Bitcoin price predictions?

Jimmy1986

Active Member
Silver Stacker
Just wondering what everybody thinks? It seems to be edging slowly but surely higher.

Max Keiser seems to think $100k per Btc is a real possibility, sounds crazy but if only such a small percentage of money out there went to Bitcoin much higher prices seem inevitable, especially since Btc will soon top out at 21 million (I think)

Unless of course people abandon the Btc protocol or governments interfere.

Anyway I have 4 of them! Haha so $100k will suit me fine.

We can always dream :-)

What does everybody think?
 
BTC will hit 21 million coins in the year 2140, so not really 'soon' :P

$100k is just some speculative bullshit to be honest. $1000 is semi realistic.

The value is currently slowly increasing due to the last difficulty increases I think. Slow and steady is how this needs to be to be seen as a true currency.
 
Ok wow! I had no idea it would take so long to hit 21 million! I was thinking in a couple of years or so haha thanks for clearing that up.
 
mmm....shiney! said:
How do you work that out RM? :)
It's built in to the Bitcoin code.

By the difficulty increases and block rewards, it'll make sure the last BTC is mined in 2140.
 
RetardedMonkey said:
mmm....shiney! said:
How do you work that out RM? :)
It's built in to the Bitcoin code.

By the difficulty increases and block rewards, it'll make sure the last BTC is mined in 2140.

So no matter how many people are making them, the time frame won't change?
 
RetardedMonkey said:
mmm....shiney! said:
So no matter how many people are making them, the time frame won't change?
Correct.

2140? faark, I could be dead by then.


:cool:


On a side note, just imagine the technological advances in the next 130 years that could make all this BTC minting obsolete. Not to mention the men in suits.
 
mmm....shiney! said:
On a side note, just imagine the technological advances in the next 130 years that could make all this BTC minting obsolete. Not to mention the men in suits.
Obsolete in what regard?

Even if someone brought out a quantum computer capable of hashing blocks out 10x quicker than the entire Bitcoin network is capable of, right now. The difficulty algorithm built into it would adjust the difficulty so high that it'd still minting stuff in 2140.
 
I think the price is unlikely to go above the threshold at which is it useful and unlikely to go below the cost of mining.

for bitcoin to be globally useful the price for the smallest fraction of a bitcoin 0.00000001 would have to be like maybe 1/10 -> 1/1000 of an australian cent.
 
Bitcoin will surge with further currency problems about the globe.

Sorry folks, but Bitcoin cares not for America, nor anyone else.
 
2ds said:
for bitcoin to be globally useful the price for the smallest fraction of a bitcoin 0.00000001 would have to be like maybe 1/10 -> 1/1000 of an australian cent.

I don't necessarily agree. Consider that Bitcoin is used either to purchase items or to hoard - there is no other purpose for the currency. In such a scenario, and considering bitcoin is designed to be divisible to a Satoshi (0.0000001 BTC), is there any logical reason to say that a single Satoshi must be worth less that one cent/penny in other currencies?

I would argue that there is no reason for this to be the case, in both a hoarding or purchasing scenario, it would be difficult to conceive a situation where a fraction of a cent/penny would be needed as a denomination (particularly as this doesn't occur with any currency currently), and thus, I would argue that it would be perfectly reasonable for a Satoshi to eventually reach the value of one cent/penny. Whether is does so or not will be something for the market to decide, based on desirability, scarcity & usability.
 
Midnight Man said:
2ds said:
for bitcoin to be globally useful the price for the smallest fraction of a bitcoin 0.00000001 would have to be like maybe 1/10 -> 1/1000 of an australian cent.

I don't necessarily agree. Consider that Bitcoin is used either to purchase items or to hoard - there is no other purpose for the currency. In such a scenario, and considering bitcoin is designed to be divisible to a Satoshi (0.0000001 BTC), is there any logical reason to say that a single Satoshi must be worth less that one cent/penny in other currencies?

I would argue that there is no reason for this to be the case, in both a hoarding or purchasing scenario, it would be difficult to conceive a situation where a fraction of a cent/penny would be needed as a denomination (particularly as this doesn't occur with any currency currently), and thus, I would argue that it would be perfectly reasonable for a Satoshi to eventually reach the value of one cent/penny. Whether is does so or not will be something for the market to decide, based on desirability, scarcity & usability.

Given the relative strength of our currency at the moment I was thinking an Australian cent could be too large a sum for some items / services..

ALSO

one of the major benefits of bitcoin is that you can transfer fractional money, a lot of online business has been basically failing because they can't get money, part of the problem is that processing fees make it not worth their while to accept less than a certain amount.

Imagine if you had an account with a news paper, e.g. the age or what ever and you paid them half a cent per an article you viewed instead of paying a monthly subscription. they could get some money from you and maybe they wouldn't have to show ads to you anymore...

With bitcoin it would be possible.
 
Load of Bullion said:
Bitcoin will surge with further currency problems about the globe.

Sorry folks, but Bitcoin cares not for America, nor anyone else.

But USA is not known for subtle enforcement of its empire:

www.sovereignman.com

May 29, 2013
Sarasota, Florida, USA

In the largest such case ever brought by the US federal government, the Department of Treasury shut down virtual currency provider Liberty Reserve yesterday as a 'primary money laundering concern.'

If you're not familiar with Liberty Reserve, it was a Costa Rica-based platform that allowed its 1+ million users to convert fiat currency into an online virtual currency that was loosely connected to the financial system.

Users could hold Liberty Reserve Dollars, euros, etc. which were tied to fiat dollars, euros... or even gold. And they could quickly transfer funds across the Liberty Reserve network.

Liberty Reserve's cardinal sin was not making any effort to validate the identities of its customers. And for this reason, the US government labeled it a 'primary money laundering concern.'

After all, only criminal terrorists want to bank anonymously.

The charges against Liberty Reserve are vicious, to say the least. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network claims that the service "is not designed for legitimate use," and that it is "designed to facilitate money laundering and illicit finance."

They go on to list a number of terrorists and criminals who have used Liberty Reserve... because, of course, that's how they accomplish everything these days-- by citing the threat of terrorism.

In fact, the government is deriving its authority to bring charges against Liberty Reserve (and seven of the company's principals) from a little-known section of the USA PATRIOT Act.

This section, 311, authorizes the US government to blacklist any foreign bank it sees fit from the US financial system. And given that the world still relies heavily on the US financial system for international trade and banking settlement, being cut off from it is fatal.

The biggest issue is what this may mean for Bitcoin... because it certainly does seem to be a huge flashing warning sign that the government is out there targeting digital currencies.

One major difference is that Liberty Reserve was centralized. There was one key platform involved with technology to maintain customer accounts and process payments.

So, to take down Liberty Reserve, they only had to go after a single node.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, is decentralized. Account and transaction data is distributed across the entire user base. There are literally millions of players involved, so it's a bit of a tougher nut for the government to crack.

But as they've already gone after Mt. Gox, the largest Bitcoin exchange site, it certainly follows that they will continue to harrass other Bitcoin exchanges... even those that are based outside of the US.

The Liberty Reserve case shows that they're perfectly willing to use any means available, even citing absurd anti-terrorism legislation, to exceed their jurisdiction and take down their target.
 
RetardedMonkey said:
mmm....shiney! said:
On a side note, just imagine the technological advances in the next 130 years that could make all this BTC minting obsolete. Not to mention the men in suits.
Obsolete in what regard?

Even if someone brought out a quantum computer capable of hashing blocks out 10x quicker than the entire Bitcoin network is capable of, right now. The difficulty algorithm built into it would adjust the difficulty so high that it'd still minting stuff in 2140.

Because something new will come along that computer buffs will think is better and replace BTC.

Or we'll be capable of transmitting "happy thoughts" by ESP and won't need any form of currency anymore to get everything we need.
 
Back
Top