All the $billionaires and $trillionaires will be doing their settlement in BTC.
It will be $500,000 per BTC.
That is obvious.
Of course not. People are maybe buying bitcoin at $1000 because they think it may go up to, say, $10 000,-. But who is going to buy a bitcoin at $500 000,- ? You're not expecting it to reach $5 000 000,- do you ? So if you buy at $500 000,- you must be buying near the all-time high for ever. Who's going to do so ? So bitcoin will still grow a while, until buyers realize that there's more downside than upside, not only in the short term, but also in the long term. And then, the greater-fool game stops. And we get the supernova, or the slow deflation of the bubble. I have no idea if it will be in 5 years, 15 years, or 30 years.
It isn't intended to be used by the masses. It is intended to be used by the $billionaires and they have the most wealth.
So those billionaires are going to put their fortunes in some funny crypto thing running by a few Chinese maffioso instead of owning companies, real estate, intellectual property and much more ? Wake up. Yes, sleazy business will. Porn, hookers, drugs, gambling, arms deals, espionage, hackers, tax evaders and so on will. But not really big billionaires. They buy state power, not bitcoins.
Because you don't understand money and what time it is. You don't even understand that your own EU is collapsing into abject totalitarianism.
Stating that I don't understand something is not an argument, I already told you.
Like all crypto. People will never pay their groceries with crypto. Forget that. Fiat systems will remain in place as long as humanity is still in command and states exist.
Correct. But entirely irrelevant to what we are discussing. That you don't realize it is irrelevant is indicative of why you are blind to the reality of what is going on.
The value of money, ultimately comes from what you can buy with it, or rather the belief of what you can buy with it.
is that I have good reasons to think that bitcoin's design has too many clunky crypto design features to be the product of a mind like Nash.
You've been refuted upthread but you continue to repeat your errors instead of studying what I taught you and contemplating more deeply on the permutations of what I taught you.
No, you didn't. You gave some arguments that I debunked, and then you only repeated that I was wrong, or that I didn't understand, or that I was suffering from cognitive dissonance, but these are not arguments that demonstrate anything.
The points I made about the technical clunkiness not only stand, you haven't even been able to find a single argument against it. Bitcoin's crypto is working, but clunky, inconsistently designed with wasteful applications of inappropriate cryptographic primitives. That doesn't stop it from working, but it illustrates the ineptness of the designer of the system. And no, I don't buy the arguments that:
1) it is truly genial, so genial that we don't understand it but it must be genial because it was designed by a genius, and if we think it is clunky, that's because we aren't smart enough (circular proof of genius)
2) it is indeed clunky, but on purpose, only to mislead you to make you not see the design was done by a real genius (unfalsifiable argument: if it was brilliant, it was a genius, and if it was clunky, a genius wanted to make you think he wasn't a genius)
These two logical errors won't convince me.
But it could be ; but as, moreover, Bitcoin's monetary philosophy is ALSO not in agreement with Nash ideal money,
I refuted that a few moments earlier upthread. You have so many errors.
Nope. I argued why. Your argument contains a contradiction, namely the impossibility to keep at the same time a pre-announced numerical debasement scheme, and a constant market value. I indicated that you misunderstood the notion of non-manipulable debasement, not as meaning a pre-announced *numerical* emission scheme, but a pre-announced emission scheme with a value target (for instance, constant small inflation, or constant value), the only way to avoid the contradiction.
Where I don't agree with you is that bitcoin is designed by the "global elite" because apart from a gambler's token, it is not going to go anywhere that can interest the "global elite".
You have entirely ignored everything. Amazing. It is like you have selective reading comprehension. You are clearly in a massive state of cognitive dissonance.
I already told you that I think it is you who are suffering from that, simply because you are too much invested in that view, without which most of what you do would run the risk to be reduced to something of lesser importance than you are willing to conceive.
I'm not designing something that has to stop the evil future masters of the world (bitcoin), and I'm not the one wanting to change the world. You need bitcoin to be designed by an evil genius, in the hands of the world elite, with a mega evil master plan that you can outplay in order for your work to be of the importance you want it to be. So you need bitcoin to be the evil future domination after fiat finance has collapsed, at the right time scale so that your design has had the time to have overcome that devil's plan. I don't. I couldn't care less. I simply don't care about the world, and yes, one day I will be "slaughtered" and I couldn't care less, either. That's part of life.
As such, the probability that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance is quite higher than the probability that it is me. I am not invested into this. I'm just putting elements on the table. Yes, it might very well be that Nash was an evil genius working for the Rothschilds when he was 80 years old, has denied all his theories about money to build them a currency with which they would rule the world, has made a cryptographic design that violates about every rule of good design (because he wanted to convince knowledgeable people that he was clumsy and was at the same time far ahead of most cryptographers of his time, so that they don't even realize it), announced future visions of his decentralized oligarchic money that would take over VISA, and then killed it by introducing a 1 MB block limit, is going to use 10% of the world's electricity to use a stupid security mechanism PoW, and...
has enabled you to be the hero that will save the world by outsmarting that mathematical and economical genius, John Forbes Nash, and building a system that will kill his devil's machine.
Maybe. I just bring in elements that make me believe that such is not the case, but if it is the case, I don't care: you will save us and bitcoin is done anyway. I'll pay you a beer if you were right (and I won't pay it in bitcoin) in 2025 and if both of us are still alive.
But you see that your stake in this is way way higher than mine. This is why I think that I can be more open-minded about these things that you are. I'm not saying that I know better. But the fact that you reply with judgements of my sayings, person and intelligence, rather than with rational arguments, which is the only reason I'm here, makes me think that if one of us is emotionally attached to a position, it is you rather than me.
And if it were, against all odds, designed by the global elite, it is a failure in any case. Don't stare yourself blind on the "market cap" of bitcoin: that's nothing else but one big huge speculative bubble, driven by greater-fool games.
No man.
Most BTC is hodling. MAJOR MISTAKE IN ANALYSIS!!
That is exactly the same analysis. The only reason people hodl, is because they wait for greater fools. Hodling stuff doesn't give it economic value, because no value is created by doing so. This is also exactly the reason why bitcoin's market cap is fake if you see it as an illustration of the total amount of value stored in it. The day the bubble bursts, this deflates to almost zero.
The economic value of bitcoin (the value creation it allows over its competition: fiat, in economic activity) is most probably 100 times smaller,
OMG you are really blind.
--> this is not a rational argument.