Hmm. This discussion is getting more nuanced. Perhaps our viewpoints are not as different as I initially thought. Allow me to focus the discussion where I think we disagree, bearing in mind that my omission of the rest is likely indication where I don't believe we differ significantly.
I didn't state that all bubble markets ultimate fail.
I think I understood this... but you seemed to me to be saying that 'the bubble' (which one - this last, I presume?) indicated the last dying gasp for Bitcoin. Am I incorrect that this is your assessment?
I stated that markets that have experienced bubbles such as the stock market and housing market are necessities and will always be around.
While I can agree that collectivized funding and housing will likely always be needed, I am not convinced that 'the stock market' not the housing 'market' as we know them today will survive the fiat collapse. Possible. Unsure if even likely.
Bitcoin itself is not a necessity so long as credit cards, money orders, bullion, and money orders are in existence. It's a splendid alternative, but not a fundamental market in and of itself...even in a SHTF scenario.
Well, yeah. If the S truly HsTF, the Internet will be gone. No Internet, no Bitcoin. Or at least no global, digital, relatively low latency, universal communication medium, no Bitcoin. Bitcoin takes a breather 'til the net is back, and there will be much pain as many many divergent chains slowly re-converge to the one chain to rule them all. But assuming the net does eventually heal, all the coins held at t=0- will be there for their previous owners as normalcy is restored.
I come from the silver-bug side of things, so it was a bit of a departure from the norm, but the parallels between the two and their die-hard communities was undeniable.
Agreed. Silver (and Gold) share a lot of monetary properties with Bitcoin. In my mind, PM tangibility holds an edge however in grid-down scenarios, and Bitcoin's ease of transport holds an edge in grid-up.
However, my tune quickly soured after I had not only been scammed on a forum, but by 2 exchanges early in my bitcoin career.
I think most go through this. I got significantly scammed more than once. Not for some time though. I like to think I've learned. I certainly have been trained to limit my potential exposure to risk.
[eta - We've all grown up in a culture where we as individuals have not been responsible for the safekeeping of our own money. As such, a natural instinct to closely guard that which is ours has been suppressed. In a Bitcoin world, we are responsible for our own funds. We need to reacquaint ourselves with our fundamental drive to jealously watch that our sustenance is not snatched up by others. It comes. ]
All after having to jump through a seemingly neverending series of hoops just to acquire BTC.
Yes, it is still harder than it should be to acquire BTC. But it is easier today than the year before, and easier still than the year before that... I almost hate to trot out the tired internet comparison, but when was the last time you browsed a site through lynx? Could you imagine the excruciating pain it would be to return to that, now that you've experienced contemporary browsing? The point is that the trajectory is inexorably in the direction of increased ease for the user.
This is a fundamental flaw.
Disagree. Nothing fundamental about the ease of use problem. Bitcoin is still mostly a raw protocol, with a thin veneer of human-accessible software atop it. Again with the Internet, but IP existed long before HTML. All we need are the proper software tools to be developed atop the fundamental protocols in order to unlock the true power of the blockchain and bring it to the masses. (ugh - I sound like A True Believer. I probably am).
And the next layer of tools are being built today. This is being done by individuals, open source groups, and perhaps most tellingly fully professional entities backed by VCs to the tune of hundreds of millions of USD (
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-venture-capital/ ). The tools they are building today will enable the next round of ease of use and enhanced capabilities, which will lower the bar for new participants (buyers and users), to enter. These new participants will fuel the next great wave of price appreciation.
And the new wave of price appreciation (to what - $10K would be reasonable according to some models) will probably be followed by another trough ( to 33% of the high maybe?) , perhaps started by long time holders who wake up rich and decide to 'cash out' some or all of their new found wealth. And likely accelerated by a sizable proportion of the new entrants who will panic as things start to go south. But in the meantime, the new money will enable the next round of VC investments, larger this time, resulting in more ease, robustness, and capability...
I also stated my opinion that the euphoria peaked right around the time when the price was scaling towards its ATH, which is backed by google trends data.
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=bitcoin&cmpt=qCoincidentally, the peaks and valleys pretty much share a direct correlation with bitcoin's market value. In fact, the google trends chart is almost an exact trace of the 3 year price chart of bitcoin.
I'm with you on that. Other than you branding it (perhaps inadvertently) as 'coincidentally'. I don't know if price begets interest, or interest begets price. I rather assume that there is a positive feedback between the two, causing each to reinforce the other. But as per my earlier statement, I don't think most of humanity has even heard of bitcoin. Further, I think most who have heard of it are hardly aware of it, and most who are aware of it have an incorrect impression of what it is ("
Haha - Didya hear the CEO of Bitcoin was arrested? Yeah - and the government confiscated it all"). We have a looooong way to go before possible interest in Bitcoin is saturated.
So I think the market price is more of a factor of the long term sustenance of bitcoin than some may think.
I'd be with you if you said short-term. As pointed out above, the long term trend *so*far* has been up, up, and up.
Sure, the technology can be amazing, but if there is not an influx of interest and new funding, then it will not survive. You always need investors for technology.
See $100'sMM VC above. True story.
Again, I'm not discrediting that another technology 'based' off bitcoin won't succeed and ultimately supplant it in the future, but I just don't see Bitcoin being the one that sees the finish line. It's simply struggled against the grips of black hatters and greedy scumbags that have exhausted consumer confidence.
Well, it is possible. But in my mind, I have yet to see anything that might topple Bitcoin off its perch. Oh well, you're not betting with my money, and I'm not betting with yours.
I truly do believe the government is already in the works of creating their own version of cryptocurrency that will basically destroy the bitcoin and altcoin markets altogether. It sucks, but we all know they have their noses on the pulse of the industry and technology. And if it's anyone that's going to be profiting off cryptos heading into the next decade, they'll make sure it's themselves.
This topic alone could go on for pages and pages. Ok, I'll bite. Which government? The USA? Which part of the government? Would this be an executive initiative? Would there be legislation enacted to bring such a thing about? What department, bureau or other subdivision would be responsible? Who would head such a thing up? To whom would they report? Would there be a Constitutional amendment to skirt the 'gold or silver' clause? Would the cabal of international private bankers that own the federal reserve branch banks that in turn own the Central Bank of the Federal Reserve allow such a thing to happen?
