Topic: It's year 2050 and Bitcoin is the world currency... - page 2. (Read 5101 times)
Having regional currencies on a planet as small as Earth seems pretty archaic/tribal IMO. The currencies in Star Trek--which is only set a couple centuries or so from now--tend toward covering entire planets/species/interplanetary alliances/etc.
First of all, if Bitcoins exist that long, and there are only 20 million of them. Bitcoins value would be insanely high. Also, how on earth would people get paid everyday? They wouldn't be able unless more coins were being generated. It just isn't an idea that Bitcoins will ever be the world currency because the world currency would HAVE to have the ability to create more money when needed.
Bitcoin would just become more divisible. A bitcoin in fifty years could theoretically be worth a million dollars, if it takes over as the leading world currency, and then a single satoshi (0.00000001 BTC) would be worth, I think, one cent.
The price per bitcoin goes up.
I'd hate to see a world with one currency...cause it means we're either under dictator rule or utopia and the former is a lot more likely.
Diversity is good for everyone.
I'd hate to see a world with one currency...cause it means we're either under dictator rule or utopia and the former is a lot more likely.
Diversity is good for everyone.
you surely mean fedecoins
First of all, if Bitcoins exist that long, and there are only 20 million of them. Bitcoins value would be insanely high. Also, how on earth would people get paid everyday? They wouldn't be able unless more coins were being generated. It just isn't an idea that Bitcoins will ever be the world currency because the world currency would HAVE to have the ability to create more money when needed.
It's year 2050?!? My Boss will be pissed I did not show up for work for 35 years.. 
You must be a dad...
No it wouldn't it would require Bitcoin users to lose 1% of of all Bitcoin annually for 100 years or even .1% of coins in 1000 years. I'm not saying it's gonna happen anytime soon, I'm saying EVENTUALY there is a time all coins would be lost. I said nothing about being concerned about it, I'm just stating a fact.
Eventually the sun is going to run out of hydrogen and engulf the majority solar system. This will happen first. So what do we do about this?
bitcoin is the worry here , not the sun.
the guy's got a good point : )
It's year 2050?!? My Boss will be pissed I did not show up for work for 35 years..
You must be a dad...
It's year 2050?!? My Boss will be pissed I did not show up for work for 35 years..
But then again, I have my bitcoins and the latest value is set to two oranges, which are scarce aroun 2050, the chance getting killed by a tiger are 200% higher then to find an orange, more due to the overpopulation of tigers after some investor with too many BTC on his hands wanted to breed and set free wild tigers as a hobby.
2050 is too far away for me to think about, too many variables and opporunities. Hope I'm still alive by then though
But then again, I have my bitcoins and the latest value is set to two oranges, which are scarce aroun 2050, the chance getting killed by a tiger are 200% higher then to find an orange, more due to the overpopulation of tigers after some investor with too many BTC on his hands wanted to breed and set free wild tigers as a hobby.
2050 is too far away for me to think about, too many variables and opporunities. Hope I'm still alive by then though
Do we at least have hoverboards in every major city? Because frankly I don't want to live in any future without hoverboards.
Hoverboards and flying cars is what 2015 holds
As well as some dumb dumb losing 5million btc and helping the price rocket for all the holders so that is more good news if we are still alive of course.
Do we at least have hoverboards in every major city? Because frankly I don't want to live in any future without hoverboards.
Hoverboards and flying cars is what 2015 holds
As well as some dumb dumb losing 5million btc and helping the price rocket for all the holders so that is more good news if we are still alive of course.
Do we at least have hoverboards in every major city? Because frankly I don't want to live in any future without hoverboards.
From the Bitcoin Wiki:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#But_if_no_more_coins_are_generated.2C_what_happens_when_Bitcoins_are_lost.3F_Won.27t_that_be_a_problem.3F
That should answer your question.
How do they decide and confirm that bitcoins have been lost? It can't be that if they lay dormant for too long, so how can it be confirmed?https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#But_if_no_more_coins_are_generated.2C_what_happens_when_Bitcoins_are_lost.3F_Won.27t_that_be_a_problem.3F
Quote
But if no more coins are generated, what happens when Bitcoins are lost? Won't that be a problem?
Because of the law of supply and demand, when fewer bitcoins are available the ones that are left will be in higher demand, and therefore will have a higher value. So, as Bitcoins are lost, the remaining bitcoins will eventually increase in value to compensate. As the value of a bitcoin increases, the number of bitcoins required to purchase an item decreases. This is a deflationary economic model. As the average transaction size reduces, transactions will probably be denominated in sub-units of a bitcoin such as millibitcoins ("Millies") or microbitcoins ("Mikes").
The Bitcoin protocol uses a base unit of one hundred-millionth of a Bitcoin ("a Satoshi"), but unused bits are available in the protocol fields that could be used to denote even smaller subdivisions.
Because of the law of supply and demand, when fewer bitcoins are available the ones that are left will be in higher demand, and therefore will have a higher value. So, as Bitcoins are lost, the remaining bitcoins will eventually increase in value to compensate. As the value of a bitcoin increases, the number of bitcoins required to purchase an item decreases. This is a deflationary economic model. As the average transaction size reduces, transactions will probably be denominated in sub-units of a bitcoin such as millibitcoins ("Millies") or microbitcoins ("Mikes").
The Bitcoin protocol uses a base unit of one hundred-millionth of a Bitcoin ("a Satoshi"), but unused bits are available in the protocol fields that could be used to denote even smaller subdivisions.
That should answer your question.
Would the mining re-start or increase to previous levels in this case?
I had assumed, apparently incorrectly, that the rest of the coins would increase in value to compensate.
It's almost impossible to tell if Bitcoins are lost, unless we never see those addresses transact on the Blockchain ever again. If these Bitcoins are mined from say 2009 or so and never interact or transact on the ledger again after decades, then it's probably safe to say it's gone forever.
Reminds me of the time that poor guy lost 7500 BTC worth $7.5 Million a few years ago by dumping his PC hard drive in the trash:
http://readwrite.com/2014/01/13/what-happens-to-lost-bitcoins
Bitcoin would just increase in value, the only people at lost are the ones who owned those Bitcoins.
I am not so sure about that anymore. I used to think that way to, that bitcoin will be only more expensive with time. But event of january 2015 when bitcoin dropped more than half of its initial value made me think that it may not be the case. There is always a risk. After all bitcoin is a FIAT.I get what you're trying to say, Hazir, but please refrain from using Bitcoin in the same context as Fiat currency.
Fiat by definition is:
Quote
Any money declared by a government to be legal tender.
State-issued money which is neither convertible by law to any other thing, nor fixed in value in terms of any objective standard.
Intrinsically valueless money used as money because of government decree.
State-issued money which is neither convertible by law to any other thing, nor fixed in value in terms of any objective standard.
Intrinsically valueless money used as money because of government decree.
Bitcoin goes against all these institutions by definition, so it can and will never be Fiat based money. No one government can control or "print" Bitcoin like the US dollar or Euro, so just trying to help you understand.
But I get what you were going for, deflationary economy yada yada...
Bitcoin isn't FIAT period. It cannot be printed at will by the Fed or the Eurozone.
You have read up more on what FIAT means, because FIAT is backed by Guns, Law, and higher central authority.
Bitcoin isn't backed by any of that. It's backed by mathematics and deflationary economics. It is a cryptocurrency after all.
No it wouldn't it would require Bitcoin users to lose 1% of of all Bitcoin annually for 100 years or even .1% of coins in 1000 years. I'm not saying it's gonna happen anytime soon, I'm saying EVENTUALY there is a time all coins would be lost. I said nothing about being concerned about it, I'm just stating a fact.
You're doing the math wrong. It's reasonable to assume some fraction of bitcoins will be lost each year. But it will be a fraction of the existing supply at that time, not a fraction of the original supply. In the 1% example, suppose a starting supply of 10,000,000 coins. The first year 100,000 are lost. Then the next year 99,000 are lost (1% of the remaining 9,900,000), and steadily diminishing from there.
Otherwise, after 99 years you would be supposing that only 100,000 bitcoins would be left.... and that they would somehow ALL be lost in 12 months. That doesn't make any kind of sense.
So we can keep losing coins perpetually, but with subdivision into sub-satoshi units of measure, bitcoin could keep going strong forever.
1. The distribution of Bitcoins is actually getting better
2. The largest company losing Bitcoins would result in the price going down. Reduced supply doesn't increase demand, unless maybe if there's consensus on reducing the total number of Bitcoins. Do you buy an asset if the biggest investor is an idiot? No, you don't.
2. The largest company losing Bitcoins would result in the price going down. Reduced supply doesn't increase demand, unless maybe if there's consensus on reducing the total number of Bitcoins. Do you buy an asset if the biggest investor is an idiot? No, you don't.
You know this gets me thinking.
Ok so the original scenario is interesting enough, but here's another twist: Imagine that happens and the company says they lost their bitcoin. So the prices skyrockets and then the coins magically show up and are dumped into the market. Ut oh, the company lied and just ran off with some epic profits.
Ok so the original scenario is interesting enough, but here's another twist: Imagine that happens and the company says they lost their bitcoin. So the prices skyrockets and then the coins magically show up and are dumped into the market. Ut oh, the company lied and just ran off with some epic profits.
Funny, to me this sounds like a real possibility... Large financial institution acquires enough coins (even less than 5 million will do) to be able to manipulate the market this way. I wouldn't be surprised if this was happening right now, the trap is being set.
Bitcoin would just increase in value, the only people at lost are the ones who owned those Bitcoins.
I am not so sure about that anymore. I used to think that way to, that bitcoin will be only more expensive with time. But event of january 2015 when bitcoin dropped more than half of its initial value made me think that it may not be the case. There is always a risk. After all bitcoin is a FIAT.I get what you're trying to say, Hazir, but please refrain from using Bitcoin in the same context as Fiat currency.
Fiat by definition is:
Quote
Any money declared by a government to be legal tender.
State-issued money which is neither convertible by law to any other thing, nor fixed in value in terms of any objective standard.
Intrinsically valueless money used as money because of government decree.
State-issued money which is neither convertible by law to any other thing, nor fixed in value in terms of any objective standard.
Intrinsically valueless money used as money because of government decree.
Bitcoin goes against all these institutions by definition, so it can and will never be Fiat based money. No one government can control or "print" Bitcoin like the US dollar or Euro, so just trying to help you understand.
But I get what you were going for, deflationary economy yada yada...
I hope that happens. In reality whatever I'm still holding on to will definitely increase in price as there is now lower supply in the market. I don't think we'll need to worry about that for the moment. Even if does become non-divisible in the future, there's a way for the network to compensate for it provided that the community agrees on a consensus whether to shift the decimal places or otherwise.
From the Bitcoin Wiki:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#But_if_no_more_coins_are_generated.2C_what_happens_when_Bitcoins_are_lost.3F_Won.27t_that_be_a_problem.3F
That should answer your question.
How do they decide and confirm that bitcoins have been lost? It can't be that if they lay dormant for too long, so how can it be confirmed?https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#But_if_no_more_coins_are_generated.2C_what_happens_when_Bitcoins_are_lost.3F_Won.27t_that_be_a_problem.3F
Quote
But if no more coins are generated, what happens when Bitcoins are lost? Won't that be a problem?
Because of the law of supply and demand, when fewer bitcoins are available the ones that are left will be in higher demand, and therefore will have a higher value. So, as Bitcoins are lost, the remaining bitcoins will eventually increase in value to compensate. As the value of a bitcoin increases, the number of bitcoins required to purchase an item decreases. This is a deflationary economic model. As the average transaction size reduces, transactions will probably be denominated in sub-units of a bitcoin such as millibitcoins ("Millies") or microbitcoins ("Mikes").
The Bitcoin protocol uses a base unit of one hundred-millionth of a Bitcoin ("a Satoshi"), but unused bits are available in the protocol fields that could be used to denote even smaller subdivisions.
Because of the law of supply and demand, when fewer bitcoins are available the ones that are left will be in higher demand, and therefore will have a higher value. So, as Bitcoins are lost, the remaining bitcoins will eventually increase in value to compensate. As the value of a bitcoin increases, the number of bitcoins required to purchase an item decreases. This is a deflationary economic model. As the average transaction size reduces, transactions will probably be denominated in sub-units of a bitcoin such as millibitcoins ("Millies") or microbitcoins ("Mikes").
The Bitcoin protocol uses a base unit of one hundred-millionth of a Bitcoin ("a Satoshi"), but unused bits are available in the protocol fields that could be used to denote even smaller subdivisions.
That should answer your question.
Would the mining re-start or increase to previous levels in this case?
I had assumed, apparently incorrectly, that the rest of the coins would increase in value to compensate.
Jump to: