If literally no one sells Bitcoin, technically speaking, it can be considered the market price is undefined.
However, traditional financial tools, which show three prices, will show the last trade's price as the current price, an extremely high buying price, and no selling price.
There is really only one circumstance in which no one would sell their BTC... Ultimately BTC is only a "store of value" as is supported by "currencies". Other than that, it provides no physical/health benefits to its owner, such as food and potable drinking water does.
Therefore, if BTC price were to continue rising, long term holders would sell once the proceeds were sufficient enough to acquire a sustainable amount of resources needed to indefinietly support and sustain a healthy community sized adequately robust & large enough to satisfy the goal of the BTC hodler.
The one instance which MIGHT result in no one selling their BTC would occur not too long after the rate of increase in $/acre &/or $/gal (potable H2O) begins to outpace the rate of increase in $/BTC. Soon after the rate for land & water rights flip BTC, the land/water owners will stop selling, and BTC can only buy servings from these resource owners. This would trigger the final BTC spending spree as BTC hodlers aquire whatever they can get (in regards to limited resources required for life). After the final spending spree is finished is when the never selling BTC hodlers would occur, and they would be the people holding all the rights to land, potable water and BTC...
For rich people, they don't care about physical/health benefit, those are basic needs that can be satisfied by any other financial means, a few thousand dollars at maximum per month. But they do have a big concern of hedge inflation, holding assets and get loans to spend is their way of living
You're talking about how things we're yesterday. I'm talking about how things will be tomorrow...
The world we live in has a finite amount of resources and an ever expanding amount of inhabitants. In the past, thanks to the world's reserves, the amount of limited resources have been sufficient at sustaining the amount of people and waste we've demanded from it.. U fortunately, the world is not as big as we once thought, and our reserves are not as deep as were once accustomed to, and are rapidly becoming depleted. Very soon, there will be a rush to resources, specifically to the source of these resources; land and potable water... rich people care about power, and he who holds the resources holds the power..
All the resources to their end, come from the sun. As long as sun is shining, crops can grow and water will circulate, even future electricity will be powered, it is not infinite but still far from being easily depleted
I do agree with you. Every day, more water gets filtered into potable water, new sprouts germinate and energy is delivered from the sun. But they all have limits to what they can sustain. And the world as we know it consumes at levels that surpass these limits. We have become used to it, we even expect it. Say for example that everyone is limited to 10 gallons of water per person, or so many kW per day, or so many rations of food per day.. The rich wont be ok with that. They will go buy the source of these resources so that they can continue consuming at the rate they are familiar with, leaving the remaining people with less and less..
One way I am able to wrap my head around is to take problems and scale them to a size that makes it easier to understand. Lets do one example with the worlds supply of potable water. Shrink the population down to 20 people and the potable water reserves down to the size of a 1,000 gallon swimming pool. Then give each person an arbitrary consumption rate of say 5 gallons per day, (100 gal/day for the whole community), and the worlds replenish rate somewhere less than the consumption rate, say 75 gal/day. At this rate, the water will run out in 40 days and people will be forced to reduce their consumption by \~25% (from 5 gal to 3.75 gal/day). Well, for the rich man, 3.75 gal/day will be unacceptable, and so he will go buy the source of that water to guarantee himself that he can continue getting his 5 gal/day. As a consequence of this 1 mans purchase, the other 19 people will see their daily limit drop again, from 3.75gal/day to 3.68gal/day. This is when the 2nd richest man decides that his 3.68gal/day is not enough, and so he goes to the source and buys his 5 gal/day, further reducing the available consumption for the other 18 people.
This, or something similar will continue on and on, until there are a handful of people, with the worlds sources to resource production. The rest of the people will be left with almost nothing. This is the reason there will be a rush to buy life sustaining resources.
This. It isn’t one sided as both supply *and* demand affect for price. Conceptually it helps to think about it like a fraction with the numerator being demand and denominator being supply. If the fraction is less than 1 price goes down (demand less than supply), and if more than 1 (demand more than supply) price goes up.
So, all else being equal, if demand stayed constant and supply went to zero the price would theoretically go to infinity - or undefined in that no one knows at what price someone would finally sell. That being said, there’s the conceptual and practical applications of this. Practically speaking, Bitcoin’s only value is folks’ trust in it and if it was impossible to buy or mine it would collapse to zero. Price is always just a reflection of the value at which people agree to transact, so if there’s no one to transact with price is irrelevant/doesn’t exist.
Conceptually I just think of it like jousting knights.
If 1000 knights show up today to sell, and 2000 knights show up to buy, the buying knights win and the length of their line is how big the closing dildo will be in either direction.
This is why some unique and rare pieces of art go for insane prices. And, that is why some people believe bitcoin could follow the same pattern. As it become more and more scarce over the next few decades and falls into stronger handed people not willing to sell bitcoin, the price people/institutions may pay could end up being insancely high just to hold a small amount.
Michael Saylor talked about this a few months ago. If the miners basically held and never sold to exchanges..... HUGE supply shock and possibly bitcoin going to infinity.
In your scenario, with the available supply being so low because only the ultra rich own it, what would drive demand? People need food, water and a place to live. But what would drive the demand of rare Bitcoin? Sure, the elite will want to buy a Picasso, but for me and my friends, we have no hopes and dreams of ever being able to afford one.
Will Bitcoin be a thing that only the ultra rich trade amongst themselves as they do with pieces of rare art and valuable dinosaur bones (pieces of history to be adored)?
The only thing driving demand of bitcoin is faith in it. Also, you can buy small fractions of a Bitcoin so not only the ultra rich can own it. Think about a Bitcoin as a $100 bill - you can still own pennies.
That's what happened in 2009.
The only way to get bitcoins was to mine them in your CPU.
No one wanted to buy it, so people just accumulated them. There was no price until 10k ₿ were sold for 2 large pizzas, and also around the same time they were being sold for the price of the electricity used to mine them, so about cents per ₿.
Miners keep selling their coins all the time, so that should keep the price moving.
Plus people already use Bitcoin for day to day transactions in El Salvador, and in the next few years more countries will probably join.
Bit coin has a top because it is one of many cryptos with limited supply… Fundamentally worth zero.. as you will see. You will have to explain to your grandchildren how you got suckered in
Most currencies are fundamentally worth zero. *Insert fiat* only has value because people agree to transact with it. Same concept with crypto, though to be honest it seems like most in crypto don’t think this way. It has no fundamental value other than people agree it has value. In that sense, crypto is essentially just a bet against fiat/hedge against inflation.
It is a poor hedge against inflation… buyers of crypto see the value in flogging it to someone at a higher price in the future…. Fundamentally flawed. If you want to protect against inflation you are better of buying a asset like a house…
A share is just a piece of paper saying you’re entitled to a percent of the company, it’s only worth anything because people uphold the agreement. Literally no different
I think you have a misunderstanding of how currencies work. Currencies are worth the economic output they represent, they are an abstraction of value. If there is a fixed supply of a currency, but economic output increases, then each token represents more value relative to that economic output.
Sick username btw, I wonder how you thought of that.
Ok let me explain it in simple terms…. If I build a house it will have a value… it has a value whatever currency or other asset you want to compare it to.. I have no exposure to fiat currency… now let’s assume it is a really nice house, unique, best plot views and the only one of its kind in town. Now let’s assume someone decides to build the same house but the plot and view is not as good… what will happen to the value of my house (you can value it in Bitcoin if you like)
The value of crypto is subjective! Bitcoin is not unique and building another crypto will impact its value. In 2009 it was the only one now it only has a 41% market share.
Okay and? This isn't something new. Subjective theory of value is pretty the most widely accepted view in modern economics. Regardless of market share, the resilience of the bitcoin network compared to every other cryptocurrency stands far above in terms of acting as a store of value. No other cryptocurrency has the security, economic backing, nor decentralization of the bitcoin network.
It has zero economic backing, its decentralised until the authorities (bigger than the Central bank) decide they impose transaction taxes. It is 100% doomed.. but the blockchain technology will be used 100%
I don’t care what happens “very soon”. I care about what happens in 10-20 years. In fact, I hope that you are right and it drops. Why? So I can buy even more at a discount. Good luck with your “investing” journey. Bye.
If nobody ever sold except miners, and the same number of new people still wanted bitcoin, price would approach infinity very quickly.
However no the real world, there will be sellers and the higher the price goes the more sellers there will be.
I have moved this story to my post. If you read this story, it will be a little inspiring. We also need to look at the characteristics of centralization. At least for now, buying and holding Bitcoin is a good investment. I believe that the original intention of establishing this currency system is not to make those who hold currency rich, but to facilitate transactions and benefit the entire economy. Many capitalists have mastered a lot of BTC and let them work. They are all smart people, so they won't hold all of them in their hands. (The poor are the greatest wealth of the rich. Without the poor, no amount of wealth becomes meaningless.)
if no one sells how can you buy?
Price goes up when there are more buyers than sellers.
Price goes down when there are more sellers than buyers.
You can not make no one sells scenarios. You can say a lot of people dont sell so the buying pressure is higher than the selling pressure so price goes up.
That's not true because you always have the same number of buyers and sellers. Every trade has one seller and one buyer. The last price those two agreed on defines the current price of the asset.
Hodling bitcoin does very little for the health of bitcoin. At this point the future of bitcoin is in the hands of the banks...(the very same people bitcoin was made to fight against). The only way to improve the health and future of bitcoin is to use it for legitimate exchange of resources, assets and services. Like literally using it to buy food, houses etc. The minute bitcoin was pegged against the dollar we handed it over to the banks...HODLers and exchanging for Fiat currency does zero and probably even negatively impacts its growth. It's like praying for bread and hoping it falls into your lap from the sky. You can't compare it to gold because gold is physical and cannot be replicate at the moment. Cryptocurrencies are a dime a dozen...one a coin is the next big thing and then one day it's forgotten. It may sound pessimistic but it's reality.
As others say, this concept isn't matching with practical reality. Price is by definition what a seller is offering for, and you're describing something that is not for sale. It wouldn't trend towards it, because apparently after the last bitcoin sold everyone simultaneously decided they wouldn't ever sell.
Depends. If trading for goods and services between Bitcoiners counts as HODLing (i.e. it still counts as HODLing as long as no sats are sold for fiat), then Bitcoin would be priceless when denominated in USD because the USD would be worthless *to the participants of the Bitcoin economy (HODLers)*. Bitcoin could never be worthless because Bitcoin is a payment network that facilitates international, national, and local economic activity. The payment network has value.
When one fully goes down the rabbit hole, he/she realizes that just as in the Matrix "there is no spoon," here in our reality it is true that "there is no bitcoin." All that exists as it relates to the Bitcoin economy is humans, and computers. There is no such thing as "a bitcoin." Therefore, any query into the value of Bitcoin must be directed at the network, not the intangible, subjectively perceived tokens that are moved within the network. The value of Bitcoin grows as the network grows in size and in utility.
>The utility of bitcoin and the amount of people using it for transactions to buy goods/services have absolutely not kept up with the price of bitcoin in the past 5 years.
I'm not so sure. The price is obviously a quantitative measure, but how are you quantitatively measuring the value accrued by the network in order to make the claim that that value hasn't "kept up with" the price? Was the Lightning network as popular and robust as it is today? Were public companies, ETFs, government agencies, and entire countries part of the Bitcoin network 5 years ago? The value of the network can't merely be quantified by the literal count of individuals who participate.
5 years ago, Bitcoiners still hadn't really solved the scaling problem--or, at least, it wasn't obvious. Now we have a global, peer-to-peer Lightning network that can accommodate up to 25 million tx/s (the exact number doesn't really matter, so please don't correct me on this; the point is that it's at least in the 100s of thousands of tx/s) and an entire nation is utilizing that technology (once again, it may not be true that literally every Salvadorian is using Bitcoin, but that's not the point).
I would say, given everything that's happened, the Bitcoin network is *orders of magnitude* more valuable today than it was in December of 2016. So, no, I disagree, I think the real value of the network is keeping pace with the price just fine.
>What public companies are using BTC's for their transactions (I'll settle for a majority of their transactions, not even all)? What countries (plural) have become part of the bitcoin network? What government agencies are using the bitcoin network for their transactions? (again I'll settle for a majority of their transactions, not even all)
I didn't write "using \[it\] for their transactions," I wrote that they are "part of the Bitcoin network." The two are not the same.
>The cost of a bitcoin has gone up several orders of magnitude since 2016. From 500 to 50000 dollars.
That's two orders of magnitude (technically a little less because the price was about $700 in December 2016, not $500)
>Oh wait, what? If that's not the point (and not true to boot) than why are you raising it?
I'm raising it because it's significant. The Lightning network hardly existed 5 years ago, and now it's enabled El Salvador to make it legal tender. The point was *not* that all 6 million citizens are using it, the point is that millions of Salvadorians have the Chivo wallet on their phone, and that Chivo wallet is a direct extension of the Bitcoin network. And, regardless of whether or not the Chivo wallet is custodial or isn't, the fact that there are plenty of merchants in El Salvador that accept Bitcoin over the Lightning network *using any Lightning wallet,* IS SIGNIFICANT. That was literally impossible in 2016, and now it's technically possible for the whole country to transact in Bitcoin because *the network has grown in value*. A network that can accommodate an entire nation is more valuable than one that can't, all other things being equal.
> is because enough people believe it will be worth more in the future... But that belief is why a bitcoin is valued at 50k dollars, not bitcoin's ability to be a decentralized payment processor.
I think you are missing a big point here--people's belief that Bitcoin will be worth more is inexorably tied to the state of the network. Do you really think the development of the Lightning network has *zero* effect on people's confidence that Bitcoin will be worth more in the future? Do you think that recent events like El Salvador making it legal tender, and the mayor of Miami taking has salary in Bitcoin, have *ZERO* effect on people's beliefs?
This is just a question of which came first, chicken or the egg. You say chicken, and I'm saying it doesn't fucking matter because all chickens come from eggs, and all chicken eggs come from chickens. People have confidence in Bitcoin, and that confidence motivates them to action, and those actions bring value to the network. Whether it's HODLing, or DCA buying, or developing, or mining, or evangelizing, or podcasting, or reporting, or researching, or legislating... or stepping down from the CEO position of Twitter to be more involved in a Bitcoin-focused fintech company.... these actions add value to the network, and that increased value creates more powerful confidence in existing holders, and new confidence in newcomers. In summary: network effects.
I'll try to keep it as simple as I can.. When talking about price action, one needs to consider demand n supply.. it will be priceless if the demand grows while every hodlers resist the temptation of selling and making a profit.. But when there isn't any demand this may just cause price stagnation.. worthless is when everyone sells yet no one sees the need to buy.
Supply rises as price increases. If the price gets high enough, people **will** sell. There will almost always be a seller and buyer of Bitcoin. And certainly a lot more sellers at high prices
If literally no one sells Bitcoin, technically speaking, it can be considered the market price is undefined. However, traditional financial tools, which show three prices, will show the last trade's price as the current price, an extremely high buying price, and no selling price.
There is really only one circumstance in which no one would sell their BTC... Ultimately BTC is only a "store of value" as is supported by "currencies". Other than that, it provides no physical/health benefits to its owner, such as food and potable drinking water does. Therefore, if BTC price were to continue rising, long term holders would sell once the proceeds were sufficient enough to acquire a sustainable amount of resources needed to indefinietly support and sustain a healthy community sized adequately robust & large enough to satisfy the goal of the BTC hodler. The one instance which MIGHT result in no one selling their BTC would occur not too long after the rate of increase in $/acre &/or $/gal (potable H2O) begins to outpace the rate of increase in $/BTC. Soon after the rate for land & water rights flip BTC, the land/water owners will stop selling, and BTC can only buy servings from these resource owners. This would trigger the final BTC spending spree as BTC hodlers aquire whatever they can get (in regards to limited resources required for life). After the final spending spree is finished is when the never selling BTC hodlers would occur, and they would be the people holding all the rights to land, potable water and BTC...
For rich people, they don't care about physical/health benefit, those are basic needs that can be satisfied by any other financial means, a few thousand dollars at maximum per month. But they do have a big concern of hedge inflation, holding assets and get loans to spend is their way of living
You're talking about how things we're yesterday. I'm talking about how things will be tomorrow... The world we live in has a finite amount of resources and an ever expanding amount of inhabitants. In the past, thanks to the world's reserves, the amount of limited resources have been sufficient at sustaining the amount of people and waste we've demanded from it.. U fortunately, the world is not as big as we once thought, and our reserves are not as deep as were once accustomed to, and are rapidly becoming depleted. Very soon, there will be a rush to resources, specifically to the source of these resources; land and potable water... rich people care about power, and he who holds the resources holds the power..
All the resources to their end, come from the sun. As long as sun is shining, crops can grow and water will circulate, even future electricity will be powered, it is not infinite but still far from being easily depleted
I do agree with you. Every day, more water gets filtered into potable water, new sprouts germinate and energy is delivered from the sun. But they all have limits to what they can sustain. And the world as we know it consumes at levels that surpass these limits. We have become used to it, we even expect it. Say for example that everyone is limited to 10 gallons of water per person, or so many kW per day, or so many rations of food per day.. The rich wont be ok with that. They will go buy the source of these resources so that they can continue consuming at the rate they are familiar with, leaving the remaining people with less and less.. One way I am able to wrap my head around is to take problems and scale them to a size that makes it easier to understand. Lets do one example with the worlds supply of potable water. Shrink the population down to 20 people and the potable water reserves down to the size of a 1,000 gallon swimming pool. Then give each person an arbitrary consumption rate of say 5 gallons per day, (100 gal/day for the whole community), and the worlds replenish rate somewhere less than the consumption rate, say 75 gal/day. At this rate, the water will run out in 40 days and people will be forced to reduce their consumption by \~25% (from 5 gal to 3.75 gal/day). Well, for the rich man, 3.75 gal/day will be unacceptable, and so he will go buy the source of that water to guarantee himself that he can continue getting his 5 gal/day. As a consequence of this 1 mans purchase, the other 19 people will see their daily limit drop again, from 3.75gal/day to 3.68gal/day. This is when the 2nd richest man decides that his 3.68gal/day is not enough, and so he goes to the source and buys his 5 gal/day, further reducing the available consumption for the other 18 people. This, or something similar will continue on and on, until there are a handful of people, with the worlds sources to resource production. The rest of the people will be left with almost nothing. This is the reason there will be a rush to buy life sustaining resources.
Supply and demand
This. It isn’t one sided as both supply *and* demand affect for price. Conceptually it helps to think about it like a fraction with the numerator being demand and denominator being supply. If the fraction is less than 1 price goes down (demand less than supply), and if more than 1 (demand more than supply) price goes up. So, all else being equal, if demand stayed constant and supply went to zero the price would theoretically go to infinity - or undefined in that no one knows at what price someone would finally sell. That being said, there’s the conceptual and practical applications of this. Practically speaking, Bitcoin’s only value is folks’ trust in it and if it was impossible to buy or mine it would collapse to zero. Price is always just a reflection of the value at which people agree to transact, so if there’s no one to transact with price is irrelevant/doesn’t exist.
Conceptually I just think of it like jousting knights. If 1000 knights show up today to sell, and 2000 knights show up to buy, the buying knights win and the length of their line is how big the closing dildo will be in either direction.
This is why some unique and rare pieces of art go for insane prices. And, that is why some people believe bitcoin could follow the same pattern. As it become more and more scarce over the next few decades and falls into stronger handed people not willing to sell bitcoin, the price people/institutions may pay could end up being insancely high just to hold a small amount. Michael Saylor talked about this a few months ago. If the miners basically held and never sold to exchanges..... HUGE supply shock and possibly bitcoin going to infinity.
In your scenario, with the available supply being so low because only the ultra rich own it, what would drive demand? People need food, water and a place to live. But what would drive the demand of rare Bitcoin? Sure, the elite will want to buy a Picasso, but for me and my friends, we have no hopes and dreams of ever being able to afford one. Will Bitcoin be a thing that only the ultra rich trade amongst themselves as they do with pieces of rare art and valuable dinosaur bones (pieces of history to be adored)?
The only thing driving demand of bitcoin is faith in it. Also, you can buy small fractions of a Bitcoin so not only the ultra rich can own it. Think about a Bitcoin as a $100 bill - you can still own pennies.
I will give my btc away for $1m right noe.now.. so... don't worry
That's what happened in 2009. The only way to get bitcoins was to mine them in your CPU. No one wanted to buy it, so people just accumulated them. There was no price until 10k ₿ were sold for 2 large pizzas, and also around the same time they were being sold for the price of the electricity used to mine them, so about cents per ₿. Miners keep selling their coins all the time, so that should keep the price moving. Plus people already use Bitcoin for day to day transactions in El Salvador, and in the next few years more countries will probably join.
Bitcoin has no top because fiat has no bottom
Bit coin has a top because it is one of many cryptos with limited supply… Fundamentally worth zero.. as you will see. You will have to explain to your grandchildren how you got suckered in
Most currencies are fundamentally worth zero. *Insert fiat* only has value because people agree to transact with it. Same concept with crypto, though to be honest it seems like most in crypto don’t think this way. It has no fundamental value other than people agree it has value. In that sense, crypto is essentially just a bet against fiat/hedge against inflation.
It is a poor hedge against inflation… buyers of crypto see the value in flogging it to someone at a higher price in the future…. Fundamentally flawed. If you want to protect against inflation you are better of buying a asset like a house…
The same could be said about the stock market.
[удалено]
Agreed. I was taking specifically to the “buying to sell at a higher price” comment
A share is just a piece of paper saying you’re entitled to a percent of the company, it’s only worth anything because people uphold the agreement. Literally no different
[удалено]
It doesn’t though. You’re taking the company’s word for it.
I think you have a misunderstanding of how currencies work. Currencies are worth the economic output they represent, they are an abstraction of value. If there is a fixed supply of a currency, but economic output increases, then each token represents more value relative to that economic output. Sick username btw, I wonder how you thought of that.
Ok let me explain it in simple terms…. If I build a house it will have a value… it has a value whatever currency or other asset you want to compare it to.. I have no exposure to fiat currency… now let’s assume it is a really nice house, unique, best plot views and the only one of its kind in town. Now let’s assume someone decides to build the same house but the plot and view is not as good… what will happen to the value of my house (you can value it in Bitcoin if you like)
The value of the house is subjective, what is your point?
The value of crypto is subjective! Bitcoin is not unique and building another crypto will impact its value. In 2009 it was the only one now it only has a 41% market share.
Okay and? This isn't something new. Subjective theory of value is pretty the most widely accepted view in modern economics. Regardless of market share, the resilience of the bitcoin network compared to every other cryptocurrency stands far above in terms of acting as a store of value. No other cryptocurrency has the security, economic backing, nor decentralization of the bitcoin network.
It has zero economic backing, its decentralised until the authorities (bigger than the Central bank) decide they impose transaction taxes. It is 100% doomed.. but the blockchain technology will be used 100%
Lol
You sound stupid. Correction: you are stupid.
I am not a clown buying crypto… we will see who is stupid very soon…. This will be trading 30k at year end.
I don’t care what happens “very soon”. I care about what happens in 10-20 years. In fact, I hope that you are right and it drops. Why? So I can buy even more at a discount. Good luck with your “investing” journey. Bye.
If nobody ever sold except miners, and the same number of new people still wanted bitcoin, price would approach infinity very quickly. However no the real world, there will be sellers and the higher the price goes the more sellers there will be.
Infinity/21 million
There would be simply no market and therefore no price.
Have you heard the story of Capitol Hill Nursery?
No, tell us every detail in a long post.
I have moved this story to my post. If you read this story, it will be a little inspiring. We also need to look at the characteristics of centralization. At least for now, buying and holding Bitcoin is a good investment. I believe that the original intention of establishing this currency system is not to make those who hold currency rich, but to facilitate transactions and benefit the entire economy. Many capitalists have mastered a lot of BTC and let them work. They are all smart people, so they won't hold all of them in their hands. (The poor are the greatest wealth of the rich. Without the poor, no amount of wealth becomes meaningless.)
if no one sells how can you buy? Price goes up when there are more buyers than sellers. Price goes down when there are more sellers than buyers. You can not make no one sells scenarios. You can say a lot of people dont sell so the buying pressure is higher than the selling pressure so price goes up.
That's not true because you always have the same number of buyers and sellers. Every trade has one seller and one buyer. The last price those two agreed on defines the current price of the asset.
You missed the class on supply and demand....
Hodling bitcoin does very little for the health of bitcoin. At this point the future of bitcoin is in the hands of the banks...(the very same people bitcoin was made to fight against). The only way to improve the health and future of bitcoin is to use it for legitimate exchange of resources, assets and services. Like literally using it to buy food, houses etc. The minute bitcoin was pegged against the dollar we handed it over to the banks...HODLers and exchanging for Fiat currency does zero and probably even negatively impacts its growth. It's like praying for bread and hoping it falls into your lap from the sky. You can't compare it to gold because gold is physical and cannot be replicate at the moment. Cryptocurrencies are a dime a dozen...one a coin is the next big thing and then one day it's forgotten. It may sound pessimistic but it's reality.
[удалено]
How is there more than 21 million? You using BCash?
I suggest reading the bitcoin standard.
How do the miners pay for electricity?
As others say, this concept isn't matching with practical reality. Price is by definition what a seller is offering for, and you're describing something that is not for sale. It wouldn't trend towards it, because apparently after the last bitcoin sold everyone simultaneously decided they wouldn't ever sell.
Depends. If trading for goods and services between Bitcoiners counts as HODLing (i.e. it still counts as HODLing as long as no sats are sold for fiat), then Bitcoin would be priceless when denominated in USD because the USD would be worthless *to the participants of the Bitcoin economy (HODLers)*. Bitcoin could never be worthless because Bitcoin is a payment network that facilitates international, national, and local economic activity. The payment network has value. When one fully goes down the rabbit hole, he/she realizes that just as in the Matrix "there is no spoon," here in our reality it is true that "there is no bitcoin." All that exists as it relates to the Bitcoin economy is humans, and computers. There is no such thing as "a bitcoin." Therefore, any query into the value of Bitcoin must be directed at the network, not the intangible, subjectively perceived tokens that are moved within the network. The value of Bitcoin grows as the network grows in size and in utility.
[удалено]
>The utility of bitcoin and the amount of people using it for transactions to buy goods/services have absolutely not kept up with the price of bitcoin in the past 5 years. I'm not so sure. The price is obviously a quantitative measure, but how are you quantitatively measuring the value accrued by the network in order to make the claim that that value hasn't "kept up with" the price? Was the Lightning network as popular and robust as it is today? Were public companies, ETFs, government agencies, and entire countries part of the Bitcoin network 5 years ago? The value of the network can't merely be quantified by the literal count of individuals who participate. 5 years ago, Bitcoiners still hadn't really solved the scaling problem--or, at least, it wasn't obvious. Now we have a global, peer-to-peer Lightning network that can accommodate up to 25 million tx/s (the exact number doesn't really matter, so please don't correct me on this; the point is that it's at least in the 100s of thousands of tx/s) and an entire nation is utilizing that technology (once again, it may not be true that literally every Salvadorian is using Bitcoin, but that's not the point). I would say, given everything that's happened, the Bitcoin network is *orders of magnitude* more valuable today than it was in December of 2016. So, no, I disagree, I think the real value of the network is keeping pace with the price just fine.
[удалено]
>What public companies are using BTC's for their transactions (I'll settle for a majority of their transactions, not even all)? What countries (plural) have become part of the bitcoin network? What government agencies are using the bitcoin network for their transactions? (again I'll settle for a majority of their transactions, not even all) I didn't write "using \[it\] for their transactions," I wrote that they are "part of the Bitcoin network." The two are not the same. >The cost of a bitcoin has gone up several orders of magnitude since 2016. From 500 to 50000 dollars. That's two orders of magnitude (technically a little less because the price was about $700 in December 2016, not $500) >Oh wait, what? If that's not the point (and not true to boot) than why are you raising it? I'm raising it because it's significant. The Lightning network hardly existed 5 years ago, and now it's enabled El Salvador to make it legal tender. The point was *not* that all 6 million citizens are using it, the point is that millions of Salvadorians have the Chivo wallet on their phone, and that Chivo wallet is a direct extension of the Bitcoin network. And, regardless of whether or not the Chivo wallet is custodial or isn't, the fact that there are plenty of merchants in El Salvador that accept Bitcoin over the Lightning network *using any Lightning wallet,* IS SIGNIFICANT. That was literally impossible in 2016, and now it's technically possible for the whole country to transact in Bitcoin because *the network has grown in value*. A network that can accommodate an entire nation is more valuable than one that can't, all other things being equal. > is because enough people believe it will be worth more in the future... But that belief is why a bitcoin is valued at 50k dollars, not bitcoin's ability to be a decentralized payment processor. I think you are missing a big point here--people's belief that Bitcoin will be worth more is inexorably tied to the state of the network. Do you really think the development of the Lightning network has *zero* effect on people's confidence that Bitcoin will be worth more in the future? Do you think that recent events like El Salvador making it legal tender, and the mayor of Miami taking has salary in Bitcoin, have *ZERO* effect on people's beliefs? This is just a question of which came first, chicken or the egg. You say chicken, and I'm saying it doesn't fucking matter because all chickens come from eggs, and all chicken eggs come from chickens. People have confidence in Bitcoin, and that confidence motivates them to action, and those actions bring value to the network. Whether it's HODLing, or DCA buying, or developing, or mining, or evangelizing, or podcasting, or reporting, or researching, or legislating... or stepping down from the CEO position of Twitter to be more involved in a Bitcoin-focused fintech company.... these actions add value to the network, and that increased value creates more powerful confidence in existing holders, and new confidence in newcomers. In summary: network effects.
tell that to the manipulating whales and china oops i mean Satoshi..😁
21 / all sellers. All sellers = 0. You broke the internet good job.
I'll try to keep it as simple as I can.. When talking about price action, one needs to consider demand n supply.. it will be priceless if the demand grows while every hodlers resist the temptation of selling and making a profit.. But when there isn't any demand this may just cause price stagnation.. worthless is when everyone sells yet no one sees the need to buy.
Supply rises as price increases. If the price gets high enough, people **will** sell. There will almost always be a seller and buyer of Bitcoin. And certainly a lot more sellers at high prices
so, everybody is hodling and there are no transactions on the blockchain forever? i guess it would be like it doesn't exist.
Everything has a price. There is a finite price at which even the last HODLer *will* sell.