yes it's an exaggeration what I proposed, it might be more like 0.1 BTC realistically but that's the ridiculous amount that the federal reserve is printing. 
Topic: Why I think Bitcoin will not become an national currency - page 4. (Read 6859 times)
Talk to me again in a years time after America has devalued the dollar some more yes it's an exaggeration what I proposed, it might be more like 0.1 BTC realistically but that's the ridiculous amount that the federal reserve is printing.
yes it's an exaggeration what I proposed, it might be more like 0.1 BTC realistically but that's the ridiculous amount that the federal reserve is printing. 
. . . in the future we might see 0.0001 bitcoins worth as much as 1 bitcoin now and someone getting 1 bitcoin will have the equivalent of billionaire status . . .
Sorry, mathematics doesn't support that proposition.Right now 1 bitcoin is approximately equivalent to 13.5 USD worth of buying power.
If 0.0001 bitcoins were worth as much as 1 bitcoin now, then 0.0001 bitcoin would be approximately equivalent to 13.5 USD worth of buying power.
Division tells us that if 0.0001 bitcoin is approximately equivalent to 13.5 USD worth of buying power, then 1 bitcoin is worth 135,000 USD worth of buying power.
135,000 is a looong way off from billionaire status 1,000,000,000.
You forget as well that Bitcoin can be divided up into a lot of decimals, people are still figuring out what Bitcoins are worth etc. so in the future we might see 0.0001 bitcoins worth as much as 1 bitcoin now and someone getting 1 bitcoin will have the equivalent of billionaire status, it's all going to depend on what the markets do in the next couple of years and I suspect a depression will happen for those in conventional currencies. I do agree that it probably won't ever be a national currency, but I'd say that's in our favour since you don't want a decentralised currency to become centralised but I do think there will be a few countries who will be more friendly to the idea of Bitcoin and maybe trade it openly or at least acknowledge it, because lets face it, they'd be fools to stick entirely with the U.S reserve currency with the way things are now.
It is conceivable. Some small nations have given up having their own currency, and use some other nations currency instead. Example: Ecuador uses USD. With trade becoming more and more international, this phenomenon could increase. So why not bitcoin?
Not now obviously. Think of for example a national referendum to decide what currency to use. A new local currency 5 million votes, USD 6 millon votes, Euro 3 million votes, bitcoin 1 vote. You have to think a few years ahead.
Not now obviously. Think of for example a national referendum to decide what currency to use. A new local currency 5 million votes, USD 6 millon votes, Euro 3 million votes, bitcoin 1 vote. You have to think a few years ahead.
I don't think that bitcoin and nations go well together in the first place.
1) Bitcoin will never be a national currency for the same reason that no country will return to the Gold standard. It is for a completely different reason
2) As the value of BTC rises it will be held by more and more people. By your logic nobody should buy/trade/acquire any more BTC. Half of them are already held by a tiny (globally speaking) number of people and thus outside would be better off not buying them and insider would be better off just selling them. Of course there will never be a scenario where Bitcoin goes to being held by thousands to being held by billions. The thousands will sell to tens of thousands who will sell to hundreds of thousands who will sell to millions. At the point where BTC had a large enough coinsupply to be useful for even a small nation the coins wouldn't be held by thousands they would be held by tens of millions.
3) Money isn't wealth, money is an accounting system. The rich hold a negligible rounding error of their total wealth in cash. The poor would benefit from a currency which isn't continually debased.
Of course I don't think Bitcoin will ever become a national currency however I don't think that provides any meaningful limit on adoption. Bitcoin could be used someday (in theory) by nation states as a strategic reserve (like Gold Bullion).
2) As the value of BTC rises it will be held by more and more people. By your logic nobody should buy/trade/acquire any more BTC. Half of them are already held by a tiny (globally speaking) number of people and thus outside would be better off not buying them and insider would be better off just selling them. Of course there will never be a scenario where Bitcoin goes to being held by thousands to being held by billions. The thousands will sell to tens of thousands who will sell to hundreds of thousands who will sell to millions. At the point where BTC had a large enough coinsupply to be useful for even a small nation the coins wouldn't be held by thousands they would be held by tens of millions.
3) Money isn't wealth, money is an accounting system. The rich hold a negligible rounding error of their total wealth in cash. The poor would benefit from a currency which isn't continually debased.
Of course I don't think Bitcoin will ever become a national currency however I don't think that provides any meaningful limit on adoption. Bitcoin could be used someday (in theory) by nation states as a strategic reserve (like Gold Bullion).
Bitcoin will be the de facto decentralized currency. Bitcoin's value will rise over time, but I don't think BTC will be an national currency. Why?
Half of the 22 mil coins have being distributed, to something like 0.001% of the population? That's just not going to work. People who do not own BTC will not want to get on board for it to be an official currency as it means their wealth will decrease.
Half of the 22 mil coins have being distributed, to something like 0.001% of the population? That's just not going to work. People who do not own BTC will not want to get on board for it to be an official currency as it means their wealth will decrease.
Jump to: