several years from now
not before 2018 i assume
Topic: When will bitcoin hit 252,000 USD? - page 2. (Read 6254 times)
lol that si lots of money, but let me try it.
2015 will peak to 6k
2016 wil peak to 30k
2017 will peak to 90k
2018 will not peak at all
2019 wil peak to 180k
2020 wil peak to well over 252k
2015 will peak to 6k
2016 wil peak to 30k
2017 will peak to 90k
2018 will not peak at all
2019 wil peak to 180k
2020 wil peak to well over 252k
The question is, is is fair to compare USD to Zimbabwe when US still have the strongest military in the world.
Interesting question.
Does this military produce more revenue or more cost for the USD?
That graph makes total sense to me. We'll be rich grandpas 
It will reach 252,000$ for sure, but I don't think we will be still in this world when it will happen.
This prediction is meaningless for the long term being discussed here.
How about this: Bitcoin will never hit 252k USD. Not even close.
In fact, ATH was reached last year. We won't ever get back to prices over a thousand dollars.
Hmm... I will stick my neck out and predict an ATH in the next 6 months. $1300 by Feb 2015.
This prediction is meaningless for the long term being discussed here.
How about this: Bitcoin will never hit 252k USD. Not even close.
In fact, ATH was reached last year. We won't ever get back to prices over a thousand dollars.
This prediction is meaningless for the long term being discussed here.
How about this: Bitcoin will never hit 252k USD. Not even close.
In fact, ATH was reached last year. We won't ever get back to prices over a thousand dollars.
That's more like it. Quoted for posterity.
This prediction is meaningless for the long term being discussed here.
How about this: Bitcoin will never hit 252k USD. Not even close.
In fact, ATH was reached last year. We won't ever get back to prices over a thousand dollars.
A price of $252,000 in era 0 (50 BTC/block) would have caused the Bitcoin network to attempt to consume about 30% of all the electrical power produced on the planet.
... So, in order to keep the Bitcoin network from attempting to consume more than 1% of all the power produced we should all hope that the price does not reach that level until at least era 5 - about 2029 or so.
It's new (for me, at least ... So, in order to keep the Bitcoin network from attempting to consume more than 1% of all the power produced we should all hope that the price does not reach that level until at least era 5 - about 2029 or so.
) and important consideration. However, I can't see how cost of power could set any limit to the bitcoin price.Say, cost of all world electrical power is 1 zillion USD. And cost of all yearly mined coins is ten times more of it: 10 zillions USD. Does it mean that price of bitcoin will fall tenfold? No. It means that price of power will grow tenfold. And most of this power will be used for mining. There is no limits.
What's more, I can't even see why should we want such limits. The goal of prices is to indicate the best use of resources. If we ignore such indicator, we are misallocating resources, using them not in the best way possible. Why should we want it?
I'm calling it now (and you can quote me on this in the future): Price on January 1st 2015 will be at least $100 lower than price on January 1st 2014.
Quoted. You are welcome.
A $100 variance in price over a 1 year time span is well inside Bicoin's price fluctuations. I would be more impressed calling $10 by that time.
This prediction is meaningless for the long term being discussed here.
I believe that in the future 1 full BTC will have a value too high for the regular people.
They will can afford to purchase only fractions of 1 BTC, like BITS ( http://www.coindesk.com/breaking-down-btc-bit-by-bit/ )
Only the lucky ones who are holding will hit the jackpot
They will can afford to purchase only fractions of 1 BTC, like BITS ( http://www.coindesk.com/breaking-down-btc-bit-by-bit/ )
Only the lucky ones who are holding will hit the jackpot
Do you think in 2024, you'll be able to buy a car and a house with 1 BTC? thats what matters. It's all about purchasing power, not some USD equivalence.
^^^ Very good post notme.
Rising energy costs will bring down the amount of power the Bitcoin network can afford.
Both of which are why your "estimates" would better be described as "upper bounds" for the portion of energy production used.
Yes that would be a better term.Rising energy costs will bring down the amount of power the Bitcoin network can afford.
The question is, is is fair to compare USD to Zimbabwe when US still have the strongest military in the world.
It is the strongest military today because it is paid for with higher and higher debt that cannot be maintained.
The dollar is a liability backed solely by the military which exists solely because countries are willing to borrow our dollars.
When that stops it all comes falling down.
Hard to stop something as gigantic as US.
Not saying it will not decay over time. But I do not see it falling down during our life time.
Why not?
If they decouple oil from the dollar tomorrow the US is dead pretty quickly.
The US knows this. Why do you think anybody who has gone public with such plans has been invaded?
Quote
If all countries want their gold from the federal reserve and find out there gold no longer exists the US will lose all credibility and be dead.
Everybody already knows it is mostly gone. So far, the markets don't seem to think it's worth the pain a USD collapse would cause to everybody who depends on us importing their crap.
Quote
Military power is a nice thing to have but it costs money and printing more won't help you. Even patriotic pro US soldiers want to get paid.
Printing more seems to be working fine so far. We also sell lots of military hardware to both sides of any conflict that pops up, produce much of the exportable food in the world, and are now a major energy exporter.
....
So, oil is tied to the dollar, and this tie is backed with bombs. Food, military hardware, and energy are what we export, and anyone worth worrying about exports mostly unimportant consumer goods.
Don't get me wrong. I see the B.S., but I don't think any foreign powers can kill the game any time in the next couple decades. What may very well take down the US, however, is the growing income inequality and the absolute FACT that the majority of the population are either debt slaves or so poor they can barely make rent. That will be our undoing, not the world waking up. The world's leaders know what game they are playing and it's not worth rocking the boat. And the world's citizens are too busy trying to make a living, just like the average American.
Can you list your assumptions? For starters, are you assuming constant power production and constant power price? Because neither of those will hold whatsoever on the timescales you're talking about.
It is not a perfect model by any means that is why I called it "rough 'back of the envelope' estimates" . All values static and based on "today's" numbers:https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/estimating-the-energypower-consumption-of-the-bitcoin-network-694401
The rising worldwide power production will "help" us use a lower percentage of the overall power production.
The rising cost of power will "help" us use less power.
Both of which are why your "estimates" would better be described as "upper bounds" for the portion of energy production used.
As for some estimates I have gathered from people in the US power industry with knowledge of such things, the expect power costs to go up 2-5X in the next 20 years, barring a quick and tremendous surge in new nuclear construction. That is very unlikely to happen since no new nuclear power construction projects have been initialized since the 1980s and the coal, gas, and renewable industries can easily stir up the emotional argument against any proposed projects. All that said, the US is only 4% of the world's population, so maybe overall it won't be so bad.
Can you list your assumptions? For starters, are you assuming constant power production and constant power price? Because neither of those will hold whatsoever on the timescales you're talking about.
It is not a perfect model by any means that is why I called it "rough 'back of the envelope' estimates" . All values static and based on "today's" numbers:https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/estimating-the-energypower-consumption-of-the-bitcoin-network-694401
The rising worldwide power production will "help" us use a lower percentage of the overall power production.
The rising cost of power will "help" us use less power.
The hidden assumption that everything except electricity is free causes this model to overestimate energy consumption by at least a factor of 3-4 if not more based on current costs. The fixed costs in mining are way too high to justify electricity consumption alone as the criteria for profitability. While it's true that an existing operation with money already sunk in capital expenditures is going to be closer to the assumption of this model as far as the cutoff point to stop operating specific equipment, the bitcoin price has to plausibly cover fixed costs for a new operation and not just electricity. In the realm of even just hobbyist basement type setups, it's almost inconceivable that mining equipment would ever even come close to energy cost - equipment cost parity over its entire marginally-profitable lifetime, until some point in the non-foreseeable future where improvements in equipment efficiency radically stagnate.
Can you list your assumptions? For starters, are you assuming constant power production and constant power price? Because neither of those will hold whatsoever on the timescales you're talking about.
It is not a perfect model by any means that is why I called it "rough 'back of the envelope' estimates" . All values static and based on "today's" numbers:https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/estimating-the-energypower-consumption-of-the-bitcoin-network-694401
The rising worldwide power production will "help" us use a lower percentage of the overall power production.
The rising cost of power will "help" us use less power.
The hidden assumption that everything except electricity is free causes this model to overestimate energy consumption by at least a factor of 3-4 if not more based on current costs. The fixed costs in mining are way too high to justify electricity consumption alone as the criteria for profitability. While it's true that an existing operation with money already sunk in capital expenditures is going to be closer to the assumption of this model as far as the cutoff point to stop operating specific equipment, the bitcoin price has to plausibly cover fixed costs for a new operation and not just electricity. In the realm of even just hobbyist basement type setups, it's almost inconceivable that mining equipment would ever even come close to energy cost - equipment cost parity over its entire marginally-profitable lifetime, until some point in the non-foreseeable future where improvements in equipment efficiency radically stagnate.
I'm calling it now (and you can quote me on this in the future): Price on January 1st 2015 will be at least $100 lower than price on January 1st 2014.
Quoted. You are welcome.
For reference, the price of btc jan 1st 2014 was <755
Good luck to both parties on your bets. Oh what exocytosis won't put any money down? Gee imagine that, a bear without the balls to back up his predictions with reasoning or capital.
I believe that in the future 1 full BTC will have a value too high for the regular people.
They will can afford to purchase only fractions of 1 BTC, like BITS ( http://www.coindesk.com/breaking-down-btc-bit-by-bit/ )
Only the lucky ones who are holding will hit the jackpot
They will can afford to purchase only fractions of 1 BTC, like BITS ( http://www.coindesk.com/breaking-down-btc-bit-by-bit/ )
Only the lucky ones who are holding will hit the jackpot
you should understand - if that happened too many people (holding just a few BTCs) would become rich and value of money would be lost.
on planet earth system works in this way - 90% of whole people are poor and supporting 10% wealthy.
it is impossible for 10% to be poor and 90% wealthy, this would bring value of money down and again would benefit only 10% that are the richest.
or you think majority of people on planet earth can be rich in a couple of years from now and live happily ever after, most people owning yachts, expensive cars big houses? Where would you build so many houses for every rich person and who would build the houses if most people were rich?
on planet earth system works in this way - 90% of whole people are poor and supporting 10% wealthy.
it is impossible for 10% to be poor and 90% wealthy, this would bring value of money down and again would benefit only 10% that are the richest.
or you think majority of people on planet earth can be rich in a couple of years from now and live happily ever after, most people owning yachts, expensive cars big houses? Where would you build so many houses for every rich person and who would build the houses if most people were rich?
There are some expensive products to buy if the BTC price will hit $250,000: cars, jets, mansions, yachts, jewelry, cloths etc.
You will need at least 10 BTC / person to have these.
Don't worry, the "Bitcoin Milionaires" will be just regular persons who improved their life by holding and selling BTC. Very few of them will be rich (Winklevoss, Karpeles) like Rockefeller / B.Gates etc
And because Bitcoin it is limited to 21 mil coins, and not all these coins will be mined in our lifetime because of the diff., and many more BTC are "lost" by the people who damaged their "cold storage" / lost passwords etc., I dare to say: Bitcoin it is scarce and this will make it more valuable.
Correct - and it will be progressively more scarce through reward halving while awareness and ease-of-use through infrastructure increase.
Jump to: