group A) and B) will stabilize price (decreases volatility, weak hands shaken out) and will "slowly" build new economy (increase count of C members)

People can and do have more than 1 address.
In fact, A. Antonopoulous said that he has 2000 addresses , which is probably an overkill.

[fewcoins]

Oh great, now this looks more and more like a pyramid scheme every time some one brings out this kind of data!!

[Biodom]

Oh great, now this looks more and more like a pyramid scheme every time some one brings out this kind of data!!

like this one?
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/06/CS%20wealth%207.jpg

[log2exp]

like this one?
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/06/CS%20wealth%207.jpg

29m > 21m, number of people in the top triangle will drop to the next level, eventually.

[fewcoins]

Oh great, now this looks more and more like a pyramid scheme every time some one brings out this kind of data!!

like this one?
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/06/CS%20wealth%207.jpg

Exactly! Now make one look for bitcoin & you will notice we are not only alllllllllllllllll the way at the bottom but when the "bitcoin rich" combine wallets you notice they are holding all the chips & we are fighting for scraps... Why support something that is about to become VERY centralized??? just wondering... why??? 

[Wekkel]

Oh great, now this looks more and more like a pyramid scheme every time some one brings out this kind of data!!

like this one?
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/06/CS%20wealth%207.jpg

Exactly! Now make one look for bitcoin & you will notice we are not only alllllllllllllllll the way at the bottom but when the "bitcoin rich" combine wallets you notice they are holding all the chips & we are fighting for scraps... Why support something that is about to become VERY centralized??? just wondering... why??? 

The big players can only spend a Bitcoin once. No printing games, no bailouts, no pork. Let first adopters be first adopters. In time, the distribution will become better. Ask yourself: who creates value day in day out?

[calchuchesta]

Oh great, now this looks more and more like a pyramid scheme every time some one brings out this kind of data!!

like this one?
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/06/CS%20wealth%207.jpg

Exactly! Now make one look for bitcoin & you will notice we are not only alllllllllllllllll the way at the bottom but when the "bitcoin rich" combine wallets you notice they are holding all the chips & we are fighting for scraps... Why support something that is about to become VERY centralized??? just wondering... why??? 

The big players can only spend a Bitcoin once. No printing games, no bailouts, no pork. Let first adopters be first adopters. In time, the distribution will become better. Ask yourself: who creates value day in day out?

Incidentally, true redistribution will only be possible IF big lucky aka first adopters hit the panic mode and sell most of their coins. If they never sell, no true redistribution will happen, it will indeed be a fight for scraps for most people that aren't already FIAT rich.

[neilol-real]

Incidentally, true redistribution will only be possible IF big lucky aka first adopters hit the panic mode and sell most of their coins. If they never sell, no true redistribution will happen, it will indeed be a fight for scraps for most people that aren't already FIAT rich.

Not really true - early adopters will spend, donate, make bad investments, die etc.

Life is too short, the majority will not horde enough to make a meaningful impact on the ecosystem 25-50 years out

[Wekkel]

Incidentally, true redistribution will only be possible IF big lucky aka first adopters hit the panic mode and sell most of their coins. If they never sell, no true redistribution will happen, it will indeed be a fight for scraps for most people that aren't already FIAT rich.

Not really true - early adopters will spend, donate, make bad investments, die etc.

Life is too short, the majority will not horde enough to make a meaningful impact on the ecosystem 25-50 years out

Exactly, it will vanish over time. Only the lucky and productive ones will built up larger stacks of Bitcoin during their lives. For the rest, it will just be a fair and stable ledger. You know, like money is supposed to work.