When ppl exchange bitcoin thru localbitcoin, it does not reflex price on exchanges.
Just as the butterfly in China affects the weather in Florida, so too do exchanges done on localbitcoin affect the price on Mt Gox and other exchanges.
Topic: $5000+ bitcoin? - page 5. (Read 15437 times)
Just as the butterfly in China affects the weather in Florida, so too do exchanges done on localbitcoin affect the price on Mt Gox and other exchanges.
You do however appear to be conflating money-supply inflation with price-inflation. And whilst I am not trying to claim they are unrelated there are many potentially wildly moving variables that would need to remain constant for a 10% money-supply inflation result in a 65% loss of purchasing power in ten years. It wouldn't matter by how much Bitcoin's money-supply inflation is slowing down year-on-year if people stopped using it, gradually or suddenly for whatever reason. Price-inflation is the determinant in retaining or losing purchasing power, not money-supply inflation.
For the record though my opinion that Bitcoin is more likely than not to end up at a price orders-of-magnitude higher than it is today remains irrespective of price behaviour in the last couple of months.
For the record though my opinion that Bitcoin is more likely than not to end up at a price orders-of-magnitude higher than it is today remains irrespective of price behaviour in the last couple of months.
I know there is no direct relation to money supply increase and specific price increases. But there are plenty of indirect relations and more time passes, more it is probable the increase of money supply become a generalize increase of prices.
In fact, as the money supply increase and the people (miners or central bank) obtaining the new money use it, the money spread out of their control influencing all prices in different and often difficult to foresight ways.
For example: when the Fed lowered the interest rate it caused the dot com bubble, because the new money flew to the stock market and this caused a lot of wealth transfer; the wealthier people started to buy homes in some places and the prices there grew faster than in other places. When the dotcom bubble popped, the Fed lowered the interest again and caused the real estate bubble. Again wealth was transferred to the people receiving the new money first from the people obtaining the new money later (directly or indirectly).
The way new money is created in Bitcoin make more probable the increase of the money supply become faster a generalized increase of prices, because the new money is spread to a lot of people, so there is not a dominant group deciding where the new money will go. It is like the Fed. starting to give money not to the few big banks but to pop and mom business all around the countries or just using a real helicopter to shower it down the people. In this case the money inflation would cause a diffuse increase of prices for all types of goods and services (but again not completely even).
Anyway, price inflation is different for every individual, because everyone have different spending pattern than anyone else, so any price index is misleading if people do not understand what it is describing.
My opinion is Bitcoin will be between 100 US$ to 3.000$ at the end of this year.
If I should restrict the range, I would say between 300$ to 1.000$.
...
With a 10% inflating currency you lose 65% (2/3) of your purchasing power in ten years. You are left just with 1/3 of it.
With a 20% inflating currency you lose it in 5 years (the US, for now are spreading this over all the world as the US$ is hold as a reserve currency, so in the US people feel just half of it).
Given the choice people will try to hold more of the less inflating currency available as practically possible. And this is a rational binary choice.
Who choose wisely will preserve or increase its purchasing power, who doesn't will lose it and will become irrelevant.
The adoption of Bitcoin can be very fast, so we could see the price raise a lot in response of any disturbance of the economy (and there will be a lot in the near future as this monetary system collapse)
If I should restrict the range, I would say between 300$ to 1.000$.
...
With a 10% inflating currency you lose 65% (2/3) of your purchasing power in ten years. You are left just with 1/3 of it.
With a 20% inflating currency you lose it in 5 years (the US, for now are spreading this over all the world as the US$ is hold as a reserve currency, so in the US people feel just half of it).
Given the choice people will try to hold more of the less inflating currency available as practically possible. And this is a rational binary choice.
Who choose wisely will preserve or increase its purchasing power, who doesn't will lose it and will become irrelevant.
The adoption of Bitcoin can be very fast, so we could see the price raise a lot in response of any disturbance of the economy (and there will be a lot in the near future as this monetary system collapse)
I always enjoy these kind of analyses so thanks for sharing.
You do however appear to be conflating money-supply inflation with price-inflation. And whilst I am not trying to claim they are unrelated there are many potentially wildly moving variables that would need to remain constant for a 10% money-supply inflation result in a 65% loss of purchasing power in ten years. It wouldn't matter by how much Bitcoin's money-supply inflation is slowing down year-on-year if people stopped using it, gradually or suddenly for whatever reason. Price-inflation is the determinant in retaining or losing purchasing power, not money-supply inflation.
For the record though my opinion that Bitcoin is more likely than not to end up at a price orders-of-magnitude higher than it is today remains irrespective of price behaviour in the last couple of months.
My opinion is Bitcoin will be between 100 US$ to 3.000$ at the end of this year.
If I should restrict the range, I would say between 300$ to 1.000$.
If USD/BTC go sideway until it touch the lower line it could be 100 around years end, but the pressure to raise would be astounding as more people use the network, new services are added and more value the network capture.
If there is a repeat of 2012 we could just go from a low 5 to an 10 high visiting 2 and 15., so we could go anywhere between 10 to 266, but I do not think so.
During 2011 the internal inflation rate of bitcoin was 4%/month to start, for a composite inflation rate of 50% YtoY, so no surprise there was a lot of pressure to lower the price (and it got the first parabolic spike).
As 2012 the inflation rate was 33% YtoY, so it explain the stable price. You have increasing adoption pushing the price up and greater inflation than the US$ pushing the price down. It managed just to grow 2x-5x (depend on when you look at it).
The current inflation rate of Bitcoin (B0) is around 10% where the current inflation of US$ (M0) is around 20% (Uncle Ben is printing 1 trillion YoY as part of QE to Infinity).
So, halving of the reward, halving the inflation rate, halving a major force pushing the price of BTC down. And this justify the spike in price, the overshooting and readjustment.
Without the halving of the reward, the price of Bitcoin would just raise as much as the users adoption (in 2013), now it can raise because it work way better than the US$ as a store of value.
In my opinion, USD/BTC is forming a bottom just now, around 100, in the worst case scenario around 90. In the absolute worst case scenario it could go to 32 now, but the rate on growth would push it to 100 by the year end. Given what we see when the price go under 100 US$, a lot of bid come out of the hood, and lower would imply a lot more buy. There is too much people hoping to buy a 50 or less that the price will never go there.
As the BTC internal inflation continue to fall from 12,5 to 11,1 next year to 10% in 2015, the advantage to hold BTC will become even more evident. (inflation is a little higher than this because blocks are mined faster than 1/600 seconds as designed but, at worst it add 1-2% inflation that will be recovered in the not so distant future). As holding Bitcoin instead of US$ (and many other currencies like € and the stuff they use in Pakistan, Brazil, Argentina and so on) become more useful, the exchange rate will raise to balance the price of the demand and the price of the demand to hold. Why keep something inflating 20% or more YtY when you can hold something inflating 10% Y2Y and reducing the rate of inflation continuously?
As people holding on bitcoin will preserve their purchasing power better than people holding US$ (or US$ denominated assets), more people will see holding bitcoin as desirable. In the same way as more argentinians owning US$ preserve their purchasing power better than argentines holding the local currency that inflate a lot faster than the US$ (sic). They do not need to understand it to believe if they can see it happen.
The fact Bitcoin is more friendly and useful to transfer purchasing power from a person to another than Credit and Debit Cards, wire and in some cases cash, gold and silver will make sure the adoption rate will continue to grow.
If the user base continue to grow 15X in two years, as in the past, we could be around 4.5 millions nodes (say people) using it in any moment of the day. The means say just 3 btc for any of them (if all BTC were spread equally). Probably there are not enough available to allow 0.3 BTC for head. If everyone wanted to have 100$ in bitcoin , a BTC would need to be, at least 300$. As people would like to save, they would keep 90% of their bitcoins and spend only the last 10% (and replenish with fiat the earn). And this would push it to 3K $ in two years.
If the user base grow faster than before or people prefer to keep more than 100$ (say 1.000$) in Bitcoin, because their fiat money is very shitty, then the price in US$ will be a lot higher.
With a 10% inflating currency you lose 65% (2/3) of your purchasing power in ten years. You are left just with 1/3 of it.
With a 20% inflating currency you lose it in 5 years (the US, for now are spreading this over all the world as the US$ is hold as a reserve currency, so in the US people feel just half of it).
Given the choice people will try to hold more of the less inflating currency available as practically possible. And this is a rational binary choice.
Who choose wisely will preserve or increase its purchasing power, who doesn't will lose it and will become irrelevant.
The adoption of Bitcoin can be very fast, so we could see the price raise a lot in response of any disturbance of the economy (and there will be a lot in the near future as this monetary system collapse)
If I should restrict the range, I would say between 300$ to 1.000$.
If USD/BTC go sideway until it touch the lower line it could be 100 around years end, but the pressure to raise would be astounding as more people use the network, new services are added and more value the network capture.
If there is a repeat of 2012 we could just go from a low 5 to an 10 high visiting 2 and 15., so we could go anywhere between 10 to 266, but I do not think so.
During 2011 the internal inflation rate of bitcoin was 4%/month to start, for a composite inflation rate of 50% YtoY, so no surprise there was a lot of pressure to lower the price (and it got the first parabolic spike).
As 2012 the inflation rate was 33% YtoY, so it explain the stable price. You have increasing adoption pushing the price up and greater inflation than the US$ pushing the price down. It managed just to grow 2x-5x (depend on when you look at it).
The current inflation rate of Bitcoin (B0) is around 10% where the current inflation of US$ (M0) is around 20% (Uncle Ben is printing 1 trillion YoY as part of QE to Infinity).
So, halving of the reward, halving the inflation rate, halving a major force pushing the price of BTC down. And this justify the spike in price, the overshooting and readjustment.
Without the halving of the reward, the price of Bitcoin would just raise as much as the users adoption (in 2013), now it can raise because it work way better than the US$ as a store of value.
In my opinion, USD/BTC is forming a bottom just now, around 100, in the worst case scenario around 90. In the absolute worst case scenario it could go to 32 now, but the rate on growth would push it to 100 by the year end. Given what we see when the price go under 100 US$, a lot of bid come out of the hood, and lower would imply a lot more buy. There is too much people hoping to buy a 50 or less that the price will never go there.
As the BTC internal inflation continue to fall from 12,5 to 11,1 next year to 10% in 2015, the advantage to hold BTC will become even more evident. (inflation is a little higher than this because blocks are mined faster than 1/600 seconds as designed but, at worst it add 1-2% inflation that will be recovered in the not so distant future). As holding Bitcoin instead of US$ (and many other currencies like € and the stuff they use in Pakistan, Brazil, Argentina and so on) become more useful, the exchange rate will raise to balance the price of the demand and the price of the demand to hold. Why keep something inflating 20% or more YtY when you can hold something inflating 10% Y2Y and reducing the rate of inflation continuously?
As people holding on bitcoin will preserve their purchasing power better than people holding US$ (or US$ denominated assets), more people will see holding bitcoin as desirable. In the same way as more argentinians owning US$ preserve their purchasing power better than argentines holding the local currency that inflate a lot faster than the US$ (sic). They do not need to understand it to believe if they can see it happen.
The fact Bitcoin is more friendly and useful to transfer purchasing power from a person to another than Credit and Debit Cards, wire and in some cases cash, gold and silver will make sure the adoption rate will continue to grow.
If the user base continue to grow 15X in two years, as in the past, we could be around 4.5 millions nodes (say people) using it in any moment of the day. The means say just 3 btc for any of them (if all BTC were spread equally). Probably there are not enough available to allow 0.3 BTC for head. If everyone wanted to have 100$ in bitcoin , a BTC would need to be, at least 300$. As people would like to save, they would keep 90% of their bitcoins and spend only the last 10% (and replenish with fiat the earn). And this would push it to 3K $ in two years.
If the user base grow faster than before or people prefer to keep more than 100$ (say 1.000$) in Bitcoin, because their fiat money is very shitty, then the price in US$ will be a lot higher.
With a 10% inflating currency you lose 65% (2/3) of your purchasing power in ten years. You are left just with 1/3 of it.
With a 20% inflating currency you lose it in 5 years (the US, for now are spreading this over all the world as the US$ is hold as a reserve currency, so in the US people feel just half of it).
Given the choice people will try to hold more of the less inflating currency available as practically possible. And this is a rational binary choice.
Who choose wisely will preserve or increase its purchasing power, who doesn't will lose it and will become irrelevant.
The adoption of Bitcoin can be very fast, so we could see the price raise a lot in response of any disturbance of the economy (and there will be a lot in the near future as this monetary system collapse)
I have a friend of mine at the conference this weekend and he has been speaking to a few people who think a $5000 + bitcoin could be possible.
Thoughts ?
Thoughts ?
Stop making these retarded unrealistic post about $5k or $1M BTC.
Reality is socially constructed. "Retarded" people are respected and valued in many cultures as having insight into spiritual dimensions that those of us wrapped up in phenomenal reality cannot perceive. For more information check out Aldous Huxley and Silk Road.
$5000 will happen if bitcoin catches on. But it is likely years away.
It finally got its mass media hype this year, and then quickly deflated. GG
sub'd
$5000 will happen if bitcoin catches on. But it is likely years away. NO WAY will we see $5k by the end of this year. We won't even see $1k by the end of this year.
In fact, I'd be honestly surprised if we were at $200 at the end of this year. I think a reasonable high for the rest of this year is $160-$170 perhaps.
In fact, I'd be honestly surprised if we were at $200 at the end of this year. I think a reasonable high for the rest of this year is $160-$170 perhaps.
The "Scalability" wiki page is overly optimistic in tone and it's written from a very MAX_BLOCK_SIZE abolitionist viewpoint.
There are people who actually are trying to retcon Bitcoin's history so that the 1M block size limit would have been meant as a fundamental, eternal part of the protocol. Others think that Satoshi made a mistake when he said that the limit was a temporary measure.
While I support replacing the hard limit with a more organic limit (maybe something like "raise the limit by factor f if average size of last n blocks > k times MAX_BLOCK_SIZE AND difficulty is larger than last difficulty") I fear that my opinion is not shared by a large enough supermajority of influential Bitcoin people that it could actually be implemented at least until we have seen the economic consequences of hitting said limit hard.
There are people who actually are trying to retcon Bitcoin's history so that the 1M block size limit would have been meant as a fundamental, eternal part of the protocol. Others think that Satoshi made a mistake when he said that the limit was a temporary measure.
While I support replacing the hard limit with a more organic limit (maybe something like "raise the limit by factor f if average size of last n blocks > k times MAX_BLOCK_SIZE AND difficulty is larger than last difficulty") I fear that my opinion is not shared by a large enough supermajority of influential Bitcoin people that it could actually be implemented at least until we have seen the economic consequences of hitting said limit hard.
I've been thinking of the block size limit question as analogous to when Bill Gates said nobody would need / have a use for more than 640K RAM (not sure if that # is exactly correct but it doesn't matter here)... What happened when Microsoft chose to keep that limit, and what might have happened if they chose to extend that limit?
If I remember correctly, developers had to use either their own original memory extension drivers (or whatever they were officially referred to as: EMS, XMS, etc.) or use third-party tools. I don't know if Apple ever ran into this problem (or Commodore) ... point is, at the time, there was not really a viable alternative to Microsoft's Windows if one wanted to use a home PC for gaming or productivity software.
Right now the only real competition to BTC is LTC (I think of BTC as Microsoft and LTC as Apple in this analogy), so if the analogy were to continue, I'd guess that BTC core developers will choose to keep the block limit size as-is, and rely on extensions (Open Transactions, Ripple) to implement these extensions (in the form of providing transactions off the blockchain).
The "Scalability" wiki page is overly optimistic in tone and it's written from a very MAX_BLOCK_SIZE abolitionist viewpoint.
There are people who actually are trying to retcon Bitcoin's history so that the 1M block size limit would have been meant as a fundamental, eternal part of the protocol. Others think that Satoshi made a mistake when he said that the limit was a temporary measure.
While I support replacing the hard limit with a more organic limit (maybe something like "raise the limit by factor f if average size of last n blocks > k times MAX_BLOCK_SIZE AND difficulty is larger than last difficulty") I fear that my opinion is not shared by a large enough supermajority of influential Bitcoin people that it could actually be implemented at least until we have seen the economic consequences of hitting said limit hard.
There are people who actually are trying to retcon Bitcoin's history so that the 1M block size limit would have been meant as a fundamental, eternal part of the protocol. Others think that Satoshi made a mistake when he said that the limit was a temporary measure.
While I support replacing the hard limit with a more organic limit (maybe something like "raise the limit by factor f if average size of last n blocks > k times MAX_BLOCK_SIZE AND difficulty is larger than last difficulty") I fear that my opinion is not shared by a large enough supermajority of influential Bitcoin people that it could actually be implemented at least until we have seen the economic consequences of hitting said limit hard.
Does anyone still believe this is gonna happen by the end of 2013, after the stagnation of May?
It dont believe it's likely but I do believe it could happen. All it would takes is for some backward country to start adopt it wide scale and I believe that would be enough. Like Kenya:
http://www.thegenesisblock.com/guest-post-kenya-primed-for-wide-scale-bitcoin-adoption/
Impossible. Bitcoin does not scale to over 7 tps at the moment, and there's a significant controversy among influential people on whether the limit should ever be altered. Many influential developers do not want bitcoin to scale up.
At the very most, Bitcoin could replace some "official" fringe pseudocurrency, such as the SDR.
At the moment...
Quote
The core Bitcoin network can scale to much higher transaction rates than are seen today, assuming that nodes in the network are primarily running on high end servers rather than desktops. Bitcoin was designed to support lightweight clients that only process small parts of the block chain (see simplified payment verification below for more details on this). A configuration in which the vast majority of users sync lightweight clients to more powerful backbone nodes is capable of scaling to millions of users and tens of thousands of transactions per second.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/ScalabilityFrom the "Current bottlenecks" of your own link:
Quote
Today the Bitcoin network is restricted to a sustained rate of 7 tps by some artificial limits. These were put in place to stop people from ballooning the size of the block chain before the network and community was ready for it. Once those limits are lifted, the maximum transaction rate will go up significantly.
This is the optimistic viewpoint, but as mp420 points out, there is likely to be a lasting hard fork if anyone tries to raise this limit. Unless the new, unrestricted chain takes a new name there will be fighting and confusion over which chain is "bitcoin". The good news is if such a fork happens any coins you have at the time of the fork will be spendable on both chains.
Does anyone still believe this is gonna happen by the end of 2013, after the stagnation of May?
It dont believe it's likely but I do believe it could happen. All it would takes is for some backward country to start adopt it wide scale and I believe that would be enough. Like Kenya:
http://www.thegenesisblock.com/guest-post-kenya-primed-for-wide-scale-bitcoin-adoption/
Impossible. Bitcoin does not scale to over 7 tps at the moment, and there's a significant controversy among influential people on whether the limit should ever be altered. Many influential developers do not want bitcoin to scale up.
At the very most, Bitcoin could replace some "official" fringe pseudocurrency, such as the SDR.
At the moment...
Quote
The core Bitcoin network can scale to much higher transaction rates than are seen today, assuming that nodes in the network are primarily running on high end servers rather than desktops. Bitcoin was designed to support lightweight clients that only process small parts of the block chain (see simplified payment verification below for more details on this). A configuration in which the vast majority of users sync lightweight clients to more powerful backbone nodes is capable of scaling to millions of users and tens of thousands of transactions per second.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability Does anyone still believe this is gonna happen by the end of 2013, after the stagnation of May?
It dont believe it's likely but I do believe it could happen. All it would takes is for some backward country to start adopt it wide scale and I believe that would be enough. Like Kenya:
http://www.thegenesisblock.com/guest-post-kenya-primed-for-wide-scale-bitcoin-adoption/
Impossible. Bitcoin does not scale to over 7 tps at the moment, and there's a significant controversy among influential people on whether the limit should ever be altered. Many influential developers do not want bitcoin to scale up.
At the very most, Bitcoin could replace some "official" fringe pseudocurrency, such as the SDR.
I believe in Santa, and $1M BTC.
Does anyone still believe this is gonna happen by the end of 2013, after the stagnation of May?
It dont believe it's likely but I do believe it could happen. All it would takes is for some backward country to start adopt it wide scale and I believe that would be enough. Like Kenya:
http://www.thegenesisblock.com/guest-post-kenya-primed-for-wide-scale-bitcoin-adoption/
Once Bitcoin grows, bitcoin gets more attractive and even more people want to use it, like neighbouring countries for trade. And it would legitimize it so even more countries would look to try the same experiment which would drive speculation which could take bitcoin above 5k.
Bitcoin today is very small, any non-small application of bitcoins would drive the price skywards.
Speculations are only Speculations without theory.
Stop making these retarded unrealistic post about $5k or $1M BTC.
I have a friend of mine at the conference this weekend and he has been speaking to a few people who think a $5000 + bitcoin could be possible.
Thoughts ?
Thoughts ?
Stop making these retarded unrealistic post about $5k or $1M BTC.
I have a friend of mine at the conference this weekend and he has been speaking to a few people who think a $5000 + bitcoin could be possible.
Thoughts ?
Thoughts ?
Stop making these retarded unrealistic post about $5k or $1M BTC.
I feel this depends on how well adopted bitcoins become. At the moment, I don't think bitcoins can reach mass adoption like credit cards because of problems with blockchain size, and TPS limit. Also, Frankly, and sadly, I just feel the average person can't be hassled to deal with bitcoins. People can't even take control of their health, day to day finances, and debts and now you expect people to safely secure their bitcoins, spend time getting verified, moving money and buying bitcoins? If there's one thing that credit card company's did right is they made it easy for people (at least in comparison to bitcoins or cash) to secure and transfer their money, while at the same time extending credit. Lose your CC? call the company they can get it deactivated. identity theft? most companies will refund. Need points, cashbacks, rewards, Cash withdrawal around the globe? we got you. Heck I don't even bother with cash most of the time unless I'm going to chinatown (those guys are always cash only, maybe bitcoins would work for them?) because the convenience of using a credit card is just that much higher
The other argument is over anonymity. In most cases anonymity is pretty overrated. While I want my purchases and transactions to be private, I also don't want my money to not be under my name or traceable when stolen. Just like you wouldn't keep thousands off dollars in cash under your mattress, but instead rather have the bank hold it in your name, where consumer protection laws can help a great deal to alleviate any crises, you wouldn't want to keep thousands of dollars in such a manner where they can't be effectively traced back to you.
Ultimately, even though I love bitcoins, I wouldn't see myself using it to buy items which break easily, such as electronics, or for large purchases, like airplane tickets, cars, electronics, nice dinners etc. using a card gives me more flexibility, rewards, and consumer protection. 2.5% is a small fee to pay to get all these advantages ( I pay everything with credit card and just pay it cash at the end of the month, the benefits are just too good to pass up).
The other argument is over anonymity. In most cases anonymity is pretty overrated. While I want my purchases and transactions to be private, I also don't want my money to not be under my name or traceable when stolen. Just like you wouldn't keep thousands off dollars in cash under your mattress, but instead rather have the bank hold it in your name, having tons of bit coins, whether in an offline wallet or otherwise, leaves it with little way of connecting the bitcoins to you.
I guess what I mean to say is, bit coins, and its current state, just isn't scaleable and as convenient to use as other forms of purchasing.
So what do I think bitcoins are good for? I think bit coins is good for large transactions or transactions where anonymity is crucial or transactions where being able to dispute payment is high. Of course instead of trusting your credit card company to handle in any issue, one of the persons in the transaction would have to go first , so trust is not in a large organization which can have tons of reputation on the line.
Overall. Bit coin is a currency that fits a very specific niche and is, as many have already said, and experiment, one that has highlighted how dated and cumbersome banking currently is. Hopefully, banks around the world find a way to standardize transfers and make the available 24/7 within the next 10-20 years. If banking systems cannot catch up to the current globalized 24/7 high paced, instant communication world we live, then maybe, maybe do I see bitcoins becoming worth 1000$+
The other argument is over anonymity. In most cases anonymity is pretty overrated. While I want my purchases and transactions to be private, I also don't want my money to not be under my name or traceable when stolen. Just like you wouldn't keep thousands off dollars in cash under your mattress, but instead rather have the bank hold it in your name, where consumer protection laws can help a great deal to alleviate any crises, you wouldn't want to keep thousands of dollars in such a manner where they can't be effectively traced back to you.
Ultimately, even though I love bitcoins, I wouldn't see myself using it to buy items which break easily, such as electronics, or for large purchases, like airplane tickets, cars, electronics, nice dinners etc. using a card gives me more flexibility, rewards, and consumer protection. 2.5% is a small fee to pay to get all these advantages ( I pay everything with credit card and just pay it cash at the end of the month, the benefits are just too good to pass up).
The other argument is over anonymity. In most cases anonymity is pretty overrated. While I want my purchases and transactions to be private, I also don't want my money to not be under my name or traceable when stolen. Just like you wouldn't keep thousands off dollars in cash under your mattress, but instead rather have the bank hold it in your name, having tons of bit coins, whether in an offline wallet or otherwise, leaves it with little way of connecting the bitcoins to you.
I guess what I mean to say is, bit coins, and its current state, just isn't scaleable and as convenient to use as other forms of purchasing.
So what do I think bitcoins are good for? I think bit coins is good for large transactions or transactions where anonymity is crucial or transactions where being able to dispute payment is high. Of course instead of trusting your credit card company to handle in any issue, one of the persons in the transaction would have to go first , so trust is not in a large organization which can have tons of reputation on the line.
Overall. Bit coin is a currency that fits a very specific niche and is, as many have already said, and experiment, one that has highlighted how dated and cumbersome banking currently is. Hopefully, banks around the world find a way to standardize transfers and make the available 24/7 within the next 10-20 years. If banking systems cannot catch up to the current globalized 24/7 high paced, instant communication world we live, then maybe, maybe do I see bitcoins becoming worth 1000$+
Bitcoins may rise or fall in value.
I recently have been collecting these Goldcoins and each Goldcoin only costs me fractions of a penny.
I think Goldcoin will have much larger percentage gains than bitcoin will have.
gldtalk.org - Goldcoin forum
There needs to be Gox alternatives that ppl can send USD in, to buy coins and hold good liquidity. Now, if my mom want to buy bitcoin, I have no damn clue how to get it. Since, there's no easy USD pumping into Gox from dwolla, the price can't go up, but I'm sure the demand is there.
When ppl exchange bitcoin thru localbitcoin, it does not reflex price on exchanges.
When ppl exchange bitcoin thru localbitcoin, it does not reflex price on exchanges.
Jump to: