Topic: Monthly average USD/bitcoin price & trend - page 19. (Read 118266 times)

Indeed. Risto, your opinion about this is a bit naive

When stealing is more opportunistic (implied costs of stealing including risk of failure and consequences) than buying, quite a lot of people will steal.

Just ask the multitude of people on here that have lost tons of coins due to hacking.....

Heh... I'd like to see the efforts people apply to securing their private keys when bitcoins are worth a billion dollars each. (or conversely, the efforts thieves will apply to stealing them)

So I guess I should'nt delete an old wallet I have with 0.00773931  on it   

It's almost too good to be true. But sometimes things just are indeed very good, and usually that's because things sucked a lot before and that suckiness has been alleviated.

I was locked in for $300k, and now it is not delusional anymore, or even conservative, it is actually the initial step, and selling at that price should truthfully be called "selling your birthright for pea soup".

I <3 bitcoin. In the world of such abundance, who needs money anymore?

One almost universal mistake made in long-term price targets is the ceteris paribus fallacy. The idea is that Bitcoin will be used for everything that gold and fiat money is used for today, and everything else will stay the same. The reasoning goes, "If Bitcoin takes over the world, the price will reflect the value of what it took over: gold's functionality as a store of value, PayPal's transactional functionality, and the money supply of the world's currencies." Such estimates generally put the target price between $100,000 and several million dollars (in today's dollars).

That's a bit like arguing, in 1994, that email will be worth the value of the postal system.

Looking to a future year when the entire global economy is denominated in bitcoins, 1 BTC won't just be worth ~1/21,000,000 of today's global output. It won't just be worth ~1/21,000,000 of whatever the global output would have been in that year if Bitcoin had never arisen. It will be worth ~1/21,000,000 of the global output of a Bitcoin-enabled world.

A world with friction-free commerce, small and relatively much more efficient government (if any), absolutely booming business thanks to predictable "monetary policy" and market-defined interest rates and free stock markets, and a radically internationalized division of labor. Any one of those four should be enough to increase global output by an order of magnitude, if not more. But all four of them at once? Not to mention all the future applications like escrow, smart property, assurance contracts, distributed autonomous corporations (DACs) and autonomous agents, etc.

Given all that, and taking into account how all of this is included in the binary bet, I think the target price should be in the billions per coin. The timescale is less clear, but probably within a decade after mainstream adoption is reached.

Anyone with an mBTC will be set for life.

EDIT: To be clear, the price target for initial mainstream adoption probably is between $100,000 and $10,000,000 or so. I'm guessing $1 million as a conservative target. But once the dust settles we start into the economy-wide effects of a Bitcoin world and continue up a few more orders of magnitude in not very many years.

I woke up a few days ago to the unexpected: we had crossed 1000

Your log regression line looks similar to the one I plotted with a logistic function. In particular it is notable that 1000 is expected by Q1 2013 and 10000 is expected about a year later.

The way I am considering things price movement reflects adoption. This thread talks about existing markets but what about non-existent markets?

Bitcoin is being examined as currency but I've recently (this year) come to realize it is a protocol. Because I see Bitcoin as a protocol I readily accept the need for alt coins to serve as stand alone ledgers or subledgers. Since I believe in the need for alt-coins I'll accept a need for one to serve as the foundation by which all others are measured. Bitcoin has the first mover advantage.

Any data flowing on the internet is potential energy for the Bitcoin protocol.

Recently it was announced in the U.S. that the 'National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is considering mandating V2V (vehicle-to-vehicle communications to request automobile manufacturers place communications technology that constantly broadcasts via radio wave the car’s location, direction, speed and, possibly, even the number of passengers it is carrying'. - ref. cnsnews.com.

Imagine the Bitcoin protocol owning V2V data and placing it in a public blockchain. Now imagine the only way to retrieve that data and trace it to an individual is through a complementary blockchain that has to identify who they are as they retrieve that data. Regulators can have fun with that topic but I've got other motives, Bitcoin has the potential to regulate the surveillance, to give me a voice. Commercial interests are welcome to buy my data - or perhaps I could block them. Maybe local government takes some of my data for taxes so they can fill the pothole I'm always braking for. Or, let's not measure a thing and all go live in the woods. For me, the debate is over. This is just one wild and maybe impractical idea - though nothing should be impossible - but I know for sure there are going to be millions of other ideas just as wild and some will even be practical.

This thread is about price: I've graphed using an Andrews Pitchfork to derive a very broad channel for price on a log chart. Currently I like this fork because it visually back tests well. The channels, or curves on fork are based on fibonacci commonly used in technical analysis. If this fork is 'in tune' with price going forward there will be price reversals frequently occurring coincident to these upward sloping channels. Though this Andrews Pitchfork is plotted from within the greater time scale, it visually rhymes with the long term logarithmic chart backtested by trendlines to key price points. (note that according to BTC on Tradingview data I have 'the floor' at one-cent on 10-04-2010. I am new using Tradingview software, growing to like it the more I use it, so sorry for the lack of labeling on the chart but you can easily make the chart your own by right clicking on the fractals and altering the settings to try different fibs.

Edit: interactive chart link: https://www.tradingview.com/e/M1ZPd859/

Yeah I found it on TV Tropes in an article on inherently funny names, including Humperdinck. It struck me as the funniest, so I kept it as my own. If it were my real name...well that would be pretty fun.

Indeed + 1

The nice thing about this debate is that ultimately it gets settled in cash, lots and lots of cash.

Indeed.

It is good we are debating this.

Lets see how the debate ends up.

I agree with this post to the letter.

I have also devoted some thinking to the matter. Bitcoin's parameters are the most optimal that I have seen, if the objective is to get the currency off the ground and achieve the highest 'market cap' valuation:

- Initial creation is rather centralized, in opposed to distributed. (Nearly) Same amount of old world resources must be burned to create new currency.
- Most holders by number need to acquire their bitcoins from an exchange, giving them a fiat price.
- This leads to a power-law distribution in bitcoin balances from the beginning. This is the most natural distribution and minimum amount of trades need to be made in the aftermarket to achieve it.
- This leads to stiff but predictable supply inelasticity, which leads to high volatility mainly to the upside.

Compare this to the XRP distribution, which completely disregards all economic principles and thus was an utter failure, forever destining XRP to be a trading card game, and discrediting the (otherwise promising) Ripple network in the process.

+1 Hey your name makes me think of Engelbert Humperdinck. How cool to have a name like that!

Any cryptocurrency aiming to have low volatility will have low adoption. It seems the creator doesn't understand economics.

What you are saying is not coming through. Black swans are quite common globally, but rare within single constricted systems. FAPP we need to take the risk to omit them - and suffer the eventual consequences without whining when we repeat that risk over and over again until the unlikely becomes nearly certain on a personal scale.

What the man said: ...unlikely to even comprehend its cyclical complexity with linear thinking. It requires a change in the way we see the world...

Linear thinking will get you just halfway through!

That's why, from the metaphysical perspective, I'm not a fan of Taleb or some of such very usual sentiments that the likes of this forum are in bed with, with some of their very intelligent members. No offense intended, but lack of metaphysics is lack of reason.

 
The Armstrong article is excellent. (However I don't like the implication that all order is just emergence refined - saying that emergence "just exists" is not sufficient, but that speculation does not change its usability) Do you really think the article's appearance right now is a coincidence? To think so would imply incomplete understanding of what he is writing about.