Who knows?we might! If it becomes widely usable like a traditional currency then why not. Its a big "if".We will never see for example ads advertising goods in their BTC prices, even if such ads are targeted at the criminal community
Exactly, it's a big "if". According to John Kelleher (Investopedia) today's price would require bitcoin to have achieved a currency status on a par with, say, sterling. There would need to be 10s of millions of consumers who "think" bitcoin, who expect to be paid in bitcoin, who expect to see prices in the local supermarket marked in bitcoin, who immediately change any other currency into bitcoin as soon as they get it. Today's price is a massive gamble on that "if".Who knows?we might! If it becomes widely usable like a traditional currency then why not. Its a big "if".
According to John Kelleher (Investopedia) today's price would require bitcoin to have achieved a currency status on a par with, say, sterling.
All I was saying was that the a physical fiver is a bearer instrument, unlike for example a digital fiver.
The fiver doesn't tell you that you can now afford the €5 donut and coffee offer at the coffee shop?
And what does that say about my identity?
John himself speculates that btc will achieve 15% of world currency penetration, thus justifying an ultimate price of $500k. Now sterling takes up 4% of world forex, so using that as a proxy I estimate by John's criterion that an ultimate penetration of btc on a par with sterling would justify a price of $500k x 4/15 = $133k. So I would say that a current price of $47k is a bet that ultimately btc will be a more important currency than sterling. My guess is that the @tecate 's of this world have no problem with such a prediction.Kelleher makes no such claim.
"This article will not make a case for what the market penetration will be, but for the sake of the evaluation, we'll pick a rather arbitrary value of 15%, both for bitcoin as a currency and bitcoin as a store of value. You are encouraged to form your own opinion for this projection and adjust the valuation accordingly."
John himself speculates
It's a bit cart before the horse. A price over $100k can only be justified by a currency penetration equal to sterling, according to John. It can only become a currency if it achieves a price above $100k according to @WolfeTone. That makes today's price of $47k extremely speculative indeed for it says that it needs to more than double from here to justify its existence. Even I would not make put such a high requirement on the crypto.Indeed.
And he also encourages you.... to form your own opinion for this projection and adjust the valuation accordingly.
My own estimation is that a sustained price tag of north of $100,000+ before bitcoin even starts to become accepted as a medium of exchange of any significant level.
A price over $100k can only be justified by a currency penetration equal to sterling, according to John. It can only become a currency if it achieves a price above $100k according to @WolfeTone.
That makes today's price of $47k extremely speculative indeed for it says that it needs to more than double from here to justify its existence.
@tecate
Is this a trick question?
Snapchat isn't money?
No one is suggesting that stocks are money.
Brendan
evidently it's just as volatile as Bitcoin. Who knew?
The follow up point I made is separate - and relates to commentary made by folks here lamenting the poor craturs that bought the Bitcoin tops. I've been searching through the board and can't find any outrage when it comes to Snapchat (the most recent example - there are countless others). That's rather odd don't you think?
We are both talking about the performance of GBP in recent weeks set against BTC in recent weeks. Don't try and suggest otherwise.It's not as volatile as Bitcoin. Look at the graph - your own graph. How can you compare the two? If Bitcoin has been unusually steady for a few days while sterling has been unusually volatile - that means nothing.
I disagree. What would be damaging to my credibility in this discussion would be for me to take an absolutist position. i.e .If i was to say that in the case of two outcomes (bitcoin continues to succeed vs. bitcoin dies), I decide that only one of those two outcomes can happen. Even if I think that one of them is highly unlikely, to declare that it can't happen would be a credibility buster.What is worrying me is that when you make completely specious arguments like this, you damage your credibility.
Proving my point - double standards.Not remotely odd at all. There are repeated advices on this website everywhere else to buy a diversified portfolio of shares and to expect some of them to go to zero. So there should be no outrage when it happens.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?