Topic: will the bitcoin reach $1000 one day...? - page 87. (Read 112647 times)
1000 $... That would be... Wow. I think it will rise, rise, rise...
Still waiting for a new high again. Wouldn't mind seeing 300 sometime soon.
No it will not because one day this currency will be accepted and it will be regulated.So i don't think this think will go on.
The answer is very simple, but I'll explain it for you; yes. Bitcoin will hit $1000 someday.
This is the reason why:
As the US keeps printing money the dollar is more common. A dollars worth is determined by LiquidAssetsBackingAllCurrency/TotalOfCurrencyInCirculation. So if the TotalOfCurrencyInCirculation is increased, but the LiquidAssetsBackingAllCurrency is not increased, the United States dollar loses value. Now, this wouldn't be an issue, but the United States can print as many dollar bills as they would like. With bitcoins the highest amount that can be in existence is 22 million. So being that 22 million is the most that can be in existence, when we hit the 22 million bitcoin max and the bitcoin network of users continues to grow, the Bitcoin/User ratio will grow. As that ratio becomes higher, each bitcoin will gain value.
Thus 1 Bitcoin might eventually = $100,000 if the Bitcoin/User ratio rises and/or the LiquidAssetsBackingAllCurrency/TotalOfCurrencyInCirculation lowers.
This is the reason why:
As the US keeps printing money the dollar is more common. A dollars worth is determined by LiquidAssetsBackingAllCurrency/TotalOfCurrencyInCirculation. So if the TotalOfCurrencyInCirculation is increased, but the LiquidAssetsBackingAllCurrency is not increased, the United States dollar loses value. Now, this wouldn't be an issue, but the United States can print as many dollar bills as they would like. With bitcoins the highest amount that can be in existence is 22 million. So being that 22 million is the most that can be in existence, when we hit the 22 million bitcoin max and the bitcoin network of users continues to grow, the Bitcoin/User ratio will grow. As that ratio becomes higher, each bitcoin will gain value.
Thus 1 Bitcoin might eventually = $100,000 if the Bitcoin/User ratio rises and/or the LiquidAssetsBackingAllCurrency/TotalOfCurrencyInCirculation lowers.
Bitcoin will reach $1000 as we learn to have more faith in it and as it spreads.
It will reach $10,000.
It will reach $10,000.
where can i find out how is bitcoin price set?
By market - the battle between sellers wanting to sell as high as possible and buyers wanting to buy as low as possible. But not everyone can wait forever for their price to fill
yes,i thik so
Of course almost all here WISH bitcoin reaching $1000, but the price is not set by people wishes 
good that you mentioned that. where can i find out how is bitcoin price set?
i am getting some stater rig soon, and it would be helpful to get as much info as i can get.
and since i know that i have read somewhere about what your equipment is doing can someone point me in that direction. there is thread somewhere but can't find it.
Why would the dollar be worthless? Btc reached 260 with no problem even when the dollar was fairly strong.I see no reason why it won`t reach 1k,we just have to be patient 
Patience doesnt help alone, the price rise can be only if higher adoption of Bitcoin happens, especially merchants
Why would the dollar be worthless? Btc reached 260 with no problem even when the dollar was fairly strong.I see no reason why it won`t reach 1k,we just have to be patient
Will bitcoin ever reach 1000 worthless candy wrappers backed up by the morally inept one day? If it won't due to the rise of Bitcoin, it definitely will due to the dollar getting worthless.
True, definitely due to the dollar getting worthless - but not soon!
But I guess if you'd like me to answer more directly, yes, I think that ASIC demand will go down in response to increased difficulty, and I think that this has already proven to be the case. Yes, manufacturers will discount their ASIC devices to attract buyers, and they have already done that.
Interesting. I wasn't aware. I find that surprising. I would think that if the difficulty isn't high enough to make mining unprofitable yet, then there would be no disincentive yet to purchasing ASIC. My assumption was that reduction in purchasing was a direct result of market saturation (those who want ASIC simply already happen to have them) rather than any effect caused by an increase in difficulty that isn't yet unprofitable.
I don't think that market saturation is too much of a concern because at the very least, profitable miners (early BFL orders, Batch 1 Avalon, etc) are going to be looking to buy the latest and greatest to maintain profits in the face of escalating difficulty. There are also a lot of wannabe miners, including myself, sitting on the sideline because profits are so heavily dependent on uncertain delivery dates; just a week delay in delivery dates could be the difference between profit and loss, and when you're taking such a high risk you expect a high reward, which just doesn't seem available in the market at the moment.
KnC, Cointerra and Hashfast all have lower prices for month later delivery dates by a wide margin. Cointerra originally priced their units at $16k and dropped them to $14k because of forum backlash; their "January" queue is $6k for the same product. KnC's September/October queue miners are $7k, their November queue orders are $5k. ASICMiner devices are another example of a droppage of price to continue selling miners. At the end of the day, there are a lot of upfront costs to designing an ASIC but marginal costs are low, so companies are going to continue to price miners as high as the market will bear , which means decreasing prices in the face of decreasing profits for mining.
sure why not.......
Your questions were the start of the poor attitude and superiority complex display in this exchange, not my response to them.
You are welcome to your opinion in the matter.
But I guess if you'd like me to answer more directly, yes, I think that ASIC demand will go down in response to increased difficulty, and I think that this has already proven to be the case. Yes, manufacturers will discount their ASIC devices to attract buyers, and they have already done that.
Interesting. I wasn't aware. I find that surprising. I would think that if the difficulty isn't high enough to make mining unprofitable yet, then there would be no disincentive yet to purchasing ASIC. My assumption was that reduction in purchasing was a direct result of market saturation (those who want ASIC simply already happen to have them) rather than any effect caused by an increase in difficulty that isn't yet unprofitable.
I think this conversation is mostly over, we've both made our points, and the future will play out as it does.
Agreed.
I'm just stating for the record that I don't think we're going to see difficulty dropping anytime soon; inefficient miners getting turned off will be such an insignificant portion of the hashing power by the time they get turned off so as to not matter.
This I agree with. Mining is still profitable for efficient miners and will remain so for a while yet.
Will bitcoin ever reach 1000 worthless candy wrappers backed up by the morally inept one day? If it won't due to the rise of Bitcoin, it definitely will due to the dollar getting worthless.
You really think people are going to spend the extra $1 a day that they save on electricity to buy bitcents?
Certainly. I already know of several people who purchase approximately $30 worth of bitcoin per month.
Transaction costs make this prohibitively expensive,
Not necessarily, it really depends on how high the difficulty is, what the current exchange rate is, and what methods of exchange are available to the individual.
and the scale that you're talking about makes it a laughable proposition for all but the largest miners.
Explain the laugh-ability of it?
You totally glossed over the fact that the "Get a clue" quote was in reference to specific examples of ASIC demand and price decreases that have already played out in the market.
Of course, that's because I asked two simple questions, and you responded with "get a clue", which was exactly what I was attempting to do. As such, your "get a clue" was redundant.
Seeing as you, on the other hand, made assertions that were invalid, my echo of your "get a clue" seems to provide additional demonstration of your poor attitude and unfortunate superiority complex.
Your questions were the start of the poor attitude and superiority complex display in this exchange, not my response to them. But I guess if you'd like me to answer more directly, yes, I think that ASIC demand will go down in response to increased difficulty, and I think that this has already proven to be the case. Yes, manufacturers will discount their ASIC devices to attract buyers, and they have already done that.
I think this conversation is mostly over, we've both made our points, and the future will play out as it does. I'm just stating for the record that I don't think we're going to see difficulty dropping anytime soon; inefficient miners getting turned off will be such an insignificant portion of the hashing power by the time they get turned off so as to not matter.
You really think people are going to spend the extra $1 a day that they save on electricity to buy bitcents?
Certainly. I already know of several people who purchase approximately $30 worth of bitcoin per month.
Transaction costs make this prohibitively expensive,
Not necessarily, it really depends on how high the difficulty is, what the current exchange rate is, and what methods of exchange are available to the individual.
and the scale that you're talking about makes it a laughable proposition for all but the largest miners.
Explain the laugh-ability of it?
You totally glossed over the fact that the "Get a clue" quote was in reference to specific examples of ASIC demand and price decreases that have already played out in the market.
Of course, that's because I asked two simple questions, and you responded with "get a clue", which was exactly what I was attempting to do. As such, your "get a clue" was redundant.
Seeing as you, on the other hand, made assertions that were invalid, my echo of your "get a clue" seems to provide additional demonstration of your poor attitude and unfortunate superiority complex.
You really think people are going to spend the extra $1 a day that they save on electricity to buy bitcents? Transaction costs make this prohibitively expensive, and the scale that you're talking about makes it a laughable proposition for all but the largest miners. [edit: and many of the largest miners are contractually obligated to keep their miners on even in the face of a loss because they took upfront money from customers... and the largest miners have the lowest electricity costs to begin with, so they will be hit with these restrictions last.]
You totally glossed over the fact that the "Get a clue" quote was in reference to specific examples of ASIC demand and price decreases that have already played out in the market.
You totally glossed over the fact that the "Get a clue" quote was in reference to specific examples of ASIC demand and price decreases that have already played out in the market.
He said that it is stupid to invest 1 000 usd in order to mine 9 bitcoins after 1 month instead of directly buying 10 btc with the money.
- snip -
Simple math dictates that if the price of BTC is such that you take a small loss on electrical costs, say even 50%, the price needs only double and your previous loss is now break even. Simple math dictates that exponential prices are still ahead of us as the market of BTC starts to become a meaningful part of the world economy.
- snip -
Simple math dictates that if the price of BTC is such that you take a small loss on electrical costs, say even 50%, the price needs only double and your previous loss is now break even. Simple math dictates that exponential prices are still ahead of us as the market of BTC starts to become a meaningful part of the world economy.
- snip -
Simple math dictates that given the choice between spending $100 on electricity to get $90 worth of bitcoin, or spending $100 in currency exchange to get $95 worth of bitcoin...
The later option is financially superior to the former regardless of what happens to the value of bitcoin in the future. As such, any miner capable of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division ought to realize that if their electricity costs are higher than the resulting mined bitcoin is worth at current exchange rates, then they are financially better off shutting down their mining equipment and using the money that otherwise would pay for electricity to simply exchange directly for bitcoin.
Of course, as you have demonstrated, not all miners are very good at math. As such, many will continue to mine at a loss and reduce their profitability.
Get a clue.
Good advice.
You really think people are going to spend the extra $1 a day that they save on electricity to buy bitcents? Transaction costs make this prohibitively expensive, and the scale that you're talking about makes it a laughable proposition for all but the largest miners. [edit: and many of the largest miners are contractually obligated to keep their miners on even in the face of a loss because they took upfront money from customers... and the largest miners have the lowest electricity costs to begin with, so they will be hit with these restrictions last.]
You totally glossed over the fact that the "Get a clue" quote was in reference to specific examples of ASIC demand and price decreases that have already played out in the market.
- snip -
Simple math dictates that if the price of BTC is such that you take a small loss on electrical costs, say even 50%, the price needs only double and your previous loss is now break even. Simple math dictates that exponential prices are still ahead of us as the market of BTC starts to become a meaningful part of the world economy.
- snip -
Simple math dictates that if the price of BTC is such that you take a small loss on electrical costs, say even 50%, the price needs only double and your previous loss is now break even. Simple math dictates that exponential prices are still ahead of us as the market of BTC starts to become a meaningful part of the world economy.
- snip -
Simple math dictates that given the choice between spending $100 on electricity to get $90 worth of bitcoin, or spending $100 in currency exchange to get $95 worth of bitcoin...
The later option is financially superior to the former regardless of what happens to the value of bitcoin in the future. As such, any miner capable of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division ought to realize that if their electricity costs are higher than the resulting mined bitcoin is worth at current exchange rates, then they are financially better off shutting down their mining equipment and using the money that otherwise would pay for electricity to simply exchange directly for bitcoin.
Of course, as you have demonstrated, not all miners are very good at math. As such, many will continue to mine at a loss and reduce their profitability.
Get a clue.
Good advice.
Jump to: