Pages:
Author

Topic: Bitcoin should be at $13,500 ? - page 3. (Read 6783 times)

legendary
Activity: 2324
Merit: 1125
June 15, 2013, 08:46:02 AM
#45
No improved and simpler method of converting fiat to btc and back, such that the local village idiot can do so easily without getting confused, will mean that the price will just stagnate or decline at worst. Address this and the price will go back up, simple as that. Considering the number of alternative currencies springing up, which some people are naively or arrogantly ignoring, this makes a simple fiat conversion system that will give MtGox and co a run for their money even more critical.

BTC should be what Ripple is, a medium for buying things that allows some degree of privacy and can bypass ludicrous credit card and merchant fees, not an overspeculated pseudoasset like some people treat it to be.

No, converting fiat is only the currently most prevalent way of acquiring Bitcoins. Soon*, the most prevalent method will instead change to real economic interaction.

* No clue what 'soon' is here though Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 388
Merit: 250
June 15, 2013, 07:19:01 AM
#44
No improved and simpler method of converting fiat to btc and back, such that the local village idiot can do so easily without getting confused, will mean that the price will just stagnate or decline at worst. Address this and the price will go back up, simple as that. Considering the number of alternative currencies springing up, which some people are naively or arrogantly ignoring, this makes a simple fiat conversion system that will give MtGox and co a run for their money even more critical.

BTC should be what Ripple is, a medium for buying things that allows some degree of privacy and can bypass ludicrous credit card and merchant fees, not an overspeculated pseudoasset like some people treat it to be.
legendary
Activity: 2324
Merit: 1125
June 15, 2013, 07:14:08 AM
#43
Stop with BTC $1k - $1M cause its retarded and unrealistic. Its not even speculation, its trolling.

It is realistic. Honestly only $1k on the lower part of the spectrum is even pushing it because that is really low.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
June 15, 2013, 05:07:41 AM
#42
Stop with BTC $1k - $1M cause its retarded and unrealistic. Its not even speculation, its trolling.
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
June 15, 2013, 02:47:42 AM
#41
Its a market in its nascent stages, complexity is to be expected. Do you think WU was easy when they were still using the pony express? Give it 24 months once regulatory issues have been resolved competition will increase, complexity and costs will decrease and WU will be left in the dust.

WU could adapt and adjust, using bitcoin as their means of transfer.

    If WU starts using bitcoin, then I can finally become a professional philanthropist.

I rejected email in 1994. You mean I have to get a computer, learn how to use it, wrap my brain around concepts like "software," figure out how modems work, make a contract with an ISP, and then call tech support any time there's a problem? Why would I go through this ridiculously complicated process when I can just buy some stamps and put a letter in the post box?


     People still write letters today. I'm a bear on email. It's just a matter of time before someone hacks email or the government shuts it down because of all the criminals writing emails. Then we will all go back to letters and the beauty of receiving personal handwritten messages.
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 510
June 15, 2013, 12:32:50 AM
#40
The article does not into account the whole picture


+ the main argument should not be based on stupid assumption like "the bitcoin market should represent xxxx in the future", but "how much an average human being is willing to pay for 1 bitcoin?".


Considering a 10 % chance of loosing it all, does anyone will be willing to spend 13.5 k usd for that? Not even close...


You're assuming people are going to want an entire bitcoin.. what's wrong with a satoshi


That's about human psychology.
Why the top was about 250 usd a few weeks ago? Because 250 is 1/4 of one thousand usd. That's why ... People understood that it was overestimated. It could have been 500 or 1 000 as well.

You can find 1 guy stupid enough to pay 1 000 usd for 1 btc, but not enough people to maintain the price that high.
Bitcoin was not designed to be used for anything else that it is now:
- wannabe-traders-willing-to-make-money
- negligible trades (for drugs, geeks, or money laundering)


What will happen is miners will start pricing in mBTC and selling Bitcoin in mBTC.
Not much else would have to change. People will pay $1000 for 1BTC btw. I know I would. But the way I would do it is I would set aside a % of my income or paycheck to purchase Bitcoin no matter how much or how little it ends up being at the time.
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 510
June 15, 2013, 12:31:16 AM
#39
I think this will happen in 100 years.

There wont be a such thing as work in 100 years. Robots will have all the jobs.
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 510
June 15, 2013, 12:30:41 AM
#38
The article does not into account the whole picture


+ the main argument should not be based on stupid assumption like "the bitcoin market should represent xxxx in the future", but "how much an average human being is willing to pay for 1 bitcoin?".


Considering a 10 % chance of loosing it all, does anyone will be willing to spend 13.5 k usd for that? Not even close...


They will be buying mBTC.
full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 100
June 14, 2013, 11:41:13 PM
#37
Its a market in its nascent stages, complexity is to be expected. Do you think WU was easy when they were still using the pony express? Give it 24 months once regulatory issues have been resolved competition will increase, complexity and costs will decrease and WU will be left in the dust.

WU could adapt and adjust, using bitcoin as their means of transfer.
legendary
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1022
June 14, 2013, 10:08:26 PM
#36


Bitcoins are coming down, and the clones (alt coins) will go up.

There is no limited supply of 'bitcoins' and all it takes is copy and paste, and can create lots of coins.



the blockchain stores the value, the bitcoin blockchain has the most agreed value,

I think you are confusing the software engine with the database
full member
Activity: 172
Merit: 100
June 14, 2013, 02:35:53 PM
#35
Its a market in its nascent stages, complexity is to be expected. Do you think WU was easy when they were still using the pony express? Give it 24 months once regulatory issues have been resolved competition will increase, complexity and costs will decrease and WU will be left in the dust.
yvv
legendary
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000
.
June 14, 2013, 02:00:31 PM
#34
  Have you tried using WU?

I use it every month, never had an issue. Fees used to be high in the past, but now they are quite acceptable.

I seriously considered using bitcoins or other e-money for sending money to my relatives in Ukraine, but this adds nothing but complexity.
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
June 14, 2013, 01:37:52 PM
#33
The cheapest Western Union fees are 5%, and it takes several days.

BS. Currently, WU is much faster, cheaper, safer and more convenient than bitcoins.

Sending bitcoins from address to address is easy, but getting bitcoins and converting them back to fiat is pain in the ass (at least in USA).




   Have you tried using WU? I've had many problems with WU transfers, often because of complicated security protocols. For example, in Colombia I once had to have a transfer resent in a friends name because the bank had a requirement that only Colombian citizens can receive transfers. If you honestly think WU is better than bitcoin, read this story:

http://www.thebeijinger.com/forum/2008/05/11/Western-Union-fees

   I have had similar experiences- the fees are high and they skim even more off with exchange rates considerably worse than bank exchange rates. They also require a slough of documentation which all has associated costs.


   Imagine bitcoin infrastructure is more developed, say two years from now. I could have had the transfer sent in BTC, simply got on to localbitcoins.com or a comparable service, and exchanged the BTC with a 1% or less transaction fee. The main cost is in the exchanges, but this is true of any forex transaction. Right now I am transferring money from the US to Germany via BTC. This costs me 1% deposit on one side, and 1% withdrawal on the other. For 5000 dollars this is 100 dollar fee- a wire transfer would be cheaper, but since I don't have a bank account in Germany (the bulk of people receiving remittances also do not have bank accounts) it is cheaper for me to sell the bitcoins via local bitcoins, where I can charge a 1% premium which translates the fee to effectively 0. This means my only cost is the time of finding a buyer on localbitcoins. Since I am not in a hurry and have moral reasons for not wanting to support corrupt governments and their currencies, this is great for me. The efficiency will increase in direct relation to the number of people using bitcoin.

     Surely, not as efficient as a wire transfer, but there is also no risk that a government in a financial crisis will seize or freeze my funds. Also, a wire transfer takes 3-5 days for funds to become available, sometimes even longer, and with larger amounts the time value of that money which goes to the bank, plus the fees, become a considerable sum. Also, many people receiving remittances don't have bank accounts or the ability to get one, being in rural areas and needing to care for their animals just to survive. Many of them don't have the id cards necessary to deal with banks. But with a smartphone with a BTC wallet, they can receive transfers from anywhere in the world almost instantly. They could then trade their BTC a little at a time for local fiat to meet expenses, thereby protecting themselves from the inflation rampant in many countries. When bitcoin catches on, they will also be able to trade directly with BTC, insha'Allah, eliminating the main obstacle in the network- the exchange on the ground in the recipient countries.
        
       There were people who said a man could never set foot on the moon. There are still people who say that humans never have walked on the moon. Keep up the critical thought, it will keep us rising.
      

  
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
June 14, 2013, 01:09:13 PM
#32
As was posted in another thread, Bitcoin will never be able to survive as an international currency.  Store of value maybe, but not a currency.

In 2011 Visa maxed out at 11,000 transactions per second.  Two years later, 2013, Bitcoin can only handle 5-7 transactions per second.  So no, Bitcoin won't be helping Africa or any other nation.  It can't even match the number of Visa transactions, let alone trying to surpass King Dollar.


   A couple of years ago Western Union averaged less than 540,000 transaction per day.

http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-transactions-does-western-union-make-in-one-day-worldwide


Quote
If there are any technical limits (from data types or whatever), they can be eliminated in the same way that MAX_BLOCK_SIZE can be increased.

Storage is the main issue, I think: an attacker could create huge blocks that every full network node has to store forever. With just 1 BTC you can create a block of 15+ GB by splitting it into 100,000,000 "nanocoins".

In the future most people will run Bitcoin in a "simple" mode that doesn't require downloading full blocks or transactions. At that point MAX_BLOCK_SIZE can be increased a lot.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1314.20


    As I understand it, 1 MB blocks allows for 7 transactions a second. 15 GB would be 15,000 times that or 105,000 tps. That's enough for the volume of bitcoin trade to exceed the volume of visa, moneygram, and western union combined.

     The post above was 3 years ago. I am not so sharp on the technical aspect. Does this mean that if block size was increased to handle more volume that DoS attacks would become more viable? Perhaps someone can give me a link to an old discussion about this. Maybe there will be dedicated servers that can confirm transactions by searching only relevant data to a specific transfer rather than the whole block? Anyone care to school me?


yvv
legendary
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000
.
June 14, 2013, 12:13:52 PM
#31
The cheapest Western Union fees are 5%, and it takes several days.

BS. Currently, WU is much faster, cheaper, safer and more convenient than bitcoins.

Sending bitcoins from address to address is easy, but getting bitcoins and converting them back to fiat is pain in the ass (at least in USA).

full member
Activity: 172
Merit: 100
June 14, 2013, 12:02:21 PM
#30
It's alright guys, naphto is attempting to use his head

FTFY
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
June 14, 2013, 11:57:54 AM
#29
The error in this calculator is that it presents the percentage of "store of value" and "black market" to unrealistic values.

If you enter more realistic values like 0.01% in there you come to more realistic values.

I disagree frequently with your comments, but this one is spot on, although store of value may be a bit higher than 0.01%.  (That said, I at least can respect your logic skills, we just have different experiences).
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057
Marketing manager - GO MP
June 14, 2013, 11:55:26 AM
#28
The error in this calculator is that it presents the percentage of "store of value" and "black market" to unrealistic values.

If you enter more realistic values like 0.01% in there you come to more realistic values.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
June 14, 2013, 11:52:36 AM
#27
Quote
it has lots of great properties — negligible transaction fees (...)


Bullshit.
My credit card is free of charge for me (as a customer), I don't give a shit if the merchant have to pay an American company for providing this service. But I know, and I care, that everywhere in the country I can use it, without paying any fee. Bitcoins fees are way too high.


Nope. You are incredibly, retardedly, wrong. CC fees are priced into the goods/services you receive, as they are contractually prevented from adding a charge for CC billing in most cases. So the lower the tx fee for ANY service, the lower the overhead. If you think you're not affected by a recipient tx fee vs. a sender tx fee, you're wrong Grin

Merchants are allowed to charge less for cash but not more for CC. Most don't do this. Gas stations are a notable exception. For the most that don't, it's equivalent to everyone paying a little more to cover CC cost. For those that do, it's equiv. to getting a discount for cash payments. Just like I give my customers discounts for BTC payments as it's less trips to the bank for me, less hassle, and no fees (I don't use BitPay.)


Exactly.  2-5% CC fees are a cost of doing business for merchants that accept them.  When conducting transactions has a cost, it doesn't matter who pays them because the one paying always factors it into their pricing.  If they are socialist (or contractually obligated to act as if they were) they may spread the cost across all customers, but the cost is still part of the price.  BTW, if you want a real world example, check out bitcoinstore.com.  Their huge product database is still a little tough to sort through, but it is getting better.  More importantly, by only accepting bitcoin, they are able to offer better prices on most electronics than any other site on the web.  Not only do they save CC processing fees, but they avoid the extra costs incurred in dealing with cases of fraud or attempted fraud.
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 250
June 14, 2013, 08:49:50 AM
#26
As was posted in another thread, Bitcoin will never be able to survive as an international currency.  Store of value maybe, but not a currency.

In 2011 Visa maxed out at 11,000 transactions per second.  Two years later, 2013, Bitcoin can only handle 5-7 transactions per second.  So no, Bitcoin won't be helping Africa or any other nation.  It can't even match the number of Visa transactions, let alone trying to surpass King Dollar.
Pages:
Jump to: