Topic: The $1000 Bitcoin, yes it's worth at least that. - page 8. (Read 41589 times)

Yes there is, you peg it against gold.
Or, you start BitTulip (BitCoin 2.0), and you make it much harder and slower to produce currency from the onset (barely worth it), and most important of all, you introduce INFLATION into the system to promote spending, not hoarding, and you never cap the total amount of BitCoins that can be produced. If you don't have inflation, you have deflation, which means people with "money" will never have to work.

Yes, they offered me about 14c for free in exchange for my gmail login. It seemed like a bad deal. In fact there's not a whole lot I will do for 14c.

Promoting fingernails, hair, and skin as money?

That was a joke, but my point is that you don't get money for simply existing, you have to do something that other people value in order to earn it. The original adopters (miners) of Bitcoin were doing something, securing the network when it was brand new, regardless of how valuable other people think it is. Who has the right to come along and say, "Hey, give me some of your labor", simply because they feel that past labor shouldn't have as much value as it currently does?

I think it will continue to rise quite a bit - one can't ignore the ratio of dollars to bitcoins in considering the possibility of bitcoin becoming a widely-used currency, even if it doesn't replace fiat moneys entirely. But probably not to $10,000 per coin, and here's why - because in a free market for money, there will be lots and lots of different moneys. Bitcoin will have to compete with others of its kind, with hard currencies, with labor notes, and other things. I suspect that it will condense around the techier sorts of markets, with some significant overlap into other areas, but not enough to make 21,000,000 bitcoins represent all 40 quadrillion US dollars or however many there are when the dollar finally bites it. I think that gold and silver will be the most widely used money, as they have been for the last 5,000 years of human history, and bitcoin will merely be measured in grams of gold instead of dollars. Its usefulness as a medium of exchange over long distances, however, cannot be duplicated with physical transfers of metal, or even with "warehouse receipts" for the same, which is why I do not expect it to lose in a truly competitive market for currency. (Presuming it becomes easier to buy and sell with time - the whole buying e-currency A which is the only thing that is accepted for e-currency B which is the only damn thing Mt. Gox will accept frankly sucks).

What stops a large entity from competing with Bitcoin? Nothing. But remember that Bitcoin is not governed by anyone. That creates a level of trust unreachable by any centralized organization.

I'm not saying that unbalanced distribution of wealth is ok. It has simply been pointed out that Bitcoin's wealth distribution is nothing new. I kindly ask again - is there a better practical alternative of introducing new currency without this injustice inherently build into it?

Are you aware of the Bitcoin faucet?

What stops a large organization or government from simply starting an alternative "BitCoin" and market the shit out of it, making BitCoin a thing of the past. And why don't they, because BitCoins are still relatively harmless (think tax evation, state tax, terrorism (just for marketing purposes), etc). I think once there is a crack, BitCoins will never recover.

So because we've been born into an unbalanced sharing of wealth, this somehow makes it OK? WTF!!  If it ain't about greed, then share your BitCoin wealth amongst ordinary people and get them involved in the market place. This should be an enabling technology, not an investment opportunity nor a pyramid scheme.

'come on granny, you've spent on The pizza more than Zimbabwe is worth'

corrected

Ironicly, I'd bet that he doesn't even have 10kBTC anymore.

I'd bet that the guy who bought the pizza for 10kBTC is one of the 20 (or 20000?) who will be stinking rich. No one is going to be ridiculing him, let alone his lucky grandkids. Buying that pizza might have motivated him to ratchet up his collecting. And it might have helped kick start the use of Bitcoin as money.

This is a common misconception - that bitcoin must achieve widespread usage in order to be obscenely valuable.

As an average consumer, bitcoin doesn't offer me much that I don't already have. If bitcoin must be used for groceries to be successful, I'm selling all of mine today.

As a stock trader, the potential to trade ANY type of contract on ANY security at 100x cheaper price per trade completely anonymously changes everything. I probably won't actually do it myself (at least not at first - I'm too scared of the law man), but other people will do it in hordes.

People in Nigerian internet cafes will be able to bet a few pennies on any stock for any country in the world. Huge hedge funds will be able to place gigantic bets without anyone knowing where the bet came from.

It will be epic, and they will buy a couple of those bitcoins from me.

It like this. Some smart fellow invented the wheel. It allowed some dude to do more work with less energy. He had a huge advantage over everyone else who was still dragging carcasses, sticks, and whatnot around using barrows (wheelbarrow without a wheel). A few of the people around him see the benefit of the wheel. They start using it. They start telling their friends. The people on the other side of the world are the last to hear about this fantastic new invention: the wheel.

Now, do the early adopters of the wheel have an advantage over the people on the other side of the planet who haven't heard about it yet? Yes.

Did that make the wheel a poor tool? No! (In fact, we still use it today)

Is it unfair that the people who started using the wheel first had an advantage over the people on the other side of the planet? Maybe, but that's life.

Bitcoin isn't going to stop being useful because the people who saw it's usefulness first might profit from being first. Those who choose to boycott Bitcoin for these reasons will simply have to continue life without having the advantages of this particular useful tool. Time will tell if this becomes a disadvantage for them or not.

Added to that, once those early adopters finally decide to take those profits, then those bitcoins are loose in the system, and no amount of gaming or lobbying is going to give those early adopters their advantages back.  It's a one time advantage, whereas fiat currencies are constantly being screwed with to the benefit of some insider or another.  Hell, even the gold and silver markets are manipulated to some degree.

@"zomg early adopters get too much":

Boo-hoo, person X does not deserve his Bitcoins. Bitcoin initial distribution is by far the best approach I've seen so far. Yes, the makers made the rules so that they can get a neat share in the first month. SO WHAT? I was late too. But do I mind? This is much better than inflation. I rather give absurd amounts of money to someone who was an early supporter of a useful technology than to states who just burn it. Especially if I have to give it once, and the states want to keep the money burning all my life.

But that's the thing. States are there, wasting billions and billions of Euros and Dollars with everybody watching. If somebody pointlessly earns 100 million USD in a Bitcoin rise, who cares? Even ten billion; the EU destroys much, much more every year! It's not even important. And the time frame for the really absurd minting is pretty much over with BTC already at sizable price.

So, IMO, if a hundred people get an unjustified earning of USD 100 million each, I think this is an acceptable loss. The target economy size makes such an event negligible.



@Thread:

I don't believe all you $1000 people. If as many believe that as claim to believe it, price should be higher already. It's mostly people who shout, but aren't sure enough to actually invest. Which should be very profitable if $1000 is actually likely.

This is still far from done. You'll see when it actually is done. Things won't look like a little hacker circle playing with money anymore if that happens. If. Maybe we'll see three-digit prices then. But the real thing, that is many people using BTC in their everyday lives, has yet to happen.

Good point, sir. Have a tip.
Also, are there any practical models that actually promote balanced sharing of wealth?

you were born into a unbalanced sharing of wealth. get over it.

This is my concern too. It is often explained here as high profit associated with high initial risk taken by early adopters, but somehow I don't buy it.

A key point some opinion makers ignore

MtGox doesn't display bids more than ~33% from the last trade. Bids go all the way down. There is also the possibility of large hidden orders. And there are the other markets (small) and individuals (unknown, but large imo)