Long Term Bitcoin Catastrophe?

[Brent Allsop]

Expert Theoreticians about the future,

It seems to me there is a high probability that the Bitcoin network
could, in the long term, become a mathematical catastrophe. It could
become the Mother of all Ponzi schemes. If you project the current
growth rates at all, it seems very likely that a single Bitcoin could be
worth over a $ million within 5 years. And a good possibility that that
will be just the start.

Perhaps this was the motivation of the brilliant original crypto nerd
creators, and why they remain anonymous. Most of the early mined coins
remain out of circulation. They are probably already living very
comfortable lives selling very few of their total hoard.

If the bleating heard of humanity gets in their heads some kind of "Law
of the Bitcoin", that you are guaranteed to get a 5 times return (as
history is already showing), every year, for any investment in Bitcoins,
no matter how 'black' a market any government may try to make investing
in Bitcoins, will anyone be able to resist such a mathematical certainty
temptation?

Bitcoins could soon start draining capital from anything with value,
such as all fiat currencies, the stock market, gold.... And if there is
another recession, this could really accelerate the growth of the value
of Bitcoins. If the governments fired up the currency printing presses,
everything they print could quickly evaporate into Bitcoins. Sure, they
could make currencies inflate faster than everything else of value, but
it seems to me there is a good chance that nobody could stop the soon to
be mathematical certainty of rapidly deflating Bitcoins.

What do all you experts think of this and anything else to do with
Bitcoins. Is there any kind of expert consensus about the future of
Bitcoins, both near and long term? I've canonized a first draft of my
thoughts about Bitcoins, and their future in a "Currency Expert Survey
Project"

See: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/155

I'd love to find out, concisely and quantitatively, what all you experts
do or don't agree with.

How many of you own bitcoins? Anyone Mining bitcoins? and what do all
of you think the value of a Bitcoin will be in one year?:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/154

Does anyone disagree with my working hypotheses? Am I making any other
mistakes in any of this reasoning?

I know all of you are very intelligent Bitcoin experts, and even better
future visionaries. Let's get together and amplify all of our
collective wisdom on this, build an expert consensus about what is
important, any possible eventualities, and rigorously measure it all.
Alone, my opnion surely isn't worth any more than any of the other
clueless beetling pundits out there. But if we all work together, we
could develop a very concise, quantitative, amplified expert visionary
description of the future.

Let's do this so we can both possibly make a LOT of money, while
together collaboratively avoiding any potential risks, (i.e. when will
the bubble really pop and how?) and maybe even eventually save the world
from a mathematical catastrophe via prophetic moral warning?


Upwards,

Brent Allsop

[Gordon]

Brent Allsop <brent....@canonizer.com> wrote:

> It could become the Mother of all Ponzi schemes. 

Ponzi schemes, normally understood, involve early investors being paid with the investments of late investors. That is not happening with bitcoin.

> If you project the current growth rates at all, it seems very likely that a single Bitcoin could be worth over 

a $ million within 5 years.  And a good possibility that that will be just the start.<

I hope you're right!

> I've canonized a first draft of my thoughts about Bitcoins, and their future in a "Currency Expert Survey Project" See: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/155<

Interesting project. I might contribute if I find the time.

> How many of you own bitcoins?  Anyone Mining bitcoins?  and what do all of you think the value of a Bitcoin will be in one year?:<

I followed Bitcoin casually from its inception, but (regrettably) did not take it seriously until only recently, when the total capitalization broke above 1 billion USD. I invested on three separate occasions after the market corrected. I'm happy with my average price, which is below the current market. 

The longer term charts would seem to indicate that the price is currently completing a consolidation pattern with the price fairly stable around $122 +/- $5 or so. If the price breaks higher here, to about $130-$135, especially on high volume, I would guess then that it might rise again in the next year to something near its all time high of about $260. If it instead breaks to do the downside then I would be concerned about the next year or so. Of course this is all predicated on the validity the science (art?) of technical analysis of price trends, which might be akin to reading tea leaves. If anyone has developed a model for doing fundamental analysis of bitcoin prices then I would be interested in hearing about it.

> I know all of you are very intelligent Bitcoin experts

I do not consider myself an expert in Bitcoin, but I do have a lot of experience trading and investing in other markets. I spent many years as an investment adviser. I happen also be something of a geek, and so here I am with a position in bitcoins. :)

Gordon

[Brent Allsop]

Hi Gordon,

Thanks for the reply!

On 5/22/2013 7:41 PM, Gordon wrote:

Brent Allsop <brent....@canonizer.com> wrote:

> It could become the Mother of all Ponzi schemes. 

Ponzi schemes, normally understood, involve early investors being paid with the investments of late investors. That is not happening with bitcoin.

If you really think this, you should canonize it.  I bet nobody would agree with you.  But I could be very mistaken.  You haven't convinced me with just this.  Sure, talking short term, what you are saying may be true.  But long term, after Bitcoins have sucked every cent of capital out of the stock market, all real estate, and everything of any value, all of the people that had been living high on the hog for so long, off of the profits of the last investors, and there is finally nothing of value left in society to invest in Bitcoins, what happens then?  It's obviosly not like any Ponzi scheme to date, but I believe your missing the possible bigger picture.  Again, canonizer.com can help filter mistakes like this, if they are mistakes, from all of our thinking, while the good ideas can rise above this kind of noise by building an expert consensus.

> If you project the current growth rates at all, it seems very likely that a single Bitcoin could be worth over 

a $ million within 5 years.  And a good possibility that that will be just the start.<

I hope you're right!

Again, short term, I, and I'm sure the entire herd is obviously very tempted to think the same.  But, are you being completely morally blind to the long term fundamental possibilities?

> I've canonized a first draft of my thoughts about Bitcoins, and their future in a "Currency Expert Survey Project" See: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/155<

Interesting project. I might contribute if I find the time.

> How many of you own bitcoins?  Anyone Mining bitcoins?  and what do all of you think the value of a Bitcoin will be in one year?:<

I followed Bitcoin casually from its inception, but (regrettably) did not take it seriously until only recently, when the total capitalization broke above 1 billion USD. I invested on three separate occasions after the market corrected. I'm happy with my average price, which is below the current market. 

The longer term charts would seem to indicate that the price is currently completing a consolidation pattern with the price fairly stable around $122 +/- $5 or so. If the price breaks higher here, to about $130-$135, especially on high volume, I would guess then that it might rise again in the next year to something near its all time high of about $260. If it instead breaks to do the downside then I would be concerned about the next year or so. Of course this is all predicated on the validity the science (art?) of technical analysis of price trends, which might be akin to reading tea leaves. If anyone has developed a model for doing fundamental analysis of bitcoin prices then I would be interested in hearing about it.

Again, to me, this is all short term meaningless tea leaves that have nothing to do with any true long term mathematical fundamentals that really matter.  You can't predict how fast the current holders of Bitcoins are going to temporarily cash in, and even if you could, what good is that compared to any long term mathematical fundamentals.  As is typical of the herd, so many pundits are focusing on this kind of short term BS, and completely missing what is really important.

> I know all of you are very intelligent Bitcoin experts

I do not consider myself an expert in Bitcoin, but I do have a lot of experience trading and investing in other markets. I spent many years as an investment adviser. I happen also be something of a geek, and so here I am with a position in bitcoins. :)

You're at least as good as an expert as I, and probably 90% of the world's experts.  Let's get a "Currency Expert" camp started for you.  As a peer, I'd surely rate you near the top of My list of experts.  There are quite a few experts out there I know I'd rank highly.  Who do you all think we would all rank as the worlds best currency expert? http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/151.  Would all of you trust the consensus of such a list of peer ranked experts as much as I would or should?

The question is, how much expert consensus is there about either of our positions?  That is what will surely be the "expert consensus", any such expert consensus that arises will be way more intelligent than any of us as blind and biased individuals could come up with.

What do you currently think the value of Bitcoins will be in one year?  Is there any possibility it will be around 5 times it's value today, as is being predicted by the "Law of Bitcoins" camp?  http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/154/2  If so, it takes less than a minut to join that camp.  If not, it only takes a minute or two to start a new camp providing any different POV - so we can see which way the emerging expert consensus is leaning.  Far less time than it took you to waste your time replying to this post.  Or do you just prefer lazy half baked, possibly mostly mistaken thinking, and have no interest in finding out if anyone agrees with you, or not, and why?

Here's another question for all you way better than me experts, especially Giulio who I've CCed.  Is there any way the Bitcoin network could be altered to allow for more than currently allotted 21 million Bitcoins?  Even if 90% of the holders wanted to do this to try to stop a terrible hyper deflation?  It doesn't seem possible to me, since even if 90% of the exchanges did agree to 'fork' the block chain, if 5% kept the old only 21 million chain operating, everyone would quickly abandon the 90% fork and switch over to purchase the still hyper deflating chain, making the problem explosively worse.  Am I just a clueless, mistaken, Bitcoin non expert, or has anyone else wondered such things?  If I'm mistaken, what is the expert consensus, and what will make it pop, or not - and when?

Gordon, another question for you.  What do you think is the best wallet, and which wallet are you using?  Are you in the Coinbase camp, or is there something better and safer? http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/127 .  And what do you think of any other currency, in comparison, like the Ripple?  http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/150/4 ?  Are you investing in any other currency?  Which ones are you most focusing on?  Do you have any interest in how your current thinking may compare with other experts?  Anyone else?  Same questions!  Would you not value knowing what the experts think is the current best and safest wallet to use?  If the one you are currently using, become risky, or inferior compared to another, wouldn't you want to know, before everyone else?

Brent Allsop

[Carl Youngblood]

Brent, bitcoin transaction volumes have gone steadily up. So long as people are using the currency as a medium of exchange, I see no problem. It functions similarly to gold as a medium of exchange that tends to retain its value, except that it's supply is basically a known quantity whereas the gold supply can be influenced by those who mine it. Bitcoins will become extremely valuable, but this is not a problem. They will be used to hedge against inflation, but they will still be bought and sold.

--
To learn more about the Mormon Transhumanist Association, visit http://transfigurism.org
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mormon Transhumanist Association" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transfigurism+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to transf...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfigurism?hl=en-US.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[David Hamilton]

Even if each bitcoin were worth a billion dollars, the way thecode is set is to 8 decimal, making one satoshi (0.00000001 btc) worth $10 US each. Still enough that anyone could afford to buy in. If it gets higher, code in a couple more zeros. There are some problems once automatic block rewards stop and mined blocks are rewarded based on transaction fees alone, each miner fighting for who will accept the lowest fees to include those transactions in their blocks. We have awhile before we hit that point though.

When price gets too high then everyone starts mining/selling. Driving prices down as more product enters the market. It eventually corrects and gets closer to a more reasonable price, then those extra people start mining. Its built to adjust with fluctuations in mining power.

You could consider it a ponzi scheme, especially with the premined coins like Feathercoin where many of the coins were generated within the first couple hours before it was popularly announced. But all that information is public knowledge. The difference between bitcoin and a ponzi scheme is that bitcoins are actually useful. You can cash out at any time, recruiting even 100 friends wont get the price up any more. There are pyramid mining pools and I stay away from any recruitment schemes like that. If people are spending coins and accepting them it's a currency. If people are mining them and hoarding in the hopes of getting rich, its more like a pyramid scheme. But you could say the same for other currencies  Early adopters take a risk and they should be rewarded for that. Nobody knew it would blow up and people were losing money mining just from the electric costs.  They did it because they believed in it and they got rewarded, just like any investor in a small company would. I mean what does something need to be in order to be considered a ponzi scheme? Doesnt there need to be some kind of organizational hierarchy? If hoards just hold then their coins arent worth the bits they are printed on.

Also commonly in the btc-e marketplace chat (trollbox) people will make the joke that US fiat is Bernanke's ponzi scheme or a pump and dump, based on overprinting, little regulation, not an open thing about the fed, they wont even release how much money they are printing. Bitcoins you know exactly how many are there, and how many there will be in the future. It rewards early adopters just like Microsoft or the technology industry were paid for their risks. They could have made nothing, and its a risk I didnt take, but I'm happy that they are supporting cool risky stuff that the average guy doesnt have the ability or stability to get into.

That being said, I am making some pretty good profits and I wasn't an early adopter. I've never mined a bitcoin. I buy them and I trade between other currencies to make profit. I know full well that I could lose it all but I believe in the idea of a free and open currency that to me its worth risking a couple hundred bucks at least.

Lets just go with this, throw out bitcoins, throw out all that stuff. But we need a decentralized instant transfer digital currency. Maybe it wont be bitcoin but it will exist and I'm supporting all projects that lead towards those goals. I am a fan of free exchange, p2p, and cool tech. Kids printing real money in their basement seems like a really cool thing to me. There are flaws. Like with dollars, like with paypal, like with credit, like with banks, like Book of Mormon too. That doesnt mean you throw the whole thing out. Build on it and make it the kind of thing you can really get behind. A lot of you are programmers, bitcoin is opensource. You can make your own coin right now and put the starting difficulty as high as you want so that miners arent unfairly rewarded but good luck getting people to mine it in the beginning.

Come out with Mormon Coin, based on the law of consecration. This is the internet, any one of you can start a project with ideas you think are better and if they actually are, I'll migrate and so will others. But just because you perceive flaws doesnt mean the whole idea should be scrapped. Instant transfer of a digital currency based on solving math problems. Stuff sounds as transhuman as you can get when it comes to setting and transferring value. When it becomes the norm, more people owing and using, you wont see the kind of manipulation you see now. If i goes mainstream and stable then I will make far less money from it (I sell on the downswing and rebuy back at the upswing, sometimes within seconds) but it will never be exactly stable unless you tie it to the dollar and even that would just hide the fluctuations because the dollar itself doesnt stay at a constant value. But then what have you done new? I'd like to hear more thoughts, I dont work for Satoshi or anything so I'd like to hear smart dudes like you pointing out problems. In the end though, I think its just about one of the coolest things out there and I dont see how any transhumanist could be against the idea of p2p digital currency. Do we use paper for anything else? I mean 

dinosaur businesses and the irs but the only thing I use paper for currently is wiping (sorry for the disgusting imagery)

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transfiguris...@googlegroups.com.

[David Hamilton]

Also please try to ignore the typos and grammar errors i make as always, I type with two fingers at full speed and havee wicked aspergers, so my brain gets ahead of my fingers most of the time. Try to focus on the ideas, if there are any to be had. Again I will try to be more careful in the future. I dont mean to bring down the level of intelligent conversation. We need to come out with intelligent pills, or brainwave typing, or robot hands that can type for me. Or I could proof read like a normal person who wants to be taken seriously :P Not that I needed to say this, you all get it, I just feel like a half-witted dolt compared to the genius I see around these here parts of the interwebs. So back to the intelligent conversation, bitcoinz go to mars to get moar candybars, and fiat is from jupiter for the obvious childhood reasons (to see the red spot? I dont know)

[Gordon]

Brent Allsop <brent....@canonizer.com> wrote:

>>> It could become the Mother of all Ponzi schemes. 

>>Ponzi schemes, normally understood, involve early investors being paid with the investments of late investors. That is not happening with bitcoin.

>If you really think this, you should canonize it.  I bet nobody would agree with you.  But I could be very mistaken.  You haven't convinced me with just this. 

"Definition of 'Ponzi Scheme'

A fraudulent investing scam promising high rates of return with little risk to investors. The Ponzi scheme generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors. This scam actually yields the promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new investors. These schemes usually collapse on themselves when the new investments stop."  http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ponzischeme.asp

Bitcoin might turn out to be a boondoggle, but it is not a Ponzi scheme so defined. 

Bernie Madoff ran a true Ponzi scheme. He paid his early investors with the money he received from his later investors. He was a fraud. This is why he is spending life in prison. If bitcoin collapses, who will go to prison, and why? The answer is that nobody will go to prison. Bitcoin is speculative, but not fraudulent.

Gordon

[Gordon]

Brent Allsop <brent....@canonizer.com> wrote:

>Here's another question for all you way better than me experts, especially Giulio who I've CCed.  Is there any way the Bitcoin network could be altered to allow for more than currently allotted 21 million Bitcoins?<

No. That is one of the beauties of Bitcoin. Scarcity is built into the system. Think of it as a precious metal in this respect. There is only so much gold in the world. In a similar way, will be only so much Bitcoin in the world.

However, as I have mentioned here, I do have some concerns about the proliferation of alternative digital currencies. There is no limit to the number of such currencies. If they can all exist together, and if more can be created without limit, then there is no limit to the digital money supply. Digital currencies in that case become inflationary instead of deflationary. 

But I've set those concerns aside for now. Bitcoin is the clear leader in digital currencies. I prefer to think that in the long run, most or all those alt currencies will fade away.

Gordon

[Brent Allsop]

Carl and David,

Good points, I agree with most of what you are saying.  But do think you are making at least one mistake.  I guess using terms like 'Ponzi Scheme' isn't what I really mean.  I'm simply talking about bubble's Popping in a way that hurts lots of people.

David said:

<<<
When price gets too high then everyone starts mining/selling. Driving prices down as more product enters the market. It eventually corrects and gets closer to a more reasonable price, then those extra people start mining. Its built to adjust with fluctuations in mining power.
>>>

If you think more coins can be generated by more people or computers mining, that is an obvious mistake.  Carl seemed to be making the same mistake, but after re-reading his comment, I realized he may not be thinking more coins can be produced in some way.

All economies follow Kurzweil's law of accelerating returns, and grow exponentially.  Any good currency must thereby also increase comparatively or else there will be destructive deflation.  The amount of gold produced has been more or less exponential, throughout history.  Especially, when prices are as high as they are now.  But bitcoins are very different which will cause ever more extreme bubbles and eventual pops, each one 10 times the last one, two years later (at least so far that's what it what history is showing.)

And that's while the number of coins is still increasing!  In only a few years, there will be more coins being lost (from lost key files and forgotten passwords...) than the number being generated each year.  And things will just get worse.

Brent Allsop

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:15 AM, <brent....@comcast.net> wrote:

---

From: "David Hamilton" <swimqu...@gmail.com>
To: transf...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:35:27 AM
Subject: Re: [mta] Long Term Bitcoin Catastrophe?

[Carl Youngblood]

Brent, what you're describing seems to reflect an inaccurate understanding of how bitcoins work. There is a finite amount of bitcoins. Within a few years all the bitcoins will be in circulation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_bitcoins_over_time.png

On top of this some bitcoins will be lost (like the 250 that I accidentally lost a while back--doh!). Gold is similar because there is a finite amount of gold in the earth's crust, although the rate at which it is discovered is not governed by a mathematical (and therefore predictable) algoritm. This means that if bitcoin becomes the currency of choice, the 21M bitcoins in circulation will eventually be roughly equivalent to all the capital in the human civilization, which is increasing exponentially, since the human race is becoming exponentially more productive and prosperous. So bitcoin is a deflationary currency. The concern that some economists have is that deflationary currencies tend to encourage hoarding (because they will always be worth more later on) whereas a healthy economy depends on people buying stuff. For this reason, some new crypto currencies have been invented that have a baked-in rate of inflation. The bitcoin creators deliberately did not allow inflation because they wanted a currency that could not be manipulated by any state or authority. Some economists (such as the Austrian school, which has fallen out of favor among most academics but is the darling of some conservatives and libertarians) even argue that inflation is not necessary for a healthy economy and that a currency like bitcoin is ideal.

Long story short, bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme, it is a currency, similar to many other currencies that are backed up by the wealth, might and authority of their respective governments. Except instead of being backed up by the authority of a government, bitcoin is backed up by the authority of mathematics and the corroborated experiences of the members in its distributed network, which has quickly surpassed the trustworthiness of even the strongest political regime. The network resources required to fake bitcoin value is  now so high that I doubt even the US government could pull it off, and it would be far easier for it to simply participate in the existing network than it would be for it to compete with it. What you are getting from bitcoin is the trustworthiness of the currency, which is the same thing you get with any other currency. Except bitcoin is by its nature more trustworthy than any other existing currency.

One other thing. As some have already mentioned here, bitcoin can be subdivided so there is no difficulty in exchanging small amounts of coin for small transactions.

[Brent Allsop]

Hi Carl,

What have I said that makes you think I don't already fully understand everything you've said about how Bitcoins work?

If the number of bitcoins will be fixed, and a significant amount is being lost ($30K today, how much in the future? ouch!!) and they are working in an exponentially growing economy, then Bitcoins will continue deflating at their current rate of 10 times their value every 2 years, as is being predicted in the "Law of Bitcoins" camp (see: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/154/2) which seems to me to be the clear expert consensus everyone agrees with.  I haven't found ANYONE that thinks differently.

So given that we get (just crude ball park numbers):

year         BTCN/USD                      All Bitcoins*USD
2012:                $100                      $1,000,000,000
2014              $1,000                    $10,000,000,000
2016            $10,000                  $100,000,000,000
2016          $100,000               $1,000,000,000,000
2018       $1,000,000             $10,000,000,000,000    1 Satoshi = 1 Cent
2020     $10,000,000           $100,000,000,000,000
2022   $100,000,000        $1,000,000,000,000,000    1 Satoshi = $1

And it won't stop there, at least !_IF_! the economy continues to grow exponentially.  In other words, around 2016, Bitcoins will be worth more than all the gold in the world.  In 2018 they will be worth more than all the stock markets of all the world.  Around 2022, they will be worth more than all the real estate in all the world.

And the effect that will have on economies will make it so we start havving terrible bubble pops (of both economies and Bitcoins, alternating) at an increasing rate, followed by terrible economic depressions like we've never seen before.

So, given that, let's say you have some guy that has some great "Google" like idea he wants to get off the ground, asking you for capital.  Are you going to risk it on something like that?  Or would you just go with the sure in 2 years you'll get 10 times your money thing with Bitcoins  (hopefully, nobody will create some virtual currency that will accelerate faster, sucking everything out of Bitcoin and everything else into it.)?

I've already started selling stock to invest in Bitcoins, and I'm already seeing great returns.  Sounds like you have too?

So, anyone agree with me?  Anyone think differently?  Any one care to measure for expert consensus to see who has the best POV?

Brent Allsop

[Carl Youngblood]

Brent, the deflationary aspect of the currency is something everyone agrees on. What they do not agree on is the effect that deflationary currencies have on an economy. There are those who argued that the gold standard (which was also deflationary) caused more economic volatility, and there are those who argue precisely the opposite. As currencies are required to sustain a volume of transactions that is proportional to the total capital in the market, bitcoins (if fully adopted) would naturally rise in value to match some percentage of the total capital in the market. Once bitcoins reach a saturation point and everyone who is going to use them already does, at the point one would only expect to see fluctuations between bitcoin and other currencies to the extent their governments decided to inflate them. Most of the reason why the dollar value of bitcoins is growing is because more and more people are buying them. But there is some increase in value that is purely the result of the devaluation of the dollar. Bitcoin is designed to be currency that can NEVER lose value because it is impossible to "print" more of it. The thing you're calling a bug is in fact a feature, according to those who designed the currency.

[Brent Allsop]

Hi Carl,

Oh, OK, that all makes a lot of sense.  Thanks for your patience and work at helping me understand all that.

On 5/25/2013 1:35 AM, Carl Youngblood wrote:

Brent, the deflationary aspect of the currency is something everyone agrees on.

It sure seems that way.  But surely there are at least a few experts that think differently, at least about the exact rate  of this deflationary aspect.  It'd sure be valuable to track this, for all trusted experts, concisely and quantitatively.

What they do not agree on is the effect that deflationary currencies have on an economy. There are those who argued that the gold standard (which was also deflationary)

But Gold is very different than Bitcoin.  The production of Gold has always been growing at an exponential rate, through all history, especially when prices are the way they are now.  In other words, it seems to me you must agree that Bitcoin will be way more deflationary than Gold ever was.

caused more economic volatility, and there are those who argue precisely the opposite.

There is obviously not a clear expert consensus on this, that anyone is capable of seeing yet.  But imagine if we could see, concisely and quantitatively, just what the consensus really was, and how this was trending.  Knowing that would sure make the wisdom of everyone infinitely improved, and enable all of society to be much more well behaved.  All instead of the two herds making all their different direction ignorant beating, and the infinite butting of heads between each side.

I bet there is a very clear expert consensus emerging on this exact issue, and that this consensus is growing dramatically with new incoming experimental data (like what is going on with Japan expanding their money supply).  It's just too bad that nobody is yet able to concisely measure for such in a way that can be tracked, and so that neither side could deny such consensus, no matter how much they wanted to.  Certainly what is going in in Japan, and how this compares to what Germany is attempting to do in Europe, has converted lots of experts from one side to the other?  Am I the only one that thinks it is critically important to the moral wisdom of everyone, that we try to measure for such?

As currencies are required to sustain a volume of transactions that is proportional to the total capital in the market, bitcoins (if fully adopted) would naturally rise in value to match some percentage of the total capital in the market. Once bitcoins reach a saturation point and everyone who is going to use them already does, at the point one would only expect to see fluctuations between bitcoin and other currencies to the extent their governments decided to inflate them.

The rate of Bitcoin deflation, would surely drop, once it had sucked as much capital as possible from all other possible lessor investments.  But it's hard for me to see how those kinds of transitions would be catastrophic Bubble crashes, causing huge swings in the economy.  I guess I'm in the camp that beleives the only reason we've just had a 'great recession', and that we effectively no longer have 'great depressions' of your, is because of the way Bernanki (and now Japane) has dramatically pushed up the amount of available cash, to compensate for the economic pops that are bound to happen.  If currencies can no longer have any effect on thjis, just inflating, relative to bitcoin, whenever more of them are printed, why would this not throw us back to the days of depressions, and possibly far worse.  Would it not be possible to have wild bubble popping swings, alternating between Bitcoins popping, and then the economy popping, in an ever increasing, and more extreme way, without the ability to inflate the true supply of cache?

And even when Bitcoins have reached this saturation point, if the economy does continue to grow exponentially, and Bitcoins stay flat, there will still be a huge increase of relative value, way beyond one satoshi being = $1.  Maybe it will no longer be 100% every two years, but it will still be something significant, like maybe 100% every 7 years, do you think?  It will certainly be proportional to the rate of expansion of the economy, which would track with the need for Bitcoins or the availability of capital to invest in Bitcoins?

Most of the reason why the dollar value of bitcoins is growing is because more and more people are buying them. But there is some increase in value that is purely the result of the devaluation of the dollar. Bitcoin is designed to be currency that can NEVER lose value because it is impossible to "print" more of it. The thing you're calling a bug is in fact a feature, according to those who designed the currency.

This has helped me very much.  And you've done much to change my POV.  Where I once thought it would be catastrophic (when I started this Catastrophe Subjected thread), I now just think things will be very different, if they aren't able to change the rate of whatever virtual currency eventually becomes most dominant.

Would everyone in your camp agree with me, though, that things like the P/E of stocks, which have historically, before Bitcoins, floated at around 20, could significantly drop, in a post Bitcoin economy, and the same for many other investments?  And it'd likely be much more expensive for people to borrow money...?  I emagine people living in dumps, rather than houses, all so they can invest the capital, instead, in Bitcoins, for a few years, which would finally enable them to buy a much better house, after a few years of such significant sure 10 times per 2 or 7 years return on assets?

I guess, right now, it is real estate, that is sucking so much capital out of everything.  If the price of real-estate went down, compared to what it otherwise would be Without Bitcoin, that would be a good thing, us all living in a smaller size house, and so on?  It looks like this experiment is about to happen, and that the scientific results is about to prove to all of us, who is in the right camp, first.

Brent Allsop

[Carl Youngblood]

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Brent Allsop <brent....@canonizer.com> wrote:

But Gold is very different than Bitcoin.  The production of Gold has always been growing at an exponential rate, through all history, especially when prices are the way they are now.  In other words, it seems to me you must agree that Bitcoin will be way more deflationary than Gold ever was.

Wrong. There is a finite amount of gold in the earth's crust. Period. Gold is not "produced" in the earth anywhere. It is mined. Until you understand this you will not understand how bitcoin is VERY similar to gold. The only difference is that the rate at which gold is mined is not as predictable as the rate at which bitcoins are mined. 

[Carl Youngblood]

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Brent Allsop <brent....@canonizer.com> wrote:

And even when Bitcoins have reached this saturation point, if the economy does continue to grow exponentially, and Bitcoins stay flat, there will still be a huge increase of relative value, way beyond one satoshi being = $1.  Maybe it will no longer be 100% every two years, but it will still be something significant, like maybe 100% every 7 years, do you think?  It will certainly be proportional to the rate of expansion of the economy, which would track with the need for Bitcoins or the availability of capital to invest in Bitcoins?

The bitcoin implementation currently allows for something like 12 digits of precision but this could easily be increased indefinitely with minor adjustments to the protocol. This is not a problem at all.

I would suggest studying bitcoin (and general economics) more before you jump to the conclusion that this will cause crashes. There are literally hundreds of years worth of theories  involved here. Wikipedia does a pretty good job of describing the basics. The Austrian school is the one that thinks gold-based economies are good. You might want to start there to get the point of view of the bitcoin creators.

As I said earlier, there are other cryptocurrencies that function just like bitcoin but instead have a steady rate of inflation baked in. You might prefer one of these after becoming more acquainted with the various economic theories. The difficulty in adopting these is that it is very hard to pick an algorithm that will always adjust inflation at the right pace. I suspect we'd probably need to be able to quantify the rate of accelerating returns in world productivity better before we could come up with a good algorithm.

[Brent Allsop]

So you are claiming there is zero gold on any asteroid or any other planet, nor is there anything like rich veins of Gold deep within the earth yet to be found, and that it will be eternally absolutely impossible to find some way to synthesize Gold.... at least possibly the way the current gold that exists has been synthesized.

To say nothing of the fact that it's easy to assume that even if gold Was identically limited as with Bitcoins, with diminishing returns for the foreseeable future, given how much effort is put into mining, we have already gone way past the point where half of the Bitcoins have been mined, yet we haven't even gotten close to that, with the mining of all Gold available everywhere on Earth, as you can see from historical gold production rate graphs like the one on this page:

http://www.numbersleuth.org/worlds-gold/

Note the general recent upward tick in Gold production, certainly due to the current very high price of Gold.

Doesn't that graph still look almost identical to the exponentual progress of the economy?

Brent Allsop

[Brent Allsop]

Hi Carl,

On 5/25/2013 7:34 AM, Carl Youngblood wrote:

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Brent Allsop <brent....@canonizer.com> wrote:

And even when Bitcoins have reached this saturation point, if the economy does continue to grow exponentially, and Bitcoins stay flat, there will still be a huge increase of relative value, way beyond one satoshi being = $1.  Maybe it will no longer be 100% every two years, but it will still be something significant, like maybe 100% every 7 years, do you think?  It will certainly be proportional to the rate of expansion of the economy, which would track with the need for Bitcoins or the availability of capital to invest in Bitcoins?

The bitcoin implementation currently allows for something like 12 digits of precision but this could easily be increased indefinitely with minor adjustments to the protocol. This is not a problem at all.

8 Digits of precision, one "Satoshi" being worth 1 / 100 millionth of a Bitcoin.  As I indicated, if "the law of bitcoins" camp prediction holds, that Bitcoinds will continue their historical trend of each successive bubble increasing in value 10 times, every 2 years, 1 bitcoin will be worth 1 cent around 2018 and worth $1 around 2022.  And I indicated it won't stop there, as I agree with you that they will be able to increase the precision.  That kind of change will be easy.  But good luck with trying to increase the rate at which Bitcoins can be mined.  Even if they succeed at doing that kind of change with Bitcoin there is always the possibility that some other currency will not change, or even be more restricted than Bitcion was, befor such a change.  Capital will always tend to flow to wherever the best return on investment is, abandoning all others.

I would suggest studying bitcoin (and general economics) more before you jump to the conclusion that this will cause crashes. There are literally hundreds of years worth of theories  involved here. Wikipedia does a pretty good job of describing the basics. The Austrian school is the one that thinks gold-based economies are good. You might want to start there to get the point of view of the bitcoin creators.

I've been doing exactly this for some time, but am still not a true expert, and I am aware of other schools of thought, not just the Austrian school, that is in the camp that Gold is good currency.  I"m not denying that some still exist, all I'm saying is that these theories that Gold is good currency has recently been falsified for many people, and that the number of experts supporting this view has dramatically decreased, given recent evidence such as that coming out of Japan, due to their very successful expansion of their money supply.

As I said earlier, there are other cryptocurrencies that function just like bitcoin but instead have a steady rate of inflation baked in. You might prefer one of these after becoming more acquainted with the various economic theories. The difficulty in adopting these is that it is very hard to pick an algorithm that will always adjust inflation at the right pace. I suspect we'd probably need to be able to quantify the rate of accelerating returns in world productivity better before we could come up with a good algorithm.

Yes, I heard you say that earlier and perfectly understand this.  What I'm trying to point out is that whatever currency deflates the fastest (whether by algorithmic design, or we discover there is zero gold left after tomorow), is the one that will win, everyone abandoning all others, for the one with better return on investment.  So it would be morally good for us to be cautious with all this.  And since gold cant be lost, like Bitcoins can, I'll be selling gold and buying Bitcoins as fast as I can.

Brent Allsop

[Carl Youngblood]

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Brent Allsop <brent....@canonizer.com> wrote:

8 Digits of precision, one "Satoshi" being worth 1 / 100 millionth of a Bitcoin.  As I indicated, if "the law of bitcoins" camp prediction holds, that Bitcoinds will continue their historical trend of each successive bubble increasing in value 10 times, every 2 years, 1 bitcoin will be worth 1 cent around 2018 and worth $1 around 2022.  And I indicated it won't stop there, as I agree with you that they will be able to increase the precision.  That kind of change will be easy.  But good luck with trying to increase the rate at which Bitcoins can be mined.  Even if they succeed at doing that kind of change with Bitcoin there is always the possibility that some other currency will not change, or even be more restricted than Bitcion was, befor such a change.  Capital will always tend to flow to wherever the best return on investment is, abandoning all others.

Your reasoning here doesn't make sense. Of course the bitcoin mining rate is designed NOT to be changed, which we all already agree on. Where your logic fails is in how you seem to think that this supposed flaw in bitcoin will cause it to inevitable take down the economy. This doesn't make sense to me because if bitcoin is an ineffective economic instrument then it won't be adopted. On the other hand, if it is an effective instrument, then it won't lead to the dangers you worry about. You act like we will inevitably be led to our doom by bitcoin. That just doesn't make sense. We won't destroy ourselves against our will.

I've been doing exactly this for some time, but am still not a true expert, and I am aware of other schools of thought, not just the Austrian school, that is in the camp that Gold is good currency.  I"m not denying that some still exist, all I'm saying is that these theories that Gold is good currency has recently been falsified for many people, and that the number of experts supporting this view has dramatically decreased, given recent evidence such as that coming out of Japan, due to their very successful expansion of their money supply.

I totally agree with you. I'm not saying the Austrian school is right. They're pretty much not taken seriously by academics today because they are mostly ideologically based and don't seem that interested in scientific research. But I also think that there is more value to a gold-like currency than the modern economists acknowledge and that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. It might not be practical for every purpose, but as a hedge against inflation it is very useful. It might just be a currency to keep one's savings in. Even if that's all it ends up being, it could still be pretty useful.

with all this.  And since gold cant be lost, like Bitcoins can, I'll be selling gold and buying Bitcoins as fast as I can.

Of course gold can be lost. Just chuck a gold coin into the ocean from a cruise ship and good luck trying to find it. 

[Carl Youngblood]

I did not mean to imply that gold only exists on the earth, but for so long as we're confined to mining it on earth it is a finite quantity. And I suspect that as soon as gold asteroids are mined it will cease to be meaningful as a currency because it will be so abundant that the gold market will crash, along with every other precious metal. So there are constraints to my claim but if you look at bitcoin from our present paradigm it is extremely like gold.

[Christian Schumann-Curtis]

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Gordon <gts_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

That is one of the beauties of Bitcoin. Scarcity is built into the system. Think of it as a precious metal in this respect

Those are some primary reasons why Bitcoin is unattractive. The more I've interacted with this group the more I've seen compelling arguments against scarcity.  The behavior of financial markets under commodities-based systems, such as the gold standard, was excessively erratic. The idea that any commodities-based currency would protect against inflation or deflation seems to fly in the face of the historical evidence.

But Bitcoin isn't based on a tangible commodity, it's based on a virtual commodity... and sure there are advantages and disadvantages to how that's been designed.  But it seems to combine some rather unflattering characteristics of both a fiat-currency and a commodities-based currency. I appreciate the experiment that Bitcoin is running.  I like that it's exploring some radical approaches to a currency-based system.  But it still seems more like an exercise in exploring the limits of a currency-based system rather than investigating how to move beyond currency entirely.  

It's not clear that a currency that escapes the clutches of a central bank would be more attractive than one that enjoys a central bank's protections.  As evil as The Federal Reserve is often portrayed, it has, nevertheless, built and maintained the most powerful and stable fiat currency in human history. I don't doubt that a better system is possible and desired.  Bitcoin doesn't seem to be the answer, just a different face to the same set of problems.

--

Christian Schumann-Curtis

chri...@blueskygis.com

www.blueskygis.com

http://www.linkedin.com/in/christiansc

503.774.3568

[Brent Allsop]

Hi Carl,

On 5/27/2013 3:46 PM, Carl Youngblood wrote:
> You act like we will inevitably be led to our doom by bitcoin. That
> just doesn't make sense. We won't destroy ourselves against our will.

As I attempted to say in an earlier post, you have convinced me that we
will NOT be catastrophically led to our doom, as I was initially
thinking. I'm sure we'll find some way to make it work, even if we do
just end up settling for stuff like the average P/E in the stock market
changing from a long time average of 20, to something significantly
lower, to motivate more people to choose it over a significantly
deflating Bitcoin, and stuff like that, and all the other implications
of a market where capital is more expensive, which it will likely be if
there is any kind of currency, anywhere, that is rapidly deflating, or
not expanding to keep up with exponential growth. And for those that
think the world would be a better place, where capital is cheaper, are
there any possible solutions to such, when there are things like can't
expand Bitcoins?

Brent

[Carl Youngblood]

Christian, I actually agree with you. I'm just saying there are those who think otherwise. I think the evidence is against Austrian theory rather than for it.

--

[Christian Schumann-Curtis]

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Carl Youngblood <ca...@youngbloods.org> wrote:

I think the evidence is against Austrian theory rather than for it.

It's one of the things that I've found perplexing: Proponents of the Austrian School of economics tend to lionize the power of competition and markets.... and yet in the marketplace of ideas the Austrian School has not been a strong competitor... which is often chalked up as being the result of various conspiracy theories rather than the inadequacies of the Austrian School itself.  Go fig. 

--
Have fun.

Christian Schumann-Curtis

cucu...@gmail.com

www.blueskygis.com

http://www.linkedin.com/in/christiansc

503.774.3568

[David Hamilton]

If you dont see austrian economic policy fanboy postings daily online (some by me) you are blind, or spend more time with your kids than arguing with people online. In academic circles I'm sure its different.

--

[David Hamilton]

I mean Cato Institute anyone?

[Christian Schumann-Curtis]

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Hamilton <swimqu...@gmail.com> wrote:

If you dont see austrian economic policy fanboy postings daily online (some by me) you are blind,

I know there's lots of fans out there, but that doesn't mean it's out-competing other economic schools.  The Cubs have lots of fans.  That doesn't mean they're winning.  And, far more importantly, when it comes to putting the economic theories into practice and living by them, Austrian School doesn't appear to have even arrived on the field. 

 

In academic circles I'm sure its different

...also where actual economists play Austrian School never got off the ground.  Indeed there's more academics willing to talk Austrian school than there are economists/marketplaces/financiers/etc.  interested in practicing it. 

What's your favorite Austrian School success story where it has been put in practice somewhere where people are actually living it? 

[David Hamilton]

Bitcoin?

--

[David Hamilton]

Oh actually living it, well I live online so I am still going to go with that.

[James Carroll]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Carl Youngblood <ca...@youngbloods.org> wrote:

Your reasoning here doesn't make sense. Of course the bitcoin mining rate is designed NOT to be changed, which we all already agree on. Where your logic fails is in how you seem to think that this supposed flaw in bitcoin will cause it to inevitable take down the economy. This doesn't make sense to me because if bitcoin is an ineffective economic instrument then it won't be adopted. On the other hand, if it is an effective instrument, then it won't lead to the dangers you worry about. You act like we will inevitably be led to our doom by bitcoin. That just doesn't make sense. We won't destroy ourselves against our will.

If I may, I would like to take a tangent from the current discussion, and say that this reasoning (in general cases) assumes rational actors in the market, and may not be accurate, as booms and busts themselves clearly indicate. 

James

--
Web: http://james.jlcarroll.net

[Carl Youngblood]

I think that there is a difference between having booms and busts and a complete collapse of our economic system. I was talking about something more catastrophic. I was just saying that either bitcoins won't work well and won't be widely adopted or they will be useful in some way, not talking in absolutes or superlatives.

--

[Brent Allsop]

Hi James,

Yes, very interesting "Tangent".  I think I hear you saying that people will not act rationally, or at least for the good of the economy, yet they will act selfishly, investing in Bitcoins, endlessly, as long as they are hyperdeflating, over things like the Stock Market?  And that while this would likely not be "catastrophic" it could things like significantly increasing the cost of capital, slowing the economy and society down?

Brent Allsop

[James Carroll]

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Brent Allsop <brent....@canonizer.com> wrote:

Hi James,

Yes, very interesting "Tangent".  I think I hear you saying that people will not act rationally, or at least for the good of the economy, yet they will act selfishly, investing in Bitcoins, endlessly, as long as they are hyperdeflating, over things like the Stock Market?  And that while this would likely not be "catastrophic" it could things like significantly increasing the cost of capital, slowing the economy and society down?

I didn't make any specific claim here about bitcoins, I just disagree with Carl that people won't do things that could utterly destroy our markets. I think that bubbles indicate that people are irrational, and jump on the bandwagon when things look good, and all pile off when things look bad, and I see no reason that this instability couldn't bring the entire thing crashing down through irrational behavior of people in markets. IF people acted rationally, markets would be largely stable and self correcting. But we don't. 

James

--
Web: http://james.jlcarroll.net

[Carl Youngblood]

James, all I'm saying is that I don't think bitcoin will cause the human race to go extinct against our wills. Anything more than this is beyond my claim. If you do think that bitcoin will probably cause the human race to go ex​tinct, then you disagree with me. Otherwise I think we agree.

[James Carroll]

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Carl Youngblood <ca...@youngbloods.org> wrote:

James, all I'm saying is that I don't think bitcoin will cause the human race to go extinct against our wills. Anything more than this is beyond my claim. If you do think that bitcoin will probably cause the human race to go extinct, then you disagree with me. Otherwise I think we agree.

I think we generally agree that bitcoin is unlikely to have that effect. I simply took slight issue with your stated reasoning for why. But I think we agree in general. 

James

--
Web: http://james.jlcarroll.net

[Brent Allsop]

Future Theoreticians,

Multiple thoughts have been percolating in my mind that has further falsified my fears of a Bitcoin Deflationary Catastrophe.  Help me see if I'm making any mistakes with this line of reasoning.

Currently, economies have a general instability in them, causing destructive boom and bust cycles.  During the boom, everyone is spending all their cash, to get into the stock market.  This tends to cause currency to become worth less, or inflation, since everybody is getting rid of it, to purchase stocks.  But when the herd goes to far in this direction it creates a bubble.  When a pull back starts the 'bubble' pops.  This is compounded as people want to sell stocks (or not buy them), but instead put the capital into something like Cash. reversing everything in a compounding the problem unstable way.

All this causes people to reduce spending and investing, which causes jobs to be lost, real estate values, where most wealth is, crash, the stock market crashes, and governments attempt to counteract this cycle buy pumping more money into the system.  They attempt to stop the deflation, and further drive down interest rates, hoping to motivate people to move money back into the stock market and real estate.

What scared me was thinking of a fixed size inflexible currency, like Bitcion, if it was prevalent enough, it would really compound these unstable cycles.  I believe when the next recession hits, it will really drive up Bitcion valuations, and no government will be able to counteract this flow of capital out of everything else into rapidly increasing in value Bitcoins.

But what I realized was that this would make at least some people significantly more wealthy, and make them want to spend that much more money.  In other words, instead of the government being the only one spending and putting people to work, Bitcion holders would likely fill this responsibility.

The one problem would be, like most things, it makes the rich or those holding the most Bitcoins richer, making everyone else poorer.  Where as governments tend to spend money to help the poor, the rich would spend money on what they want, helping the poor the way they wanted, after funding themselves.

Also, when the rich really do get richer, eventually the people at the bottom, revolt, taking all the wealth away from the wealthy, as has occurred in so many revolutions in the past.  But Bitcoins would make this impossible.  As no government can steal a Bitcion from anyone, like they can a factory or farm.

So, what does everyone think?  Would Bitcion becoming the dominant currency increase or decrease boom bust cycles in the economy, and by how much?

Brent Allsop

[sparr...@gmail.com]

Alright, I'm late to the party, but being a fan of Bitcoin I have a few things to add.

Bitcoin will settle down as they are disseminated more widely.  The market suffers when the assets are held in few hands, because it's easier for it to flow one way or the other - and thus easier for the value to shift quickly.  The recent booms and busts are drastically less pronounced than they used to be.  I hope this is a trend that continues, because it will encourage the use of bitcoins as a payment method instead of just a store of value that is likely to give good returns - and BTC as a payment method is, in my opinion, the best use of bitcoins.  Having a single authority for online payments (see: Paypal) is counter-productive, as the opportunity for the authority to exploit its position increases with the number of people using it.

Paypal is already practically a card-carrying villain if you happen to be in the business of selling things.  It's far too easy to get bit by them, and the response is usually a shrug followed by a "We already have all your money" and "Who else are you going to go with?"  Frankly, anything that can take them, and their ilk, down a couple pegs, is alright by me.

The thing people keep failing to realize is that the creation of Bitcoins is the creation of a commodity, not a Ponzi scheme.  It's only an investment in the sense that you are buying something that may increase in value in the future; it is in no way guaranteed, and the boom-and-busts are proof of that to anyone with a pair of eyes.  If you go into it expecting to see nothing but a climb in value, you're exceptionally naive.  I hope we'll see $1K/BTC in the future, but I'll admit that's just a wish born of greed.  In reality, the only way that's going to happen is if people *use* bitcoins.  With a Ponzi scheme, you're being told up-front that you should expect X amount of return.  On top of that, the only use of a Ponzi is to get money back.  That is far from the only use for bitcoins.

I'll reiterate: I only care about Bitcoins climbing in price because I happen to have a few.  Wholly separate from that is the hope that Bitcoins are USED, and used WIDELY, because I see them as a superior method of online payment.

[Brent Allsop]

Not just Paypal.  Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover, all near $100 billion capitalization companies, all built on their ability to muscle their way into steeling 3% of every effing transaction in the world.

Making money by shorting MasterCard International because of Bitcoin?

Priceless!

So, what's your current thinking about what a Bisection will be worth in 1 year, and long term.  How high could they go?  Anywhere near 1 Satoshi = $1?  At that value all of them would start to be close to all the real estate in all the world, at today's prices.

Brent Allsop

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfigurism.

[Brent Allsop]

Hi Micro,

Did you intend on having an attachment or link with this that had your
chart? I'd sure like to see that as we're working on the same thing for
the "Canonized Crypto Coin Law" camp here:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/154/2

We're working on a new version of the statement that will include a
graph from MtGox's significant growth historical data and projecting
this into the future according to expert consensus and something like
Polynomial Curve Fitting.

Josh Seims (CCed), the author of this great Tech Crunch Bitcoin
valuation article has been helping.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/02/calculating-the-long-term-value-of-a-bitcoin/

Josh, Notice that Per your great suggestion, I've changed the name of
the survey project to "Crypto Coin Survey Project".

I've included the orders of magnatude growth dates in the history
(noting each of the 7 times a coin has increased in value by 10 times,
and how long it took) and some other notes about "Polynomial curve
fitting" and so on in the new Google doc working version of the new camp
statement that anyone can help to edit in a wiki way so anyone
interested in helping can earn shares in Canonizer.com:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ocUpwBIy-OI2YYYMSKs6nucF5aqa7_syAGxEl93GSgU/edit?usp=sharing

In particular, is anyone good at mathematical graphing artwork? Is there
a good online graphing tool that would help? Would you be willing to
get a graph started for us to add this kind of data into a chart we can
add into camp statement? We want a graph that can be easily modified as
ever more growth data is included, able to convert ever more people to
this "Canonized Crypto Coin Law" camp. Anyone that spends time on such
can send info about this so we can get you're contribution shares
recognized.

Also, Micro, I've started a 'peer ranking' camp to determine who the
best Crypto Coin experts are, so in a year or two we can measure who are
the best Bitcoin Future Value Predictors and use them for better
quantitative predictions about Bitcoins Future valuations.

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/151/1

Micro, or anyone, would you care to provide some kind of a bio, or
statement so we can get a camp started for you to get everyone's peer
ranked historical accuracy reputation started? Should soon make a great
addition to a resume!

If anyone else knows or or sees any other good quality articles or
information about future Bitcoin valuations, I hope you'll point such
out to us!

Upwards,

Brent Allsop


On 6/20/2013 3:27 AM, Mirco Romanato wrote:

> Il 20/06/2013 05:47, Brent Allsop ha scritto:
>>
>> Not just Paypal. Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover, all near $100
>> billion capitalization companies, all built on their ability to muscle
>> their way into steeling 3% of every effing transaction in the world.
>>
>> Making money by shorting MasterCard International because of Bitcoin?
>>
>> Priceless!
>>
>> So, what's your current thinking about what a Bisection will be worth in
>> 1 year, and long term. How high could they go? Anywhere near 1 Satoshi
>> = $1? At that value all of them would start to be close to all the real
>> estate in all the world, at today's prices.

> Not just them, near all the banking sector is about payments: receiving
> and sending payments.
>
> With bitcoin they are made obsolete.
>
> This is a chart from, bitcointalk:
>
> The first half is mine (using Bitcoincharts), the second part is the
> projected exponential trend (on a log scale)
>
> "the lowest line bring us to 10K in April 2016, 100K in May 2017 and 1
> M$ in July 2017.
> The "median" line to 10K in June 2016 and 100K in July 2017 and 1 M in
> August 2017"
>
> Mirco