I'm shocked at how people in the crypt world manage to exaggerate their optimism, this passage of the article almost made me fall out of bed:
For Hal Finney, with the total success of Bitcoin, the price of a Bitcoin could reach $10 million.
This is a big exaggeration and I hope that no one is buying bitcoin with the hope that in 20 years' time they will be a millionaire. we have to look at our own age, our life expectancy when we do hodl, it doesn't make much sense for someone to just do hodl for 20 years, bitcoin is to be used to buy things
What specifically was wrong with Hal's analysis? What he said and the math follows easily. He didn't say it would do that, just that it was one possibility with a tremendous risk/reward ratio. Recall that at the time it sounded a lot like today with people saying it is a scam, ponzi, worthless, that it will never reach $1 etc:
“It’s interesting that the system can be configured to only allow a certain maximum number of coins ever to be generated. I guess the idea is that the amount of work needed to generate a new coin will become more difficult as time goes on.
One immediate problem with any new currency is how to value it. Even ignoring the practical problem that virtually no one will accept it at first, there is still a difficulty in coming up with a reasonable argument in favor of a particular non-zero value for the coins.
As an amusing thought experiment, imagine that Bitcoin is successful and becomes the dominant payment system in use throughout the world. Then the total value of the currency should be equal to the total value of all the wealth in the world. Current estimates of total worldwide household wealth that I have found range from $100 trillion to $300 trillion. With 20 million coins, that gives each coin a value of about $10 million.
So the possibility of generating coins today with a few cents of compute time may be quite a good bet, with a payoff of something like 100 million to 1! Even if the odds of Bitcoin succeeding to this degree are slim, are they really 100 million to one against? Something to think about…”
Most people who understood it at the time were saying that it was something of a binary proposition, either it will be worth very little, or a whole lot.