Topic: Bitcoin could hit $10M in 9 years but more sidechains needed: Blockstream CEO (Read 322 times)

Then we can understand each other. It wasn't like I was going out and telling people all about Bitcoin. It was just if there was ever a topic about money or something similar, or if Bitcoin came up, I definitely was a lot more open before and telling people what I found. But it then turns them to you, and they start attacking you as if you're asking for their money. Or like, you said, okay what's the catch, do I have to be your referral lol.

I even deleted social media after that because for some reason people even blamed me for "exposing them" when they went and joined some ponzi or ICO when I clearly never said such things.

Definitely, again, looking at this point. It's not more sidechains or tech needed for Bitcoin. People don't see the tech as special, or don't want to. They just need to understand the benefits of using it and unfortunately, some benefits can only be seen after experiencing loss on fiat systems.

Admire people who own NFT's? What is this 2021? I think people mock others who own NFT's at this point because it makes no sense. I understand sidechains, not bitcoin getting forked or anything, but we have one chain that is segwit which gets a bulk load right now and we need to have a few layers on there to make sure that it works better, and that is understandable.

But aside from that, I do not think that it should be that complicated for bitcoin to go up, it is a good project and everyone trusts it and from people who have 10 dollars to people who have 10 billion dollars, they all want to be part of it so I think it shouldn't be hard for it to reach 10 million eventually.

I've been there and seen everything, and believe me, I don't want to get into such situations again - you try to explain to a person what Bitcoin is, and in the end he concludes that it's a money laundering scheme or that you want to give him some ref link through which he has to join. Of course there are ref links to CEX or various other Bitcoin related things, but that is a side issue and not the point of the whole thing.


Some are not satisfied even with the possible x10 and investing in BTC is therefore no longer interesting to them, but everyone has the freedom of choice to do what they want with their money.

Bitcoin may not be physical but that's why I mentioned NFTs (or even altcoins like Shiba Inu). These were stuff you talked about and showed off that you got, I seen it on TV talkshows and even on radio. People talk about them like they talk about their latest vacation or their latest bling. It's actually quite a good comparison as you say, a status symbol.

Without needing to see it, people already imagine these things and "admire" the people who own them.

Bitcoin, for better or for worse, will never be that status symbol. If you talk about it on a TV talkshow or on radio, people will generally view you as scammer or con artist or crazy. Plus, people who talk about Bitcoin usually don't even talk about the latest upgrade or tech or whatever. Always about x10 POTENTIAL lol.

Bitcoin enthusiasts believe that its limited supply and potential use as store of value could drive its price higher in the future but It won't be so easy for Bitcoin market to reach 200 trillion dollars in 9 years, the total market capitalization of all publicly traded companies in the world is estimated around 100 trillion dollars. If Bitcoin were to achieve 200 trillion dollars capitalization, it would be worth more than entire global stock market. It is difficult to predict if and when market cap will reach this level. Such s scenario would likely require massive increase in demand, continued adoption and use of crypto currency as store of value and method of payment. It is also possible that new technological developments and changes in regulatory laws could impact significantly the value of Bitcoin.

We all know that with growing popularity of btc the demand is also rising giving price boost but $1M is too big speculation at this time according to me as there needs to be huge investment flow in the market combining both institutions and retail investors contribution.If we say about more then a decade then we can expect prices to say rise above $500k per bitcoin without any existence of sidechains as we already hit $68k so $100k is achievable fast in coming years.But $1M is something big we can't say will happen or not.

That's why I think it is hard to compare the acceleration of Bitcoin's price growth before when it was only worth a few dollars and today when the price is already above $20,000. Indeed it was easy for the price of Bitcoin to double if it is only worth $1. It could even grow 100% in just a day. Today, it simply isn't possible at all. Nobody would believe that Bitcoin's price would rise as high as $40,000 within 24 hours. So it is difficult to set as basis Bitcoin's past price increases for potential price increases in the future.

I agree he's looking for those headlines and taking strange numbers out of air makes journalists want to confront you. Michael Saylor wasn't interviewed so much in 2022 because he knows a lot about bitcoin but all the hyenas wanted to ask him if he changed his mind about bitcoin after it fell 50%. If he wasn't as confident as he is they'd make it a headline "bitcoin believer cracking under pressure".

Don't forget about Russia. They were willing to accept bitcoin in exchange for oil last year. Those who are doing good are the least eager to make changes.

I would not trust this prediction it is speculation and them being the blockstream ceo does not make their speculation or predictions any more accurate then random members on this forum. I have seen many of these predictions over the years that I have been involved in btc and none of them have been accurate. A lot of the people saying their predictions have other motivations why they do it and some of them do it just to stay relevant.

But what they are saying is kind of true we do need more infrastructure but the infrastructure will grow as btc gets more adoption and I do not think we are in trouble of not enough nodes or miners that it will become a problem. btc was designed to operate with lack of infrastructure the lack of miners will push the difficulty down and allow less funded people to mine instead. Nodes do not offer any incentive of running for the person and I think that is something we might need to change in the future to encourage people to run nodes.

Still not stable with Bitcoin price but the early investor brave holding Bitcoin for the first time launching have earn much profit, but don't forget with investor entry when Bitcoin have all time high price last year got much loss right now after Bitcoin drop under $23,000. Based on your expectation about Bitcoin price back to higher price seems need longer time and hope at the next halving time have moment for Bitcoin can back to the top price again.

Actually not easy to be long term holding in Bitcoin, actually after raising profit about 40% until 60% every one have decision for selling their assets without think for long term holding.

my views are the blockstream/dcg adoration group want to make bitcoin irrelevant to make subnetworks the main thing people use so the "group" can profit off other peoples nativity

however bitcoin should remain as a payment network but have subnetworks for other fun stuff
subnetworks can add utility.
not about "making bitcoin relevant" or "making bitcoin irrelevant"

its about treat bitcoin as bitcoin and add utility to subnetworks of other niche uses

EG imagine the company Hasbro
where people can lock 0.03($600) on bitcoin to a stanfard publickey lock

and then on a "hasbro" decentralised subnetwork all customers can have a subchain they all account. audit and validate colectively thwir value

and then they can use their balance to play hasbro games using their value
so instead of play-money monopoly bank paper crap. people can bank up value and play monopoly for real winnings. and create leagues of entry level gamers, amateurs where the 'kitty' goes up and people can play each other at their own tier 'buy in amount'

all without relying on just paying hasbro as a custodian. but paying into a international network of hasbro customers self funding and self accounting

..
same goes for meta
where different cloud services rent their servers (as virtual 3d meta towns) where they can use a subnetwork as the currency of the virtual meta planet

and able to take their funds buy and spend funds as they move from virtual town to town or street to street or visit different virtual 3d stores to buy things. which if done right people are buying things in the meta 3d landscapes of virtual malls. which at payment results in real world goods delivered to their home (instead of boring webpages

where this "meta" subnetwork of currency is for the things under $100

there are a multitude of idea's and utility for niche services and systems

Besides, all that money that people use to buy bitcoins have to go somewhere - its stored with the exchanges. And as people run out of money to buy Bitcoins with, exchanges will have more and more of the world's fiat money.

At this point, you'd expect Bitcoin to be less volatile, but when you see exchanges with the capacity to hold billions and just wipe it off the market, it kind of makes you think that such exchanges can still send similar-sized shockwaves if we get to that point in the future. To the tune of trillions of dollars wiped out (meaning people have less monetary value in their bitcoins but exchanges are left holding the majority of the world's wealth, making a depression of some sorts.)

Global wealth is estimated to be at $360 trillion, which means that Bitcoin being worth $200 trillion would require the global economy to grow a lot, otherwise it's just way big of a share covered solely by Bitcoin. I don't see it happening any time soon, not even close. If anything, the economic growth seems to be slowing down, and even if it grows, say, 5% a year, I don't think that would be enough to accomodate such incredible value of Bitcoin and its cut in the grand scheme of things. Gold market cap is $12.3 trillion, and that's a fraction of what Bitcoin needs to achieve. I honestly think it's unrealistic because, while the global economy is growing, it's not happening nearly fast enough, and I don't see Bitcoin taking up, like, half of the global wealth.

According to some calculations, even twice as much as the global GDP, which is estimated to have been around $100 trillion for last year. If we take this information into account, then it really seems that someone is exaggerating and wants to be in the center of attention, regardless of the fact that he himself may be aware that what he is talking about is not real.

---

Maybe it's not a good comparison since Bitcoin is not a physical object to show around, unless you have one of those expensive watches that have some interesting features that you can certainly flaunt around. Maybe some will disagree, but I have never considered Bitcoin a status symbol, but those who think differently obviously do not understand that they are endangering the personal safety of themselves and their loved ones - of course I mean us mere mortals, not people like Saylor or the famous W twins.

I know it has flaws; my point was that we don't need to keep making bogus sidechains to keep the bitcoin price relevant to average joe.


Funny thing about this analogy was that someone was talking to me about buying the latest iPhone and then I mentioned how I was going to buy a Mac for development purposes (XCode mainly) and he just laughed.

People only really care about phones.

Exactly. This isn't like an iphone or a new Samsung Galaxy with new features, so people buy them just because it's the latest, and it can take photos at night or it can make you look beautiful while you're walking.

This is Bitcoin. People buy it not to flash or to fit a cool thing, that's altcoins and NFTs. Bitcoin is a lifestyle choice and you don't make it more attractive with bigger better newer tech.

@NotATether
for one moment. please take the adoration of LN and set it aside.

LN is a flawed network. even liquid and RSK have flaws (but LN is the worse of the lot based on network security, pack of monetary policy, many attack vectors and vulnerabilities) where even the main LN devs cant fix certain things and they admit to it, and have spent years trying to find work arounds and telling people to be patient

liquid and LN are the products of blockstream and even adam back (ceo of blockstream) is suggesting that new sidechains and subnetworks are needed

no one is saying side/sub networks have no niche/utility.. but certain existing ones fail to meet their promises and dont have he network security and protocols and monetary policy to be trusted and deemed suitable for mass adoption/ popular use

stop feeling the warm feelings by listening to other fans naive adoration as confirmation bias. and have a real hard independant and critical look at it and listen when the devs of such are even themselves saying there are flaws

dont rely on the confirmation bias that something is great simply because another fan says so.

or carry on patiently waiting for dreams to come true and let the future show you the hard way

Why mindlessly create sidechains that have no functional value? What we have already is good enough: LN, Liquid(?), and now, Ordinals (to appease the critics who want NFTs on Bitcoin).

There's no blueprint for making Bitcoin price to go up and that should not be the reason why you develop anyway - it's to make the service work out, In other words, making Bitcoin a practical payment method for the masses.

Adam Back is making a price speculation. This topic should be moved in the Speculations forum.
Bitcoin market cap hitting a value, that is above the global GDP? 200 trillion dollars? Not going to happen, if you ask me.
How would the sidechains help for pumping the BTC price? By making BTC more accessible? By increasing the amount of daily transactions?
Relying on second-layer solutions(which are centralized) is against the core concept of  Bitcoin. It's like relying on the fiat banks and investment funds to pump the BTC price. Many Bitcoiners are actually waiting for this to happen, but I think that it won't happen. The fiat financial system will always remain hostile towards Bitcoin/crypto.

Well, more sidechains can have positive and negative consequences, because it can add more use cases and reasons for people to buy it, but it can also take more transactions off-chain and that will reduce miners fees for miners. Now, people might say.. but we do not care if miners gets less miners fees, but that will be a terrible mistake.

We know the Block reward are reduced by 50% at every Halving ..every 4 years, so that means in a couple of years miners will receive almost zero block rewards and they will then rely on miners fees to pay for their hashing power. This is why we should look into ways to increase the miners fees.. not in ways to reduce it with off-chain or sidechain technologies.