My emphasis was on the long-term trend of a price drop, one which would never recover to anywhere close to its original value. With as many times as BTC's price has vacillated that's why I think it'll take so long to reach its final swan song - lots of accumulated FOMO and buy-the-dip mentality to work through.

Even with the .com bubble, only a few survived. Sure, those that did reached unimaginable heights, but they’re still outliers. Most high level tech companies of today were founded after the bubble.

Housing is essential to the world. People need shelter. It’s basically the most inelastic cost of the entire economy.

Fair enough. Like I said previously, time will tell.

I consider a mania as an investing ethos with exceedingly unreasonable expectations of return relative to the value being created over a given investment timeline. That covers a wide range of situations.

Agreed. It wasn't asked but I'll offer my take on how the process might be triggered. My best thesis is that an alternative to BTC becomes available, either from the private markets or governments. It won't offer what BTC does in terms of protection against debasement and all the other ancillary utility valued by the faithful but in my view those aren't the factors which are supporting BTC's valuation today for the masses. It'll be the loss of mindshare from the alternative that will be the most destructive to BTC.

I guess the counterargument to that is there has been a decade of attempts thus far, and of the 20,000+ attempts, all of them combined have roughly the same marketcap as Bitcoin. I'm sure they have a lot more of the mindshare and talent that Bitcoin has too. I'd argue that's a feature not a bug, and Bitcoin being so hard to change is what gives it tons of value.

As governments and banking institutions continue to fail, I'm hard pressed to see why the general public would all of a sudden put value and faith in a government controlled digital currency. That's even worse than where we're at today. CBDCs result in full government control in one's ability to spend. No thanks.

The masses have seen bank and institutional failures that still protected their deposits. They've seen lots of crypto failures where that wasn't the case. In my view most won't make a distinction between BTC and the failed crypto in that regard. When an alternative becomes available that provides the perceived security I think the masses will adopt it.

Ok, so you are basically saying if BTC is worth $500bn ($25k x 20M coins) in 10 years and is worth currently the 10th largest stock in the world that is a push/failure? Respectfully, everyone else would disagree. If Bitcoin is not worth $0 in 10 years than it's long-term trajectory is closer to X than 0.

In order for this to be true, everyone in this thread that is a long-term BTC holder would have to sell their BTC for "some shiny new crypto" within the next 10 years. That is simply NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Bitcoin has a Lindy effect greater than any other project in existence, with only distant competitors such as Ethereum and Monero which are still far behind.

There is 0.0% chance some "new crypto" will come into existence in 2030 that magically swallows up 20 years of Bitcoin's network effects, track record, stability etc. I don't understand how you don't see this.

What are u talking about ?
The cost of everything u make is a loss untill u sell it .
Same thing with gold , bitcoin or w.e else.
What your points ?

So transferring email, picture , movie , etc over Internet as utility but transferring actual money fast and securely isn’t ?
Interesting ….

Awesome so we can expect you to continue to post your bullshit for another 10 plus years. How come all your articles are from fake journalists propagating state level information tho? Why can you use real sources? How come you don't consider peter todd a bitcoin expert but you consider amy castor a bitcoin expert who is well known for spreading disinformation about bitcoin?

His point is that he doesn't want you to know that this reasoning exists to explain what is state cannot:
https://nakamotoinstitute.org/shelling-out/
PZ wants you to consider there is the POSSIBILITY of a counter argument based on a moral feeling he inspires in you. How many fake sources of misinformation is this group willing to put up with before they call out a fraud?

The deception is easy to see. He's PAINTING a narrative, as a concern troll would. He wants to champion for a bitcoin that has PERCIEVED security.

That a bitcoin will come a long and have the energy constraints removed. But we know that those constraints ARE the security. We already have that kind of money with no such constraints. A new bitcoin can't come along. Its not that type of invention. Its a first to the market type invention of uncheageability.

Ur talking about change because ur the FED and poker players matter.


Bitcoin cash bitcoin gold bitcoin sv bitcoin abc bitcoin blah blah blah....

When we do finally wake up to the truth and kick the fed out of here...

I'm hoping someone finally realizes what I'm saying when I point out that a cbdc cannot represent the same layer money that bitcoin can. Its the beginning to understanding bitcoin in a way that no one but szabo (and nash!) is talking about. We can argue about whether or not its true after but first just what I mean to point to.

Also the history of our entire existence supports the idea of using otherwise useless commodities as a (proto-)money. As szabo points out their usefulness in exchange amortized the cost of making the units of the proto-money used. Shells and beads and the patterns of travels show this phenomenon (which gives a contrasting view on the useful characteristics of gold as a money).


A cbdc cannot have the qualities that szabo explains.

As I've said, manias can take a while to work through, for the inertial reasons I listed, including FOMO. Just look at the vacillations of the markets during downturns. Lots of bear rallies. It's a slow, grinding process.

That's not how market pricing generally works, not to mention I believe you're overestimating the percentage BTC ownership of HODL'ers. Pricing is set at the margins. This is how BTC can drop by 50% during any of its cycles.

It was said the network effects of established social media companies would make it impossible for a new entrant to ever become a dominant platform. TikTok proved that thesis wrong.

The factors of production don't become worthless during the process of employing them into a finished good. In fact there's an entire section of accounting that deals with this:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/workinprogress.asp

Transferring money has huge utility. For example, this is why there are nearly 300 billion electronic transfers every year in China, most of which are accomplished with just a few taps on a smartphone screen.

I agree that denominating the amount of energy used might not be the best way to talk about, but totally separating the "cost" of mining from transactions is either naive or promoting an agenda. While not a perfect analogy, it's like saying the cost of making a jar of peanut butter doesn't include the cost of the factory.

want $25200 so bad

So to get some new fresh long term predictions in, how many of you think we'll never hit the number that let's Tooth back in this thread. Think that was 14999?

There is no distinction between mining and transactions from an algorithmic perspective, thus the energy expenditure is one and the same. The energy expended is in solving the block for the collection of transactions contained within it, which includes the generation transaction that's inserted into the block prior to starting the solving process. If that miner's block solution is the first that's peer-recognized as correct then those list of transactions become part of the chain, including the generation transaction that credits the miner with his reward.

Transferring actual money fast and secure is detrimental for modern society, that’s why businesses and governments don’t use Bitcoin.

It’s not fast, it’s not secure and you are not even transferring money in the first place. You are transferring tokens that you first have to buy and receiving side has to go through hurdles to exchange it to real money because they can’t use it for anything unless they do.

Ya me vs tooth. < 15k vs > 300k (might've been 200k) - still like my side either way. We got down to like 15,500 or so. Was getting close.

Are u saying credit card payment through internet is the same as a payment in bitcoin through internet ?
Or a handed check exchange vs a handed exchange of bitcoin is the same ?

Its invalid logic propagated by amy castor who is a known lying fake journalist sourcing a site that was created someone with undisclosed central banking interests.

You think didace is going to believe you?

In the future the available bitcoin's to mine drops to zero and all of the hashrate chasing those rewards will no longer exist. And you want argue the energy they are expending is necessarily part of the energy expenditure to transact.?

Its a lie. The competition to mine for new bitcoin pushes up the energy expenditure and is not part of the energy required to transact. Bitcoin doesn't require more energy to do more transactions and more energy doesn't make more transactions. These are unrelated and its a fallacy to speak as if they are one and the same.

Ur pushing lies to people who don't understand this system as well as you.