Topic: [2020-12-11] Why 2021 Is Set To Be Even Bigger For Bitcoin (Read 416 times)

the bitcoin has pumped more than the before 2020 and it is the good news for every holders.and the users of it has increase and there is the more investor in it so , it has set to be bigger for 2021.

The market is ripe for big players. People got used to and learned a lot about the world of cryptocurrency and blockchain in the years after the first rise. We are seeing another evolutionary leap in the entire cryptocurrency topic due to the interest and public support of top officials and large multinational corporations. Whether this will make the market more predictable and less volatile is a big question. It's very interesting to watch this now.

Its too late to make out some regrets because not all people would really be having that kind of positive insights towards crypto into those early years.Lots still have doubts on testing out waters or
making their feet wet and now after all the years on its existence it did really have that significant level of adoption which is way more better compared into those previous years.

2021 onwards would really be a good year for Bitcoin and with some altcoins in the market and this isnt applicable to all because only the relevant ones would really be getting that recognition.

Expect that this would become big even way more bigger that on older years.Adoption is on the move and acceptance and considerations will really be on the next level.

Definitely, this year will bring bitcoins even more success than 2020, but it will take at least two years to introduce digital money into the infrastructure of each state.

One of the saddest things for me about cryptocurrency is the fact that I've been lurking around since 2014, and I still haven't gone balls deep in the sector, I've been wading in the water for a bit after years of only getting my feet wet in order to test the waters, which were considerably grey at the time mid you, now the scene is finally getting mass adoption. I do think 2021 is the year of the Bitcoin, and next year could be the year of the altcoin Cryptocurrency. Who knows though, based on the current trajectory it looks like a sweet view from here. Congrats to all those who were patient, cheers!  

Because bitcoin is the most power full coin in which the users of are increasing in high speed and it has to break the amount $40000 and hope it will be more worthable in the feature and be the top 1 coin in the world of cryptocurrency.

I would like to see bitcoin at a couple hundred thousand dollars apiece by the end of this year

The annual revenue of the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the world (Binance) is only a small fraction of that of PayPal. So I am not sure whether this move was necessiated by the urge for increasing the revenue. IMO, the real objective may be to increase the user base, as new registrations for PayPal has remained stagnant in most of the developed nations.

It is sad that the article is generally highlighting Bitcoin's price movement but only mentioned a few things about Bitcoin being adopted as a payment system which is one of the main goals for us Bitcoin users. I think if we focus more on mass adoption rather than price movement we will still benefit from both since if Bitcoin will be accepted by the majority then we can expect that the demand will also increase thus affecting the price as well. Right now the article just looks like it is speculating the price movement next.

Time will tell about PayPal and bitcoin. I personally do not care much, as I believe now PP move was an ingenious marketing one! Good for them.
With this post I wanted to thank everybody who contributed to the discussion  Many of you shared some great insights.

yes, the bitcoin is always in top rank and will be forever because many more people have knowledge about it and many people know that how strong coin is it. and it is growing more high through social media like face book ,twitter,etc..

@Carlton Banks. Paypal's adoption of bitcoin and the cryptospace might entirely not be that bizzare. They want part of the billion trading cryptocoin market through trading fees. This is a new revenue stream by turning millions of their users into cryptocoin gamblers hehehehe.

right, the hits to Facebook's reputation are gradually stacking up this year, all as a result of them trying to use the power of their network to manipulate both their account holders and their tech business partners.
I think they're on borrowed time from here on in; Facebook was already losing it's appeal once kids realized their parents and teachers were using it to get information about them, that was years ago now. I've never heard of so many people talking about or actually deleting their Facebook account as I did this year.



Symbolically, Paypal's move was much more meaningful. Unfortunately, it was almost as much pure symbolism as the Libra currency; there's no actual way of proving that Paypal are holding any BTC for you, aside from them displaying the balance in your account. Perhaps they are buying BTC somewhere (where? no details exist AFIAK), and people can spend them at market prices at PP merchants... but let's just wait to see how that part pans out. Seeing as Bitcoin is a ready built replacement for the entire Paypal platform with none of it's problems (and issues of it's own that are direct trade-offs against Paypal's model), I get the sense that Paypal's move is most bizarre given the status quo for Bitcoin's network, the risk that some will abandon using Paypal now they've validated Bitcoin's legitimacy seems a little high.

Then let's strongly agree to slightly disagree on some of it.

I must first mention that my view on some might be biased as I'm from Europe and all my information about how things are currently in the US might come from already biased sources and on top of that things work a bit different here when it comes to lobbying, so I might get this entirely wrong.
Anyhow, I think Facebook right now has no chance of going to war, they have money but they lack power and they have a lot of hurdles to overcome, the new administration is looking for money, corporations and big tech companies are the usual targets both for their stash and for looking good to voters, they are in trouble with the propaganda during elections and the covid "fake stories", launching a media campaign now won't look good. And most important, they can't even take on Apple and are howling at them like coyotes for months  

As for the implied adoption of BTC through them, probably it was also scary for some as the authorities constantly denying FB might have been more harmful than acceptance would have been positive, some might have seen cryptos as something that will never get overall approval. My opinion is that the move of Paypal with its PPbitcoins (or how do we call that CFD they are offering people) have done more for BTC's reputation than FB will ever manage to do.


Probably small is the keyword here.
Maybe I've rushed a bit in denying that even a small percentage of the population might have come to BTC through them but I still think that in terms of both % of the users base and overall sums bought their contribution was minimal.

I slightly dispute this!

Since the 2013 bull run, there were a huge number of people that (only when they felt compelled to) dismissed Bitcoin on the grounds that "only government can issue currencies". Pointing out that national banks are often independent of the government (or at least as told in the popular press), or that independent currencies dominated before those issued by kingdoms (or that a king or queen was often the heir of some issuer of independent currency) never helped against the "Only Governments Issue Money" argument; our promulgator of the deference argument would defer again (successfully?) in replying "only governments issue currencies in today's world"

Until Facebook began to talk about doing it, everyone entirely accepted it, at least implicitly. Attempts have been made to issue private currencies, and governments went quite out of their way to stamp them out every time (with the exception of barter based and older commodity based currencies, which one can argue do not qualify as issued currencies).

It demonstrates either the power or the arrogance of Facebook, really. I might suggest both. Certainly, taking on the banking lobby as a registered US corporation is a hell of a power play, but Facebook can use it's network to fight back: simply starting a flood of newsfeed stories about banking corruption, and simultaneously about alternative money systems (even just cooperative or community banking) could really scare the banking lobby into negociating with Facebook instead of threatening them.


I think Facebook certainly have a big issue though, which you allude to: their credibility is suffering, due to biased policing of the network. Policing always needs a bias, but you sure as hell need to pick your biases carefully if your intention is not to run your media platform into the ground. Facebook in 2020 appear to be absolutely confident that losing between 50-75% of their account holders doesn't alter their power base. That could be either supreme confidence, based on information unavailable to the public, or sheer hubris. I suspect again, slightly both: a master stroke in this situation would be for Facebook-heavy stockholders to sell Facebook shares into a toppy market, then quit as the ship goes down. Selling all the public-trust capital (for short term gains) could quite easily be a part of that play, and Facebook in 2020 sure as hell looks like they are selling every shred of credibility they ever had.

tl;dr there will be no Libra, Facebook knows they're circling the drain, but they have helped to open the floodgates to Bitcoin in a small way

Yep, if people would carefully look at diem/libra they will probably get the big picture which is to link another ring at the chain: they created the book of all faces (people) who basically sold their souls to the platform. They do not get that they are sharing their entire lives for commercial purposes. It is a long story, to make it short diem/libra is the missing link to have an almost "perfect" system. Once they control the money which is used in and out, they have full control over everything.
The real question is: do you think there will be a nation state which will challenge this?
And, to sum it up, this has actually nothing to do with bitcoin!

They promised hehe. I speculate that this might never come because it would be a big compliance problem. Paypal wants bitcoin adoption, however, it does not want to give its company unnecessary legal problems.

I agree.  People aren't (yet?) aware that Facebook will be able to see, extract and analyze the items in the Diem ledger.  And they will do so.  They're salivating about it right now about the information and power that will accrue to them by doing so.  They won't just know everything you like (and by implication dislike), exactly who your friends are, see when you visit just about every web site on the internet and everything they can calculate by implication.  They will know every site you go to, when you get there, what you do there, how long it took you to actually purchase something, exactly where those funds came from, exactly what you purchased.  

Facebook and their partners will know just about everything about everyone who uses Facebook and Diem.  You want any privacy?  Don't buy into Diem, and delete FB.  The reasons everyone has mentioned above also are relevant.

You buy a hat supporting person X, or a want to donate to person Y?  If Facebook doesn't approve, they could easily shut you down.  Or they could take the coins of the people you are buying from and you'd have no recourse.  Unlike a credit card company which is (theoretically) on your side, Facebook is only on their own side.  Freezing the coins is enough, they already have the cash you used to buy them so if they are frozen, you'll never be able to redeem them while FB has your cash to use as they wish.  Look at how PayPal has done things with frozen accounts.  

This is also why privacy upgrades to bitcoin are so important so that every person every where can validate the chain, but they can't know that person A bought Z from person B.

Diem/Libra is evil.  Could it help bitcoin and decentralized coins?  I am not sure who is stupid enough to turn over their entire life to a company.

Of course, I didn't think in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 that anyone would allow tracking of them like Google et al do, let alone like FB does.  Makes me think of the HL Mencken's (slightly edited quote): "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the ... public."

I don't understand why people think that the launch of Libra will be good for us and for decentralized coins. The whole scenario of people learning about Libra/Diem, exploring it, and then finding out about Bitcoin is a bit childish, everyone has already heard of it and if they haven't tried it it's certain it will take more than Facebook and d'oh, what reputation Facebook has at the moment to convince them. Centralized coins are in the best case scenario a competitor, in the worst case a real danger as getting rid of competitors is what business try to do all day, and Facebook as a business will try the same, forcing business to accept their coin and at the same time putting pressure on rising fees for others if not dropping them altogether.


There is a slight difference, Paypal can improve things, by letting you withdraw real coins to your wallet as they promised they would (eventually), Facebook can't do anything good with it, no matter what they do with it will be the same centralized garbage in which you will never have control over your coins.

@Sithara007. I did not imply Paypal can control bitcoin. I said Paypal wants to control the way bitcoin is used. They are taking the most important properties of the currency and transformed this into a censorable token for speculative gambling for their users. Is this adoption?