Forget fhe price at $9000 or $10,000. The total market cap of Bitcoin is barely $160 Billion. That's tiny in the world of wealth and wealth management. Its a tiny tiny percentage of the world's money and wealth allocation. A blip. The upside is wide open. It is still early days.
Forget fhe price at $9000 or $10,000. The total market cap of Bitcoin is barely $160 Billion. That's tiny in the world of wealth and wealth management. Its a tiny tiny percentage of the world's money and wealth allocation. A blip. The upside is wide open. It is still early days.
Forget fhe price at $9000 or $10,000. The total market cap of Bitcoin is barely $160 Billion. That's tiny in the world of wealth and wealth management. Its a tiny tiny percentage of the world's money and wealth allocation. A blip. The upside is wide open. It is still early days. /r/Bitcoin
Over 600K Bitcoins, currently worth almost $7 billion, is owned by public companies. This represents about 3.3% of the total circulating supply of BTC and 2% of the entire cryptocurrency market cap ! (x-post from /r/Bitcoin)
Both gold and Bitcoin are down. During a liquidity crisis, cash is king. I recommend everyone to check out forums about gold, like this. People are asking why gold is down, and the answer is simple - the debt is huge and a corona-recession is coming, so any dispensable investment is sold to be able to pay the debt. The 2008 gold veterans also remind everyone that the printing and stimulus packages will arrive soon, and when Fiat will go down, the investors will buy gold again. Or maybe they won't. This time the investors have another option. This time they can put their money in a different scarce asset, far more liquid with no need for mediators to validate it or trucks to drive it around. The only question is whether the culture behind Bitcoin is as strong as the culture behind gold. Will people that love Bitcoin keep hodling as much as people who love gold keep their golden jewelries? Just a reminder, the total market-cap of gold is around 80-100 times the total market-cap of Bitcoin. Even if those investors will put in Bitcoin 10% of what they intended to put in gold, Bitcoin will skyrocket. The upcoming halving couldn't have come in a better timing, it will be a great advertisement for Bitcoin. This is not 2008, CoronaVirus is a real thing and not a man-made crisis (afaik), but it's one of those moments that Bitcoin was created for. The rest is up to you.
08-10 15:45 - 'Chain link is now the 6th largest crypto by market cap @ $4.8 billion with a price of $14. Its a total scam tho!! The developers (team) hold 80% of all the coins and they were pre mined. Chain link (being an ERC 20 toke...' by /u/WocketMan0351 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 100-110min
''' Chain link is now the 6th largest crypto by market cap @ $4.8 billion with a price of $14. Its a total scam tho!! The developers (team) hold 80% of all the coins and they were pre mined. Chain link (being an ERC 20 token) uses eth for gas prices and to make API calls which are insanely high right now. Unless you pay over $6-$7 in eth for “gas” or transaction fees, your tx isn’t going thru for weeks. It’s not surprising that Chainlink now has a market cap of $5 billion, because BCH and BSV are right around there to, both of which are total scams of a bitcoin hard fork and are 100% centralized garbage. Tether, another ERC-20 token also has a market cap of $10 billion and its $1 tokens are back by actual dollars as much as USD are backed by gold....it’s a scam but it’s used by lots of crypto traders. XRP.....3rd largest coin by market cap @ $13 billion. Totally centralized shitcoin that was premined and held by the company ripple. It’s absolute garbage. What does XRP do that bitcoin can’t? Why use a centralized coin like that? Bottom line, there is not demand for other crypto’s like there is for bitcoin. Go to any store that accepts crypto (very few) and tell how many stores will accept something other than bitcoin. They won’t. These other coins are fast and cool at face value, but what’s happening under the hood isn’t really any different than the digital currencies that happened before bitcoin. These centralized projects can be squashed, attacked, and shut down by anyone with enough computing power or the govt. bitcoin cannot. That’s what makes bitcoin revolutionary. It worked because no one thought it would, and now it’s so insanely large it’s pretty much too big to fail and it will ALWAYS dominate its ecosystem until something JUST AS REVOLUTIONARY as bitcoin was comes along. Until then, bitcoin will continue to be #1. If I need to be corrected, or someone has something else to add, please do. Criticize me. ''' Context Link Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: WocketMan0351
I was just considering a proposition to get people to consider their position. If you own $30,000 USD, how much percentage of the money supply do you have? If the total currency in circulation is $1.4 trillion USD, then you have 30000/1400000000000 or 0.00000002% of the money supply. If you have $100,000 to your name, you have 0.00000007% of the money supply. Now do this for the world. Current estimates consider that there is $5 trillion in worldwide currency in circulation. If you own $30,000 you have 30000/5000000000000 or 0.000000006% of the money supply (another zero before the number 6 vs. 2 above). Now if you consider that the USA alone has $25 trillion in debt right now - money that should have been circulating but is just written as an I-Owe-You somewhere, throw that into the equation. If you have $30,000 and you combine the $5 trillion plus $25 trillion to reach $30 trillion. 30000/30000000000000 is 0.000000001% of the currency supply. Now take it a step further because the entire world has debt too not just the USA. Estimates of world debt combined surge to $280 trillion. So if you have $30,000 compared to $280 trillion, you have 30000/280000000000000 or 0.0000000001% of the money supply in the world. And the $30,000 you have is decreasing in value every year as the governments continue to print more paper money. So, if you own any amount of Bitcoin you are in good shape. To really consider it, if we think 1 Satoshi, or 0.00000001 Bitcoin, were equivalent to $1 USD in value, the total market cap of Bitcoin would be (after all coins are mined) $2100 trillion dollars, or ~8x the current world currency+debt. We can be a bit more forgiving and consider if 10 Satoshi is worth $1 meaning all the Bitcoins in existence would become worth $210 trillion in value, roughly equal to the entire world's current money supply. So then, how much Bitcoin do you need to hold $30,000 in value in Bitcoin? $30,000 * 10 is 300000 Satoshi, or 0.00300000 Bitcoin. 0.003 Bitcoin. Keep in mind it will take time for people to adopt a digital cryptocurrency as their preferred method of transacting. These are just ideas and not guaranteed. If you know the technology and understand it and think it has value, then even a little Bitcoin now puts you way ahead in the long run compared to the USA currency supply alone. The timeframe might be 100 years for this to occur, but it will ramp up to that point over time if the technology is sound. So you'll have to decide if the technology could withstand the test of time to reach these heights. Even if Bitcoin is replaced in 20 years by an even more superior currency, it would be a slow adoption just like Bitcoin and value would transfer over slowly, with the same end result. Owning cryptocurrency today is investing into the future of the technology, with its own risks and rewards like anything else. Bitcoin is not backed by gold or fiat or promised by any government, so the value is directly the value two people exchange for it with no other factors to consider.
Hello people, Just a random thought I recently had and maybe I can hear your opinions about it. We all believe that blockchain is innovative and I also believe this, being a software developer I can easily say blockchain comes to solve a lot of problems and provide new roads of innovation. As Far as bitcoin is concerned we believe that the "centralized side" is against it, banks hate it etc etc.Ok, they cant destroy it for sure, banning it is also impossible because even if centralized exchanges close we still have Decentralized exchanges etc. BUT... First of all, I personally believe that there are not 21.000.0000 bitcoins not because they are not mined yet but because a lot of them are abandoned in wallets with lost private keys. So let's assume that there are (100 % randomly) 13.000.000 bitcoins that are still "active".So we have already some of them abandoned and bitcoin is just .. 10 years old? Now what I recently thought , the Total market cap of bitcoin is close to 60 billion now , so what if a government, banks or something buy a significantly huge amount making the available coins even less, (of course this will rise the price so they will spend a lot more than 60 billion ) and then transfer all these in one wallet and throw they private key to the garbage , leaving only a small amount of bitcoins "active"?? (Ok I know the Good part of it, in this scenario, we will be rich for sure, apart from that can this happen along with all its negative impacts to bitcoin?) Just a random thought, I would love to hear your thoughts about it.
Either the price of Bitcoin is grossly undervalued or there's a stock market bubble of epic proportions
I hear some people having some doubts about the price lately: "Is $500 a bit high? After all it was only around $100 just a year ago, right?" OK, so let's take a step back and make a more thorough analysis: let's imagine Bitcoin was just a payment system. It's actually much more than that in my opinion since it is also a great store of value, but I will just assume it's a payment system for the sake of this demonstration. This is a payment system that allows anyone, anywhere in the world, to accept payments across the Internet without having to open a bank account, just by embedding a piece of code in their website. In addition, they can start making commerce without having to give a big chunk of their earnings to bankers in commissions and fees. What would the value of this payment system be if it was a publicly listed company? Right now the total market cap of Bitcoin is $6.6 billion. So let's compare that to other publicly listed companies in the payment industry:
And to compare with other random companies just for the fun of it:
How does that look to you when compared to the $6.6B market cap of Bitcoin? And let's keep in mind that when you own stocks of a publicly traded company, you also own the fact that it has to pay for the multi-million dollar compensation for the executives, that new shares can be created out of thin air thereby dilluting you holding, compliance expenses etc... With Bitcoin, you own the real thing. And again, this is only talking about Bitcoin as a payment processor. If you add all the other remarkable features on top of it, well... I let you do the math.
If there's a stock market collapse, do you think there will be a MASSIVE bullrun in bitcoin and cryptos?
If there's going to be a stock market collapse I predict that a lot of cash on the sidelines from selling stocks will find it's way into precious metals and especially bitcoin/cryptos. The stock markets are up for 9 years now and a correction is imminent IMO. If that happens I think the price of bitcoin/cryptos could soar like we have never seen before. It went up 1000 dollars in just 24 hours last Thursday. I wouldn't be suprised if we'll see a 5K upswing in one day if that occurs. To put things in perspective how high can the price of bitcoin soar in the next few years: We only have 21 million bitcoins available (16.6 million in circulation). Total market cap of bitcoin is 100 billion dollars right now and 177 billion total with all other cryptos. Total market cap of all stocks is around 70 trillion. The market cap of gold is 7 trillion. The market cap of bitcoin could pass 1 trillion in a few years(if not sooner) IMO, that would translate to a price of 50K(!) per bitcoin. And the thing is the market cap of Amazon is 500 billion dollars, bitcoin at 100 billion now. Amazon is a company, Bitcoin is a currency(asset)! At this rate we could see extraordinary prices in the near future that's for sure. There are going to be dips but I predict that these dips will get bought up time and time again. I really regret that I didn't do proper DD on bitcoin and cryptos way earlier, or at least at the start of this year....A friend told me to buy bitcoin 4 years ago when it was $100 but I didn't do it because it was at an all time high at that point and I thought it would never be as big as it is today...I really underestimated the massive life changing opportunity and the magnitude about it...And the most stupid thing is that I pretty much forgot about it completely in the following years. I could have made a nice entrance when it was hoovering around $250 bottoming out nicely in 2015...However I truly think it's not too late to get into bitcoin. I can smell 10K around the corner :)
If 1% of the US stock market (total 25 trillion) moves to bitcoin (1% = 0.25 trillion) that will triple the current bitcoin market cap of 0.12 trillion. 20k bitcoin is coming sooner than you think. I'm bullish bitcoin
10-08 20:14 - 'Daily Recap - / * The crypto market saw some modest gains yesterday, with the total market cap growing by $6T, and 9 of the top 10 coins seeing positive returns. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) has surpassed Tether (USDT) to become t...' by /u/thelastbit42 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 551-561min
''' Daily Recap -
The crypto market saw some modest gains yesterday, with the total market cap growing by $6T, and 9 of the top 10 coins seeing positive returns. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) has surpassed Tether (USDT) to become the #4 crypto currency with a market cap of $4.2BN.
Crypto-futures exchange, CoinFlex, will offer derivatives that pay out based on the probability of Facebook's Libra being operational by the end of 2020. Check the Vegas odds before betting on this one.
The NBA is leading the blockchain charge (again), with the Sacramento Kings partnering with Blockparty, a blockchain ticketing platform that has developed an app where fans can predict who will take the next shot, and win points for guessing correctly.
John McAfee, founder of McAfee Antivirus and avid crypto advocate, launched a decentralized exchange (DEX) on the Ethereum blockchain. McAfee says the exchange can serve as “the door that frees us from Government's cornerstone of control: Fiat currencies. It can't be shut down."
Germany's federal finance minister has recently vocalized support for digitizing the Euro into its own stablecoin, similar to what's being explored by the Federal Reserve. At the same time, he made it known that he was against private currency projects like Facebook's Libra.
Market cap of bitcoin compared to broad money (M2 money supply) of countries: bitcoin is now a larger force in market than fiat money of 67 percent of countries in the world
By November 23, 2016, the market capitalization of bitcoins in circulation was $11,908,463,816 (nearly 12 billion dollars), and the 24-hour transaction volume was equivalent to $224.9 M as per https://coinmarketcap.com/ Measured in terms of (M2) money supply, that meant that the total market cap of bitcoins was at that time actually a more significant force in the market than was the total money supply of Estonia, Costa Rica, or Iceland at that time, as examples. By May 20, 2017, the bitcoin market cap was at $33,971,006,369 (nearly 34 billion dollars), which was a larger force in the market at that time than the total money supply of Kuwait or Peru. In other words: In late May, 2017, bitcoin became bigger than Kuwait's money supply and in terms of market cap, was nearly in the top 50 as compared to countries' money supplies. I predicted at that time that bitcoin would soon be a more powerful market force than the money of Colombia or Israel. As of June 7, 2017, when comparing the market cap of bitcoin ($44,090,135,378 USD, over 44 billion dollars at that time) to broad money (M2 money supply) of countries, it was clear that bitcoin was at that time a larger force in market than fiat money of Cuba, Cyprus, Oman, or Bahrain. bitcoin was then poised to overtake Jordan by this same comparison (Jordan was on June 7, 2017, number 69 in terms of country rankings by stock of (M2) broad money), and bitcoin was anticipated to soon become (by this same comparison) be "in the top 50." A non-state system directly was then outcompeting most state currency systems (even in light of the current capacity issues which existed at that time, prior to Segwit / BIP141 activation). bitcoin (which is not money...) was displacing (in terms of influence) many monetary systems. Today, August 7, 2017, the market cap of bitcoin is $56,618,238,142 -- if bitcoin were a country (or if comparing it to M2 money supply of countries), it would be 65th in the world at this time (per World Factbook - Stock of Broad Money), a larger force in the world market than the M2 money supply of Lebanon, Jordan, and in fact it is now a larger force in the market than the total fiat money of any one of the 67 percent of countries in the world that have a M2 money supply that is less than bitcoin's current market cap -- and soon, bitcoin will be a larger force than the fiat money of Slovakia and Macau. Since late November 2016, bitcoin has grown in market cap by $44,709,774,326 (nearly 45 billion dollars). It will continue to grow and knock fiat systems out of contention.
For every 1 BTC in the world, there's 333 ounces of gold. True "bitcoin-gold parity" is 1 BTC = 333 ounces of gold or 1 mBTC = 1/3 oz gold. Today's 1 mBTC average fee (forced on us by Greg Maxwell / Adam Back / AXA) is the new 10,000 BTC pizza. Congratulations! You just paid 1/3 oz gold in txn fees!
For every 1 BTC on the planet, there's 333 ounces of gold.
For every 1 mBTC (0.001 BTC) on the planet, there's 1/3 ounce of gold.
Under the artificial "fee markets" imposed by the ignorant, corrupt, AXA-fiat-funded Blockstream CEO Adam Back and CTO Greg Maxwell, network congestion and transaction delays lasting for days have now become a weekly occurrence - and the average Bitcoin transaction fee has now skyrocketed to 1 mBTC per transaction.
So now you're paying the future equivalent of 1/3 ounce of gold in artificially high fees, every time you do a slow, unreliable Bitcoin transaction.
This disaster was totally avoidable. The blame is due solely to the economic ignorance and central planning of Adam Back / Greg Maxwell / AXA, and their misguided attempt to distort Bitcoin's economic value in order to force everyone off the blockchain and onto Blockstream's non-existent, centralized, censorable, unreliable LightningNetwork Central Banking Hubs.
We must preserve Satoshi's original economic design for Bitcoin:
Details http://www.numbersleuth.org/worlds-gold/ For every 1 BTC on the planet, there's 333 ounces of gold. There's only 15 MILLION BTC in the world (plus new BTC mining of 12.5 * 6 * 24 * 365 = 657,000 new BTC mined each year - ie 4.38% annual bitcoin "inflation" - during the current 4-year "halving" period which runs from approximately August 2016 to August 2020). There's 165,000 metric tons * 32,150 troy ounces per ton = 5 BILLION troy ounces of gold in the world (plus new gold mining of 2,500 metric tons * 32,150 troy ounces per ton = 80.375 million new troy ounces of new gold being mined each year - ie 1.52% annual gold "inflation"). If you like to think of Bitcoin as "digital gold", and you want to be able to do rough but realistic comparisons and computations quickly in your head, then you should adopt the following guidelines: A whole bitcoin is really big! Stop thinking in terms of whole Bitcoins, and start thinking in terms of milli-Bitcoins - ie mBTC (0.001 BTC). Always remember that a whole bitcoin is very "big" - it contains 1,000 mBTC (milli-Bitcoins, where 1 mBTC = 0.001 BTC). The following comparison (motto / slogan) is what you should always say to yourself in your head:
For every 1 BTC in the world, there are 333 ounces of gold.
This is because it is based on comparing roughly similar number of units in the world:
the 15 billion mBTC or "milli-Bitcoins" (0.001 BTC) in the world, versus
the 5 billion ounces of gold in the world.
So 3 mBTC (3 milli-Bitcoins) corresponds to 1 troy ounce of gold - and will probably someday be worth as much, after we get rid of the price suppression caused by Greg Maxwell / Adam Back / AXA. It's nice to see comparisons of "1 BTC = 1 ounce of gold!!1!" in the mainstream and the Bitcoin media - but talking about "bitcoin-gold parity" now is actually a meaningless, confusing, financially ingorant and deceptive distraction. This is because the only thing that has happened is that the price of 1 BTC (which is a lot of mBTC, it's 1000 mBTC!) has surpassed the price of 1 troy ounce of gold - which isn't really very meaningful, because it doesn't match similar-number-of-units-to-similar-number-of-units. True "bitcoin-gold parity" will arrive:
when the total market cap of Bitcoin (currently about USD 20 BILLION USD) is equal to the total market cap of gold (currently about 6.6 TRILLION USD);
ie when 1 BTC is worth 333 ounces of gold;
ie when 3 mBTC is worth 1 ounce of gold.
So, the true "bitcoin-gold parity" isn't here yet - but it's almost certainly going to be here in a few years. The Bitcoin price "only" needs to rise about 333x - ie it "only" needs to double 8-9 more times (because 28 = 256 and 29 = 512) - which is actually quite doable in the next few years. "1 mBTC fees" are the new "10,000 BTC pizza." Remember, today's ridiculously and artificially high "1 mBTC average transaction fee" will probably eventually be worth 1/3 ounce of gold. Congratulations! You just spent 1/3 of an ounce of gold to send a "cheap" Bitcoin transaction! In a few years, we will all look back with regret on the "one-dollar average Bitcoin transaction fees" which we have now started (over-)paying in the artificial "fee market" of 2017 which was artificially forced on us by the evil central bankers of AXA and Blockstream's toxic, deceptive, economically ignorant CEO Dr Adam Backu/adam3us and CTO Greg Maxwellu/nullc.
"I'm angry about AXA scraping some counterfeit money out of their fraudulent empire to pay autistic lunatics millions of dollars to stall the biggest sociotechnological phenomenon since the internet and then blame me and people like me for being upset about it." ~ u/dresden_k
Adam Back & Greg Maxwell are experts in mathematics and engineering, but not in markets and economics. They should not be in charge of "central planning" for things like "max blocksize". They're desperately attempting to prevent the market from deciding on this. But it will, despite their efforts.
People are starting to realize how toxic Gregory Maxwell is to Bitcoin, saying there are plenty of other coders who could do crypto and networking, and "he drives away more talent than he can attract." Plus, he has a 10-year record of damaging open-source projects, going back to Wikipedia in 2006.
Greg Maxwell u/nullc says "The next miner after them sets their minimum [fee] to some tiny value ... and clears out the backlog and collects a bunch of funds that the earlier miner omitted" - like it's a BAD THING. Greg is proposing a SUPPLY-LIMITING AND PRICE-FIXING CARTEL, like it's a GOOD THING.
Greg Maxwell used to have intelligent, nuanced opinions about "max blocksize", until he started getting paid by AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group - the legacy financial elite which Bitcoin aims to disintermediate. Greg always refuses to address this massive conflict of interest. Why?
The biggest threat to Bitcoin is Blockstream President Adam "Phd" Back. He never understood Bitcoin, but he wants to control it and radically change it. It is time for Bitcoin users, developers and miners to reject his dangerous ideas and his attempts to centrally control our community and our code.
4 weird facts about Adam Back: (1) He never contributed any code to Bitcoin. (2) His Twitter profile contains 2 lies. (3) He wasn't an early adopter, because he never thought Bitcoin would work. (4) He can't figure out how to make Lightning Network decentralized. So... why do people listen to him??
Changing to a very high fee model is a betrayal of investors, a vast diminishment of sound money, as every holder must spend in order to benefit from all their holding. Such a betrayal, if it ever must happen, needs to be a disastrous last resort, certainly not a first resort. ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fpk9m/changing_to_a_very_high_fee_model_is_a_betrayal/ Don't fall for the economic ignorance of the corrupt AXA-fiat-funded Blockstream CEO Dr Adam Back and CEO Greg Maxwell and their artificial, insanely overpriced "fee markets". Remember, every time you send 3 transactions - you just paid ridiculous, artificially overpriced fees to miners which will someday probably be worth a whole ounce of precious gold. What can we do? We can and should reject the artificial fee markets created by AXA and Blockstream CEO Adam Back and CTO Greg Maxwell and their crippled Blocktream Core / SegWit code with its centrally planned 1MB and 1.7MB blocksize. If you want Bitcoin's price and volume to rise, and Bitcoin's fees to decrease - while miners can still make lots of money from the block reward based on high prices and high volume, now you can! Now you can support lower fees and higher volume and prices (and plenty of profits for miners - due to higher bitcoin price, and more, cheaper transactions per block), simply by running better Bitcoin software - such as Bitcoin Unlimited. Bitcoin Unlimited is better than Bitcoin Core and SegWit - because Bitcoin Unlimited supports market-based blocksize - in line with Satoshi's original vision for Bitcoin, supporting higher volume and prices, and lower fees.
1 BTC = 64 000 USD would be > $1 trillion market cap - versus $7 trillion market cap for gold, and $82 trillion of "money" in the world. Could "pure" Bitcoin get there without SegWit, Lightning, or Bitcoin Unlimited? Metcalfe's Law suggests that 8MB blocks could support a price of 1 BTC = 64 000 USD
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/ Miners provide a cheap commodity (blockspace) - and they work for you. From the block reward alone, miners are earning 12.5 Bitcoins - or 12,500 mBTC, every ten-minute block, during this current 4-year "halving" period. At some point in the not-too-distant future, today's 10-minute block reward of 12.5 bitcoins could easily be worth 12,500 / 3 = 4,163 friggin' ounces of gold! Doing 10 minutes of work to compete to earn 12.5 BTC or 12,500 mBTC (ie, the future equivalent of 4,163 ounces of gold) is a lot of fuckin' money - based on the block reward alone, and not even counting any fees, which are just "gravy". This is why Satoshi was right when he intended the block reward alone to be sufficient for mining during this four-year "halving" period - and during the next few four-year halving periods as well. Remember, 1 BTC is a lot.
1 BTC = 1,000 mBTC
1 BTC corresponds to 333 ounces of gold
3 mBTC corresponds to 1 ounce of gold.
Miners don't need fees to get rich, during the next few decades of four-year "halving" periods where each 10-minute block reward alone (without fees) lets a miner earn:
50,000 mBTC per block until 2012 (probably eventually worth 16,650 ounces of gold);
25,000 mBTC per block until 2016 (probably eventually worth 8,325 ounces of gold);
12,500 mBTC per block until 2020 (probably eventually worth 4,163 ounces of gold);
6,250 mBTC per block until 2024 (probably eventually worth 2,081 ounces of gold);
3,125 mBTC per block until 2028 (probably eventually worth 1,041 ounces of gold);
1,562.5 mBTC per block until 2032 (probably eventually worth 520 ounces of gold);
781.25 mBTC per block until 2036 (probably eventually worth 260 ounces of gold);
390.625 mBTC per block until 2040 (probably eventually worth 130 ounces of gold);
195.3125 mBTC per block until 2044 (probably eventually worth 65 ounces of gold);
The above "ounces of gold" are what a miner can earn every ten minutes with Bitcoin - before even including any fees. Miners are being short-sighted and greedy by trying to get more money from (artificially) higher bitcoin fees right now. They're shooting themselves in the foot. They should instead focus on getting more money from higher bitcoin price - which will happen with market-based blocksize (which will actually also bring more fees, because there will be more transactions per block).
I think that it will be easier to increase the volume of transactions 10x than it will be to increase the cost per transaction 10x. - jtoomim (miner, coder, founder of Classic)
The Nine Miners of China: "Core is a red herring. Miners have alternative code they can run today that will solve the problem. Choosing not to run it is their fault, and could leave them with warehouses full of expensive heating units and income paid in worthless coins." – tsontar
For 55.2% of Bitcoin addresses, fees are now bigger than the amount of Bitcoin they have. Where will YOU be when YOUR savings are wiped out by fees?
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5xsxhu/for_552_of_bitcoin_addresses_fees_are_now_bigge The market - and Satoshi - knows more than any of today's coders, when it comes to Bitcoin's economic qualities, like volume and price and fees. Core/Blockstream wants "centrally planned" (tiny) Bitcoin's volume - which actually leads to "centrally planned" (high) fees and "centrally planned" (suppressed) price - and over half of Bitcoin's currently addresses now becoming essentially unspendable, as shown in the link above.
Nobody has been able to convincingly answer the question, "What should the optimal block size limit be?" And the reason nobody has been able to answer that question is the same reason nobody has been able to answer the question, "What should the price today be?" – tsontar
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5pcpec/the_debate_is_not_should_the_blocksize_be_1mb/ Core/Blockstream's code is starting to cause an economic disaster for Bitcoin. Core/Blockstream's code imposes a centrally planned 1MB blocksize (or SegWit's centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize) - inevitably leading to frequent backlogs and high fees and decreased price and adoption - plus years of distracting, needless bikeshedding about blocksize. Core/Blockstream's proposed SegWit would be yet more unwanted and inefficient "central planning" - plus new, radical, irresponsible changes to Bitcoin's original economic design - imposing a centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize - plus adding lots of dangerous and unnecessary technical debt (eg, making all transactions "anyone-can-spend").
Segregated Witness: A Fork Too Far by Jaqen Hash'ghar Segregated Witness is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its eight year history. The push for the SW soft fork puts Bitcoin miners in a difficult and unfair position to the extent that they are pressured into enforcing a complicated and contentious change to the Bitcoin protocol, without community consensus or an honest discussion weighing the benefits against the costs. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial - nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW. While increasing the transaction capacity of Bitcoin has already been significantly delayed, SW represents an unprofessional and ineffective solution to both transaction malleability and scaling. As a soft fork, SW introduces more technical debt to the protocol and fundamentally fails to achieve its design purpose. As a hard fork, combined with real on-chain scaling, SW can effectively mitigate transaction malleability and quadratic signature hashing. Each of these issues are too important for the future of Bitcoin to gamble on SW as a soft fork and the permanent baggage that comes with it. It is far better to work towards a clean technical solution to malleability and scaling than to further encumber the Bitcoin protocol with permanent technical debt.
is artificially causing congestion on the network - driving away users;
is artificially increasing Bitcoin fees;
has artificially made over half of all current Bitcoin addresses effectively "unspendable".
Some people might laugh and say that those addresses represent "only" a total of 1,600 BTC - but remember, that corresponds to "only" 1,600 * 333 = 532,800 or over half a million ounces of gold being made "unspendable" - all because of the economic ignorance and central planning of Adam Back and Greg Maxwell and AXA.
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
If there are only 20 seats on the bus and 25 people that want to ride, there is no ticket price where everyone gets a seat. Capacity problems can't be fixed with a "fee market", they are fixed by adding seats, which in this case means raising the blocksize cap. – Vibr8gKiwi
Letting FEES float without letting BLOCKSIZES float is NOT a "market". A market has 2 sides: One side provides a product/service (blockspace), the other side pays fees/money (BTC). An "efficient market" is when players compete and evolve on BOTH sides, approaching an ideal FEE/BLOCKSIZE EQUILIBRIUM.
imposing yet another centrally planned blocksize (1.7MB);
adding dangerous and unnecessary "technical debt" by making all transactions "anyone-can-spend" - simply because Core is afraid that a proper upgrade (a hard fork) would remove them from their position of power.
Core/Blockstream is pro-AXA and pro-central-bankers - and anti-market and anti-Bitcoin. The only reason you're now paying the future equivalent of 1/3 of an ounce of gold every time you do a Bitcoin transaction is because of the toxic alliance between $76 million in "fantasy fiat" from evil central bankers like AXA combined with the centralized economic planning and ignorance of Blockstream CEO Adam Back and CTO Greg Maxwell. Adam Backu/adam3us and Greg Maxwellu/nullc are among the most economically ignorant and damaging people in the Bitcoin community.
They don't understand anything about how Bitcoin and markets actually work in the real world.
They want to impose their own centrally planned numbers, which they pulled out of their ass (1MB current blocksize, 1.7MB SegWit blocksize), instead of letting the market (miners) continue to determine the blocksize - the way Bitcoin worked so successfully for the past 8 years.
Adam Back was one of the first people that Satoshi told about Bitcoin - but Adam didn't understand it then, and he didn't buy any until it was at its first major all-time high of over 1,100 USD. So he missed being an early adopter - because he doesn't understand economics and markets.
Adam Back thinks he's important because he invented hashcash - and he says very misleading things like "Bitcoin is hashcash plus inflation control" which is ignorant and/or insulting on his part.
The proper terminology should not be "inflation control" - it should be "distributed permissionless Nakamoto Consensus based on Satoshi's brilliant solution to the long-standing Byzantine Generals trustless coordination problem" - which Adam Back not only did not invent - but he also apparently does not fully understand, because he's trying to abolish Nakamoto Conensus_ for the blocksize, and replace it with his centrally planned blocksize.
Greg Maxwell knows cryptography and C++ - but this should not give him "special powers" to dictate the economic parameters of Bitcoin. Only the market can do this.
Fortunately, you don't need to run Core/Blockstream's crippled code any more.
We can revert to Satoshi's original 32MB blocksize (which would probably provide enough transaction capacity to support "million-dollar bitcoin" - far beyond "bitcoin-gold parity").
Or we can install Bitcoin Unlimited which would also allow the Bitcoin blocksize (and Bitcoin volume and price and fees) to be determined by the market.
Market-based blocksize will naturally lead to:
plenty of profits for miners (from the block reward alone, based on much higher Bitcoin price - plus also based on more total fees for miners and lower individual fees for users - due to greater volume, due to more transactions per block).
21 months ago, Gavin Andresen published "A Scalability Roadmap", including sections called: "Increasing transaction volume", "Bigger Block Road Map", and "The Future Looks Bright". This was the Bitcoin we signed up for. It's time for us to take Bitcoin back from the strangle-hold of Blockstream.
Bitcoin Unlimited is the real Bitcoin, in line with Satoshi's vision. Meanwhile, BlockstreamCoin+RBF+SegWitAsASoftFork+LightningCentralizedHub-OfflineIOUCoin is some kind of weird unrecognizable double-spendable non-consensus-driven fiat-financed offline centralized settlement-only non-P2P "altcoin"
AXA/Blockstream are suppressing Bitcoin price at 1000 bits = 1 USD. If 1 bit = 1 USD, then Bitcoin's market cap would be 15 trillion USD - close to the 82 trillion USD of "money" in the world. With Bitcoin Unlimited, we can get to 1 bit = 1 USD on-chain with 32MB blocksize ("Million-Dollar Bitcoin")
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5u72va/axablockstream_are_suppressing_bitcoin_price_at/ If you want Bitcoin to continue to succeed, and if you want the price to continue going towards the moon, and if you want to stop paying exorbitant artificially high fees corresponding to 1/3 ounce of gold, and if you want miners to still get rich from the block reward (while they also earn some extra money based on higher total fees due to more transactions per block, while users pay lower individual fees per transaction)... ...then the best roadmap would be:
Reject Core/Blockstream's current centrally planned blocksize of 1MB, and their proposed SegWit 1.7MB centrally planned blocksize with its unnecessary, dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork semantics;
Continue using using Satoshi's original market-based blocksize, by installing Bitcoin Unlimited - which lets miners continue to set the blocksize as they always have, using emergent consensus.
Doing it here and open so the community can comment. Matt, I wasn't at first interested in the 12 days of bitcoin series because I expected a lot of noobery and didn't recognize how involved you were getting with the community. After seeing some of your posts though I checked one out and was/am extremely intrigued; and now, I wait with bated breath for the next one to come out. What turns out to be the most fascinating to me is your clear change in perception; from skeptical to clearly a bitcoin defender. It may be early to call you an enthusiast(?) but seeing your visceral reaction and reasonable defenses against the knee-jerk negativity of the other.. do we call them anchors? is A+ entertainment from someone who used to get excited anytime bitcoin was even mentioned on the news. The videos are sadly shorter than I would hope; always seeming to be cut off due to what I assume are network television constraints. If it's at all within your pull, I highly encourage you to make web-only cuts a la the way the daily show deals with longer-form interviews. I think your animations are hilariously terrible; but your target audience is not myself (nor most of the people here). With all the intro out of the way, I want to say: Wow dude, good fucking job. I'm extremely impressed with your attitude, the things you say, and your tone with the others you are talking to. I'd like to see, and would recommend a segment on 'real' bitcoin security. You talk about how it's untouchable by governemnt, etc.. but how secure is your bitcoin stash.. how much third party risk are you exposed to.. how much third party risk do you need to be exposed to in order to use bitcoin.. how does this compare with a fiat bank? Some bits on cold storage (why not put .1 btc away for retirement?) in paper wallets, electrum seeds, etc.. I'd really like to see more of a debate between you and one of the more skeptical hosts. Something I keep seeing again and again, both in your segments and the media at large is this store-of-value vs means-of-transaction dichotomy. I think it would serve you well to really grok the fact that bitcoin fundamentally cannot be a means-of-transaction without it being a store of value. In the same way one of these alt-coins with tiny market caps cannot transmit significant amounts of value over their network without severely affecting exchange rate; bitcoin is limited in its ability to exchange value by it's total market cap. Consider trying to exchange 15 billion dollars with bitcoin; to acquire/sell that much bitcoin is essentially impossible since it is bigger than the total market cap. Thus, with a market cap of zero, you are limited to zero ability to transact. Similarly, transactions in bitcoin are actually limited to a small (uncalculated afaik) fraction of total market cap of bitcoin to be considered useful. That is not to say that bitcoin needs to be used as a store of value by everyone who wants to transact with it; just that bitcoin is only useful as a transactional mechanism if someone is storing value in it. Conversely, bitcoin as a store of value is directly linked to it's use as a transactional mechanism. Luckily the world seems to be full of people willing to speculate on / hold bitcoin for those who just want to use it to transmit. When people say that bitcoin is a commodity and not a currency; logically bitch slap them and remind them that anything that acts like a currency is a currency. Take a quick peak at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_money and remind people that just because they don't want to use bitcoin as a currency doesn't mean that when I buy plane tickets / cars / food / drugs / electronics / services / hotel rooms / cocktails; I am not literally using bitcoin as a currency. If you can spend something to buy something it is a currency; regardless of any old-paradigm-clinging pundit's notion of what the world ought to look like. You talk a lot about how the bitcoin community is different than wallstreet is trained to think; with people generously tipping you and others; I think a shout-out to Seans Outpost would be a good thing.. the way he/they have leveraged bitcoin to do insane amounts of good can maybe help some to get this bitcoin=drugs/child-porn/terrorism notion out of people's heads and into reality. Talk about remittances; m-pesa loaded with bitcoin as a concrete example, but also the general notion of wellsfargo fees compared with average remittance size; and how bitcoin can compete with that. Maybe this isn't ready for bloomberg tv, but for yourself, consider the implications of cryptocurrency as an idea for the long term. Consider the (extremely unfair?) divide that is created by those with access to essentially free federal reserve sourced capital and what it means for the world if the source of money is literally hashing power; what happens to the institutions what make up like 20% of GDP and 40% of all profits if this source of free capital dries up? What happens to the world's "have-nots" if the parasitic version of the "haves" have less? Those who have seen the light see that cryptocurrency (not necessarily bitcoin.. though it appears IMO to be a long-term player) will change the world as dramatically as electricity, combustion engines and the internet. There are zero signs of decreased adoption; and looked at long term an S-curve adoption is all but imminent. Do you see it yourself? Do you see how this idea, a distributed proof of work, guaranteed-fair, block-chain ledger is just too-good and too obvious to EVER go away without something better coming along? What you are reporting on now will almost certainly go down in history as one of the most fundamental changes in human society. That is not to say that fiat currencies will go away soon or ever; but bitcoin is a new class of thing; not to be compared as silver vs gold; but apples vs oranges. Comparing gold to bitcoin or bitcoin to dollars is like comparing a Model-T with a horse-drawn buggy; or a wind-powered mill (windmill) vs AC power in general. Importantly, this same argument applies to the deflationary aspect of bitcoin. First and foremost, bitcoin is still inflating, how this point gets missed by all the nay-sayers (and advocates) is beyond me, but its important to note that over the next year ~1.3 million new bitcoin will be minted; a horrendously large >10% rate of inflation! Secondly, and more to the point; every single anti-anti-inflation argument is tied up in the notion that the non-inflating currency is the only available currency. There is no reason to think that this is, or ever will be, the case; or the goal. Bitcoin can and will run in parallel with fiat currencies for a long, long time to come. And those who argue that people won't spend bitcoin because it's deflating, and is therefore useless.. push them to the logical extreme of the argument... if it's useless isn't it valued at 0? Wont it inevitably go to zero? If it will inevitably go to zero, won't there be a period of time where it is going down in value? Won't people then be encouraged to spend their bitcoin? Why do people buy cellphones today at 3x the cost of what they will cost them in 6 months? Why do people spend bitcoins at all, which they clearly do (100MM through bitpay alone).. if this infallible economic argument is accurate? Push on them and see what they say. If a physicist says that "when i drop a ball it will fall at a certain rate" and someone drops a ball and it falls at a different rate; the physicist has to change his underlying theory. When an economist says "people wont spend bitcoin", and people actually do spend bitcoin, why are they not forced to change their underlying theory?
Market capitalization of bitcoin compared to money supply of countries: If bitcoin were a country it'd nearly be in top 50.
By November 23, 2016, the market capitalization of bitcoins in circulation was $11,908,463,816 (nearly 12 billion dollars), and the 24-hour transaction volume was equivalent to $224.9 M as per https://coinmarketcap.com/ Measured in terms of money supply, that meant that the total market cap of bitcoins was at that time actually a more significant force in the market than was the total money supply of Estonia, Costa Rica, or Iceland at that time, as examples. Today the bitcoin market cap is $33,971,006,369 (nearly 34 billion dollars), which is a larger force in the market today than the total money supply of Kuwait or Peru at the time of this post. TL;DR: bitcoin is now bigger than Kuwait's money supply and in terms of market cap, is nearly in the top 50 as compared to countries' money supplies. bitcoin will soon be a more powerful market force than the money of Colombia or Israel.
I found this post about a cryptocurrency and he's making some claims that I don't know whether to believe or not. He uses the example of buying a $1 million house with bitcoin. He says that doing so when bitcoin was $100 would push the price of bitcoin up significantly, and the person trying to liquidate those bitcoins would drive the price back down. But this seems more to do with the total market cap of bitcoin, not the plain value of one bitcoin. Is there something I'm missing?
Crypto market cap charts The charts below show total market capitalization of Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, XRP and other crypto assets in USD. You can also compare market cap dominance of various cryptocurrencies. Market Capitalization = (Price of 1.0 BTC) x (Total bitcoins in circulation) Similar to the way the Market Capitalization of a company reflects the perceived worth of its business, the Market Capitalization of Bitcoin Core (BTC) reflects the perceived worth of Bitcoin Core (BTC) as a value network. It's also an important metric for liquidity and utility of the network (for example, it would be ... A brief price jump took Bitcoin to new yearly highs but the cryptocurrency has retraced then. Nevertheless, BTC remains slightly below $13,000. The post Bitcoin Breaks New 2020 High As Total Market Cap Topped $400 Billion (Market Watch) appeared... Bitcoin's market cap dropped from around 290 billion in the first week of Januray to 111 billion on April 1st, 2018.  According to Coinmarketcap.com  , as of April 2nd 2018 the total capitalization of the cryptocurrency market was around 263 billion US dollars, spanning 1,596 different coins, Bitcoin dominating 45.5% of the total market with a market cap of USD$119.5 billion. Market capitalization (often shortened to market cap) is the approximate total value of a cryptocurrency, typically shown in US dollars. The market cap of a cryptocurrency is calculated by multiplying the number of coins or tokens in existence by its current price. $0.00 . 0.00%. 24hr Volume. Volume is defined as the number of digital coins that have been traded within the last 24 hours. $0.00 ...
Top 10 Cryptocurrency by Market Capitalisation 2019
Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), and RIpple (XRP) Analysis. Cryptocurrency Technical Analysis and Cryptocurrency News. 🚀 Send a Tip to the Streamer 🚀 (NOTE: MA... This video shows the Top 10 Cryptocurrency with highest market cap from 2013 to 2019. As of 2019, Bitcoin has been regarded as the top cryptocurrency in terms of Market cap. Bitcoin vs Gold. Which asset is the better store of value? Gold has been considered one of the best store of values for centuries, but since Bitcoin's inception in 2009 many argue that BTC is the ... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue Visit ** http://www.BCBacker.com ** and enroll in the Blockchain Backer’s Exit Plan Strategy to Cryptocurrency course for charting tips and tricks, best prac...