Quote from: antikvark on November 28, 2019, 10:34:28 AM

Imagine that Motorola - the first company which manufactured a truly wireless communication device in 1983, designed its production system so that it can produce only 10,000 mobile phones a year. Now, does that mean these phones would have been more scarce every single day because the population is almost required to increase its demand? And would that mean the price of Motorola phones will rise to $1,000,000? No. Why? Because people will simply associate and produce their own wireless communication devices, as these devices are just chips, resistors, transistors, capacitors, inductors, and diodes joined together the right way. And it s not only Motorola that is capable to put electronic components together.

In the same sense, bitcoin is just numbers associated to addresses. These numbers are transferred through the network from one address to another via some protocol. And it is not only Satoshi Nakamoto who is capable to design such paying system. This system is not Michelangelo's Pietà or Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa. It is just numbers, addresses, database, and protocols. Everybody is capable to create that. So, no rational reason exists for bitcoin to cost 1,000,000 dollars. There is no reason for people to enter into fast, transparent and cheap payment system for $1,000,000, or even $10, if they can enter it for $0.001(altcoins) or if they can associate and design their own crypto payment system.

Bitcoin is simply a mega-bubble that diminished people's ability to think rationally. Bitcoin can only go down to the price of an average coin. Just like Motorola's phones have prices of average phones.

Edit:

I see a lot of responders saying I cannot compare Motorola as a company with Bitcoin. Well, I am not comparing the two. I am comparing limited supply of phones and coins by using an argument from analogy. This argument does not assert that the two things are identical, only that they are similar. The structure or form of this argument may be generalized like so:

P and Q are similar in respect to property x.
P has been observed to have further property y.
Therefore, Q has property y also.

In my example I assumed limited supply of Motorola cellular phones. Meaning, Motorola phones(P) and Bitcoin(Q) are similar in respect to limited supply(x). Then I made the second premise: limited supply of Motorola phones wouldn't lead to drastic price growth because people would simply produce their own cellular phones - they would simply produce their own wireless communication devices(y). And then the conclusion followed: limited supply of Bitcoin won't lead to drastic price growth because people will simply produce their own coins - they will simply design their own crypto payment systems (y).

And this is exactly what is happening with the inflation of altcoins - people are designing their own crypto payment systems. Simply, there is no rational reason for people to enter into fast, transparent and cheap payment system(Bitcoin) for $7K, or even for $10, if they can enter such system for $0.001(altcoins) or if they can design their own systems.

That is also the reason why Bitcoin is a mega-bubble and can only go down to the price of an average coin, and not up to the moon.

This is the most stupid argument ever about Bitcoin. You can produce as many phones as you want.

Bitcoin is unique and it only allows humans to produce only 21 million ever.

This guy is just nonsense