Topic: Bitcoin’s inherent economics could preserve it all from ever getting very import (Read 437 times)

That's just what he said, i need more proof to know whether his saying is true or not.?

I've bumped this old(ish) thread because there are some interesting points in it, and I think it will be productive for new members to read them.

There are also a numberof posters who seem to think that Bitcoin was created to bring down the fiat system. This is not true. The current fiat sytem has run its course, and debt and austerity will cause it to collapse. Bitcoin was probably created as an experiment to test the replacement for the fiat system, and it has been spectacularly successful. That doen't mean that it will be the replacement. It has limits built into it to ensure that it can never become a major world payment system for volume transactions. The replacements will need to be centralised systems. Bitcoin is becoming a store of wealth, and an efficient method of payment for valuable assets.

Replacing fiat currency is not going to happen anytime soon. But it's possible to make them coexist. Again who would want a currency that is so volatile?

Apart from the majority attack, this makes no sense. We all know how volatile the market is and a simple 100 dollar spike in price means millions in marketcap. You don't see any other entity gaining rapid momentum this fast.

We might not see a replacement of fiat currency in the future but co-existence of bitcoin or crypto and fiat is surely a possibility.

The tech behind Bitcoin is revolutionary. Even if Bitcoin can't replace the global currency, it can go hand in hand with future coins/currencies.

" Before we dive into the argument, a little context: Bitcoin’s market capitalization over the last year or so has oscillated between $100 billion and $200 billion. Gold stock is worth about $7.5 trilllion. So, yeah, in those terms, Bitcoin is nowhere close to being “economically important.” - Bitcoin has only been around for 10 years, how unrealistic to expect that it will be able to compete with Gold that has been around for ages.  

Comparing Bitcoin's security cost to traditional financial systems is also stupid, because the total cost of traditional financial system's security is not taken into consideration.  

A total waste of time, if you asked me.  

I think in this forum you'll find it's not that much of a minority, and that is still the vision that is often preached in reference to bitcoin. I also believe that's why so many view bitcoin with skepticism because they do not ever believe such a scenario could occur. I think for bitcoin to really take the next step from where we are now there needs to be some sort of consensus as to the direction and use of bitcoin. Right now there is too much disparity between visions and it just leads to a lot of confusion and in-fighting.

This is a very controversial issue. Because the value of Bitcoin is not predictable.

I think the paper makes some interesting observations regarding the cost of securing Bitcoin, but there seem to be some problems in the paper. I feel that some of the assumptions are not realistic or accurate.

The paper claims that the cost of an attack would be At · Nc - tP_block, where A is the ratio of attacking nodes to honest nodes, t is the duration of the attack in blocks, N is the number of honest nodes, c is the total cost of a node per block, and P_block is the block reward. It basically says that the cost of the attack is the cost of operating the attacking nodes for t blocks minus the block rewards for those blocks.

The problem here is that it assumes that the cost per block of an attacking node is the same as c, the cost per block of an honest node. If the attacking nodes are added to the network, then the cost per block is actually higher because the fixed cost of an attacking node should depreciated across the duration of the attack, while the fixed cost of an honest node is depreciated across its lifetime.

Now, in order for the attacker's cost per block to be the same as the cost per block of an honest node, the attacker must continue mining after the attack. However, that means that the difficulty, and thus the operating cost, increases by a factor of A. I'm not sure what that means, but the result certainly isn't what the paper concludes.

1. mining cost has nothing to do with if it will replace traditional currencies.
it doesnt matter if it cost $1 to mine a bitcoin or a $1bill to mine a btc. nothing fundemental has changed. only politics can change what governments decide to tax, treasure, and publicly serve with..

2. i almost facepalmed the first couple paragraphs.. whenever someone pretends to be a economist but then mentions the market cap like its meaningful. has failed lesson one of economics. i can make a altcoin of 1trill premined coins. sell 1 for $5 and instantly have a $5trill market cap.. all for just $5. so a market cap is a meaningless bit of math there would not actually be $5tril to go around or $100-$200bill for bitcoiners

3. again fiat is about politics. assuming bitcoin could cause fiat to change. and then accuse btc of not being able to cause change is such a waste of a conversation. its like saying icecream if eaten 20 times a day by everyone will make everyone sick.. then argue there isnt enough icecream. and that not everyone could afford 20 meals of icecream a day... its like then why even bring up the subject

if the writer was actually from MIT. then he has not yet studied much. or doesnt deserve a pass

bitcoin will be its own currency. without a nation. where its like gold or art.. traded across borders without a nation owning it
yes different countries can make laws or decide to accept or not accept it. but that doesnt make a difference. you dont need art to be a national currency for people to trade it. same with gold.

Thank You.

I think the bitcoin price tag is determined by demand and trade volume. so, that is not limit the growth bitcoin price.

we see bitcoin charts that always create a positive market, a sign of good growth always creates better spreading.

Here is the actual paper: http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/eric.budish/research/Economic-Limits-Bitcoin-Blockchain.pdf

Right short-term, but eventually, the market will find its way to recover. Historically, after a blow-off from an ATH, overall market sentiment was bearish, and that's the case for today. Personally I think that the price per se wouldn't restrict any growth for bitcoin. If anything, it promotes it and entices more entities to come in and do their business with the said cryptocurrency.

As for the general notion that cryptos would replace the fiat currency system eventually, it won't, though it can always co-exist with it just like gold-fiat relationship for the past centuries.

I totally agree, why would any government opt to replace their FIAT with something
they have no control over?

There is a minority who believe bitcoin will be the chosen currency of every country,
the they are the ones whose parade will be rained upon

Link provided Below.. TY.

I think providing a link to such a study will help others to get inform on the study before one can highlight you on it. But I don't see any relation between price tag on bitcoin and its growth.

This article draws it's conclusion that "bitcoin will never be very important" based on the premise: "If you believe Bitcoin has the potential to replace traditional global financial systems, a new economic analysis is here to rain on your parade."

Does anyone here believe Bitcoin will replace traditional global financial systems?

I don't. I bet the majority here agree with me. Fiat currency isn't going to be replaced by bitcoin. Bitcoin and crytpocurrency are simply alternative options that remedy what ails the fiat system. The reality is that current government and power brokers will not give up their power in replacement of a financial system that eliminates the middle men and revenue opportunities those middle men seize.

The MIT article is yet another example of a reporter taking Bitcoin's purpose to the extreme so they can come up with reasons why it would fail.

I would reiterate the reply of Ari Paul stated in the article, 'it may be true'. And the article is staying the obvious.
But how important would that factor be? Especially when all BTC has been mined and nine is available for reward. Would there be enough miners to stay ahead of any potential attacker?

As for the bitcoin and gold contrast,  bitcoin would need a couple more years to mature and consolidate before it could be a fair comparison.