Bitcoins are designed to be mined over the next 100 years, so you could say we're still early adopters by a long shot.
The only thing that's going to change anything are quantum computers / disruptions of the network, due in the next 5-50 years.
Topic: Are we still in the early adopter stage of Bitcoin? (Read 1512 times)
Interesting thoughts:
How long will it take to generate all the coins?
The last block that will generate coins will be block #6,929,999 which should be generated at or near the year 2140. The total number of coins in circulation will then remain static at 20,999,999.9769 BTC.
If no more coins are going to be generated, will more blocks be created?
Absolutely! Even before the creation of coins ends, the use of transaction fees will likely make creating new blocks more valuable from the fees than the new coins being created. When coin generation ends, these fees will sustain the ability to use bitcoins and the Bitcoin network. There is no practical limit on the number of blocks that will be mined in the future.
But if no more coins are generated, what happens when Bitcoins are lost? Won't that be a problem?
Because of the law of supply and demand, when fewer bitcoins are available the ones that are left will be in higher demand, and therefore will have a higher value. So, as Bitcoins are lost, the remaining bitcoins will eventually increase in value to compensate. As the value of a bitcoin increases, the number of bitcoins required to purchase an item decreases. This is a deflationary economic model. As the average transaction size reduces, transactions will probably be denominated in sub-units of a bitcoin such as millibitcoins ("Millies") or microbitcoins ("Mikes").
How long will it take to generate all the coins?
The last block that will generate coins will be block #6,929,999 which should be generated at or near the year 2140. The total number of coins in circulation will then remain static at 20,999,999.9769 BTC.
If no more coins are going to be generated, will more blocks be created?
Absolutely! Even before the creation of coins ends, the use of transaction fees will likely make creating new blocks more valuable from the fees than the new coins being created. When coin generation ends, these fees will sustain the ability to use bitcoins and the Bitcoin network. There is no practical limit on the number of blocks that will be mined in the future.
But if no more coins are generated, what happens when Bitcoins are lost? Won't that be a problem?
Because of the law of supply and demand, when fewer bitcoins are available the ones that are left will be in higher demand, and therefore will have a higher value. So, as Bitcoins are lost, the remaining bitcoins will eventually increase in value to compensate. As the value of a bitcoin increases, the number of bitcoins required to purchase an item decreases. This is a deflationary economic model. As the average transaction size reduces, transactions will probably be denominated in sub-units of a bitcoin such as millibitcoins ("Millies") or microbitcoins ("Mikes").
in very early indeed. it took 15 years to introduce EURO with all support from governments and central banks.
Instead of focusing on price I focus on the depth and breadth of the applications being developed. Currency is just the first app for Bitcoin.
If you look at the explosion of the last months, you can definitely tell that cryptocurrency is going to play a pretty big role in the coming year. I'm looking forward to it! 
Well, definitely not really early. But I would still say early.
There's dozens of doubters for every believer right now.
There's dozens of doubters for every believer right now.
On one hand to say this is the 'early stages' sounds like wishful thinking considering theres new millionaires due to bitcoin and on the other we very much are in the early stages.
Maybe too early, if google or apple (for example) decided to release a competing currency, the number of people taking it up overnight would dwarf bitcoin and push it into obscurity.
To elaborate on that a bit.. we all know apple didnt invent tablets, google didnt invent search engines, facebook didnt invent social networking, youtube didnt invent online video etc etc but they were at the end of a long list of mediocre attempts by others at all of those things. They arent the best producers of those services, yet they are dominant due to their getting it just good enough for the masses to latch on.
Bitcoin to me doesnt feel like the best cryptocurrencies can come up with, not by a long shot, so theres still room for something else to come in and improve upon the structure.
Maybe too early, if google or apple (for example) decided to release a competing currency, the number of people taking it up overnight would dwarf bitcoin and push it into obscurity.
To elaborate on that a bit.. we all know apple didnt invent tablets, google didnt invent search engines, facebook didnt invent social networking, youtube didnt invent online video etc etc but they were at the end of a long list of mediocre attempts by others at all of those things. They arent the best producers of those services, yet they are dominant due to their getting it just good enough for the masses to latch on.
Bitcoin to me doesnt feel like the best cryptocurrencies can come up with, not by a long shot, so theres still room for something else to come in and improve upon the structure.
I still think that it is early days. Especially politically and in respect to how the money masters out there who control the various reserve banks and world monetary funds are going to play in the crypto-currency space and how they may pressure law makers to behave.
Are the money masters of the world going to join in and play nice or are they going to play nasty? Probably a bit of both, in my humble opinion.
The legal standpoint on BTC is yet to mature.
Let's take a snapshot look at the world and how lawmakers are approaching bitcoin:
Australian Tax Office: Already treating it as a currency and pursuing potential tax misconduct: http://www.afr.com/p/technology/ato_targets_bitcoin_users_oawpzLQHDz2vEUWtvYLTWI
Swiss Law Makers: Pursuing legislation to treat BTC as a foreign currency. http://www.coindesk.com/swiss-lawmakers-bitcoin-foreign-currency/
Norway Tax Chief: BTC will be treated like an asset and subject to Capital Gains Tax. They will work with other countries and work out how to develop laws surrounding bitcoin. :http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/12/16/norway-rejects-bitcoin-legitimate-currency-will-treat-savings-taxable-assets/#!qXFGH
China: What is going on here? Pause! Whilst we get a handle on this. http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/5/5177550/bitcoin-banned-from-chinese-banks-amid-fears-of-laundering
Thailand: BTC is outlawed. (see how long this ban can last) http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/29/4569126/bitcoin-tries-to-become-legal-currency-in-thailand-gets-outlawed
India: The Reserve Bank of India is getting jittery and making announcements: "The Reserve Bank of India emphasized that virtual currencies were not authorized by any central bank or monetary authority, thus posing serious risks to their users." I guess that is all a matter of opinion. http://rt.com/news/bitcoin-india-exchange-halt-911/
Watch this space:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Legal_status
If you'd like to see an interesting documentary about the reserve banking system and how fiat currencies came about. Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jttwjamzQYE
It was made in 1996. Predicted the Global Financial Crisis. It also exposes how the Federal Reserve Bank of America is a private, for profit organisation which does not hold any reserves at all. It is a deceptive name.
Do you want to know who owns the Federal Reserve Bank? http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml
Also of interest is the Tally Stick, which was a form of currency in England for over 700 years until the Bank of England was introduced.
Does BitCoin have the potential to become like the Tally Stick system which worked well for England for 7 centuries?
The text below has been taken from: http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html
THE TALLY STICKS (1100 - 1854)
King Henry the First produced sticks of polished wood, with notches cut along one edge to signify the denominations. The stick was then split full length so each piece still had a record of the notches.
The King kept one half for proof against counterfeiting, and then spent the other half into the market place where it would continue to circulate as money.
Because only Tally Sticks were accepted by Henry for payment of taxes, there was a built in demand for them, which gave people confidence to accept these as money.
He could have used anything really, so long as the people agreed it had value, and his willingness to accept these sticks as legal tender made it easy for the people to agree. Money is only as valuable as peoples faith in it, and without that faith even today's money is just paper.
The tally stick system worked really well for 726 years. It was the most successful form of currency in recent history and the British Empire was actually built under the Tally Stick system, but how is it that most of us are not aware of its existence?
Perhaps the fact that in 1694 the Bank of England at its formation attacked the Tally Stick System gives us a clue as to why most of us have never heard of them. They realised it was money outside the power of the money changers, (the very thing King Henry had intended).
What better way to eliminate the vital faith people had in this rival currency than to pretend it simply never existed and not discuss it. That seems to be what happened when the first shareholder's in the Bank of England bought their original shares with notched pieces of wood and retired the system. You heard correctly, they bought shares. The Bank of England was set up as a privately owned bank through investors buying shares. Even the Banks resent nationalisation is not what it at first may appear, as its independent resources unceasingly multiply and dividends continue to be produced for its shareholder's.
These investors, who's names were kept secret, were meant to invest one and a quarter million pounds, but only three quarters of a million was received when it was chartered in 1694.
It then began to lend out many times more than it had in reserve, collecting interest on the lot.
This is not something you could just impose on people without preparation. The money changers needed to created the climate to make the formation of this private concern seem acceptable.
Here's how they did it.
With King Henry VIII relaxing the Usury Laws in the 1500's, the money changers flooded the market with their gold and silver coins becoming richer by the minute.
The English Revolution of 1642 was financed by the money changers backing Oliver Cromwell's successful attempt to purge the parliament and kill King Charles. What followed was 50 years of costly wars. Costly to those fighting them and profitable to those financing them.
So profitable that it allowed the money changers to take over a square mile of property still known as the City of London, which remains one of the three main financial centres in the world today.
The 50 years of war left England in financial ruin. The government officials went begging for loans from guess who, and the deal proposed resulted in a government sanctioned, privately owned bank which could produce money from nothing, essentially legally counterfeiting a national currency for private gain.
Now the politicians had a source from which to borrow all the money they wanted to borrow, and the debt created was secured against public taxes.
You would think someone would have seen through this, and realised they could produce their own money and owe no interest, but instead the Bank of England has been used as a model and now nearly every nation has a Central Bank with fractional reserve banking at its core.
These central banks have the power to take over a nations economy and become that nations real governing force. What we have here is a scam of mammoth proportions covering what is actually a hidden tax, being collected by private concerns.
The country sells bonds to the bank in return for money it cannot raise in taxes. The bonds are paid for by money produced from thin air. The government pays interest on the money it borrowed by borrowing more money in the same way. There is no way this debt can ever be paid, it has and will continue to increase.
If the government did find a way to pay off the debt, the result would be that there would be no bonds to back the currency, so to pay the debt would be to kill the currency.
With its formation the Bank of England soon flooded Britain with money. With no quality control and no insistence on value for money, prices doubled with money being thrown in every direction.
One company was even offering to drain the Red Sea to find Egyptian gold lost when the sea closed in on their pursuit of Moses.
By1698 the national debt expanded from £1,250,000 to £16,000,000 and up went the taxes the debt was secured on.
As hard as it might be to believe, in times of economic upheaval, wealth is rarely destroyed and instead is often only transferred. And who benefits the most when money is scarce? You may have guessed. It's those controlling what everyone else wants, the money changer's.
When the majority of people are suffering through economic depression, you can be sure that a minority of people are continuing to get rich.
Even today the Bank of England expresses its determination to prevent the ups and downs of booms and depressions, yet there have been nothing but ups and downs since its formation with the British pound rarely being stable.
One thing however has been stable and that is the growing fortune of: THE ROTHSCHILDS (1743)
Are the money masters of the world going to join in and play nice or are they going to play nasty? Probably a bit of both, in my humble opinion.
The legal standpoint on BTC is yet to mature.
Let's take a snapshot look at the world and how lawmakers are approaching bitcoin:
Australian Tax Office: Already treating it as a currency and pursuing potential tax misconduct: http://www.afr.com/p/technology/ato_targets_bitcoin_users_oawpzLQHDz2vEUWtvYLTWI
Swiss Law Makers: Pursuing legislation to treat BTC as a foreign currency. http://www.coindesk.com/swiss-lawmakers-bitcoin-foreign-currency/
Norway Tax Chief: BTC will be treated like an asset and subject to Capital Gains Tax. They will work with other countries and work out how to develop laws surrounding bitcoin. :http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/12/16/norway-rejects-bitcoin-legitimate-currency-will-treat-savings-taxable-assets/#!qXFGH
China: What is going on here? Pause! Whilst we get a handle on this. http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/5/5177550/bitcoin-banned-from-chinese-banks-amid-fears-of-laundering
Thailand: BTC is outlawed. (see how long this ban can last) http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/29/4569126/bitcoin-tries-to-become-legal-currency-in-thailand-gets-outlawed
India: The Reserve Bank of India is getting jittery and making announcements: "The Reserve Bank of India emphasized that virtual currencies were not authorized by any central bank or monetary authority, thus posing serious risks to their users." I guess that is all a matter of opinion. http://rt.com/news/bitcoin-india-exchange-halt-911/
Watch this space:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Legal_status
If you'd like to see an interesting documentary about the reserve banking system and how fiat currencies came about. Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jttwjamzQYE
It was made in 1996. Predicted the Global Financial Crisis. It also exposes how the Federal Reserve Bank of America is a private, for profit organisation which does not hold any reserves at all. It is a deceptive name.
Do you want to know who owns the Federal Reserve Bank? http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml
Also of interest is the Tally Stick, which was a form of currency in England for over 700 years until the Bank of England was introduced.
Does BitCoin have the potential to become like the Tally Stick system which worked well for England for 7 centuries?
The text below has been taken from: http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html
THE TALLY STICKS (1100 - 1854)
King Henry the First produced sticks of polished wood, with notches cut along one edge to signify the denominations. The stick was then split full length so each piece still had a record of the notches.
The King kept one half for proof against counterfeiting, and then spent the other half into the market place where it would continue to circulate as money.
Because only Tally Sticks were accepted by Henry for payment of taxes, there was a built in demand for them, which gave people confidence to accept these as money.
He could have used anything really, so long as the people agreed it had value, and his willingness to accept these sticks as legal tender made it easy for the people to agree. Money is only as valuable as peoples faith in it, and without that faith even today's money is just paper.
The tally stick system worked really well for 726 years. It was the most successful form of currency in recent history and the British Empire was actually built under the Tally Stick system, but how is it that most of us are not aware of its existence?
Perhaps the fact that in 1694 the Bank of England at its formation attacked the Tally Stick System gives us a clue as to why most of us have never heard of them. They realised it was money outside the power of the money changers, (the very thing King Henry had intended).
What better way to eliminate the vital faith people had in this rival currency than to pretend it simply never existed and not discuss it. That seems to be what happened when the first shareholder's in the Bank of England bought their original shares with notched pieces of wood and retired the system. You heard correctly, they bought shares. The Bank of England was set up as a privately owned bank through investors buying shares. Even the Banks resent nationalisation is not what it at first may appear, as its independent resources unceasingly multiply and dividends continue to be produced for its shareholder's.
These investors, who's names were kept secret, were meant to invest one and a quarter million pounds, but only three quarters of a million was received when it was chartered in 1694.
It then began to lend out many times more than it had in reserve, collecting interest on the lot.
This is not something you could just impose on people without preparation. The money changers needed to created the climate to make the formation of this private concern seem acceptable.
Here's how they did it.
With King Henry VIII relaxing the Usury Laws in the 1500's, the money changers flooded the market with their gold and silver coins becoming richer by the minute.
The English Revolution of 1642 was financed by the money changers backing Oliver Cromwell's successful attempt to purge the parliament and kill King Charles. What followed was 50 years of costly wars. Costly to those fighting them and profitable to those financing them.
So profitable that it allowed the money changers to take over a square mile of property still known as the City of London, which remains one of the three main financial centres in the world today.
The 50 years of war left England in financial ruin. The government officials went begging for loans from guess who, and the deal proposed resulted in a government sanctioned, privately owned bank which could produce money from nothing, essentially legally counterfeiting a national currency for private gain.
Now the politicians had a source from which to borrow all the money they wanted to borrow, and the debt created was secured against public taxes.
You would think someone would have seen through this, and realised they could produce their own money and owe no interest, but instead the Bank of England has been used as a model and now nearly every nation has a Central Bank with fractional reserve banking at its core.
These central banks have the power to take over a nations economy and become that nations real governing force. What we have here is a scam of mammoth proportions covering what is actually a hidden tax, being collected by private concerns.
The country sells bonds to the bank in return for money it cannot raise in taxes. The bonds are paid for by money produced from thin air. The government pays interest on the money it borrowed by borrowing more money in the same way. There is no way this debt can ever be paid, it has and will continue to increase.
If the government did find a way to pay off the debt, the result would be that there would be no bonds to back the currency, so to pay the debt would be to kill the currency.
With its formation the Bank of England soon flooded Britain with money. With no quality control and no insistence on value for money, prices doubled with money being thrown in every direction.
One company was even offering to drain the Red Sea to find Egyptian gold lost when the sea closed in on their pursuit of Moses.
By1698 the national debt expanded from £1,250,000 to £16,000,000 and up went the taxes the debt was secured on.
As hard as it might be to believe, in times of economic upheaval, wealth is rarely destroyed and instead is often only transferred. And who benefits the most when money is scarce? You may have guessed. It's those controlling what everyone else wants, the money changer's.
When the majority of people are suffering through economic depression, you can be sure that a minority of people are continuing to get rich.
Even today the Bank of England expresses its determination to prevent the ups and downs of booms and depressions, yet there have been nothing but ups and downs since its formation with the British pound rarely being stable.
One thing however has been stable and that is the growing fortune of: THE ROTHSCHILDS (1743)
If everyone gets all their friends to buy 1 bitcoin as a long term investment, then yes, everyone who has bought in now or any time reasonably soon will definitely be an early-adopter.
Shoot, if bitcoin even takes off in a half-way, then people coming in now will be early adopters.
Shoot, if bitcoin even takes off in a half-way, then people coming in now will be early adopters.
I've been doing some reading and apparently the top 200,000 keys, that is keys containing at least 1 BTC are spread out across 99% of all bitcoins in existence. What does this mean exactly? Does it mean that the majority of users DO NOT have at least 1 BTC? What do you guys think?
It's possible to have more than one wallet, so it might just be that some users have one wallet for the bulk of their holdings (1 or more BTC) and lots of other wallets for "loose change". Or for security they don't want to risk putting all their money in one wallet and spread it out and have, say, 0.25 BTC in each wallet. So there would be lots of keys with less than 1 BTC. I'm aware that the people who bought in when Bitcoin was only $1 or so were definitely early adopters. But statistically, do the majority of bitcoins belong to only a few small hands. Because if it did, that would suggest there are already a few very very rich individuals and less room for adopters to hitch a ride on the train.
I've been doing some reading and apparently the top 200,000 keys, that is keys containing at least 1 BTC are spread out across 99% of all bitcoins in existence. What does this mean exactly? Does it mean that the majority of users DO NOT have at least 1 BTC? What do you guys think?
I've been doing some reading and apparently the top 200,000 keys, that is keys containing at least 1 BTC are spread out across 99% of all bitcoins in existence. What does this mean exactly? Does it mean that the majority of users DO NOT have at least 1 BTC? What do you guys think?
Most likely we missed the boat, but there is still a chance at massive profit from some of the altcoins that catch on imo.
Well like real world there are rich people, poor people and those who have nothing.
Well... I'd say we're early adopters until large corporations start using Bitcoin.
Surely we are still in the early stages. Many of my computer geek friends dont even care to check it out, so im guessing normal people cares even less. But I have high hope for Bitcoin, im sure we will se it blossom in a couple of years.
I'd also think we are still in early adoptors phase... something like alpha but near to beta 
Yes, we are still the early adopters, especially if BTC becomes worth several thousands or even tens of thousands.
What? We are early adopters yes, but it has nothing to do with the prize of bitcoin
Depends how you look at it. I'd say you can look at it both ways.
Adoption correlates with use, not price. Price can correlate with use.
Yeah you're right... nobody knows what the future of bitcoin will look like. I think however that only small percentage of the world population has bitcoin
sure, but if bitcoin fizzles out some time next year, then it won't matter what % is adopted right now.
Yes, you're still an early adopter.
Bitcoins are definitely not mainstream yet...most non-computer folk I talk to still haven't heard of them.
Bitcoins are definitely not mainstream yet...most non-computer folk I talk to still haven't heard of them.
Yeah you're right... nobody knows what the future of bitcoin will look like. I think however that only small percentage of the world population has bitcoin
I think we still are in the early adoptors phase...
here is a nice article that covers the subject: http://www.vdschagt.com/myth-im-too-late-to-start-bitcoins-innovation-curve/
It's a good article, but my only criticism would be the sentence "Imagine what happens to the value of one bitcoin when adoption grows!". here is a nice article that covers the subject: http://www.vdschagt.com/myth-im-too-late-to-start-bitcoins-innovation-curve/
If we're being honest, it should read "Imagine what happens to the value of one bitcoin IF adoption grows!". There are no guarantees here. For all we know, this could be as big as it gets. But fingers crossed it gets much, much bigger.
Jump to: