Topic: This isn't a price poll, but rather a How sure are you that BTC will succeed? (Read 2335 times)

My vote is for 100% success.

I believe Bitcoin has passed the critical mass necessary for its success as a worldwide currency of choice. More people have heard about bitcoins this year than ever before. Remember that in marketing, even a bad news is good news. Eventually, the lay people will download and install bitcoin wallets and start buying/selling with btc. The barrier to entry is very high, but a new technology/service will come along to lower the barrier so that a Joe Sixpack can use bitcoins with ease.

The only thing that can kill Bitcoin is Bitcoin itself at this point in time, unless ALL governments around the world ban btc collectively.

Question is what success looks like

I think btc will still be relevant in 3 to 5 yrs and may be orders of mag higher than now

In 10 to 20 years, most likely not

The only obstacle is the trouble it takes a general person to get involved.  And does anyone here think that the service of purchasing/storing/using BTC won't be streamlined eventually?  I can see that happening at the end of the year.  Five years down the line?  Easily.

It's pretty much a sure thing.  The only question for me at this point is how much do I want to put into the lesser coins vs. going with the sure thing.

I fear they will decrease the freedom we have to use bitcoin.

Now 100M is probably the number of accounts created including trials. Which likely includes me, and I downloaded the client logged in for 5 minutes and left didn't pay anything at all... +1 account... And I'm not ever going back.

The only thing that I am not 100% confident in, nor do I think has a direct correlation to success, is the $5,000 requirement that you put on it.

Bitcoin does not need to be valued at $5K USD or more per coin to have had good long term success. I realize that in order for "x" amount of people to use it for "x" type of things, you could begin to place a value on how much each bitcoin is worth, but I do not think that requirement should be there.

Bitcoin could turn out to be far more than $5K USD each, I expect it to, but I am more like 20-30% there. As for the long term viability of bitcoin, I am darn near 100%, since it has many applications. One of those applications, or more, will surely stick.

Hi, when I meant mainstream I meant in terms of number of users maybe in comparison to a video game, movie, or book.

For example World of Warcraft from Wiki (mainstream game)

World of Warcraft was the best-selling PC game of 2005 and 2006.[91] As of January 22, 2008, World of Warcraft had more than 10 million subscribers worldwide, with more than 2 million subscribers in Europe, more than 2.5 million in North America, and about 5.5 million in Asia.[92] At its peak in October 2010 the game had 12 million subscribers.[93] As of February 2014 the game has 7.8 million active subscribers.[94] On January 28, 2014 Blizzard announced that 100 million accounts have been created for the game.[95]

The important number being 100 million users of WoW in it's history since that is the total amount that has at least played and paid for the game.

Phrased like that, in its generality, I wouldn't know how to answer your question...

"Mainstream adoption" as a daily used currency when you do your groceries?

"Mainstream adoption" for Internet-related business transactions?

"Mainstream adoption" for Internet-related business transactions, but not for the end user but by being the backbone of the transfer system (similarly to how Linux effectively is the OS that runs the Web, even though the majority of users has another OS)

"Mainstream adoption" as a store of value (assuming volatility reduces, or becomes more predictable), but not as a daily used currency?

My point is, mainstream adoption can mean a huge number of things, and the fact that I believe one or the other scenario is possible or even likely has no bearing on how likely I consider another mainstream success scenario.

EDIT: if you mean however how likely it is that there will be 10 times as many users as there are now, where "user" allows for our current usage (speculative asset, some trading/payment activity), then I'd say 90% or more likelihood.

Thanks, aminorex! Great post!

Do not underestimate the power of the press, group think, and incumbent financial systems.

Any one of these forces can destroy bitcoin alone, all three against the coin and it remains niche forever

To me, the most credible*severe failure mode is a successful subversion of the core dev team.  Assume the team is subverted.  How likely is that to successfully attack the network?
A core dev attack would probably seek to fork the blockchain recursively.  It would also need to do so irretrievably, i.e. such that backing up to a known block and running an older version would not suffice to repair it.  It's difficult to see how such a logic bomb could pass the level of review to which bitcoind is subject.  Also, the assumed subversion is non-trivial as well.  It would probably require threats to family members, credible ones.  That's pretty high exposure activity for any likely motivated agency.  If success is not very high probability, they won't want that much hang-out.

QC is the next most credible*severe.  There are other signature algorithms which are quantum-resistant.  In the presence of a functional core team, QC could not break more than a few wallets before the system repaired itself, at least not until QC scales up massively.  I don't think QC can achieve massive scale without creating a major disturbance in the force, which will provide advance warning.  Most likely scenario in case of a quantum attack is that some small number of addresses, probably the largest few, get cracked.  Totally survivable.

Scalability problems are the next most credible*severe threat.  In my opinion, scalability problems will be solved, if not by the core, then by a fork or alternate stack.  There is plenty of current work in this area, and the real pain points are still a year or two away.

The final item above my threshold of credible*severe is displacement by a competitor.  This is not so bad, because it will be gradual if it happens, and value can migrate to the new chain.  Some will be lost, but not most of it.  More likely any superior tech will bootstrap on the blockchain, or bitcoin will adopt features to achieve functional parity long before it loses network advantage  (unless subversion has occurred as well).

Overall, the total of the most credible*severe risks  doesn't achieve enough threat to move my risk meter, calibrated as it is to fiat denominated markets, where risks are much higher and more severe in aggregate.  I consider Bitcoin one of the safest (if most volatile) investments known to man.  Certainly safer than USTs, which I would discount with much more risk than does the market.

That would be quite a niche 

Very unlikely. The absolutely key requirement for a digital currency is that the network is highly robust, which is basically a function of difficulty/network size. Bitcoin has a huge advantage in this regard over competing currencies and it is hard to see that changing.

I think OP and I have a different definition of "succeed". I don't think this just means where btc will be in 2-3 years, or what the price will be at any point in time. I'm thinking more like will bitcoin still be around in 20-30 years. How about 200-300 years? Will it survive after EC is cracked - will there be some miracle patch, etc.? Will the programmable money ideas be utilized in mainstream adoption? Will bitcoin solve the world's banking problems and save us from the fed?

I think those numbers and the time frame are pretty meaningless. If Bitcoin is still around in 10 years and has 100+ million users, we will know it has at least succeeded in becoming an established niche system.

I give it 1% and I'm being way too generous here...

I'm really happy with my Linux Mint.

screw Ubuntu? I never thought Id ever hear that on a bitcoin forum with nerds and smart speculators on it (in theory). nobody wanna be with the herd, it works like a charm, so Ill stick to linux 

Is that supposed to somehow be an argument in favor of switching to linux?

is US dollars. ("Focus on what the majority uses instead.")

Seriously, as a desktop OS, 1.5% desktop computer users uses Ubuntu. A bitcoin would worth 20,000USD if only 12 million people (0.25% of world) uses it - bitcoin is far less popular than Ubuntu.