Topic: Bitcoin price cycles - page 7. (Read 26865 times)

I guess the chart update is due soon. With this recent sell off (sub $480, some exchanges got the low at $465) we didn't go too far down to have the cycle in danger. Yet, it is now all about rebound and how strong it is to determine the post-halving panorama and set the trend for the reminder of the year. 

I apologize for bumping this topic, but this is a good comment to quote given some recent revelations I've been made privy to. You're right in that this is the speculation forum. And God bless it! I think the Winklevii situation (their ETF) will come to a head soon, imminently or before the end of the year.


I think a large number of people interested in the DAO will see Bitcoin as the more stable option amongst pretenders.


The breakout might not have been "soon", but it happens regardless.

Keep updating us on the cycles. Even if we're not exact, I think there's more to this than meets the eye.

That is good indication of the future price. But the price now is much higher than before, so the bubble will be smaller.

Quick update of the graph to this point:



Not a whole lot has changed, but its pretty clear that even with the recent price rises we are not yet in the next "bubble".  Should be on track however, for it to come anytime.  (At least, here's hoping...  )

Good news is that volatility has quieted down and we are reaching the end of a large pennant... look for breakout soon.  But which way?

Hmf.  Was thinking that this was feeling more like cycle 2/phase 1, but when I chart it it still could be C2P2.  What do you think?



Guess it doesnt really matter... in either case, the same thing is coming next.

Hey.... some quick thoughts on things right now, since I don't have a lot of time.

I still hold that we are in extremely bullish/positive territory right now, which grows all the more positive that the price doesn't take off.  I kinda liken it to an earthquake... the longer time goes between major events, the more pressure gets built up.  Interestingly, even though this cycle-phase is "due" for a "bubble", we seem to be on more of a strong uptrend.

In fact, the trend here feels a lot like what happened in early 2013.  Coincidentally, that time was also around a halving (just passed in December 2012), and there was a lot of financial uncertainty especially in Europe with all the goings-on about Greece. 

In our current cycle, this is not the behaviour we have typically seen in bubble phases, where there is a spike in price, followed by a correction and volatility for a while.  Rather, we have seen some steady legs up, each time pretty much maintaining the momentum.  Some shift in that earlier in the week when prices feel back, but things are better again.

Also, the most interesting thing I have read in a while re: pricing:


Thanks for posting that, Fakhoury.  Waiting for the "slippage"...   If that happens, I think all bets are off and anything's possible.

I sure hope not! We're bumping his thread more regularly and exposing people to at least the IDEA of there being cycles and my comments here are just a short interlude from his thoughts. If necessary, we can take this private or to PMs. I like hearing comments from others, though.


I think that a lot of well-meaningful people are going to become very disappointed. I don't think Bitcoin is strictly a "payments network" or a "settlement layer" like what some people refer to "big block" and "small block" people as. I think of Bitcoin more as a "consensus protocol". But this probably comes from my network administration roots. Network admins need to be familiar with something called the OSI model made up of different layers with each layer having multiple protocols that reside within it. I'm not sure entirely which layer Bitcoin resides on. Conventionally it might be seen as a data layer, either session, presentation, or application. In fact, it's inner-working right now certainly resides here. But there may be reason for something like the Lightning Network to expand the sending of coin to represent lower layers.

In other words, create a TCP connection from 192.168.0.1 to 192.168.0.2 on port 51000 and keep it open as long as coin resides in 1Q2TWHE3GMdB6BZKafqwxXtWAWgFt5Jvm3. This is kind of a nonsensical example as such a connection doesn't MEAN anything, but with networks like TOR you could have a pay-for-use system, and have the bandwidth be a metric. The Lightning Network would be low bandwidth and slowly ensure that coin from 1Q2TWHE3GMdB6BZKafqwxXtWAWgFt5Jvm3 flows to another address according to the bandwidth used by 192.168.0.1 through a proxy or node on 192.168.0.2:51000. It might not make sense to transfer something like $0.03 worth of bandwidth, but over enough time, and perhaps even one night, it could be worth $.36 which can easily be represented as a Bitcoin transaction (though maybe not a great one). My guess is that keeping a running total will become necessary or that there will be sites that are "Connection Aggregators" that could handle multiple people using multiple connections and finally "settle" those transactions once a sufficient amount of coin had been transacted via the Lightning Network.

Please note, this example is a very crude explanation and really does not do something like the Lightning Network justice. There is a reason why so many old Bitcoiners are excited for things like Segregated Witness and the Lightning Network, though. They will provide the underpinnings and building blocks for epic changes in the way the Internet does business. And underlying the next generation of Internet applications will be the "consensus protocol" that is Bitcoin. Every day the system continues to run because miners agree that other miners blocks are legitimate and build their own on top of them. Everyone trusts these miners as well, even if today they are perhaps more appropriately called "pools". But miners can shift between pools and often do, especially if it looks like consensus might be disrupted.


Well, the Bitcoin blockchain is the only one that has the backing of vast amount of investment and miners behind it. It's the mining aspect of Bitcoin that allows the protocol to remain honest. There is no other blockchain better than the Bitcoin blockchain because a blockchain's success can only be measure by the features developed atop it and the suitability of consensus underneath it. Bitcoin is winning in both, with maybe there being some altcoins that have succeeded in adding features that could be said to be arguably better. One such feature might be Zero Knowledge Proofs, whereby money is pooled together with specific amounts only being releasable by someone who can prove they know the answer to a specific mathematical question.

Oddly enough, it appears Core is maybe the only institution interested in building such features. There have been a few alts that have tried, but they were horribly valued/gamed and manipulated.


Eh. I don't really believe in alt coins or private blockchains. I have said to a few people privately that I think the greatest threat to Bitcoin is likely going to be private blockchains, but I don't think these will be able to "topple" it. The idea of them could be successful though. I don't think alt coins will become anything more than private blockchains in the end, anyway. One of them will see some modicum of success, but it probably won't be anywhere near as full-featured as Bitcoin and will always lose money to it just like fiat currencies do and have in the end. Bitcoin users will always be more wealthy, just like those who invest in gold will always be wealthier in the long run over those that invest in fiat.


Brexit isn't a nightmare, it's a dream! I'm happy Britain is leaving the EU. If they end all Bitcoin-related taxes next or start allowing tax-free conversion between Bitcoin and their currency I might even have to move there it would be so awesome.


I heard a rumor that the huge drop in mid-January 2015 was because of the COIN ETF and the twins. I'm not sure what to think of it, but rumor has it that the ETF and underwriters were related. Now, my question is, if that is the case, then why is it a year later and we still have no ETF? Wall street works way too slow. People will just use other ETNs that already exist like Bitcoin Tracker One and GBTC.


Right now. I've had at least one person contact me in a very unconventional way asking to buy an amount of coin that I don't even own. Not sure where they are going to find that amount, either. I can't disclose the amount. Nor would I.


Well, I like Trace cause he hesitated before he responded with an estimation, but I always worry about these guys whose primary purpose is to be "the face of cryptocurrencies" or whatever. The only one of these such people that is doing what I would call a great job is probably Andreas Antonopolus, and only because he's extremely smart and knows what NOT to say, I think. I've not been a fan of Roger Ver, but he was definitely a good early advocate. That said, we could certainly do worse than Trace as an advocate, and he's not doing horrible by any means. But you should take any predictions (even mine) with a HUGE grain of salt.


and this one...


Well, it's really too hard to say what percentages will happen with any degree of certainty. I envision a world where we no longer have massive global debt markets, but they may still exist in small part and it might take some time before that happens and we might have private blockchains, nation-state blockchains, Bitcoin blockchain, and perhaps even a large amount of gold and silver ownership among the public again as well. I don't know what percentage of this world will be made up of Bitcoin ownership by then. In fact, maybe here in 30-50 years private space companies will be more prolific and we'll have a burgeoning asteroid real estate market even! How's that for crazy?

With respect to 10% being a tipping point and in 2027, that's maybe not out of the question but I think it might be only 5% at that point and it might be in 2035. This is a VERY loose estimate though. Could be swings of both 3% and five years in either direction. 10% in ten years is a tall order, even for Bitcoin. On a second glance I notice they are talking about 10% being on blockchain technologies as a whole, however, and I think both private blockchains and side chains and etc might make that number a bit more realistic, if not outright obvious. If side-chains can really do what we're hoping, 10% could maybe even be on the low end.


I posted on a thread that I don't think Satoshi's coins or any of the early coins should be encrypted. That's pretty much the extent of my concern about quantum computing right now. I do think it's a threat, but I think we're far from seeing it realized. Very far, in fact. We'll get closer for sure, and maybe it is worth having some discussions now about Shor's algorithm, but aside from that, I don't want to do anything immediately.


I do think it is a combination of things, including crisis that will lead to large bubbles or one of the ones between. Similar to how Cyprus led to $260/coin. But remember the last bubble in fall 2013 was due to the US government hearings and them saying they liked Bitcoin. It'll probably be good news that leads to the $60k-$120k bubble.


No problem. If for some reason we can't talk here or folks want us to take the conversation private I'm okay with doing so. Just keep in mind I don't always get to the forums as often as I used to. It might be good to have a thread of our own that is just about general news. It might be fun to do a weekly segment where I could talk with you about events that came up during the week, maybe. That way I don't have to post every few days or so but can still answer questions as you come up with them. Do you have a blog or website that you regularly post to?

Hey Raize,

1. It's not a matter of being very polite or not. It's a matter of respect because you push anyone to respect you even if he denies this. In regards to us, I like to respect and be polite to everyone, what about a person named Raize who've never put me down and give me time and effort to elaborate as much as he can for me, shouldn't I be thankful ?

2. Thank you for letting me break the ice with you and be friend of yours, it really makes me extremely happy

3. I totally respect not going into details my friend, be rest assured about this, no offence between us

4. I guess Hacknoid will close this thread and open a "self-moderated" one and kick us whenever we write a reply , Hacknoid, I don't want neither me nor Raize to be cursed because of this thread, take actions and update the thread because I'm missing your updates

QUESTIONS TIMMMMMMMMMMMMME

1. Since you've talked about Blockchains, let me ask few questions.

1.a. What do you think about the recent blockchain hype and company x will use a blockchain and institute y will use a blockchain (I guess you understand the diff. between a blockchain and the blockchain).

1.b. Will Bitcoin Blockchain really be adopted ? And you mentioned here (http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/e-innovation/bank-of-england-tests-blockchain-193952) that it will be adopted because of the PwC ?

2. What do you think about Canada coin and China coin and such ? and how it will affect Bitcoin ?

3. Brexit, I didn't hear your view about this nightmare yet and the effect it will affect us ?

4. What do you think about COIN ETF ? Lets say we won't see that ETF ? Will we see an ETF soon ?

5. When do you see large players and super mega whales join Bitcoin ? In other words, mega wealth transfer.

6. What do you think about this podcast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvhVHrJEv1A) and Trace Mayer in general ?

7. What do you think about this



How many % do you think will be on the blockchain ?

So sorry if this discussion is not coming to an end, but I really do enjoy and learn from all what I read and be educated from you. I highly guess others do as well.

Thank you so much, Raize

Edit 1 :

8. What do you think about this one as well, Raize ? Kindly take a look at the video.


Edit 2 :

9. What do you think about crack the SHA-265 algo. and quantum computing affecting Bitcoin cryptography ?

Edit 3 :

Dear Raize, lets imagine that we are witnessing $60K or $120K per Bitcoin now.

Will goverments, banksters and such allow those high numbers ?

In order to achieve those order of magntuide, what needs to be present ? Finanical crsis for example ?

Edit 4 :

I feel extremely shy from you because of those 10 questions, kindly accept my apology for the inconvience I've made for you.

Wish you all the best buddy.

I do believe in the trend, Raize, marked out here.


What do you think ?

Oh, it appears I went on a tangent and might not have been direct, you're right. So yes, I don't see it as a problem for Bitcoin to be 1/22 of the Chinese money circulation someday, maybe it could even be more. A $700B or more market cap valuation isn't uncalled for, even here in four years (though keep in mind that in four years there will likely be over 2.5 million more Bitcoin in the world than there are today) so the market cap will actually be higher based on the same price.

When I did my mock bull-side assessment in a previous post it was at $128k. A $128k valuation in 4-5 years would end up being around the next halving cycle, when there'd be over 18 million coin. $128k * 18 million is a market cap of ~$2.3 trillion, which also seems high, but is still maybe a small amount of China or the US's total monetary transfers in a year. I used to value things based on GDP, but now I'm not so sure it's a great basis. GDP and total outstanding monetary balances aren't great. It might be better to compare yearly BTC trasnfers to M1, M2, or even M3, but that's a whole other topic, honestly.

I think the world would be a better place if it was even higher than $60k, obviously, but maybe that's the next "supercycle".


There's no one right way to write the date, just ones that might be easier to explain to other observers. Keep in mind that when you make a forum post you're making it for posterity's sake as well. Someone in the future might want to look back on what you've posted and you don't want them to misinterpret what you've said. That was my only intention in correcting you, I didn't want someone to think I was expecting $10k/coin by the end of THIS year.


Well, let's assume it hits somewhere in the middle of both a bear and bull side prediction and so the halfway point is actually ($128k-$65k)/2 + $65k = $96.5k. You can maybe see my conundrum here. I really can't be sure that it will not hit $100k, only that it might not. My basis for the NEXT bubble would require that I have the numbers for where this bubble ends up landing in four years, so I can't estimate from there. Believe me though, I've had some friends who have asked me to estimate it anyway, using currently available data. I will say that I estimate the next bubble will be even slower and longer (maybe after 2030?) and might only end up in the $1-$3 million/coin range, though. It all depends on how this bubble does. If for some reason this bubble blow through $100k and does something akin to what maybe the first or second bubbles in my chart say, then maybe we've got a cycle on top of the supercycle yet. This is the problem of trying to use Mandelbrot's type of cycle analysis, unfortunately. You can see patterns, but they become more clear after the fact. This was also his big criticism of Elliott Wave Analysis which some could also argue we're trying to do here.


After December 2017 is still murky. I don't know how exactly to plan for post-2017. Keep in mind that I even changed my models after a year anyway. I don't have a magic system (yet). Even if I did find something that worked, I'm not likely going to go into too much detail on it, I just like to talk about this wave stuff because it's fun.


If each low is higher than the previous, I think everyone's going to be happy.


Yes. I can tell you I've talked to far more people that think "the moon" is just around the corner so they try to time their buys and sells and it always fails. That's why I really don't like giving numbers at all. When I say $900 in July-August and falling to like $700 in September-October, I often wonder if people will be pissed they sold at $900 when it goes to $1100 in August and then buy back in only to watch it fall to $900, then they buy back in at $700 only to watch it fall to $600 before increasing again. I only have what my models say, and my models have sometimes been wrong.

The best strategy, IMHO, is buy and buy and buy and buy and hold. If you want in, put a small percentage of each paycheck in and just watch it grow. Over enough time you can sell it as needed for a down payment on a new house, new boat, etc. Don't expect to be a market trader. Half of those guys' investment strategy relies on people reading their materials it really starts to show you how they make money (it's selling their loser investments to people that read what they have to say or watch what they say on tv).

Good luck and invest safe!

Ugh... too much other stuff going on right now.   

I've been watching the numbers, and I think the current trend is interesting.  I think it definitely indicates things are in the process of undergoing a change right now.  Could be we are reaching saturation point until we "cross the chasm" in terms of adoption; could be just a lot more maturity in the markets.  I'll try to get to post some updated charts, but probably not until next week.  I also suspect things are hard to get a "true" read as people may be holding off selling (at least until the last couple of days) on the expectations of post-halving increase; that's my current thought.

That being said, the trends indicating that sentiment toward Bitcoin is still quite positive are stronger than ever; just look at some of the things you posted in the Bullish News thread!  That's a good indicator, but not enough by itself to drive the price massively. 

Man you are a little too giddy about these numbers and speculation in general. You keep going back to -- and asking him the same thing about these crazy valuations. Sure its possible but anything is possible at this point and nobody knows for sure.  He has provided so much information already on this subject I don't know what you will get out of keep asking him about it. Don't count your chickens before they hatch! Just enjoy the ride! Good luck.

Hey Raize,

Thanks for never putting me down buddy.

As you know, more and more questions to ask

1. I've digested well what you said about about China and East vs. West govemernts as well as corruption, but, if you don't mind, I would like to hear your thoughts about the same question but from numbers prespective.

I do feel that it won't be that impossible to reach half a trillion or one full trilion, mainly from China ?

Doesn't Chinese people play a game as a team or group of musiciains who prefrom an orchasterial piece ?

Plus don't forget that $60K makes us at nearly $700B as $23K puts us at $333B

2. Thank you for correcting me on how to write the date right, really apperciated

3. Remember when talked about reaching $100K, I've thought about it from another prespective, lets say we will reach $60K in 5 years, wouldn't there be a possibility to reach $100K in the same duration or double the duration ?

4. I would like to know how you see our progress will be in terms of price and technology in the duration of (after halving - Dec. '17).

Thanks and waiting to hear from you, as usual.

Side note :- Hacknoid, where have you been ? Not saying you being active lately !!

Indeed and the fact is that the price is going up and down, right now it has a pretty good price but I honestly do not think the halving will be such good, it can be but right now I'm doubting about it.

Yeah that sounds close enough, keep in mind not this Dec 17, but December of 2017. It's probably just a date-format thing, but in the Western world, doing the last two digits right after the month makes it look like the 17th of December. If you do want to write it like you have, maybe "Dec '17" would be best, the apostrophe implies the "20" in front of it.


I've always kind of wished I could speak directly to the Chinese bitcoiners, but the language barrier is a problem and I have never liked to write without eloquence about important issues. I think most of the breakdown between the Core team and the Chinese and Eastern miners is communication-based, too. If the Chinese knew half of why Core was being so paranoid and slow, they might be more accepting of it. There's a piece I wanted to write up that covered a bit of Bitcoin's history in late 2011 and early 2012, going over the popular Russian mining pool called Deepbit and the BIP 16/17 debacle. I wanted to finish it and post it so that the Chinese miners could understand why 75% of the mining world accepting bigger blocks is actually not enough, but I kind of just gave up on it because I don't think I could ever get it translated right. Still, I think it's a piece of Bitcoin's history that is worth knowing, and there aren't a lot of people that remember what took place from that time.

The thing is, Western philosophy and legal interpretation is bogging down innovation quite horribly right now. The US, at least, has a judicial system that is too afraid of the executive on the federal and state levels. We have developers willing to make peer-to-peer apps like AirBnB (rent out your house for X days) and Uber (provide a taxi-like service better than actual taxis), but we still have governments unwilling to change regulations or loosen legal restrictions. These startups and small developers don't have the money to fight the legal battles. Meanwhile, the courts were always the last bastion for liberty, but right now even they are failing when even our own government is spying on us. It's too expensive to fight important battles to restore our freedoms in court, too. The people here fear their government. That might change someday, but right now it's about as bad as it can get. Bitcoin can't do much better here.

In the Eastern world, however, it is the government that fears the people right now. People tell the government that restrictions are too burdensome and the government actually listens to them, even if reluctantly. The Chinese vice-president (now president) fought so much against corruption, too. I remembered looking into it while he was still vice-president and came to the small US state I live in. I was interested in why he came here because I had worked on technical matters and ran a website for an English teaching department at a public university here. I was always astounded at the large number of students interested in learning English and in some cases agriculture and farming. I eventually found that the reason he came was to promote agricultural ties and found another article later on that said that the reason he was going around purging corruption in the Chinese government was because they had to. So many people were well-informed on the "Princelings" and nepotism that these officials had to win back the people's trust. I thought that was kind of an amazing thing.

Here in the US, people ignore stories of rich and powerful people buying silence from officials, because they are so beholden to the TV news and journalist organisations that are bought by those same people. That said, I'm aware that there is still so much more that needs to be done in China in cleaning up corruption obviously. Judicial concerns plague China just as they have in the US. But for some reason China at least looks like it might be improving while the US intelligence community continues to use glittering generalities about why it's OK to spy on us and even lie to our elected politicians about the spying. But it's the government's healthy fear of its own country's people that gives me hope that something like Bitcoin could spread even faster than it has in the Western world, and yes, perhaps to a higher market capitalisation as well.

I realize my answers might be kind of long-winded, and I'm sure this one is no exception, but a wider-scale Chinese adoption of Bitcoin is, of course, a passion of mine and should be for every Bitcoiner, IMHO.


Yeah, it looks promising. Britain has always had a more traditional "hands-off" approach to financial independence and currencies, so if they extend fiat into Bitcoin and operate on top of the Bitcoin blockchain, it could be pretty huge. Especially if it came with a loosening of restrictive policies on exchange into the coin itself or if it provided a "like coin" that came without a tax obligation. Hell, it would maybe even be enough to convince me to move there someday and set up a hedge fund or something.


I'm not sure I know who he is, sorry. I mean, I try not to put too much stake into rumors of things like this. LinkedIn investors might get money, but they might have already bought Bitcoin knowing they are going to get fiat, for example, so it's hard to say it'll be going straight into cryptocurrencies.


No problem. Thanks for letting me post here and thanks for the original cycle thread and idea. I'm glad there's others out there doing cycle analysis as well.


Yes, though it looks like today the price is taking a hit. I often wonder if, because I'm a Donator, putting my estimates out there can trigger buys or sells just because the name and title can sometimes convince people and they try to time buys/sells based on others taking my advice as gospel. For what it is worth, I haven't bought or sold any Bitcoin since $240, when I last purchased a non-trivial amount. I might sell if it goes to $10k next year, of course, but it'll be a couple coin so I can semi-retire and maybe take a vacation. I'd hope that if it goes to $10k then maybe more companies will come out and I can finally buy groceries and/or pay my mortgage in Bitcoin.

I think slower and longer timeframes are probably going to be the only way to justify the patterns, maybe. I might have been wrong about us getting to $900 in July/August, before falling again, but that's still my second model's prediction and I think it is the more accurate one. Slower and longer time frames could also result in higher magnitudes as the overall volume reaches what we would expect to be the GDP of a larger European country over the next five years or so. If we go crazy and hit $500 billion market cap or $1 trillion like Fakhoury pointed out, then maybe I should have been analyzing the price from the bull-side. I think 1/22 of China's market cap as a whole is a big target to strive for, though. I hope we hit it, but it's a big target.

One of the most obvious cycles with bitcoin is probably that the price will go up by a lot before halving, and readjust after the halving. This has been the case time and time again.

There may be others, but they're extremely hard to find.

Interesting thing to note at this point - we still have not been increasing at anywhere near the rate of the previous "bubbles".  We are only about 20% increase over the past week, and 65% over the last month.  However, note also that we have not had any significant pullback during that time (not trying to jinx it).  I take this as a good sign, in that we are not going up too fast, at least not by crypto standards. 

I guess what I am saying is that despite the significant increases recently, it doesn't looks to me like we have really begun the major rallies we have seen in the past.  Whether we have now changed to a more conservative, slow gain model, or we just haven't hit our stride yet, remains to be seen.  We may be entering, or on the verge of entering a new stage where we don't have those bubbles like in the past.  Instead, it's short, sudden uptrends in price, that level off quickly.  As Uki  quite rightly pointed out, the trend has been for smaller "bubbles".  We may be headed there, but that could be a good thing.

If we are indeed changing trends, then hopefully we can avoid the long-term blowoff period we experienced in the latter half of cycle 2.

Wow, certainly some deep discussions going on, which I think is great!  Kinda reminds me of the talks I had with friends many years ago, when over a few beers we'd chat about all kinds of deep things.  Anyway, not to get all sentimental or anything ....

Some good points raised...

Regarding max possible valuation... There are many interesting theories about how high the value could go, and a lot of that depends on how adoption is picked up.  Certainly if a large percentage of the population were to decide it was worthwhile to have some Bitcoin, then the price can reach some of those numbers.  There are also many theories regarding if certainly percentages of other markets were to flow into Bitcoin (gold, offshore holdings, etc.)  Rick Falkvinge did an interesting analysis several years ago about how high the price could be if Bitcoin became the chosen route for many different avenues, including international trade settlement, gambling, etc.  Any of those things becoming a primary use of bitcoin could easily drive the price to the 10's or 100's of thousands of dollars.  However, would they happen?  It makes sense, but certainly the option to "roll your own" is always there.  However, I have to wonder about the effect of the DAO "hack" and what that will do.

To sidetrack for a second, from what I read, the "hack" happened as a result of exploiting an actual rule of the DAO.  Now, I have no investment in Ether or DAO tokens, but I have been watching them with interest.  From the point of view of my analysis, certainly any "distraction" from Bitcoin as the digital currency of choice will slow adoption.  Ethereum is interesting, but is also a dangerous, unproven game.  And I think that has played out in the last few days.  Complex systems are prone to complex bugs, or "features".  Bitcoin has been battle-tested for more than 7 years, and still shines.  Some of the best minds have tried to break it, including Dan Kaminsky, and it held up.  So this certainly argues for trust going with the proven party.  It will be interesting to see where things go from here.  I think a lot of people who don't comprehend the whole industry will latch onto "cryptocurrencies are hackable" as a tagline, and stay away. 

But the numbers are changing.  More and more people are learning about what Bitcoin is and why it should be trusted.  I myself was just blown away by it when I first came across it and knew it had a great future ahead.  Will there be more competing cryptocurrencies in future?  Certainly.  Will the majority of the world's population adopt Bitcoin and/or own some?  I doubt it, at least for a long time, maybe a full generation.   I'm not a millennial myself, but I got it.  However a lot of the older generation, the talking heads on TV and the investment advisers and those with the money, don't and won't get it.  Unfortunately, as it is disruptive tech, many people are hard to move from their old models.  And you don't have to contribute it to conspiracy theories to think that pushback against Bitcoin is real.   There are many people whose actual livelihoods depend on the old models.  And this isn't just journalism or publishing - this is the people with the money and power.  So expect some pushback.

As for Blockstream, I was blown away by the concept of sidechains, and thought this was just the thing to finally do away with most/all of the competing altcoins.  It's simply smart, and I am believing that those implementing it still think highly of Bitcoin.  Nobody knows what the future of Bitcoin will look like, just like they couldn't imagine in 1994 (or earlier) what the Internet would look like in 2016.  Things will grow and evolve... they have to.  It's part of technical evolution.  Unfortunately each time someone tries to completely "replace" Bitcoin, it slows this down.  But that will happen.


Agreed - thanks, Raize, for your input in this thread.  Sorry I didn't address all your points, but I did read your posts!


Thanks!  Made me quite happy today to see 4 digits again in Canada.  Price has been hanging around just under that for many days now, so it was nice to see, even if just briefly.