I need bitcoin to be $690 to break even.....will I make it?

[randy8777]

patience is the key. and if you ever happen to break even then it will be very tempting to sell, but keep holding it. 2016 will be the year of the second halving in bitcoin history. just wait.

[1714970146]

1714970146

[planetroving]

I think it is possible for the price of a Bitcoin to rise again. Maybe next year, 2016, or maybe some time later than that. My belief is that as Bitcoin gets more and more popular, and more businesses are accepting Bitcoin, then the demand will grow even higher, therefore increasing the price. That's what I think.

[OpenOcean]

Wrong mentality man. Think about the endgame.

[DanielT]

I think you're quite well OP (supposing bitcoin is a success and you are ok financially). In 5 years, you should hold/spend your bitcoins. Or you may want to cashout for some reason, IDK.

[ashour]

Really difficult to tell, maybe in 2-3 years. The point is bitcoin is still very small and unknown for the average Joe. Let bitcoin grow and the mass adaption will come and the demand will rise.

[GreenStox]

Really difficult to tell, maybe in 2-3 years. The point is bitcoin is still very small and unknown for the average Joe. Let bitcoin grow and the mass adaption will come and the demand will rise.

Its not that i dont care about the mindless sheeple average joe, they probably buy greek bonds anyway lol. It's about the wallstreet getting involved.

The bitcoin yearly inflation is 10% which is too big for the big money to risk itself, it needs 4-5 more years until the yearly inflation gets below 3-4%.

These fucking miners are too greedy and inflate bitcoin too fast, this is bad for it's economic growth.

[gentlemand]

These fucking miners are too greedy and inflate bitcoin too fast, this is bad for it's economic growth.

Write a strongly worded letter to Satoshi. The miners have precisely zilch to do with the amount of inflation.

[GreenStox]

These fucking miners are too greedy and inflate bitcoin too fast, this is bad for it's economic growth.

Write a strongly worded letter to Satoshi. The miners have precisely zilch to do with the amount of inflation.

How exactly, the more they mine the faster the bitcoin will get in circulation. If 1 people mines he will mine slower than if the whole planet is mining.

[gentlemand]

These fucking miners are too greedy and inflate bitcoin too fast, this is bad for it's economic growth.

Write a strongly worded letter to Satoshi. The miners have precisely zilch to do with the amount of inflation.

How exactly, the more they mine the faster the bitcoin will get in circulation. If 1 people mines he will mine slower than if the whole planet is mining.

There might be modest variations in timing but that 1 person would be producing 25 coins every ten minutes all alone. It's hard coded into the algorithm.

[GreenStox]

These fucking miners are too greedy and inflate bitcoin too fast, this is bad for it's economic growth.

Write a strongly worded letter to Satoshi. The miners have precisely zilch to do with the amount of inflation.

How exactly, the more they mine the faster the bitcoin will get in circulation. If 1 people mines he will mine slower than if the whole planet is mining.

There might be modest variations in timing but that 1 person would be producing 25 coins every ten minutes all alone. It's hard coded into the algorithm.

Hmm I see then. So there is no conflict of interest then right?

Well i dont blame satoshi, i personally would have liked a coin supply of atleast 1 billion, i think 21m is too few, but then if the inflation would have been slow it would took too much time to become deflationary and people would have lost interest in 400 years or whatever it would take.

If it would be a faster distribution then the first year inflation would be immense and people would discredit it.

So satoshi was a genius for picking bitcoin 21m coins, a perfect balance between credibility & stability.

But this will make bitcoin an investmen currency and not a commercial one, because if the price gets above 1 bil $ / bitcoin then 1 satoshi would be too expensive to conduct basic transactions.

[gentlemand]

Well i dont blame satoshi, i personally would have liked a coin supply of atleast 1 billion, i think 21m is too few, but then if the inflation would have been slow it would took too much time to become deflationary and people would have lost interest in 400 years or whatever it would take.

If it would be a faster distribution then the first year inflation would be immense and people would discredit it.

So satoshi was a genius for picking bitcoin 21m coins, a perfect balance between credibility & stability.

But this will make bitcoin an investmen currency and not a commercial one, because if the price gets above 1 bil $ / bitcoin then 1 satoshi would be too expensive to conduct basic transactions.

One bitcoin should've started off denominated as more units.

I know it's hugely divisible but human psychology is tuned to certain factors and streams of zeroes is not one of them. A bitcoin has been a bitcoin for a long time. Transitioning will be a bit messy.

The amount of times you hear people saying 'I can't afford a whole one' is rather disheartening. It's a misconception that should've been dealt with a lot earlier.

[vvv8]

Well i dont blame satoshi, i personally would have liked a coin supply of atleast 1 billion, i think 21m is too few, but then if the inflation would have been slow it would took too much time to become deflationary and people would have lost interest in 400 years or whatever it would take.

If it would be a faster distribution then the first year inflation would be immense and people would discredit it.

So satoshi was a genius for picking bitcoin 21m coins, a perfect balance between credibility & stability.

But this will make bitcoin an investmen currency and not a commercial one, because if the price gets above 1 bil $ / bitcoin then 1 satoshi would be too expensive to conduct basic transactions.

One bitcoin should've started off denominated as more units.

I know it's hugely divisible but human psychology is tuned to certain factors and streams of zeroes is not one of them. A bitcoin has been a bitcoin for a long time. Transitioning will be a bit messy.

The amount of times you hear people saying 'I can't afford a whole one' is rather disheartening. It's a misconception that should've been dealt with a lot earlier.

The opposite of what you're saying exists with many fiat currencies which are hyper inflated. I'd rather deal with bitcoin, then with some currency that I need about 10,000 just to buy a coffee. Walking around with a bunch of paper notes and coins, is 100x worse than bitcoin being limited to 21 million.

At the end of the day, ease of use remains exactly the same whether or not something costs you 1 bitcoin, or 1 satoshi, it's all digital transactions.

[GreenStox]

The opposite of what you're saying exists with many fiat currencies which are hyper inflated. I'd rather deal with bitcoin, then with some currency that I need about 10,000 just to buy a coffee. Walking around with a bunch of paper notes and coins, is 100x worse than bitcoin being limited to 21 million.

At the end of the day, ease of use remains exactly the same whether or not something costs you 1 bitcoin, or 1 satoshi, it's all digital transactions.

Ok but that will cause exactly the same thing as you mentioned.

If 1 bitcoin will be 100 trillion $ in the distant future, then 1 satoshi will be like 10.000$ or something like that. Then if you are for example a pizza company, are you going to charge 10.000$ (current dollar) for 1 pizza , that would be 1 satoshi. It seems insane.

So either bitcoin will be better divided, add like 5-6 more decimals to it, or the 21 million is not enough to encompass the ever growing wealth of the planet.

Money printing is not always bad, but overprinting it is. The money supply must be equal to the GDP

[vvv8]

The opposite of what you're saying exists with many fiat currencies which are hyper inflated. I'd rather deal with bitcoin, then with some currency that I need about 10,000 just to buy a coffee. Walking around with a bunch of paper notes and coins, is 100x worse than bitcoin being limited to 21 million.

At the end of the day, ease of use remains exactly the same whether or not something costs you 1 bitcoin, or 1 satoshi, it's all digital transactions.

Ok but that will cause exactly the same thing as you mentioned.

If 1 bitcoin will be 100 trillion $ in the distant future, then 1 satoshi will be like 10.000$ or something like that. Then if you are for example a pizza company, are you going to charge 10.000$ (current dollar) for 1 pizza , that would be 1 satoshi. It seems insane.

So either bitcoin will be better divided, add like 5-6 more decimals to it, or the 21 million is not enough to encompass the ever growing wealth of the planet.

Money printing is not always bad, but overprinting it is. The money supply must be equal to the GDP

There are many places in the world that only accept physical money because they aren't connected to an electronic payment processor (for whatever reason, usually because it's too expensive). So if you want to buy a product or service from them you need to carry all those hyper inflated notes and coins. What i'm saying is that atleast with bitcoin, the hassle of having to carry mass wads of hyper inflated cash is negated.

Also I believe in bitcoins case, there are many solutions available which would make the currency easier to use if the value of the digits become a problem.

[odolvlobo]

If 1 bitcoin will be 100 trillion $ in the distant future, then 1 satoshi will be like 10.000$ or something like that. Then if you are for example a pizza company, are you going to charge 10.000$ (current dollar) for 1 pizza , that would be 1 satoshi. It seems insane.

So either bitcoin will be better divided, add like 5-6 more decimals to it, or the 21 million is not enough to encompass the ever growing wealth of the planet.

Money printing is not always bad, but overprinting it is. The money supply must be equal to the GDP

If Bitcoin replaced all the currency in the world, it would be worth less than $1 million per BTC. If the economy (and the value of a bitcoin) grows at 3% per year, then it will take more than 600 years for 1 BTC to go from $1 million to $100 trillion.

Anyway, I don't think that anyone disagrees that more decimal places may be needed at some point, but from what I've heard adding decimal places is easy.

Finally, there is no good reason for the money supply to be equal to GDP. It might be good to maintain the money supply at some fraction of GDP, but there is no way to determine what that fraction should be.

[GreenStox]

If Bitcoin replaced all the currency in the world, it would be worth less than $1 million per BTC. If the economy (and the value of a bitcoin) grows at 3% per year, then it will take more than 600 years for 1 BTC to go from $1 million to $100 trillion.

Anyway, I don't think that anyone disagrees that more decimal places may be needed at some point, but from what I've heard adding decimal places is easy.

Finally, there is no good reason for the money supply to be equal to GDP. It might be good to maintain the money supply at some fraction of GDP, but there is no way to determine what that fraction should be.

According to my calcultions about 750.000$ (current purchasing power of the $), which may grow to 1m$ but i highly doubt it as we face a severe recession / depression if these central banks print money like crazy.

If GDP will be lost, which will be as if the riots will break out then alot of property could be damaged, so let's just go with 750.000$ cap at best.

Now obviously not all money will go to bitcoin, you cant force 100% of the population to use it, my estimate is that at it's best it could be perhaps 40% of the world population, and thats still in optimal results, not to say about other cryptos that could replace bitcoin.

So if this is true then we will definitely need 5 more digits so that we could do commerce on the small scale too.

But my idea is to keep the names of the units "mBTC" "satoshi" "cBTC" and such, and just name the other 5 digits like 1 "Gavin" or 1 "Maxwell" or whatever from the main developers. So that it should not be confusing to new members, if we would rename 1 satoshi to the 0.000000000001 decimal it would be pretty confusing.

Well there are many arguments for keeping the supply = gdp, which  i wont discuss here, but it just more efficient that way. Of course in bitcoin we can't do that so we can only play with the decimals.

[odolvlobo]

Well there are many arguments for keeping the supply = gdp, which  i wont discuss here, but it just more efficient that way. Of course in bitcoin we can't do that so we can only play with the decimals.

Sorry, I was thinking that you meant supply = nominal GDP (which obviously won't work) instead of supply = real GDP.

[oblivi]

Sit on a comfortable chair for the wait will be long.. this year is a low price year, time to hustle and get loaded. Higher prices will come in the future.

[Sithara007]

Will I make it?

Eventually. Sit on your paper losses until then.
If you have some extra cash, buy now to bring the break even price down.

I do, but I also put in ~$25K into bitcoin in the last year, which is a lot already, should I really risk more.... bitcoin price recovering is still uncertain

My advice is to you, not to put too much of your hard earned money in Bitcoin, if you will be in urgent need of your return after some time. Bcoz one should take only as much risk as he/she can digest.

[Window2Wall]

Nobody can grantee that, but I'm sure of that... Bitcoin will break $1000 barrier, it's just a matter of time (1-3 years). In this timeline we'll see a lot of price variations.