Topic: Do you really believe that Bitcoin will hit 1,000,000 - page 9. (Read 17317 times)

Don't forget Buffet was right about dotcom. Whether he is right on bitcoin is yet to be seen.

I believe it will after all bitcoin has been mined.

If you really think this, well, I don't know how to put it but I think you are delusional.

Hey, you cannot do that. Other people are supposed to utter that word, and you are supposed to close your ears and eyes when you hear it.

Yep the infrastructure and usability is a big factor in Bitcoin
Then you have the Buffet's who say that those two are not connected but that's an older generation of thinking in the digital world technology has proven to be revolutionary in every industry, perhaps the value at times varies but it is nice to believe in the potential utility of a whole new payment system.

I've been studying every damn article about bitcoin for the past 9 months and focusing on a macroeconomic level, $6000-$10000 is definitely realistic by the end of this year. If nothing else, just think about the ridiculous amount of infrastructure that currently being built for it AROUND THE GLOBE... its happening whether anyone likes it or not. (unless something completely drastic happens which no one can predict including me...)

With that said, I'm in the process of putting together a project to help facilitate mass adoption of Bitcoin. Let's hope I have something to show the community soon.

Seriously doubt it...at least not within my lifetime!

When it gets mainstream, oh yes i believe on it, i'm anxiously waiting for the Winklevoss prediction of 70k by 2017, if that happens then

everything would be possible...

I don't wanna go off on a tangent.  But "conspiracy theory" is never an explanation for anything.  The simple reason for why monetary base expands because there is demand for it.  The capital market demands money so the money markets supply it.  No big secret about this

You have to think a bit deeper. There is a reason why the money and debt supply has to continually expand, and that is to keep the current elites in power. It is really not possible to shrink the feds balance sheet, other than symbolically. Just think what the voter would say to higher taxes and lower public spending at the same time. Some intellectuals have taken it upon themselves to support the current leaders, and they get rewarded for it through the revolving doors. The Fed, the IMF and the world bank, the other money issuing banks are playing the same game. It is a global Department of Truth.

The argument above is not enough to falsify the current paradigm, it is only an argument for the possibility of a deception so big that the casual observer can not reveal it. The grandness of it makes it easier to belive by the public.

The arguments against the current paradigm is not the rewards, but the absurdities presented. These are things like - lifting the debt ceiling is not expansion of debt, - wars, real wars, not the puffs we currently perform, is needed to grow the economy, - the debt is no problem because of growth, - giving money to the banks trickles down to every american, - public spending of a dollar creates more than one dollar wealth, - taxing is productive, - advances in technology will fix it, - value of money has to go down, - forcing spending, not saving, creates wealth, - the dollar is stable, - the dollar has value because of warships.

And the metrics, everything is proved by metrics, no logic and reason necessary. Previously debunked theories resurfaces again and again. Words are reconstructed to mean the opposite.

To understand, you have to go to the basics, what is the laws governing the economic individuals actions, how does money and credt work. History is interesting to put some meat on it. There are lots of contrarian voices, you have to listen and verify the reasoning behind the arguments.

Calling what they were pushing for "austerity" is akin to calling the website Obamacare created a "market".

Wait the world bank are professors? 

There's no reason to think GDP can't be measured.  Its been measured for a long time.  And last time I checked the World Bank is not neo-Keynesian, although some individuals may be

IMF policy is certainly NOT Keynsian.  They were the ones pushing for austerity to the eurozone.  Remember?

I'm not even talking about bitcoin here.  I'm the World Bank has more credibility than you when it comes to economics

There is no spoon bitcoin.

Powerful fact. Academic type are so over hyped.

You don't know how I got my knowledge, nor my profession, nor the exact type of chair I prefer. I am certainly not interested in discussing things in the form of flinging names of professors around. If you guide your investments from what the best known and educated people around say, you would not have bitcoins yet.

A self taught armchair economist doubting people that have studied this subject all their life.  Hmm.   Who should is more credible ?😁

Yes, they are neo keynesians. Their GWP measures GWP, not the world's production. Look into it. Apart from inaccuracies in the actual reporting of numbers from the field, it is also a question of what to include and what not to include. The broken window fallacy. They can have some fun with that number, and others, but history shows they are still in the fog.

And this ...

is totally absurd. There does not have to exist any money outside of bitcoin (although in the market, there always tend to be alternatives). And if there are alternatives, like fiat, and the demand to hold value in reserve in the form of money in total is fixed, less value to the alternatives just means higher value to bitcoin.

The value is decided in the market from the mind of the actors in the demand and supply. The market consist of pairs, where each bitcoin supplier decides that it is worth it to trade a number of coins for a number of someting else. And vice versa for the bitcoin buyer. You could say the supply is the absens of demand to have, compared to the other good.  What underlying reasons each actor has for his decision is unknown, maybe even for the individual actor himself. The urge to slush the money around doesnt give it any special value, only the demand to have or not to have.

[/quote]


I think this is reflecting a conflation of two questions in the original thread title - does BTC have a certain value vs. can you swap out BTC for a certain amount of USD.

And wait, GWP is fundamentally unmeasurable? That seems strange. If you believe it's fundamentally unimportant for this calculation, that's one thing, but you're saying that the sum total of world economic activity is something that we can't measure, or at least make an educated guess at within an order of magnitude, and that it's not a relevant economic indicator?

Here's a chart from the world bank measuring current world GDP: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD/countries/1W?display=grapht

Is the world bank lying to me?

Hmm. I agree with most of this as well as the subsequent posts, but I don't think GDP (actually GWP, gross world product) is completely unrelated to value of bitcoin. Mind talking me through this?

Of course we can't predict anything Even modeling BTC network growth is hard, and I'm a network nerd. Predicting BTC value is economics mixed with voodoo and I'm out of my depth there. But here's how I think GWP fits in (please correct me if I'm wrong, but go into detail!):

If a large number of people are holding long term, they're causing artificial scarcity for bitcoins. Assume that this takes a large number of BTC out of circulation for a decent amount of time. We've seen this with domain name squatters, we've seen it in the ip address black market, and we'll see it here - people like holding large swaths of imaginary numbers if they're scarce. *shrug*

The remaining available coins value will be in their utility to the people who are actually using them - either you're holding, or you're engaging in a transaction, right? Buying phone cards, sending remittances, gambling, silk road, those are all part of the GWP.

If the total value of these "utility coins" has to be more than the GWP  to hit 1 million, that still tells us not much I think But if  the value is a factor of the current world GWP, that's a more likely scenario than "GWP has to double and everyone has to use BTC for all transactions that contribute to GWP in order for the spot price to be 1 MM".

It's the difference between saying 25% of the world's population has to pay their rent at current market rates in BTC for a year in order for the spot price in BTC to hit 1 million that year vs 99% of the population has to pay for everything in BTC to hit 1 million. You can only subjectively say which is more likely, but the second scenario implies a LOT more effort and progress for BTC.

The point the original poster was making was that somehow there wasn't enough money around for BTC to hit 1MM, and for my part - if a few billion people all start buying their shitty 99c smartpone apps in satoshi, and then move on to paying their phone bills and other utilities through that same mobile wallet, I think that's the quickest way we get there. Smartphone users are projected to hit 5 billion in 2017.

Predicting what long term holders do is impossible, and I agree with your analysis there, but the people who will use bitcoin for some fraction of transactions made in their otherwise "normal" fiat lives must exist as a function of GWP, I can't see how they wouldn't. (Again, network geek heavy, econ lite, so be gentle )