Bitcoin - Currency of the future?

Brief introduction (Yes, this is brief)

Bitcoin is a decentralized currency running on open-source software the relies on cryptography and is supported by a large peer-to-peer network. It was released in early 2009 by a developer under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. Owning a "bitcoin" is simpy having possession of a cryptographic key in a wallet file. The key gives you the ability to send your bitcoins to anyone in the world almost instantly for free (a miniscule fee may be voluntarily added to speed up the transaction.) All transactions are stored on a single "block chain" that is constantly updated and peer-reviewed by the peer-to-peer network. Once added to the block, transactions are permanent and may not be charged back. With every added "block" of transactions, a lucky "miner" (person with dedicated hardware supporting the peer-to-peer network) is awarded newly-minted bitcoins. A block is generated approximately every 10 minutes and currently adds 25 bitcoins into circulation. The rate is halved every four years, and began at 50 in 2009. Circulation of bitcoins will reach an upward bound of 21,000,000 that shall not be exceeded. With global concerns over the value of such fiat currencies as the euro and the US dollar, many are clinging to bitcoins as a safe store of value in a similar manner as gold and silver.[/size]


Further reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin
https://www.weusecoins.com/
http://bitcoincharts.com/
http://bitcoin.org/en/
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page


Debate points

• Does bitcoin have the potential to become a globally recognized and accepted currency?
  
• Is the current price spike (about +570% since Jan. 1) a temporary bubble, or is the speculation justified and long-term?
  
• Is the peer-to-peer network stable enough to thwart malicious attacks?
  
• Can the network scale to transaction rates similar to those seen by Visa?
  
• Could Bitcoin make Runescape real-world-trading much easier by removing the factor of charge-backs?

Alright, I'll start up the conversation.

I would say that bitcoins do have the potential to dominate as a currency in the future. This is because the peer-to-peer network is designed to be secure enough to prevent malicious attacks, the network can scale up to support mass usage, and the protocol for making transactions provides modern benefits that cannot be sustained in any other system.

The bitcoin peer-to-peer system is hypothetically vulnerable to attacks by massively strong computers or entire networks. However, given its truly democratic (in the sense of 1 hashrate = 1 vote) nature, it would require a malicious network to have more computing power than the entire good-willed network. This has yet to occur, and the benevolent network will continue to increase in strength as Bitcoin continues to scale up. The combined hashrate is already fluctuating at around 70,000 GH/s.

Right now, the bitcoin network is artificially held at a limit of 7 transactions per second (tps) but this limit can and will be lifted once the peer-to-peer network agrees that it is necessary. VISA handles an average of 2,000 tps, but Bitcoin can handle more tps as the peer-to-peer network grows to match the growth in Bictoin's usage.

Most importantly, Bitcoin is needed as the global economy modernizes. Nations in Europe have already demonstrated the need to standardize currency with the implementation of the euro. The problem with such currencies as the euro and the US dollar, however, is their reliance on centralized power. As the US government continues to overspend, it is relying partially on the printing of currency to cause inflation that will lower the actual value of its debt. With Bitcoin, no centralized body must be trusted with the issuance and control of currency. Bitcoin has a set circulation rate that cannot be changed. Furthermore, making transactions with Bitcoin is easy, safe, and optionally anonymous. Currently, the anonymity is leading to its usage in black markets such as the Silk Road. Due to the permanence of a transaction, it can be a valuable tool in trading online currencies such as Runescape gp. In the future, mobile Bitcoin wallets may replace credit cards at the gas pump and grocery checkout line.

I do, however, believe that the current spike in the price of a bitcoin is caused almost entirely by hype. Rather than gaining value as it becomes accepted by more merchants, it is gaining value as investors speculate its potential. Headlines such as the Cyprus "tax" have piqued the interest of hoarders that want to get in before it's too late. These investors do not use the bitcoins to conduct business. Rather, they store it like gold as a hedge against the inflation of fiat currencies. This only further contributes to the exponential rise in the price of a bitcoin. I expect this bubble to eventually pop. It should then find a lower boundary from which it will then rebound gradually to appropriately match its increased usage.

This currency might have some potential, but will not be recognized on a global level, especially by governments. Majority of the governments in the world prefer to have the power to generate their own currency. And since this is virtual currency, it can be generated much quickly and isn't in anyway regulated by any sort of responsible/recognised group. Although you can say banks generate their own type of currency in the form of credit, there is only a limit to that credit, because you will eventually get a amount so large in credit that physical currency cannot compensate for it. Same applies to this, also, you wouldn't need a supercomputer to hack into the network, all it takes is a group of hackers to attack a network, and, generate bogus currency once they get in. Overall, I don't think this will get so large into the global level at all.

Drakan wrote:This currency might have some potential, but will not be recognized on a global level, especially by governments. Majority of the governments in the world prefer to have the power to generate their own currency. And since this is virtual currency, it can be generated much quickly and isn't in anyway regulated by any sort of responsible/recognised group. Although you can say banks generate their own type of currency in the form of credit, there is only a limit to that credit, because you will eventually get a amount so large in credit that physical currency cannot compensate for it. Same applies to this, also, you wouldn't need a supercomputer to hack into the network, all it takes is a group of hackers to attack a network, and, generate bogus currency once they get in. Overall, I don't think this will get so large into the global level at all.

The software behind Bitcoin is hard to wrap your head around at first, so I won't blame you for not understanding it yet. You said that it "isn't in anyway regulated by any sort of responsible/recognised group." However, that is the complete opposite of the truth and one of the major points backing Bitcoin.

The distribution of new bitcoins isn't regulated by a centralized group, fair enough. It's predetermined by math that cannot be changed. As we all know, math is infinitely more reliable than government. I can name numerous governments that inflated their currency into oblivion. Trying to find a case where 1+1 does not equal 2, however, is quite the challenge.

Bitcoins are currently distributed at an approximate rate of 25 bitcoins per 10 minutes, and this rate is halved every 4 years. The limit will be 21,000,000 and shall be reached around the year 2050. Here is the graph:



You were also incorrect with your analysis of the network's vulnerability to hackers.

People have already set up massive botnets to "mine" (be part of the peer-to-peer network and earn bitcoins) but have never come close to getting the 51% majority needed to sway the record of transactions. As the benevolent members of the network continue to grow, it will require even more power to attack the block chain.

Let's pretend somebody could accomplish this. What would they do? There would be nothing to gain from disrupting the network. This would only prompt the benevolent Bitcoin members to rollback the block chain, decide how to patch the situation, and resume operation. If somebody could afford the computing power to accomplish it, they would be able to make a profit only by benevolently participating in the peer-to-peer network. The reward for solving 51%+ of the new blocks would generate vast revenue. The majority would not last long, however, as the other members of the community would see the threat of your majority and rise to overcome it.

Let's take a look at the network's hashrate, which is directly related to the network's strength and difficulty to overcome:

So we are assuming that we need computers and internet to be connected? If so then this system would work for about 1/3 of the world- Modern developed countries.


*What about third world countries?
*Millions of people that don't have access to anything to that developed countries have?
*Can it support the interconnection of globalization and the mass amounts of people in the world today?
*What is the backup plan if this crashes? Example paper money?

Medo wrote:*What about third world countries?

Third world countries are already highly neglected in the global economy. Using a more efficient currency would contribute to a more efficient economy in the first-world countries. This would produce more funds for philanthropy to bring modern technology to third world countries.

Medo wrote:*Millions of people that don't have access to anything to that developed countries have?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, or how it relates to Bitcoin.

Medo wrote:*Can it support the interconnection of globalization and the mass amounts of people in the world today?

Yes. Bitcoin is fully capable of scaling up to accommodate high transaction traffic.

*What is the backup plan if this crashes? Example paper money?

The beauty of Bitcoin is that it is decentralized. There is no single server that can crash, the network runs on hundreds of thousands of computers. It would require the crashing of the entire Internet to crash Bitcoin. If the Internet crashes in its entirety, we have much more to worry about than making transactions. And let's assume the Internet did magically crash... The block chain would still be stored on everyone's hard drive. As soon as the internet is magically back up, the network resumes where it left off.

db wrote:

Medo wrote:*What about third world countries?

Third world countries are already highly neglected in the global economy. Using a more efficient currency would contribute to a more efficient economy in the first-world countries. This would produce more funds for philanthropy to bring modern technology to third world countries.

Medo wrote:*Millions of people that don't have access to anything to that developed countries have?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, or how it relates to Bitcoin.

Medo wrote:*Can it support the interconnection of globalization and the mass amounts of people in the world today?

Yes. Bitcoin is fully capable of scaling up to accommodate high transaction traffic.

*What is the backup plan if this crashes? Example paper money?

The beauty of Bitcoin is that it is decentralized. There is no single server that can crash, the network runs on hundreds of thousands of computers. It would require the crashing of the entire Internet to crash Bitcoin. If the Internet crashes in its entirety, we have much more to worry about than making transactions. And let's assume the Internet did magically crash... The block chain would still be stored on everyone's hard drive. As soon as the internet is magically back up, the network resumes where it left off.

What I mean by that is, that most people don't even have access to clean water or food..... so computers and internet are a luxury that is out of reach for now.... So I am not understanding how Bitcoin can help that.

Modern technology and philanthropy is already in the third-world countries, it is just that the system is doomed to fail... so a new money system is the last thing underdeveloped countries are looking for.

What is the actual value behind Bitcoin? Is it still gold? If not gold what else?


PS I am like the idea a lot!

Medo wrote:What I mean by that is, that most people don't even have access to clean water or food..... so computers and internet are a luxury that is out of reach for now.... So I am not understanding how Bitcoin can help that.

Modern technology and philanthropy is already in the third-world countries, it is just that the system is doomed to fail... so a new money system is the last thing underdeveloped countries are looking for.

Bitcoin would not directly help those in third-world countries without access to the Internet. However, I do not see how it would harm them in any unusual way either.

I do think that the status in many third-world countries is absolutely tragic, but I also think the solution is to improve the global economy. If Bitcoins can save the world X amount of "dollars" (bitcoins, if you will) each year by cutting transaction costs and time, then that saved money would in part be given to third-world countries by way of philanthropy and in part would be spent on investments back into the economy. Those investments would lead to greater production and cheaper access to products such as food, computers, and medicine. The cheaper we can get these products, the more readily available they will be to third-world countries.

Medo wrote:What is the actual value behind Bitcoin? Is it still gold? If not gold what else?

Bitcoin is backed by no physical material. Much like the vast majority of currencies today, it simply has the value that people believe it has. The value is intrinsic. What's different is that bitcoins and the circulation of them are a truly democratic system (in a way) with no centralized power. No single group of people (*cough* government *cough*) can choose to increase the circulation of bitcoins. The circulation is predetermined in the open-source code of Bitcoin.

Currently, a bitcoin is worth about $101. With about 11.0 million bitcoins in circulation, this gives them a present market cap of about $1.11 billion USD. Looking at the full historic price graph, Bitcoin's mention in the news at certain times, and the actual number of merchants using bitcoins, I personally conclude that its valuation is presently in a speculative bubble. While I do believe that bitcoins will be worth well over $100/bitcoin if and when they truly catch on, I think this current bubble is ready to pop.
http://bitcoincharts.com/
http://blockchain.info/charts/total-bitcoins

Medo wrote:PS I am like the idea a lot!

That's great

"open-source code of Bitcoin"- is that capitalism?

1. Third-world and global economy is my field of study, with that said Bitcoin can not support underdeveloped countries. It might be able to help in the long-run in theory, but we don't have enough data about Bitcoin to make such an assumption. So we will have the same problems with Bitcoin as we have today- a very unequal distribution of wealth, knowledge, and of course basic human needs.


2. "Much like the vast majority of currencies today, it simply has the value that people believe it has." Our currencies are back up by physical gold. The reason why the markets crashed was due to inflation, bad policies, and people just said that it has more value then gold we had. How do we determine the value from country to country? Would everyone be the same, or will "more powerful countries" have higher value of Bitcoins.
With that said- Will Bitcoins have anything to do with GDP or GNI? What would happen to the WTO's and IMFs? What will happen to the current global and national debt? If one country adopts Bitcoins and another does not, can they still trade?


Overall, I like the concept of Bitcoins, however I am not understanding how Bitcoins would change the world for the better with a few things stated above. Basically globalization makes Bitcoins almost impossible to work. If I explained to you why and how, I would take a few weeks .

Medo wrote:"open-source code of Bitcoin"- is that capitalism?

I am an anarcho-capitalist and I believe very strongly in free market economics. That does not prohibit open-source from existing. If a person wishes to voluntarily donate code to the world, that is perfectly awesome. I am also completely opposed to intellectual property rights but that's another story.

Medo wrote:Our currencies are back up by physical gold.

No major currency is completely if at all backed by gold. Please give me a single example. The euro is not. In 1933, Roosevelt made it illegal to own gold and in 1971 Nixon completely removed the gold standard that had previously backed the US dollar with gold.

could easily be the currency of the future, i'm mining some as i type this. it has everything a stable currency has, except people contribute to the minting of the coins. as it goes on in production the difficulty goes up which will make it rarer and rarer, if you lose coins they're gone permanently. i'd switch to this system without hesitation, i like it.

attk master wrote:could easily be the currency of the future, i'm mining some as i type this. it has everything a stable currency has, except people contribute to the minting of the coins. as it goes on in production the difficulty goes up which will make it rarer and rarer, if you lose coins they're gone permanently. i'd switch to this system without hesitation, i like it.

That's awesome. What do you mine with, and is it efficient?

db wrote:

attk master wrote:could easily be the currency of the future, i'm mining some as i type this. it has everything a stable currency has, except people contribute to the minting of the coins. as it goes on in production the difficulty goes up which will make it rarer and rarer, if you lose coins they're gone permanently. i'd switch to this system without hesitation, i like it.

That's awesome. What do you mine with, and is it efficient?

using a lower end laptop with an i3-2350 and hd 3000 graphics, not very efficient but it has potential, getting about 500-900 khash/s with 2 physical cores and 1 logical core being used. as for the program and pool i'm working with slush's pool using GUIMiner. i don't intend it to be a major money powerhouse, just a little side cash.

attk master wrote:

db wrote:

attk master wrote:could easily be the currency of the future, i'm mining some as i type this. it has everything a stable currency has, except people contribute to the minting of the coins. as it goes on in production the difficulty goes up which will make it rarer and rarer, if you lose coins they're gone permanently. i'd switch to this system without hesitation, i like it.

That's awesome. What do you mine with, and is it efficient?

using a lower end laptop with an i3-2350 and hd 3000 graphics, not very efficient but it has potential, getting about 500-900 khash/s with 2 physical cores and 1 logical core being used. as for the program and pool i'm working with slush's pool using GUIMiner. i don't intend it to be a major money powerhouse, just a little side cash.

Interesting. Best of luck with that.

On a side note, I still think the bitcoin is in a bubble due to a ridiculously high amount of investment compared to the actual increase in Bitcoin's acceptance by merchants. The majority of merchants that do accept Bitcoin only do so with something such as Bitpay which allows them to instantly convert it to a "normal" currency. This just pumps those BTC right back into the exchange markets and they are being snatched back up by investors. Pretty soon we'll reach a bump where Bitcoin has a dry spell with little news coverage and the influx of investors hits a limit. Then we'll see the panic selling until it reaches a reasonable price.

Bitcoin is nothing but an unregulated, created by who knows who (really, we dunno), fake currency, which has actually turned more into a marketing scheme than anything.

The sales of devices and electricity to mine these coins actually dwarfs the profit anyone makes.

There was a brief time when anyone could make money mining coins... which was quickly killed. If you think you can use your ordinary laptop to mine for profit, you're wrong. If anyone could mine for side cash, and it was truly that easy, a lot of people would do it and kill the profits.

Ohhhh right, that happened already.

Snow wrote:Bitcoin is nothing but an unregulated, created by who knows who (really, we dunno), fake currency, which has actually turned more into a marketing scheme than anything.

The sales of devices and electricity to mine these coins actually dwarfs the profit anyone makes.

There was a brief time when anyone could make money mining coins... which was quickly killed. If you think you can use your ordinary laptop to mine for profit, you're wrong. If anyone could mine for side cash, and it was truly that easy, a lot of people would do it and kill the profits.

Ohhhh right, that happened already.

Would you care to explain your position that it is a "fake" currency? Currencies are used to facilitate trade. At the moment, Bitcoin is being used to facilitate trade. It is certainly not being used at a rate to sustain the currently-inflated value of it, but it is used extensively.

As for mining profitability... it's not meant to be a profit scheme to mine bitcoins. Mining is merely meant as a mechanism to sustain the peer-to-peer network and to issue new bitcoins. Thanks to free market economics, the cost to mine bitcoins is relatively close to the revenue gained from mining them. If you could make money mining bitcoins, more people would mine bitcoins and bring the cost-revenue values back to about even. If you lost more money on electricity/hardware than you gained from the mined bitcoins, you would stop mining. That would again bring the cost-revenue values back to about even. Your assessment of bitcoin mining profitability is unfounded, irrelevant, and inconclusive.

With the price having risen to about $230 USD / BTC, I continue my assessment that BTC is currently in a speculative bubble. The only reason people are buying is because the price is going up. This in turn causes the price to go up. It's an upward spiral that will continue until the bubble pops. I don't know when or at what price the bubble will pop, but I am very sure that it will. In the long-term, however, I see bitcoins as a fundamental game-changer in currency, banking, and global economics.

Because bitcoin has absolutely no regulation, in the slightest. You say bitcoin will do such and such, but have no reason to believe that other than trusting the person who set it up... which again, we don't even know who runs it.

Easily millions, probably billions, of dollars of temptation. Not many people can overcome it.

The idea of an internet currency can indeed, and probably will, be the future currency of the world...but I highly doubt bitcoin will be it.

Snow wrote:Because bitcoin has absolutely no regulation, in the slightest. You say bitcoin will do such and such, but have no reason to believe that other than trusting the person who set it up... which again, we don't even know who runs it.

Easily millions, probably billions, of dollars of temptation. Not many people can overcome it.

The idea of an internet currency can indeed, and probably will, be the future currency of the world...but I highly doubt bitcoin will be it.

How is the rest of the world going to work if internet currency"is the future?

Medo wrote:

Snow wrote:Because bitcoin has absolutely no regulation, in the slightest. You say bitcoin will do such and such, but have no reason to believe that other than trusting the person who set it up... which again, we don't even know who runs it.

Easily millions, probably billions, of dollars of temptation. Not many people can overcome it.

The idea of an internet currency can indeed, and probably will, be the future currency of the world...but I highly doubt bitcoin will be it.

How is the rest of the world going to work if internet currency"is the future?

In the same respect that a pip is already.

Snow wrote:Because bitcoin has absolutely no regulation, in the slightest. You say bitcoin will do such and such, but have no reason to believe that other than trusting the person who set it up... which again, we don't even know who runs it.

Easily millions, probably billions, of dollars of temptation. Not many people can overcome it.

The idea of an internet currency can indeed, and probably will, be the future currency of the world...but I highly doubt bitcoin will be it.

The lack of regulation is why Bitcoin is valuable. Currencies such as the USD are often inflated at the whims of a centralized government.

You also have the issue of trust completely backwards. A common motto of Bitcoin is "In no one we trust" because there is nobody to trust. Bitcoin is an open-source program run on a peer-to-peer network. The original creator(s) was pseudonymous and no longer has an active role in Bitcoin. Bitcoins are issued roughly at a set mathematical and calculable rate based on the open-source network. The limit is 21 million bitcoins and nothing can change that.

Do your homework before you attempt to criticize something.


On a side note: The short-term bubble caused by over-speculation seems to finally be popping. It's at a round $140 / BTC at the moment, down from its high of $266 / BTC.

All fine and dandy to talk about Bitcoins now, but as for a global currency for the future..... impossible. Like I said before, 2/3 of the world does not have consistent electricity and or computers..... not to mention education, basic knowledge of healthcare and so on. now think about what that actually means.... then we can talk about a "global currency" that depends on computers.

Medo wrote:All fine and dandy to talk about Bitcoins now, but as for a global currency for the future..... impossible. Like I said before, 2/3 of the world does not have consistent electricity and or computers..... not to mention education, basic knowledge of healthcare and so on. now think about what that actually means.... then we can talk about a "global currency" that depends on computers.

I'm not sure why you're on such a pro-third-world-country agenda with your posts. Certain geographical regions are magnitudes poorer than the rest of the world. That's a problem. I agree. But nobody claims that Bitcoin will solve that problem.

The 1/3 (I haven't checked this statistic, just rolling with it) of the world that does have internet makes up the vast majority of economic activity. Currencies don't need the other 2/3 to work.

That point aside, the internet is rapidly becoming more and more available. Transfer speeds are increasing fast and the price is dropping. It's only a matter of time before your 1/3 statistic becomes 99/100. When discussing Bitcoin's usability in the future you might want to consider internet usage in the future.

db wrote:With the price having risen to about $230 USD / BTC, I continue my assessment that BTC is currently in a speculative bubble. The only reason people are buying is because the price is going up. This in turn causes the price to go up. It's an upward spiral that will continue until the bubble pops. I don't know when or at what price the bubble will pop, but I am very sure that it will.

Good call, me!

db wrote:
You also have the issue of trust completely backwards. A common motto of Bitcoin is "In no one we trust" because there is nobody to trust. Bitcoin is an open-source program run on a peer-to-peer network. The original creator(s) was pseudonymous and no longer has an active role in Bitcoin. Bitcoins are issued roughly at a set mathematical and calculable rate based on the open-source network. The limit is 21 million bitcoins and nothing can change that.

That is the problem, something as static as that will never become a global currency, wherein the population is growing at an exponential rate. If the limit is 21 million bitcoins, then what if a couple of rich tycoons buy out the whole market, what then?
This simply cannot stand the pressure of being used by the whole world population.

Even something like gold isn't in a static amount, it is always being mined in the world, heck, gold can even be generated (through the use of a particle accelerator, but it isn't at a rate where a decent amount can be produced within a decent amount of time). Also, Math can only predict results, it will never ever be used to give a absolute outcome of anything, it can just provide a rough estimate. Also if people can "mine" this from their computer, then the world will have no one working to produce anything when all they need is a computer to generate money, this will cause many products to go out of production. Also, Medo was talking about developing countries (3rd world) because they are the ones with the majority of the world population. What use is a currency if it cannot be used anywhere and everywhere?

Drakan wrote:That is the problem, something as static as that will never become a global currency, wherein the population is growing at an exponential rate. If the limit is 21 million bitcoins, then what if a couple of rich tycoons buy out the whole market, what then?
This simply cannot stand the pressure of being used by the whole world population.

Even something like gold isn't in a static amount, it is always being mined in the world, heck, gold can even be generated (through the use of a particle accelerator, but it isn't at a rate where a decent amount can be produced within a decent amount of time).

Gold and silver are also very static in supply. Bitcoin can scale to sustain a large market. While it's extremely hard to conduct trade in milligrams of gold or silver, bitcoins are divisible in units of 0.00000001.

As for the population growing exponentially. That's not necessarily true. While the global population has been growing very rapidly, predictions for future growth are much more limited due to resource scarcity.



The idea of buying out an entire market is called "cornering" that market. It always has and always will fail.
Silver attempt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Thursday
Gold attempt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(1869)
Copper attempt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumitomo_copper_affair

Bitcoin is also particularly different because its value rests in its usefulness as a currency. The more people that use it for more transactions, the more valuable it is. If you miraculously succeeded in purchasing well over 50% of bitcoins, their value would plummet because people would lose faith in them as a currency if a single entity owned over 50%. Now find me somebody willing to dump that much money buying bitcoins only to see the investment meet obvious peril. Nobody.

Drakan wrote:Also, Math can only predict results, it will never ever be used to give a absolute outcome of anything, it can just provide a rough estimate. Also if people can "mine" this from their computer, then the world will have no one working to produce anything when all they need is a computer to generate money, this will cause many products to go out of production.

The prediction is ridiculously accurate because it isn't just a prediction, it's built right into the open-source code. As computers get faster, the difficulty of mining is automatically adjusted to keep bitcoing being produced at a predictable rate.

Drakan wrote:Also, Medo was talking about developing countries (3rd world) because they are the ones with the majority of the world population. What use is a currency if it cannot be used anywhere and everywhere?

I've replied to this numerous times. Unless you have something to contribute, don't ask a question that's already been answered.

db wrote:
As for the population growing exponentially. That's not necessarily true. While the global population has been growing very rapidly, predictions for future growth are much more limited due to resource scarcity.

As you see, those three lines represent expected outcomes, there are three possibilities, the red is the exponential increase which seems the most sensible out of all as it is already going in the path it is supposed to, the orange being a plateau doesn't seem reasonable, and the green of the world population falling will not occur. It seems out of the question, as that is only possible if 1 billion people were to die, which seems quite impossible within the span of a year.

db wrote:
The idea of buying out an entire market is called "cornering" that market. It always has and always will fail.
Silver attempt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Thursday
Gold attempt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(1869)
Copper attempt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumitomo_copper_affair

Bitcoin is also particularly different because its value rests in its usefulness as a currency. The more people that use it for more transactions, the more valuable it is. If you miraculously succeeded in purchasing well over 50% of bitcoins, their value would plummet because people would lose faith in them as a currency if a single entity owned over 50%. Now find me somebody willing to dump that much money buying bitcoins only to see the investment meet obvious peril. Nobody.

If a rich tycoon, or a group of rich people cannot control a currency, or own a dominant part of it, then they will simply refuse to use it, and if they refuse, then their company will likely also refuse, and this will tell the majority of the population to reject the currency is most businesses do not accept it.
[quote = "db"]
The prediction is ridiculously accurate because it isn't just a prediction, it's built right into the open-source code. As computers get faster, the difficulty of mining is automatically adjusted to keep bitcoing being produced at a predictable rate.[/quote]

A "predictable rate" is highly ignorant of the unexpectancy of the human population. Anything can happen.