Predicting The True Value Of Bitcoin With Metcalfe’s Law

Quant Network: Token valuation dynamics and fundamentals

Quant Network: Token valuation dynamics and fundamentals
This post intends to illustrate the dynamics and fundamentals related to the mechanics and use of the Quant Network Utility Token (QNT), in order to provide the community with greater clarity around what holding the token actually means.
This is a follow-up on two articles David W previously wrote about Quant Network’s prospects and potential, which you can find here:
For holders not intending to use Overledger for business reasons, the primary goal of holding the QNT token is to benefit from price appreciation. Some are happy to believe that speculation will take the QNT price to much higher levels if and when large-scale adoption/implementation news comes out, whilst others may actually prefer to assess the token’s utility and analyse how it would react to various scenarios to justify a price increase based on fundamentals. The latter is precisely what I aim to look into in this article.
On that note, I have noticed that many wish to see institutional investors getting involved in the crypto space for their purchase power, but the one thing they would bring and that is most needed in my opinion is fundamental analysis and valuation expectations based on facts. Indeed, equity investors can probably access 20 or 30 reports that are 15 pages long and updated on a quarterly basis about any blue chip stock they are invested in, but how many of such (professional) analyst reports can you consult for your favorite crypto coins? Let me have a guess: none. This is unfortunate, and it is a further reason to look into the situation in more details.
To be clear, this article is not about providing figures on the expected valuation of the token, but rather about providing the community with a deeper analysis to better understand its meaning and valuation context. This includes going through the (vast) differences between a Utility Token and a Company Share since I understand it is still blurry in some people’s mind. I will incorporate my thoughts and perspective on these matters, which should not be regarded as a single source of truth but rather as an attempt to “dig deeper”.
In order to share these thoughts with you in the most pertinent manner, I have actually entirely modelled the Quant Treasury function and analysed how the QNT token would react to various scenarios based on a number of different factors. That does not mean there is any universal truth to be told, but it did help in clarifying how things work (with my understanding of the current ruleset at least, which may also evolve over time). This is an important safety net: if the intensity of speculation in crypto markets was to go lower from here, what would happen to the token price? How would Quant Treasury help support it? If the market can feel comfortable with such situation and the underlying demand for the token, then it can feel comfortable to take it higher based on future growth expectations — and that’s how it should be.
Finally, to help shed light on different areas, I must confess that I will have to go through some technicalities on how this all works and what a Utility Token actually is. That is the price to pay to gain that further, necessary knowledge and be in a position to assess the situation more thoroughly — but I will make it as readable as I possibly can, so… if are you ready, let’s start!

A Utility Token vs. a Company Share: what is the difference?

It is probably fair to say that many people involved in the crypto space are unfamiliar with certain key financial terms or concepts, simply because finance is not necessarily everyone’s background (and that is absolutely fine!). In addition, Digital Assets bring some very novel concepts, which means that everyone has to adapt in any case.
Therefore, I suggest we start with a comparison of the characteristics underpinning the QNT Utility Token and a Quant Network Company Share (as you may know, the Company Shares are currently privately held by the Quant Network founders). I believe it is important to look at this comparison for two reasons:
  1. Most people are familiar with regular Company Shares because they have been traded for decades, and it is often asked how Utility Tokens compare.
  2. Quant Network have announced a plan to raise capital to grow their business further (in the September 2019 Forbes article which you can find here). Therefore, regardless of whether the Share Offering is made public or private, I presume the community will want to better understand how things compare and the different dynamics behind each instrument.
So where does the QNT Utility Token sit in Quant Network company and how does it compare to a Quant Network Company Share? This is how it looks:
https://preview.redd.it/zgidz8ed74y31.png?width=1698&format=png&auto=webp&s=54acd2def0713b67ac7c41dae6c9ab225e5639fa
What is on the right hand side of a balance sheet is the money a company has, and what is on the left hand side is how it uses it. Broadly speaking, the money the company has may come from the owners (Equity) or from the creditors (Debt). If I were to apply these concepts to an individual (you!), “Equity” is your net worth, “Debt” is your mortgage and other debt, and “Assets” is your house, car, savings, investments, crypto, etc.
As you can see, a Company Share and a Utility Token are found in different parts of the balance sheet — and that, in itself, is a major difference! They indeed serve two very different purposes:
  • Company Shares: they represent a share of a company’s ownership, meaning that you actually own [X]% of the company ([X]% = Number of shares you possess / Total number of shares) and hence [X]% of the company’s assets on the left hand side of the balance sheet.
  • Utility Tokens: they are keys to access a given platform (in our case, Quant Network’s Operating System: Overledger) and they can serve multiple purposes as defined by their Utility Document (in QNT’s case, the latest V0.3 version can be found here).
As a consequence, as a Company Shareholder, you are entitled to receive part or all of the profits generated by the company (as the case may arise) and you can also take part in the management decisions (indeed, with 0.00000001% of Apple shares, you have the corresponding right to vote to kick the CEO out if you want to!).
On the other hand, as a Utility Token holder, you have no such rights related to the company’s profits or management, BUT any usage of the platform has to go through the token you hold — and that has novel, interesting facets.

A Utility Token vs. a Company Share: what happens in practice?

Before we dig further, let’s now remind ourselves of the economic utilities of the QNT token (i.e. in addition to signing and encrypting transactions):
  1. Licences: a licence is mandatory for anyone who wishes to develop on the Overledger platform. Enterprises and Developers pay Quant Network in fiat money and Quant Treasury subsequently sets aside QNT tokens for the same amount (a diagram on how market purchases are performed can be found on the Overledger Treasury page here). The tokens are locked for 12 months, and the current understanding is that the amount of tokens locked is readjusted at each renewal date to the prevailing market price of QNT at the time (this information is not part of the Utility Token document as of now, but it was given in a previous Telegram AMA so I will assume it is correct pending further developments).
  2. Usage: this relates to the amount of Overledger read and write activity performed by clients on an ongoing basis, and also to the transfer of Digital Assets from one chain to another, and it follows a similar principle: fiat money is received by Quant Network, and subsequently converted in QNT tokens (these tokens are not locked, however).
  3. Gateways: information about Gateways has been released through the Overledger Network initiative (see dedicated website here), and we now know that the annual cost for running a Gateway will be 500 QNT whilst Gateway holders will receive a percentage of transaction fees going through their setup.
  4. Minimum holding amounts: the team has stated that there will be a minimum QNT holding amount put in place for every participant of the Overledger ecosystem, although the details have not been released yet.
That being said, it now becomes interesting to illustrate with indicative figures what actually happens as Licences, Usage and Gateways are paid for and Quant Network company operates. The following diagram may help in this respect:
Arbitrary figures from myself (i.e. no currency, no unit), based on an indicative 20% Net Income Ratio and a 40% Dividend yield
We have now two different perspectives:
  • On the right hand side, you see the simplified Profit & Loss account (“P&L”) which incorporates Total Revenues, from which costs and taxes are deducted, to give a Net Income for the company. A share of this Net Income may be distributed to Shareholders in the form of a Dividend, whilst the remainder is accounted as retained profits and goes back to the balance sheet as Equity to fund further growth for instance. Importantly, the Dividend (if any) is usually a portion of the Net Income so, using an indicative 40% Dividend yield policy, shareholders receive here for a given year 80 out of total company revenues of 1,000.
  • On the left hand side, you see the QNT requirements arising from the Overledger-related business activity which equal 700 here. Note that this is only a portion of the Total Revenues (1,000) you can see on the right hand side, as the team generates income from other sources as well (e.g. consultancy fees) — but I assume Overledger will represent the bulk of it since it is Quant Network’s flagship product and focus. In this case, the equivalent fiat amount of QNT tokens represents 700 (i.e. 100% of Overledger-related revenues) out of the company’s Total Revenues of 1,000. It is to be noted that excess reserves of QNT may be sold and generate additional revenues for the company, which would be outside of the Overledger Revenues mentioned above (i.e. they would fall in the “Other Revenues” category).
A way to summarise the situation from a very high level is: as a Company Shareholder you take a view on the company’s total profits whereas as a Utility Token holder you take a view on the company’s revenues (albeit Overledger-related).
It is however too early to reach any conclusion, so we now need to dig one level deeper again.

More considerations around Company Shares

As we discussed, with a Company Share, you possess a fraction of the company’s ownership and hence you have access to profits (and losses!). So how do typical Net Income results look in the technology industry? What sort of Dividend is usually paid? What sort of market valuations are subsequently achieved?
Let’s find out:
https://preview.redd.it/eua9sqlt74y31.png?width=2904&format=png&auto=webp&s=3500669942abf62a0ea1c983ab3cea40552c40d1
As you can see, the typical Net Income Ratio varies between around 10% and 20% in the technology/software industry (using the above illustrated peer group). The ratio illustrates the proportion of Net Income extracted from Revenues.
In addition, money is returned to Company Shareholders in the form of a Dividend (i.e. a portion of the Net Income) and in the form of Share repurchases (whereby the company uses its excess cash position to buy back shares from Shareholders and hence diminish the number of Shares available). A company may however prefer to not redistribute any of the profits, and retain them instead to fund further business growth — Alphabet (Google) is a good example in this respect.
Interestingly, as you can see on the far right of the table, the market capitalisations of these companies reflect high multiples of their Net Income as investors expect the companies to prosper in the future and generate larger profits. If you wished to explore these ideas further, I recommend also looking into the Return on Equity ratio which takes into account the amount of resources (i.e. Capital/Equity) put to work to generate the companies’ profits.
It is also to be noted that the number of Company Shares outstanding may vary over time. Indeed, aside from Share repurchases that diminish the number of Shares available to the market, additional Shares may be issued to raise additional funds from the market hence diluting the ownership of existing Shareholders.
Finally, (regular) Company Shares are structured in the same way across companies and industries, which brings a key benefit of having them easily comparable/benchmarkable against one another for investors. That is not the case for Utility Tokens, but they come with the benefit of having a lot more flexible use cases.

More considerations around the QNT token

As discussed, the Utility Token model is quite novel and each token has unique functions designed for the system it is associated with. That does not make value assessment easy, since all Utility Tokens are different, and this is a further reason to have a detailed look into the QNT case.
https://preview.redd.it/b0xe0ogw74y31.png?width=1512&format=png&auto=webp&s=cece522cd7919125e199b012af41850df6d9e9fd
As a start, all assets that are used in a speculative way embed two components into their price:
A) one that represents what the asset is worth today, and
B) one that represents what it may be worth in the future.
Depending on whether the future looks bright or not, a price premium or a price discount may be attached to the asset price.
This is similar to what we just saw with Company Shares valuation multiples, and it is valid across markets. For instance, Microsoft generates around USD 21bn in annual Net Income these days, but the cost of acquiring it entirely is USD 1,094bn (!). This speculative effect is particularly visible in the crypto sector since valuation levels are usually high whilst usage/adoption levels are usually low for now.
So what about QNT? As mentioned, the QNT Utility model has novel, interesting facets. Since QNT is required to access and use the Overledger system, it is important to appreciate that Quant Network company has three means of action regarding the QNT token:
  1. MANAGING their QNT reserves on an ongoing basis (i.e. buying or selling tokens is not always automatic, they can allocate tokens from their own reserves depending on their liquidity position at any given time),
  2. BUYING/RECEIVING QNT from the market/clients on the back of business activity, and
  3. SELLING QNT when they deem their reserves sufficient and/or wish to sell tokens to cover for operational costs.
Broadly speaking, the above actions will vary depending on business performance, the QNT token price and the Quant Network company’s liquidity position.
We also have to appreciate how the QNT distribution will always look like, it can be broken down as follows:
https://preview.redd.it/f20h7hvz74y31.png?width=1106&format=png&auto=webp&s=f2f5b63272f5ed6e3f977ce08d7bae043851edd1
A) QNT tokens held by the QNT Community
B) QNT tokens held by Quant Network that are locked (i.e. those related to Licences)
C) QNT tokens held by Quant Network that are unlocked (i.e. those related to other usage, such as consumption fees and Gateways)
D) the minimum QNT amount held by all users of the platform (more information on this front soon)
So now that the situation is set, how would we assess Quant Network’s business activity effect on the QNT token?
STEP 1: We would need to define the range of minimum/maximum amounts of QNT which Quant Network would want to keep as liquid reserves (i.e. unlocked) on an ongoing basis. This affects key variables such as the proportion of market purchases vs. the use of their own reserves, and the amount of QNT sold back to the market. Also, interestingly, if Quant Network never wanted to keep less than, for instance, 1 million QNT tokens as liquid reserves, these 1 million tokens would have a similar effect on the market as the locked tokens because they would never be sold.
STEP 2: We would need to define the amount of revenues that are related to QNT. As we know, Overledger Licences, Usage and Gateways generate revenues converted into QNT (or in QNT directly). So the correlation is strong between revenues and QNT needs. Interestingly, the cost of a licence is probably relatively low today in order to facilitate adoption and testing, but it will surely increase over time. The same goes for usage fees, especially as we move from testing/pilot phases to mass implementation. The number of clients will also increase. The Community version of Overledger is also set to officially launch next year. More information on revenue potential can be found later in this article.
STEP 3: We would need to define an evolution of the QNT token price over time and see how things develop with regards to Quant Network’s net purchase/sale of tokens every month (i.e. tokens required - tokens sold = net purchased/sold tokens).
Once assumptions are made, what do we observe?
In an undistorted environment, there is a positive correlation between Quant Network’s QNT-related revenues and the market capitalisation they occupy (i.e. the Quant Network share of the token distribution multiplied by the QNT price). However, this correlation can get heavily twisted as the speculative market prices a premium to the QNT price (i.e. anticipating higher revenues). As we will see, a persistent discount is not really possible as Quant Treasury would mechanically have to step in with large market purchases, which would provide strong support to the QNT price.
In addition, volatility is to be added to the equation since QNT volatility is likely to be (much) higher than that of revenues which can create important year-on-year disparities. For instance, Quant Treasury may lock a lot of tokens at a low price one year, and be well in excess of required tokens the next year if the QNT token price has significantly increased (and vice versa). This is not an issue per se, but this would impact the amount of tokens bought/sold on an ongoing basis by Quant Treasury as reserves inflate/deflate.
If we put aside the distortions created by speculation on the QNT price, and the subsequent impact on the excess/deficiency of Quant Network token reserves (whose level is also pro-actively managed by the company, as previously discussed), the economic system works as follows:
High QNT price vs. Revenue levels: The value of reserves is inflated, fewer tokens need to be bought for the level of revenues generated, Quant Treasury provides low support to the QNT price, its share of the token distribution diminishes.
Low QNT price vs. Revenue levels: Reserves run out, a higher number of tokens needs to be bought for the level of revenues generated, Quant Treasury provides higher support to the QNT price, its share of the token distribution increases.
Summary table:
https://preview.redd.it/q7wgzpv384y31.png?width=2312&format=png&auto=webp&s=d8c0480cb34caf2e59615ec21ea220d81d79b153
The key here is that, whatever speculation on future revenue levels does to the token in the first place, if the QNT price was falling and reaching a level that does not reflect the prevailing revenue levels of Overledger at a given time, then Quant Treasury would require a larger amount of tokens to cover the business needs which would mean the depletion of their reserves, larger purchases from the market and strong support for the QNT price from here. This is the safety net we want to see, coming from usage! Indeed, in other words, if the QNT price went very high very quickly, Quant Treasury may not be seen buying much tokens since their reserves would be inflated BUT that fall back mechanics purely based on usage would be there to safeguard QNT holders from the QNT price falling below a certain level.
I would assume this makes sense for most, and you might now wonder why have I highlighted the bottom part about the token distribution in red? That is because there is an ongoing battle between the QNT community and Quant Treasury — and this is very interesting.
The ecosystem will show how big a share is the community willing to let Quant Network represent. The community actually sets the price for the purchases, and the token distribution fluctuates depending on the metrics we discussed. An equilibrium will be formed based on the confidence the market has in Quant Network’s future revenue generation. Moreover, the QNT community could perceive the token as a Store of Value and be happy to hold 80/90% of all tokens for instance, or it could perceive QNT as more dynamic or risky and be happy to only represent 60/70% of the distribution. Needless to say that, considering my previous articles on the potential of Overledger, I think we will tend more towards the former scenario. Indeed, if you wished to store wealth with a technology-agnostic, future proof, globally adopted, revenue-providing (through Gateways) Network of Networks on which most of the digitalised value is flowing through — wouldn’t you see QNT as an appealing value proposition?
In a nutshell, it all comes down to the Overledger revenue levels and the QNT holders’ resistence to buy pressure from Quant Treasury. Therefore, if you are confident in the Overledger revenue generation and wish to see the QNT token price go up, more than ever, do not sell your tokens!
What about the locked tokens? There will always be a certain amount of tokens that are entirely taken out of circulation, but Quant Network company will always keep additional unlocked tokens on top of that (those they receive and manage as buffer) and that means that locked tokens will always be a subset of what Quant Network possesses. I do not know whether fees will primarily be concentrated on the licencing side vs. the usage side, but if that were to be the case then it would be even better as a higher amount of tokens would be taken out of circulation for good.
Finally, as long as the company operates, the revenues will always represent a certain amount of money whereas this is not the case for profits which may not appear before years (e.g. during the first years, during an economic/business downturn, etc.). As an illustration, a company like Uber has seen vast increases in revenues since it launched but never made any profit! Therefore, the demand for the QNT token benefits from good resilience from that perspective.
Quant Network vs. QNT community — What proportion of the QNT distribution will each represent?

How much revenues can Overledger generate?

I suggest we start with the basis of what the Quant Network business is about: connecting networks together, building new-generation hyper-decentralised apps on top (called “mApps”), and creating network effects.
Network effects are best defined by Metcalfe’s law which states: “the effect of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system” (Source: Wikipedia). This is illustrated by the picture below, which demonstrates the increasing number of possible connections for each new user added to the network. This was also recently discussed in a YouTube podcast by QNT community members “Luke” and “Ghost of St. Miklos” which you can watch here.
Source: applicoinc.com
This means that, as Overledger continues to connect more and more DLTs of all types between themselves and also with legacy systems, the number of users (humans or machines) connected to this Network of Networks will grow substantially — and the number of possible connections between participants will in turn grow exponentially. This will increase the value of the network, and hence the level of fees associated with getting access to it. This forms the basis of expected, future revenue generation and especially in a context where Overledger remains unique as of today and embraced by many of the largest institutions in the world (see the detailed summary on the matter from community member “Seq” here).
On top of this network, multi-chain hyper-decentralised applications (‘mApps’) can be built — which are an upgrade to existing dApps that use only one chain at a time and hence only benefit from the user base and functionalities of the given chain. Overledger mApps can leverage on the users and abilities of all connected chains at the same time, horizontal scaling, the ability to write/move code in any language across chains as required, write smart contracts on blockchains that do not support them (e.g. Bitcoin), and provide easier connection to other systems. dApps have barely had any success so far, as discussed in my first article, but mApps could provide the market with the necessary tools to build applications that can complement or rival what can be found on the Apple or Google Play store.
Also, the flexibility of Overledger enables Quant Network to target a large number of industries and to connect them all together. A sample of use cases can be found in the following illustration:
https://preview.redd.it/th8edz5b84y31.png?width=2664&format=png&auto=webp&s=105dd4546f8f9ab2c66d1a5a8e9f669cef0e0614
It is to be noted that one of the use cases, namely the tokenisation of the entire world’s assets, represents a market worth hundreds of trillions of USD and that is not even including the huge amount of illiquid assets not currently traded on traditional Capital Markets which could benefit from the tokenisation process. More information on the topic can be found in my previous article fully focused on the potential of Overledger to capture value from the structural shift in the world’s assets and machine-related data/value transfers.
Finally, we can look at what well established companies with a similar technology profile have been able to achieve. Overledger is an Operating System for DLTs and legacy systems on top of which applications can be built. The comparison to Microsoft Windows and the suite of Microsoft Software running on top (e.g. Microsoft Office) is an obvious one from that perspective to gauge the longer term potential.
As you can see below, Microsoft’s flagship softwares such as Windows and Office each generate tens of billions of USD of revenues every year:
Source: Geekwire
We can also look at Oracle, the second largest Enterprise software company in the world:
Source: Statista
We can finally look at what the Apple store and the Google Play store generate, since the Quant Network “mApp store” for the community side of Overledger will look to replicate a similar business model with hyper-decentralised applications:
Source: Worldwide total revenue by app store, 2018 ($bn)
The above means total revenues of around USD 70bn in 2018 for the Apple store and Google Play store combined, and the market is getting bigger year-on-year! Also, again, these (indicative!) reference points for Overledger come in the context of the Community version of the system only, since the Enterprise version represents a separate set of verticals more comparable to the likes of Microsoft and Oracle which we just looked at.

Conclusion

I hope this article helped shed further light on the QNT token and how the various market and business parameters will influence its behavior over time, as the Quant Network business is expected to grow exponentially in the coming years.
In the recent Forbes interview, Quant Network’s CEO (Gilbert Verdian) stated : “Our potential to grow is uncapped as we change and transform industries by creating a secure layer between them at speed. Our vision is to build a mass version of what I call an internet of trust, where value can be securely transferred between global partners not relying on defunct internet security but rather that of blockchain.”.
This is highly encouraging with regards to business prospects and also in comparison to what other companies have been able to achieve since the Web as we know it today emerged (e.g. Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc.). The Internet is now entering a new phase, with DLT technology at its core, and Overledger is set to be at the forefront of this new paradigm which will surely offer a vast array of new opportunities across sectors.
I believe it is an exciting time for all of us to be part of the journey, as long as any financial commitment is made with a good sense of responsibility and understanding of what success comes down to. “Crypto” is still immature in many respects, and the emergence of a dedicated regulatory framework combined with the expected gradual, selective entrance of institutional money managers will hopefully help shed further light and protect retail token holders from the misunderstandings, misinformation and misconduct which too many have suffered from in the last years.
Thanks for your time and interest.
Appendix:
First article: “The reasons why Quant Network (QNT) will rise to the Top of the crypto sphere in the coming months”
Second article: “The potential of Quant Network’s technology to capture value from the structural shift in the World’s assets and machine-related data/value transfers”
October 2019 City AM interview of Gilbert Verdian (CEO): Click here
October 2019 Blockchain Brad interview of Gilbert Verdian (CEO): Click here
July 2019 Blockchain Brad interview of Gilbert Verdian (CEO): Click here
February 2019 Blockchain Brad interview of Gilbert Verdian (CEO): Click here
----
About the original author of the article:
My name is David and I spent years in the Investment Banking industry in London. I hold QNT tokens and the above views are based on my own thoughts and research only. I am not affiliated with the Quant Network team in any way. This is not investment advice, please do your own research and understand what you are buying before doing so. It is also my belief that more than 90% of all other crypto projects will fail because what matters is what is getting adopted; please do not put more money at risk than you can afford to lose.
submitted by mr_sonic to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Why we won't have a long term bear market, and how to systematically pick your future investments in crypto

With so much uncertainty right now it would be a good time to take some time to go over what happened recently and how to invest moving foward. We've seen a peak bubble at around 850 billion total market cap in the first week of January, consolidated down to $750 billion and have now just experienced a 40% correction.

What's happening now and how bad will it get?

First of all you should realize that there is a January Dip that happens every year, when we see a roughly 20-30% decline around mid January. This year its been much more severe though for several additional factors that have compounded on top.
Different theories exist on why this happens (its actually the mirror opposite of the "January Effect" that happens in the US stock market), but the two major theories are:
1) Asian markets pull into fiat because of Asian New Year spending needs
2) People in the US sell in January to defer their capital gains tax liability an extra year
While this cyclic event has lead to a healthy correction in the last few years, this year we got these new factors making more fear as well:
So in essence we got a storm of scary news along with the usual cyclic downturn. Currently I don't see this as being a systematic crash like Mt.Gox was that would lead to a long term bear market because the fundamental ecosystem is still intact, and I suspect that after about a month we should consolidate around a new low. All the exchanges are still operational and liquid, and there is no breakdown in trust nor uncertainty whether you'll be able to cash out. What range the market trades in will all depend how Bitcoin does, right now we've already broken below 10K but I'm seeing a lot of support at around $8000, which is roughly where the long term MA curve settles. We don't know how bad it will get or what the future will bring, but as of right now we shouldn't be in a bear market yet.
What should you do if you recently entered the market?
If you did buy in the last few months at or near ATH, the very worst thing you can do now is sell in panic and lose your principal. You shouldn't have more money in crypto than you can afford to lose, so it shouldn't be a problem to wait. You have to realize that 30% corrections in crypto are relatively common, just last fall we had a 40% flash correction over more China fears. Unless there is a systematic breakdown like we had during Mt.Gox, the market always recovers.
The other worst thing you can do is unload into Tether as your safety net. If there is one thing that could actually cause a long term destruction of trust within the cryptocurrency investment ecosystem, its Tether having a run up on their liabilities and not having enough reserve to cover the leverage. It would not only bring down exchanges but lead to years of litigation and endless media headlines that will scare off everybody from putting fiat in. I don't know when the next Mt.Gox meltdown will occur but I can almost guarantee it will involve Tether. So stay away from it.
What should long term investors do?
For long term holders a good strategy to follow each year is to capture profit each December and swallow the capital gains taxation liability, park a reserve of fiat at Gemini (whose US dollar deposits are FDIC-insured) and simply wait till around late January to early February to re-enter the market at a discount and hold all year until next December. You can keep a small amount in core coins in order to trade around various Q1 opportunities you anticipate. Others may choose to simply do nothing and just keep holding throughout January which is also a perfectly fine strategy. The cyclical correction usually stabilizes toward late January and early February, then we see a rise in March and generally are recovered by end of April. Obviously this decision whether to sell in December to profit on the dip and pay tax liability or to just hold will depend on your individual tax situation. Do your own math sometime in November and follow suit.
Essentially revaluate your positions and trim your position sizes if you don't feel comfortable with the losses.

How to construct your portfolio going forward

Rather than seeing the correction as a disaster see it as a time to start fresh. If you have been FOMO-ing into bad cryptos and losing money now is a time to start a systematic long term approach to investing rather than gambling.
Follow a methodology for evaluating each cryptocurrency
Memes and lambo dreams are fun and all, but I know many of you are investing thousands of dollars into crypto, so its worth it to put some organized thought into it as well. I can't stress enough how important it is to try and logically contruct your investment decisions. If you follow a set methodology, a checklist and template you will be able to do relative comparisons between cryptocurrencies, to force yourself to consider the negatives and alternative scenarios and also sleep comfortably knowing you have a sound basis for your investment decisions (even if they turn out to be wrong).
There is no ideal or "correct" methodology but I can outline mine:
1) Initial information gathering and filtering
Once I identify something that looks like a good potential investment, I first go to the CoinMarketCap page for that symbol and look at the website and blockchain explorer.
  • Critically evaluate the website. This is the first pass of the bullshit detector and you can tell from a lot from just the website whether its a scam. If it uses terms like "Web 4.0" or other nonsensical buzzwords, if its unprofessional and has anonymous teams, stay away. Always look for a roadmap, compare to what was actually delivered so far. Always check the team, try to find them on LinkedIn and what they did in the past.
  • Read the whitepaper or business development plan. You should fully understand how this crypto functions and how its trying to create value. If there is no use case or if the use case does not require or benefit from a blockchain, move on. Look for red flags like massive portions of the float being assigned to the founders of the coin, vague definition of who would use the coin, anonymous teams, promises of large payouts...etc
  • Check the blockchain explorer. How is the token distribution across accounts? Are the big accounts holding or selling? Which account is likely the foundation account, which is the founders account?
  • Read the subreddit and blogs for the cryptocurrency and also evaluate the community. Try to figure out exactly what the potential use cases are and look for sceptical takes. Look at the Github repos, does it look empty or is there plenty of activity?
2) Fill out an Investment Checklist
I have a checklist of questions that I find important and as I'm researching a crypto I save little snippets in Evernote of things that are relevant to answering those questions:
  • What is the problem or transactional inefficiency the coin is trying to solve?
  • What is the Dev Team like? What is their track record? How are they funded, organized?
  • Who is their competition and how big is the market they're targeting? What is the roadmap they created?
  • What current product exists?
  • How does the token/coin actually derive value for the holder? Is there a staking mechanism or is it transactional?
  • What are the weaknesses or problems with this crypto?
3) Create some sort of consistent valuation model/framework, even if its simple
I have a background in finance so I like to do Excel modeling. For those who are interested in that, this article is a great start and also Chris Burniske has a great blog about using Quantity Theory of Money to build an equivalent of a DCF analysis for crypto.
Here is an Excel file example of OMG done using his model. You can download this and play around with it yourself, see how the formulas link and understand the logic.
Once you have a model set up the way you like in Excel you can simply alter it to account for various float oustanding schedule and market items that are unique to your crypto, and then just start plugging in different assumptions. Think about what is the true derivation of value for the coin, is it a "dividend" coin that you stake within a digital economy and collect fees or is it a currency? Use a realistic monetary velocity (around 5-10 for currency and around 1-2 for staking) and for the discount rate use at least 3x the long term return of a diversified equity fund.
The benefit is that this forces you to think about what actually makes this coin valuable to an actual user within the digital economy its participating in and force you to think about the assumptions you are making about the future. Do your assumptions make sense? What would the assumptions have to be to justify its current price? You can create different scenarios in a matrix (optimistic vs. pessimistic) based on different assumptions for risk (discount rate) and implementation (adoption rates).
If you don't understand the above thats perfectly fine, you don't need to get into full modeling or have a financial background. Even a simple model that just tries to derive a valuation through relative terms will put you above most crypto investors. Some simple valuation methods that anyone can do
  • Metcalfe's Law which states that the value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system (n2). So you can compare various currencies based on their market cap and square of active users or traffic.
  • Another easy one is simply looking at the total market for the industry that the coin is supposedly targeting and comparing it to the market cap of the coin. Think of the market cap not only with circulating supply like its shown on CMC but including total supply. For example the total supply for Dentacoin is 1,841,395,638,392, and when multiplied by its price in early January we get a market cap that is actually higher than the entire industry it aims to disrupt: Dentistry.
  • If its meant to be just used as just a currency: Take a look at the circulating supply and look at the amount that is in cold storage or set to be released/burned. Most cryptos are deflationary so think about how the float schedule will change over time and how this will affect price.
Once you have a model you like set up, you can compare cryptos against each other and most importantly it will require that you build a mental framework within your own mind on why somebody would want to own this coin other than to sell it to another greater fool for a higher price. Modeling out a valuation will lead you to think long term and think about the inherent value, rather than price action.
Once you go through this 3-step methodology, you'll have a pretty good confidence level for making your decision and can comfortably sit back and not panic if some temporary short term condition leads to a price decrease. This is how "smart money" does it.
Think about your portfolio allocation
You should think first in broad terms how you allocate between "safe" and "speculative" cryptos.
For new investors its best to keep a substantial portion in what would be considered largecap safe cryptos, primarily BTC, ETH, LTC. I personally consider XMR to be safe as well. A good starting point is to have between 50-70% of your portfolio in these safe cryptocurrencies. As you become more confident and informed you can move your allocation into speculative small caps.
You should also think in terms of segments and how much of your total portfolio is in each segment:
  • Core holdings - BTC, Ethereum, LTC...etc
  • Platform segment - Ethereum, NEO, Ark...etc
  • Privacy segment - Monero, Zcash, PivX..etc
  • Finance/Bank settlement segment - Ripple, Stellar...etc
  • Enterprise Blockchain solutions segment -VeChain, Walton, WABI...etc
  • Promising/Innovative Tech segment - Raiblocks, IOTA, Cardano...etc
You should also think about where we are in the cycle, as now given so much uncertaintly its probably best to stay heavily in core holdings and pick up a few coins within a segment you understand well. If you don't understand how enterprise solutions work or how the value chain is built through corporations, don't invest in the enteprise blockchain solutions segment. If you are a technie who loves the technology behind Cardano or IOTA, invest in that segment.
Think of your "circle of competence"
This is actually a term Buffet came up with, it refers to your body of knowledge that allows you to evaluate an investment. Think about what you know best and consider investing in those type of coins. If you don't know anything about how supply chains functions, how can you competently judge whether VeChain or WaltonChain will achieve adoption?
This where your portfolio allocation also comes into play. You should diversify but really shouldn't be in much more than around 12 cryptos, because you simply don't have enough competency to accurately access the risk across every segment and for every type of crypto you come across. If you had over 20 different cryptos in your portfolio you should probably think about consolidating to a few sectors you understand well.
Continually educate yourself about the technology and markets
If you aren't already doing it: Read a bit each day about cryptocurrencies. There are decent Youtubers that talk about the market side of crypto, just avoid those that hype specific coins and look for more sceptical ones like CryptoInvestor. If you don't understand how the technology works and what the benefits of a blockchain are or how POS/POW works or what a DAG is or how mining actually works, learn first. If you don't care about the technology or find reading about it tedious, you shouldn't invest in this space at all.

Summing it up

I predicted a few days ago that we would have a major correction in 2018 specifically in the altcoins that saw massive gains in Decemebeearly January, and it seems we've already had a pretty big one. I don't think we'll have a complete meltdown like some are predicting, but some more pain may be incoming.
Basically take this time to think about how you can improve your investment style and strategy. Make a commitment to value things rather than chasing FOMO, and take your time to make a decision. Long term investment will grant you much more returns as will a systematic approach.
Take care and have fun investing :)
Edit March 2018: Lol looking back I'm regretting starting the title with "Why we won't have a long term bear market" now, I was more karma whoring with that catchy title than anything. We recovered up to 11K from this post, but then crashed again hard later in February-March because of a slew of reasons from Tether subpeona to unforseen regulatory issues.
submitted by arsonbunny to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Want to start fresh after the crypto crash? Here is a comprehensive guide on how to invest and prosper over the long term.

Well its happened, the crypto market just experienced the worst crash since 2014, the bubble has burst. The idiocy of newbies FOMO-ing into anything with low nominal value lead to endless twitter timelines like this, and now nobody has any idea where the market settles. What do you do now?
In the following weeks it will be a good time to rethink your investment approach and how you arrive at your decisions. Just buying whatever is shilled on Twitter or Reddit and jumping from one crypto to another isn't going to work like it did these last two months.
The good news is that we're finally back closer and closer to our long term moving average which is much more healthy for entrants, the bad news is that the fear might continue compounding if outstanding issues are not dealt with. Tether is the big concern for me personally for reasons I've stated many times, but some relief in the short term may come if the SEC and CFTC meeting on February 6th goes well. Nobody really knows where the bottom is but I think we're now past the "irrational exhuberance" stage and we're entering a period of more serious inspection where cryptos will actually have to prove themselves as useful. I suspect hype artists like CryptoNick and John McAfee will fall out of favor.
But perhaps most importantly use this as a learning experience, don't try to point fingers now. The type of dumb behavior that people were engaging in that was rewarded in a bull market (chasing pumps, going all in on a shillcoin, following hype..etc) could only ever lead to what we are experiencing now. Just like so many people jumped on the crypto bandwagon during the bull run, they will just as quickly jump on whatever bandwagon is to be used to blame for the deflation of the bubble. Nobody who pumped money into garbage without any use case will accept that they themselves with their own investing behavior were the real reason for the gross overvaluation of most cryptocurrencies, and the inevitable crash.
So if you're looking for a fresh start after the massacre (or just want to get in now), here is a guide:

Part A: Making a Investment Strategy

This is your money, put some effort into investing it with an actual strategy. Some simple yet essential advice that should apply to everyone, regardless of individual strategy:
  1. Slow down and research each crypto that you're buying for at least a week.
  2. Don't buy something just because it has risen.
  3. Don't exit a position just because it has declined.
  4. Invest only as much as you can afford to lose.
  5. Prepare enter and exit strategies in advance.
First take some time to think about your ROI target, set your hold periods for each position and how much you are actually ready to risk losing.
ROI targets
A lot of young investors who are in crypto have unrealistic expectations about returns and risk. A lot of them have never invested in any other type of financial asset, and hence many seem to consider a 5-10% ROI in a month to be unexciting.
But its important to temper your hype and realize why we had this exponential growth in the last year and how unlikely it is that we see 10x returns in the next year. What we saw recently was Greater Fool Theory in action. Those unexciting returns of 5-10% a month are much more of the norm, and much more healthy for an alternative investment class.
You can think about setting a target in terms of the market ROI over a relevant holding period and then add or decrease based on your own risk profile.
Example: Calculating a 2 year ROI target
Lets say you want to hold for 2 years now, how could you set a realistic target to strive for? You could look at a historical 2 year return as a base, preferably during a period similar to what we're facing now. Now that we had a major correction, I think we can look at the two year period starting in 2015 after we had the 2014 crash. To calculate a 2 year CAGR starting in 2015:
Year Total Crypto Market Cap
Jan 1, 2015: $5.5 billion
Jan 1, 2017: $18 billion
Compounded annual growth return (CAGR): [(18/5.5)1/2]-1 = 81%
This annual return rate of 81% comes out to about 4.9% compounded monthly. This may not sound exciting to the lambo moon crowd, but it will keep you grounded in reality. You can aim for a higher return (say 2x of that 81% rate) if you choose to take on more risky propositions. I can't tell you what return target you should set for yourself, but just make sure its not depended on you needing to achieve continual near vertical parabolic price action in small cap shillcoins because that isn't sustainable.
Once you have a target you can construct your risk profile (low risk vs. high risk category coins) in your portfolio based on your target.
Risk Management
Everything you buy in crypto is risky, but it still helps to think of these 3 risk categories:
How much risk should you take on? That depends on your own life situation for one, but also it should be proportional to how much expertise you have in both financial analysis and technology.
The general starting point I would recommend is:
Some more core principles on risk management to consider:
You can think of each crypto having a risk factor that is the summation of the general crypto market risk (Rm), but also its own inherent risk specific to its own goals (Ri).
Rt = Rm +Ri
The market risk is something you cannot avoid, it is essentially the risk that is carried by the entire market over things like regulations. What you can minimize though the Ri, the specific risks with your crypto. That will depend on the team composition, geographic risks (for example Chinese coins like NEO carry regulatory risks specific to China), competition within the space and likelihood of adoption and other factors, which I'll describe in Part 2: Crypto Picking Methodology.
Portfolio Allocation
Along with thinking about your portfolio in terms of risk categories described above, I really find it helpful to think about the segments you are in. OnChainFX has some segment categorization but I generally like to bring it down to:
Think about your "Circle of Competence", your body of knowledge that allows you to evaluate an investment. Your ability to properly judge risk and potential is going to largely correlated to your understanding of the subject matter. If you don't know anything about how supply chains functions, how can you competently judge whether VeChain or WaltonChain will achieve adoption? If you don't understand anything about the tech when you read the Cardano paper, are you really able to determine how likely it is to be adopted?
Consider the historic correlations between your holdings. Generally when Bitcoin pumps, altcoins dump but at what rate depends on the coin. When Bitcoin goes sideways we tend to see pumping in altcoins, while when Bitcoin goes down, everything goes down.
You should diversify but really shouldn't be in much more than around 12 cryptos, because you simply don't have enough competency to accurately access the risk across every segment and for every type of crypto you come across. If you have over 20 different cryptos in your portfolio you should probably think about consolidating to a few sectors you understand well.

Part B: Crypto Picking Methodology (Due Dilligence)

Do you struggle on how to fundamentally analyze cryptocurrencies? Here is a 3-step methodology to follow to perform your due dilligence:

Step 1: Filtering and Research

There is so much out there that you can get overwhelmed. The best way to start is to think back to your own portfolio allocation strategy and what you would like to get more off. For example in my view enterprise-focused blockchain solutions will be important in the next few years, and so I look to create a list of various cryptos that are in that segment.
Upfolio has brief descriptions of the top 100 cryptos and is filterable by categories, for example you can click the "Enterprise" category and you have a neat list of VEN, FCT, WTC...etc.
Once you have a list of potential candidates, its time to read about them:
  • Critically evaluate the website. If it's a cocktail of nonsensical buzzwords, if its unprofessional and poorly made, stay away. Always look for a roadmap, compare to what was actually delivered so far. Always check the team, try to find them on LinkedIn and what they did in the past.
  • Read the whitepaper or business development plan. You should fully understand how this crypto functions and how its trying to create value. If there is no use case or if the use case does not require or benefit from a blockchain, move on.
  • Check the blockchain explorer. How is the token distribution across accounts? Are the big accounts selling? Try to figure out who the whales are (not always easy!) and what the foundation/founder account is based on the initial allocation.
  • Look at the Github repos, does it look empty or is there plenty of activity?
  • Search out the subreddit and look at a few Medium or Steem blogs about the coin. How "shilly" is the community, and how much engagement is there between developer and the community?
  • I would also go through the BitcoinTalk thread and Twitter mentions, judge both the length and quality of the discussion.
You can actually filter out a lot of scams and bad investments by simply keeping your eye out on the following red flags:
  • allocations that give way too much to the founder
  • guaranteed promises of returns (Bitcooonnneeeect!)
  • vague whitepapers filled with buzzwords
  • vague timelines and no clear use case
  • Github with no useful code and sparse activity
  • a team that is difficult to find information on

Step 2: Passing a potential pick through a checklist

Once you feel fairly confident that a pick is worth analyzing further, run them through a standardized checklist of questions. This is one I use, you can add other questions yourself:
Crypto Analysis Checklist
What is the problem or transactional inefficiency the coin is trying to solve?
What is the Dev Team like? What is their track record? How are they funded, organized?
How big is the market they're targeting?
Who is their competition and what does it do better?
What is the roadmap they created and how well have they kept to it?
What current product exists?
How does the token/coin actually derive value for the holder? Is there a staking mechanism or is it transactional?
Is there any new tech, and is it informational or governance based?
Can it be easily copied?
What are the weaknesses or problems with this crypto?
The last question is the most important.
This is where the riskiness of your crypto is evaluated, the Ri I talked about above. Here you should be able to accurate place the crypto into one of the three risk categories. I also like to run through this checklist of blockchain benefits and consider which specific properties of the blockchain are being used by the specific crypto to provide some increased utility over the current transactional method:
Benefits of Cryptocurrency
Decentralization - no need for a third party to agree or validate transactions.
Transparency and trust - As blockchain are shared, everyone can see what transactions occur. Useful for something like an online casino.
Immutability - It is extremely difficult to change a transaction once its been put onto a blockchain
Distributed availability - The system is spread on thousands of nodes on a P2P network, so its difficult to take the system down.
Security - cryptographically secured transactions provide integrity
Simplification and consolidation - a blockchain can serve as a shared ledger in industries where multiple entities previously kept their own data sources
Quicker Settlement - In the financial industry when we're dealing with post-trade settlement, a blockchain can drastically increase the speed of verification
Cost - in some cases avoiding a third party verification would drastically reduce costs.

Step 3: Create a valuation model

You don't need to get into full modeling or have a financial background. Even a simple model that just tries to derive a valuation through relative terms will put you above most crypto investors. Some simple valuation methods that anyone can do:
Probablistic Scenario Valuation
This is all about thinking of scenarios and probability, a helpful exercise in itself. For example: Bill Miller, a prominent value investor, wrote a probabilistic valuation case for Bitcoin in 2015. He looked at two possible scenarios for probabalistic valuation:
  1. becoming a store-of-value equal to gold (a $6.4 trillion value), with a .25% probability of occurring
  2. replacing payment processors like VISA, MasterCard, etc. (a $350 million dollar value) with a 2.5% probability
Combining those scenarios would give you the total expected market cap: (0.25% x 6.4 trillion) + (2.5% x 350 million). Divide this by the outstanding supply and you have your valuation.
Metcalfe's Law
Metcalfe's Law which states that the value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system (n2). So you can compare various currencies based on their market cap and square of active users or traffic. We can alter this to crypto by thinking about it in terms of both users and transactions:
For example, compare the Coinbase pairs:
Metric Bitoin Ethereum Litecoin
Market Cap $152 Billion $93 Billion $7.3 Billion
Daily Transactions (last 24hrs) 249,851 1,051,427 70,397
Active Addresses (Peak 1Yr) 1,132,000 1,035,000 514,000
Metcalfe Ratio (Transactions Based) 2.43 0.08 1.47
Metcalfe Ratio (Address Based) 0.12 0.09 0.03
Generally the higher the ratio, the higher the valuation given for each address/transaction.
Market Cap to Industry comparisons
Another easy one is simply looking at the total market for the industry that the coin is supposedly targeting and comparing it to the market cap of the coin. Think of the market cap not only with circulating supply like its shown on CMC but including total supply. For example the total supply for Dentacoin is 1,841,395,638,392, and when multiplied by its price in early January we get a market cap that is actually higher than the entire industry it aims to disrupt: Dentistry.
More complex valuation models
If you would like to get into more fleshed out models with Excel, I highly recommend Chris Burniske's blog about using Quantity Theory of Money to build an equivalent of a DCF analysis for crypto.
Here is an Excel file example of OMG done by Nodar Janashia using Chris' model .
You should create multiple scenarios with multiple assumptions, both positive and negative. Have a base scenario and then moderately optimistic/pessimistic and highly optimistic/pessimistic scenario.
Personally I like to see at least a 50% upward potential before investing from my moderately pessimistic scenario, but you can set your own safety margin.
The real beneficial thing about modelling isn't even the price or valuation comparisons it spits out, but that it forces you to think about why the coin has value and what your own assumption about the future are. For example the discount rate you apply to the net present utility formula drastically affects the valuation, and it reflects your own assumptions of how risky the crypto is. What exactly would be a reasonable discount rate? What about the digital economy you are assuming for the coin, what levers affects its size and adoption and how likely are your assumptions to come true? You'll be a drastically more intelligent investor if you think about the fundamental variables that give your coin the market cap you think it should hold.

Summing it up

The time for lambo psychosis is over. But that's no reason to feel down, this is a new day and what many were waiting for. I've put together in one place here how to construct a portfolio allocation (taking into consideration risk and return targets), and how to go through a systematic crypto picking method. I'm won't tell you what to buy, you should always decide that for yourself and DYOR. But as long as you follow a rational and thorough methodology (feel free to modify anything I said above to suit your own needs) you will feel pretty good about your investments, even in times like these.
Edit: Also get a crypto prediction ferret. You won't regret it.
submitted by arsonbunny to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Update r/bitcoin here

Hey guys, I just wanted to thank you guys for everything you've done for the community and the support and the patience you've had with the trolls that come over eye on an everyday basis.
As a former troll(sorry), I'm really grateful that you guys took the time to open up my eyes and let me know of the technicalities behind Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash. I think that's one of the main reasons as to why the trolls do what they do. They do not know about the advantages and sometimes don't want to know.
Since my last post I have converted all my BTC holdings into Bitcoin Cash and even though short term I would have made more through btc I strongly believe BCH will emerge victorious in the end!
I truly hope the best for everyone on here going into 2018.
Let's have another great year Bitcoin Cash Army!!!
submitted by BitcoinCashMaybe to btc [link] [comments]

For all the newbies here: Relax, you are an early adopter, never 'panic-sell', corrections like this one are a good entry point of for 'Dollar Cost Averaging'. And no, Korea didn't just "ban" Bitcoin.

It is always a good time to buy (the real Bitcoin, not Bcash), we are NOT in a "bubble" (fiat is the real bubble), the answer is: Buy now, always Hodl in FUD times (Bitcoin has "died" many times, but Moneybadger don't care, buy the dips and never panic-sell, stuff like: "China/Korea ban Bitcoin...again!" will keep happening again and again.
Stick to the real Bitcoin through all the 'forks' and 'splits' that accomplish nothing but new mediocre, unsafe and centralized altcoins, strengthen/immunize Bitcoin and give you free altcoins to buy more Bitcoin.
All Central Powers look silly trying to control or ban it. Learn from history and listen to this absolute Boss. There will never be enough Bitcoin for every existing millionaire to own just ONE SINGLE BITCOIN, Total number of millionaires (in USD value) worldwide is around 33 million. BTC is the best money.
Also relax, you are actually an early adopter, BTC is still relatively small, mentally prepare yourself for healthy and expected market volatility/dips/corrections/"crashes" (check out this amazing 'Corrections Trends Perspective') and remember all this:
Follow this basic rules of Bitcoin:
It is always a good time to buy Bitcoin if you are hodling long term and not just for day trading, so this is a great strategy. Remember that Bitcoin has practically been up most of the time, and the road to the moon is paved with minor corrections (Bitcoin is never really "down" when you zoom-out).
Everybody parroting: "The bitcoin bubble is about to pop, not linear.
When they bring up the "2000 Dotcom Bubble collapse", tell them: I hope so! Look at these past decentralized/disruptive tech adoption "bubbles". Hyperbitcoinization is coming.
So is not farfetched to say that it will be at 100,000 by 2020, since it came from less than $1 to $5,000 in less than 10 years, and it hasn't even hit the bottom part of the exponential 'S-Curve' of adoption. Check out this great 2017 MIT study: "The Cryptocurrency Market Is Growing Exponentially". Patience pays, don't listen to most "Expert Analysts" or MSM".
Bitcoin is a Moneybadger that get's stronger and immunized with every new attack and this broad picture of its price since infancy (1 year candles on a logarithmic scale) shows Bitcoin growth is not a "bubble" but it's exponential (bigger "bubbles" every time), this old logarithmic scale has been accurate so far, as well as analysts like Wall Street strategist Tom Lee by using Metcalfe's Law: "The value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system (n2)" wiki-link. He explains it clearer here.
Learn the difference between Inflation (dollar) and Deflation (Bitcoin) and just take a look at the fiat >20 trillion (and growing fast) debt clock to get a visual shock of unlimited fiat supply (vs limited Bitcoin/Gold supply). BTC is secured by the laws of the Universe.
Bitcoin has outperformed every other currency, commodity, stock and asset since its inception in 2009. Bitcoin, the Moneybadger, is the first unseizable store of value in human history, unlike gold, equities, or fiat, it can't be confiscated if stored correctly. How banks think blockchain will disrupt their industry. Check out these Bitcoin Economy and Bitcoin Transaction infographics.
Also, remember its fixed, limited supply of 21 million coins ever, there are just ~4.5 million (~20%) bitcoins left to be mined till 2140 and the production will keep decreasing ("halving") every 4 years till then. So, remember this and don't wait for the Bitcoin "bubble" to burst or for the price to drop significantly again, because you could be waiting forever:
“The best time to buy bitcoin was in 2009...”.
Don't be -- this guy
Edit: Stay away from fake "Bitcoin" stuff like "btc", "Bitcoin".com (Bitcoin.org is the legit site), Bcash ("Bitcoin" Cash/BCH), "Bitcoin" Gold, etc.
submitted by domelane to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

u/guysir was getting downvoted in this thread for constantly asking "Can you explain why someone would have the desire for Bitcoin to die?" So I put together a couple of pointers to help him (and others like him) to wake up and smell the coffee.

TL;DR:
If you just want a 3-minute (NSFW) video which explains why certain rich assholes don't want you to have nice things, here goes:
George Carlin - The big club (NSFW!!!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUaqFzZLxU
Reference:
u/guysir has been asking a lot of questions like this:
Can you explain why [they] would have the desire for Bitcoin to die?
Edit: I like how I'm being downvoted for simply asking a question.
~ u/guysir
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6qjw0o/small_blockers_want_even_smaller_blocks_o_o/dkxz7t3/?context=2
etc etc etc...
Below are some introductory lessons to help u/guysir grow up and face the reality of how the world actually works.
Lesson 1: Money doesn't grow on trees. Nor does it get mined from the ground very much anymore, as gold and silver. (Correction because I was half-asleep when I wrote that: Gold and silver still do get mined quite a bit of course - but most people don't use them day-to-day as money.) And gold and silver prices are probably heavily manipulated (suppressed) these days anyways - in order to prevent the value of fiat currencies (such as the USD, EUR, GBP, YEN) from collapsing.
So, where does money come from, in the modern world?
Bankers print unlimited supplies of money out of thin air (which they then give to their buddies).
That may sound somewhat surprising to someone who hasn't ever sat down and examined how the world actually works - but basically, it's the reality we do live in.
Exercise 1: Put on your thinking cap now for 30 seconds and try to imagine what your life would be like if you could "print money out of thin air" (and give it to your buddies).
OK, your 30 seconds are up.
Hopefully you realized that being able to "print money out of thin air" (and give it to your buddies) would give you immense power - correct?
This was just a simple exercise, and of course the politics and economics of the world as a whole are much more complicated - but hopefully at this point you have managed to finally grasp one basic concept:
The ability to print money (and give it to your buddies) confers great power.
So, as the saying goes: "Money makes the world go around."
And some lucky people (bankers) have arrogated to themselves the right to print money (which they then give to their buddies).
These buddies of theirs constitute a kind of exclusive club of mega-rich people who control all the essentials which you need to survive: mainly housing, education, healthcare.
Notice how the prices of these essentials are always going through the roof - while your salary stays pretty much stagnant.
And notice how you never have enough cash to buy these things outright using the little bit of cash money that you actually have.
So these people also control one other thing you need in life - credit.
Credit is actually just "money that you have to buy" (at a gigantic markup, called "interest") from those same mega-rich people in that "club", who happen to be lucky enough to be buddies with the bankers who "print up money out of thin air".
It's a very exclusive club, which runs the world - and you ain't in it.
Extracurricular Activity 1: Watch this short video by George Carlin for a vivid explanation of this "club" which you ain't in:
George Carlin - The big club (NSFW!!!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUaqFzZLxU
Lesson 2: Bitcoin is "peer-to-peer electronic cash". One of the most important aspects of it is that there will only be 21 million bitcoins (or 21 trillion "bits" - where there are a million "bits" in 1 bitcoin).
Many people believe that one of the main reasons Satoshi designed Bitcoin this way (with a cap of 21 million bitcoins) was to take away the power of the bankers and their buddies to keep running the world by printing up money.
Exercise 2: Read as much as you can of the Bitcoin whitepaper, and the Bitcoin wiki. Since this is about economics, you can skip over the technical stuff about how this whole thing was programmed in C++ - and just focus on how it works at the level of economics.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page
https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf
Another good site to read about the economic aspects of Bitcoin is Nakamoto Institute:
http://nakamotoinstitute.org/
Again, you can skip the articles about C++ programming - and just focus on articles dealing with the economic (and social, and political) aspects of having a form of money which an exclusive club of rich bankers and their buddies can't simply print up and use to control your life.
Extracurricular Activity 2: Read (or watch a video) about The Creature from Jekyll Island or about the Federal Reserve - which explains how the current banking system in a powerful country (the USA) really works:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=creature+jekyll+island&t=hb&ia=web
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=crature+from+jekyll+island
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=federal+reserve+conspiracy
Or, alternatively, read up on topics like the petrodollar, quantitative easing, fractional reserve, ZIRP and NIRP, the Austrian school of economics - to start understanding some of the more advanced topics of how a certain exclusive club of bankers arrogate to themselves the right to print money out of thin air (which they then hand out to their buddies, who then use this power to control your access to all the expensive essentials in life).
Yes, there's a lot of tinfoil or Illuminati stuff in there which could be just delusional paranoia - but there's also a lot of cold hard facts about where money comes from. And it doesn't come from trees - or out of the ground - instead, it just comes from bankers typing in numbers on a keyboard, and then handing out this freshly-printed money to their friends - who then use this "fiat" to control you.
Lesson 3: Do a search on this subreddit for "AXA" to learn more about this one particular company.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/search?q=axa&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
You will see that AXA isn't just any old insurance company or financial firm - it actually happens to be the second-most-connected financial company in the world.
Who owns the world? (1) Barclays, (2) AXA, (3) State Street Bank. (Infographic in German - but you can understand it without knowing much German: "Wem gehört die Welt?" = "Who owns the world?") AXA is the #2 company with the most economic poweconnections in the world. And AXA owns Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5btu02/who_owns_the_world_1_barclays_2_axa_3_state/
In addition, AXA is heavily involved in derivatives - in fact, it is the insurance company most heavily involved with derivatives:
If Bitcoin becomes a major currency, then tens of trillions of dollars on the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" will evaporate, destroying AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderbergers. This is the real reason why AXA bought Blockstream: to artificially suppress Bitcoin volume and price with 1MB blocks.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4r2pw5/if_bitcoin_becomes_a_major_currency_then_tens_of/?ref=search_posts
Lesson 4: How do debt-based fiat currencies (and derivatives) work? And how could companies that depend on such "assets" (such as AXA) be negatively affected by Bitcoin?
Derivatives are basically the total opposite of Bitcoin, when it comes to something called "counterparty risk" .
Counterparty risk is the possibility that you might not get what's owed to you - because "your money" isn't actually in your hands, it's in someone else's hands, and all you have is a "claim" on what they're holding in their hands: in other words, they have a debt to you (a promise to pay you) - and you only get "your" money if that other "counterparty" actually pays their debt to you, or makes good on their promise to pay you.
Compare that to Bitcoin - which is basically one of the only "counterparty-free" assets in the world. If you have a bitcoin (ie, if you control your own private key), then you're not dependent on anybody to pay you. You already are holding your own "cash".
You've probably seen company balance sheets, with Assets (including Receivables) and Liabilities (including Payables) and Income and Expenses and Equity. To calculate how much the company "has", you just add up all the positive stuff (Assets and Receivables), then subtract all the negative stuff (Liabilities and Payables), and the difference is what the company "has": its Equity. (The Income and Expense accounts are just temporary accounts used for incoming and outgoing cash flows.) But a lot of what the company "has" also could involve "counterparties" - other entities who (in the future) will (hopefully) come through and pay what they promised to pay.
So there is risk here. Risk of not getting paid. Risk of breach of contract. Risk of credit default. Because most of these "assets" are not "counterparty-free". Your "net worth" on paper might be just that: on paper. In reality (if the people who promised to pay you end up never paying you), then your "net worth" could actually turn out to be much less than what it says "on paper".
Derivatives are just another layer built on top of that: they're basically "bets" about whether someone is actually going to get paid or not. (In fact, one of the most important types of derivatives are Credit Default Swaps - or CDOs - which are used to place "bets" on whether someone is going to default on their debts.)
So, a company like AXA (which is heavily involved in derivativs) is technically "rich" - but only "on paper". In reality, like most major financial firms, if you just looked at what they actually have "on hand", they'd probably literally be bankrupt.
This may sound shocking, but many economic experts have stated that a majority of the major financial firms around the world (including most major banks, and most major insurance firms such as AXA) are actually bankrupt - if you just look at the reality of what they actually have "on hand" (and not the "fantasy" of what they have "on paper").
So, in addition to the ability to print money out of thin air, there is this other strange aspect to the world's current financial system: many companies (mainly finance companies) would be considered bankrupt if viewed strictly in terms of what they have "on hand" ... but they're are able to parade around acting like they're mega-rich, based on what they have "on paper" (most of which is debt-based or derivatives-based).
Bitcoin coin is a major threat to the existing power system based on debt and dervatives - which AXA is at the absolute center of
So, the people who are supposedly "powerful", who run our world - their power comes from two sources:
  • Their ability to print up money out of thin air;
  • Debt-based and derivatives-based numbers on paper.
Bitcoin threatens the first item above.
And the global financial crisis which started in 2008 threatens the second item above.
In fact, Bitcoin itself also probably threatens the second item above too.
This is because as Bitcoin becomes worth more and more, those debt-based and derivatives-based numbers on paper become worth less and less, in relative terms.
And if the current financial crisis becomes acute again (like it did when another "systemically important" insurance company / derivatives "playa" went under: AIG)...
...then a lot of those numbers on balance sheets will get wiped out, written off - because people aren't paying up
...and so companies (including companies like AXA - in fact especially companies like AXA) might go belly up
...because they don't actually have any real money "on hand" - all they have is debt-based and derivatives-based numbers on paper.
So nearly all of the world's major banks and insurance companies - especially AXA - are on a mad, mad merry-go-round of debt and derivatives.
They're like someone with no cash, living on an almost-maxxed-out credit card - desperately hoping that the banks will lend give them more money (a/k/a "credit" - a/k/a debt), and terrified that the counterparties who owe them money will actually turn out to be in the same boat that they are: ie, bankrupt, deadbeats.
It's actually less like a merry-go-round, and more like a game of musical chairs: and nearly all the major banks and financial companies are terrified of what will happen if/when the music stops, and they're not able to scramble to find a chair - especially AXA.
AXA is the "second-most-connected" financial company in the world
AXA also has more derivatives than any other insurance company in the world - which means they're basically flat-broke, totally dependent on their "counterparties" in this "web of debt".
And derivatives aren't just some minor part of the world financial system. Actually, there is currently around 1.2 quadrillion dollars in derivatives - so derivatives are by far the biggest part of the world financial system.
Here's an infographic to give you an idea:
http://money.visualcapitalist.com/all-of-the-worlds-money-and-markets-in-one-visualization/
You'll notice that Bitcoin is also included on that infographic.
Maybe you look at it and think: Well, Bitcoin is so small, why would they be worried about it?
But size isn't everything.
Remember that (unlike nearly every other asset on that infographic) - bitcoin is "counterparty-free". (Also gold and silver are "counterparty-free".)
So gold, silver and bitcoin are a lot more "independent" than all the other so-called "assets" on that infographic. In fact, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that gold, silver and bitcoin are the only totally real assets on that infographic - and the rest of those assets are to some degree fake (since they could evaporate at any minute - unlike gold, silver and bitcoin, where your ownership is totally guaranteed).
Also, due to the "law of reversion to mean", something small on that infographic basically has only one direction it can go: towards getting bigger. We say that Bitcoin has a lot of "upside" for growth.
And something gigantic on that infographic also has one direction it can go: towards getting smaller. We say that derivatives have a lot of downside - derivatives might be in a bubble, or due for a crash.
And one way that could easily happen would be for billions of dollars (or trillions of dollars) to flow into Bitcoin - while flowing out of the other asset classes on that infographic.
Of course, in order for trillions of dollars to flow into Bitcoin...
We're gonna need a bigger blocksize.
And that's actually basically all we'd probably need - the software already runs fine, and (despite the propaganda from Blockstream and r\bitcoin), the network / hardware / infrastructure / bandwidth can already handle blocksizes of 4MB-8MB - so with things like Moore's law working in tandem with Metcalfe's law, it is quite reaonable to assume that in 8-10 years (after the next two Bitcoin "halvings") it is quite possible for 1 bitcoin to be worth 1 million US Dollars.
I did some rough growth projections here showing how feasible this actually is:
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
So Bitcoin (with bigger blocks - not under the control of Blockstream or AXA) could be a serious competitor - or a threat - or a safe haven - or an "inversely correlated" asset class - versus all the other asset classes on that infographic.
Bitcoin is an alternative
Bitcoin is an alternative - an option people might turn to, if they decide to abandon the other options on that infographic.
So AXA - whose wealth and power depends on heavily on the derivatives shown in that infographic - might want to either see Bitcoin fail, or suppress Bitcoin, or eliminate it as an alternative, or simply control it somehow - just to make sure it doesn't "eat their lunch".
Remember that one of the tactics used by oppressors is to spread propaganda to brainwash you into giving up hope and believing that "There Is No Alternative".
Bitcoin is an alternative to the current messed-up financial system (which helps prop up bankrupt companies like AXA) - so for that reason alone it's enough for a company like AXA to want to eliminate or suppress or at least control Bitcoin. Not just by buying up some bitcoins - but by paying the devs who write the code that determines the blocksize which ultimately affects the price.
"Bitcoin users unaffected."
If/when the music stops in the game of debt- and derivatives-backed musical chairs that makes the world go 'round, some of the "systemically important" financial firms will be exposed as being bankrupt - and it is very, very likely that one of those firms could be AXA (just like AIG in 2008).
In all honesty, I have to admit that it's still not totally clear to me (or maybe to anyone) precisely how Bitcoin will ultimately impact this whole "web of debt". After all, this is the first time the world has ever had a digital, counterparty-free asset like Bitcoin. (Gold and silver are also counterparty-free - but they're not digital, so it's harder to store them and move them around.)
But one basic fact is certain: Bitcoin is really not a part of this whole "web of debt". Bitcoin stands quite outside this whole "web of debt". Bitcoin is "inversely correlated" to this whole "web of debt".
Bitcoin is an alternative.
Voice and Exit
If you feel like you don't have a voice / vote in the system, it's good to know that you can exit the system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty
Balaji Srinivasan (founder of 21.co) on Voice and Exit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOubCHLXT6A
Can we ever really know what AXA might be up to with Bitcoin?
Probably not - because it is unlikely that they would ever tell us.
But, we can make some rational guesses.
On some level, a lot of people whose wealth and power come from this whole "web of debt" are probably just reasoning as follows:
  • If/when this whole "web of debt" goes down, Bitcoin goes up. (This is already pretty much an established fact: money flees to "safe havens" like gold, silver and bitcoin when "traditional" investments go down.)
  • If/when Bitcoin goes up, then the importance and power (and credibility) of this whole "web of debt" goes down. (This makes sense: being counterparty-free, bitcoin is obviously a safer investment - and so it's worth more - and so all those other debt-based and derivatives-based investments become worth less, as bitcoin becomes worth more.)
  • If Bitcoin goes down (or totally goes away), then this whole "web of debt" will probably be able to hang on for a while longer. (This also be more of just just a conjecture - but it seems quite reasonable.)
Maybe they just want to keep you trapped in their system - by destroying (or suppressing) the alternative (Bitcoin) which gives you a chance to exit their system.
Some more posts about AXA and what they might be up to:
Anyways, there's a bunch of articles on btc about AXA and what they might be up to with Bitcoin:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/search?q=axa&restrict_sr=on
Finally, if you need some extra help dispelling the quaint notion that the people who run the world are honest and transparent and helpful, then the following two (admittedly highly conjectural) posts might help spell things out a bit more explicitly for you:
Blockstream may be just another Embrace-Extend-Extinguish strategy.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3y8o9c/is_the_real_power_behind_blockstream_straussian/
The owners of Blockstream are spending $75 million to do a "controlled demolition" of Bitcoin by manipulating the Core devs & the Chinese miners. This is cheap compared to the $ trillions spent on the wars on Iraq & Libya - who also defied the Fed / PetroDollar / BIS private central banking cartel.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/48vhn0/the_owners_of_blockstream_are_spending_75_million/
Sorry I don't have any more time right now to "school" you further on this subject.
Ideally, learning should be a self-driven process anyways - once someone helps you get started.
Some advice
Finally, if I may give you some parting advice.
If you want to be truly respected on these forums, you're probably going to have to stop going around acting like such a doe-eyed innocent little pollyanna.
It is assumed that most people here already pretty much know the harsh reality of how the world works, and are trying to use Bitcoin as a way to not get screwed over by this harsh reality.
So some of the more informed people around here might not have much patience with you (or trust in you) if you don't even understand the basic principles outlined above, namely:
  1. Our planet is being run by an exclusive club of rich assholes who have immense power, because we "allow" them to print out money (which they then hand out to their buddies, not to us - basically enslaving us).
  2. Bitcoin was designed (many believe) to help fix this dire situation.
  3. The ancien régime (those people who up till now who have been running the world, due to their ability to print money) might not like Bitcoin for this reason, and might try to do something to stop it - and they might not tell you why they're doing it - and they might not even tell you that they are doing it in the first place!
Sorry to be such a curmudgeon, but pollyannas like you tend to get on my nerves after a while - not least because it seems to me that one of the factors which allows those rich assholes to continue to stay in power and run the world is because so many uninformed credulous people like you either can't or won't just wake up and open your goddamn eyes and see how you're getting fucked over by this whole "web of debt" based around that exclusive "club" of rich assholes who get free money which the bankers are simply printing up out of thin air.
So, 99% of people in the world are living lives of quiet desperation and oppression, becoming poorer and poorer - while the rich keep getting richer and richer (with all that money they keep printing out of thin air - which by the way, if you do the math, ends up making your money worth less) - and now there are finally some serious attempts at revolution or change afoot, to try to fix some of this mess - and you've just wandered in to a meeting where some of these people struggling for change are making plans, and you basically keep going around asking "What are you guys so worked up about?"
Maybe if you also realized that you are saying the exact same thing that the oppressors are always saying (basically some variation of "Nothing to see here, move on!") - then maybe that will provide another hint to you as to why some people have been less-than-totally-welcoming of your non-stop naïve-sounding questions.
Every subreddit has a topic - plus certain assumptions
For comparison: Would you wander around on a subreddit about fitness or weightlifting constantly asking: "Why do you want to get in shape?"? (Or maybe here's an even better comparison: Would you wander around on a subreddit for some oppressed group, and keep asking "Why would anyone be oppressing you?"?)
There are certain "givens" which are assumed on a subreddit - and one of the "givens" for a lot of people on this subreddit is that the current monetary regime running the world is not working for most people (or: it is oppressing most people), and so we need something better. (Also another one of the "givens" is that r\bitcoin is censoring everyone's posts - and that Blockstream is damaging Bitcoin.)
Nobody is forcing you to get into fitness or weightlifting - and nobody is forcing you to get into Bitcoin. Maybe you think your physique is already fine the way it is, so you don't see the point of fitness or bodybuilding - and maybe you think that VISA and PayPal and JPMorganChase and Wells Fargo and the Fed and the ECB or whatever are fine for you, so you don't see the point of Bitcoin. (Or maybe you were born a millionaire so you don't feel financially oppressed.) You're free to get involved or not get involved. Most people who are here are involved for some particular reason. And whatever that reason may be, it usually tends to involve using Bitcoin as it was designed in the whitepaper - in order to improve their lives. And part of this also means actually using Bitcoin as it was designed in the whitepaper - free of any interference from companies like Blockstream - or their financial backers AXA - who might not really want us to be able to use Bitcoin the way it was designed in the whitepaper.
In particular, it has been quite obvious for years to people on btc that the actions of r\bitcoin and Blockstream have been damaging to Bitcoin (whatever their actual motives may be - which we may ultimately never even be able to find out since they're probably never going to actually tell us) - but meanwhile we've had to fight tooth and nail to get a vast brainwashed army of pollyannas - a lot of whom quite frankly sound a lot like you - to understand that Satoshi did not design Bitcoin to work like this:
Every Core supporter wants to run their own node. Apparently to help banks settle transactions, instead of their own transactions.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6qgy7s/every_core_supporter_wants_to_run_their_own_node/
Satoshi designed Bitcoin to work like this:
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
We all have our own reasons for being here.
So hopefully that gives you some background regarding why many people are here on this subreddit in the first place, and what some of our goals and desires are.
We want to use Bitcoin - and we don't want the bankers funding Blockstream or the censors silencing r\bitcoin to get in our way.
We understand that Bitcoin is a disruptive technology which could be liberating and empowering for many of us in various ways.
We are realistic about the fact (ie, we take it as a "given") that certain powerful individuals or institutions might not want us to be empowered and liberated like this (maybe because their power depends on our enslavement).
And so we allow for the possibility that certain powerful individuals or institutions might be trying to stop us - and that they might not even have the courtesy to inform us that they are trying to stop us.
I should of course clarify that these are ultimately really only my reasons for being on this forum.
Other people may have their own reasons - some the same as me, and some different from me - and so I can only speak for myself.
It is important for all of us - me, you and everyone else - to have a clear understanding of why we are here.
In particular, if you - u/guysir - ever felt like giving people a brief explanation of why you are here - then that might help people understand why you keep asking the kind of questions you keep asking.
Why people are rejecting Blockstream's heavily modified version of Bitcoin - and sticking with Satoshi's original version of Bitcoin (now called Bitcoin Cash or BCC)
The above reasons are why many of us will not use AXA-owned Blockstream's Bitcoin.
We want to continue using Satoshi's original Bitcoin, now being renamed Bitcoin Cash (ticker: BCC, or BCH) - because we want to continue to enjoy the benefits of:
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Stellar Lumen's price is susceptible to exponential growth due to its burgeoning network effect, here's why

Its time to recognise and somewhat quantify that Stellar is incredibly undervalued. As the Stellar Development Foundation keeps saying, sending money should be as quick and easy (and cheap) as sending an email. The Stellar network therefore acts like a telecommunications network except it primarily relays payments between nodes rather than information.
Metcalfe’s Law states that the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of users connected to the system. I.e. The more nodes (end users and or validators) there are the greater the value of the network, with its value rising exponentially. Unlike telecommunications networks the limitations for connecting nodes would be things like language barriers, bandwidth strength etc These don’t apply to Stellar since all nodes connect using the stellar protocol which is one language and bandwidth is not a big factor since it only relays small byte sized packets of information to broadcast the transaction.
Metcalfe’s Law can be applied to transaction per day of a given network. While I don’t have the figures for the number of transaction per day on the 1st March 2017 I can confidently say that they are a lot less than today?
The same Law can be applied to partnerships, developers, investors and speculators and users- they have all substantially increased harmoniously as a result of the increasing network effect. Networks such as Stellar and its native currency Lumen does seem to follow Metcalf’s Law often entering price bubbles which inflate due to promise and development (fundamentals) and then spikes beyond its fundamentals due to over zealous speculation and sentiment causing the bubble to burst. The cycle is then repeated when the fundamentals catch up with new low price and sentiment then reflects what is seen as an undervalued network and the bubble starts again. This is clearly evident with bitcoin and ethereum but due to their POW and mining, they are affected by Moore's Law in my opinion and I see this as a hindrance to them long term.
Metcalfe’s Law is not predictive but it does give a rough guideline on the value of a network from its utility and network effect through out its development. However, if you combine Metcalfe’s Law with the given network fulfilling a need to solve a social/economic problem in society as Stellar is trying to do then it becomes all the more valuable and this results in future price bubbles and exponentially higher prices.
submitted by justmylifenow to Stellar [link] [comments]

Big Blockers - Once the blocks are full you will be no better off than Bitcoin Core, high fees etc - WELL NOT REALLY!

Small Blockers mantra
What will you do when you fill your Big Blocks you will be in the same position as Bitcoin Core
When blocks become full at say 32MB and if it is deemed unfeasible at the time to increase the blocksize (doubtful) Bitcoin Cash won't be in the same position as Bitcoin Core,
That's scaling.
This is where your average Small Blocker is in error, parroting the party line,
The smarter ones just keep their trap shut and hope you have not noticed.
See Metcalfe's Law for why it is ~1000 times more utility / quadratic increase.
edit: u/phillipsjk points out in another thread
Put another way, people have trouble interacting with more than about 50 people.
Metcalfe's law tells you how useful a network is: but not how many messages will actually happen (which is more likely to be nlogn).
effectively pointing out n2 is an upper bound.and long term it would tend to nlogn, more thought needs to be applied to where we are on the scale, are we already below nlogn increases, I don't think so but will have to think more about it. any thoughts?
submitted by don2468 to btc [link] [comments]

Core/AXA/Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, attack dog Luke-Jr and censor Theymos are sabotaging Bitcoin - but they lack the social skills to even feel guilty for this. Anyone who attempts to overrule the market and limit or hard-code Bitcoin's blocksize must be rejected by the community.

Centrally planned blocksize is not a desirable feature - it's an insidious bug which is slowly and quietly suppressing Bitcoin's adoption and price and market cap.
And SegWit's dangerous "Anyone-Can-Spend" hack isn't just a needless kludge (which Core/Blockstream/AXA are selfishly trying to quietly slip into Bitcoin via a dangerous and messy soft fork - because they're deathly afraid of hard fork, knowing that most people would vote against their shitty code if they ever had the balls to put it up for an explicit, opt-in vote).
SegWit-as-a-soft-fork is a poison-pill for Bitcoin
SegWit is brought to you by the anti-Bitcoin central bankers at AXA and the economically ignorant, central blocksize planners at Blockstream whose dead-end "road map" for Bitcoin is:
AXA is trying to sabotage Bitcoin by paying the most ignorant, anti-market devs in Bitcoin: Core/Blockstream
This is the direction that Bitcoin has been heading in since late 2014 when Blockstream started spreading their censorship and propaganda and started bribing and corrupting the "Core" devs using $76 million in fiat provided by corrupt, anti-Bitcoin "fantasy fiat" finance firms like the debt-backed, derivatives-addicted insurance mega-giant AXA.
Remember:
You Do The Math, and follow the money, and figure out why Bitcoin has been slowly failing to prosper ever since AXA started bribing Core devs to cripple our code with their centrally planned blocksize and now their "Anyone-Can-Spend" SegWit poison-pill.
Smart, honest devs fix bugs. Fiat-fueled AXA-funded Core/Blockstream devs add bugs - and then turn around and try to lie to our face and claim their bugs are somehow "features"
Recently, people discovered bugs in other Bitcoin implementations - memory leaks in BU's software, "phone home" code in AntMiner's firmware.
And the devs involved immediately took public responsibility, and fixed these bugs.
Meanwhile...
So the difference is: BU's and AntMiner's devs possess enough social and economic intelligence to fix bugs in their code immediately when the community finds them.
Meanwhile, most people in the community have been in an absolute uproar for years now against AXA-funded Blockstream's centrally planned blocksize and their deadly Anyone-Can-Spend hack/kludge/poison-pill.
Of course, the home-schooled fiat-fattened sociopath Blockstream CTO One-Meg Greg u/nullc would probably just dismiss all these Bitcoin users as the "shreaking" [sic] masses.
Narcissistic sociopaths like AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell and CTO Adam and their drooling delusional attack dog Luke-Jr (another person who was home-schooled - which may help explain why he's also such a tone-deaf anti-market sociopath) are just too stupid and arrogant to have the humility and the shame to shut the fuck up and listen to the users when everyone has been pointing out these massive lethal bugs in Core's shitty code.
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr, and Theymos are the most damaging people in Bitcoin
These are the four main people who are (consciously or unconsciously) attempting to sabotage Bitcoin:
These toxic idiots are too stupid and shameless and sheltered - and too anti-social and anti-market - to even begin to recognize the lethal bugs they have been trying to introduce into Bitcoin's specification and our community.
Users decide on specifications. Devs merely provide implementations.
Guys like Greg think that they're important because they can do implemenation-level stuff (like avoiding memory leaks in C++ code).
But they are total failures when it comes to specification-level stuff (ie, they are incapable of figuring out how to "grow" a potentially multi-trillion-dollar market by maximally leveraging available technology).
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos apparently lack the social and economic awareness and human decency to feel any guilt or shame for the massive damage they are attempting to inflict on Bitcoin - and on the world.
Their ignorance is no excuse
Any dev who is ignorant enough to attempt to propose adding such insidious bugs to Bitcoin needs to be rejected by the Bitcoin community - no matter how many years they keep on loudly insisting on trying to sabotage Bitcoin like this.
The toxic influence and delusional lies of AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, attack dog Luke-Jr and censor Theymos are directly to blame for the slow-motion disaster happening in Bitcoin right now - where Bitcoin's market cap has continued to fall from 100% towards 60% - and is continuing to drop.
When bitcoin drops below 50%, most of the capital will be in altcoins. All they had to do was increase the block size to 2mb as they promised. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/68219y/when_bitcoin_drops_below_50_most_of_the_capital/
u/FormerlyEarlyAdopter : "I predict one thing. The moment Bitcoin hard-forks away from Core clowns, all the shit-coins out there will have a major sell-off." ... u/awemany : "Yes, I expect exactly the same. The Bitcoin dominance index will jump above 95% again."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5yfcsw/uformerlyearlyadopter_i_predict_one_thing_the/
Market volume (ie, blocksize) should be decided by the market - not based on some arbitrary number that some ignorant dev pulled out of their ass
For any healthy cryptocurrency, market price and market capitalization and market volume (a/k/a "blocksize") are determined by the market - not by any dev team, not by central bankers from AXA, not by economically ignorant devs like Adam and Greg (or that other useless idiot - Core "Lead Maintainer" Wladimir van der Laan), not by some drooling pathological delusional authoritarian freak like Luke-Jr, and not by some petty tyrant and internet squatter and communmity-destroyer like Theymos.
The only way that Bitcoin can survive and prosper is if we, as a community, denounce and reject these pathological "centralized blocksize" control freaks like Adam and Greg and Luke and Theymos who are trying to use tricks like fiat and censorship and lies (in collusion with their army of trolls organized and unleashed by the Dragons Den) to impose their ignorance and insanity on our currency.
These losers might be too ignorant and anti-social to even begin to understand the fact that they are attempting to sabotage Bitcoin.
But their ignorance is no excuse. And Bitcoin is getting ready to move on and abandon these losers.
There are many devs who are much better than Greg, Adam and Luke-Jr
A memory leak is an implementation error, and a centrally planned blocksize is a specification error - and both types of errors will be avoided and removed by smart devs who listen to the community.
There are plenty of devs who can write Bitcoin implementations in C++ - plus plenty of devs who can write Bitcoin implementations in other languages as well, such as:
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos are being exposed as miserable failures
AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, their drooling attack dog Luke-Jr and their censor Theymos (and all the idiot small-blockheads, trolls, and shills who swallow the propaganda and lies cooked up in the Dragons Den) are being exposed more and more every day as miserable failures.
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos had the arrogance and the hubris to want to be "trusted" as "leaders".
But Bitcoin is the world's first cryptocurrency - so it doesn't need trust, and it doesn't need leaders. It is decentralized and trustless.
C++ devs should not be deciding Bitcoin's volume. The market should decide.
It's not suprising that a guy like "One-Meg Greg" who adopts a nick like u/nullc (because he spends most of his life worrying about low-level details like how to avoid null pointer errors in C++ while the second-most-powerful fiat finance corporation in the world AXA is throwing tens of millions of dollars of fiat at his company to reward him for being a "useful idiot") has turned to be not very good at seeing the "big picture" of Bitcoin economics.
So it also comes as no suprise that Greg Maxwell - who wanted to be the "leader" of Bitcoin - has turned out to be one of most harmful people in Bitcoin when it comes to things like growing a potentially multi-trillion-dollar market and economy.
All the innovation and growth and discussion in cryptocurrencies is happening everywhere else - not at AXA-funded Blockstream and r\bitcoin (and the recently discovered Dragons Den, where they plan their destructive social engineering campaigns).
Those are the censored centralized cesspools financed by central bankers and overrun by loser devs and the mindless trolls who follow them - and supported by inefficient miners who want to cripple Bitcoin with centrally planned blocksize (and dangerous "Anyone-Can-Spend" SegWit).
Bitcoin is moving on to bigger blocks and much higher prices - leaving AXA-funded Blockstream's crippled censored centrally planned shit-coin in the dust
Let them stagnate in their crippled shit-coin with its centrally planned, artificial, arbitrary 1MB 1.7MB blocksize, and SegWit's Anyone-Can-Spend hack kludge poison-pill.
Bitcoin is moving on without these tyrants and liars and losers and sociopaths - and we're going to leave their crippled censored centrally planned shit-coin in the dust.
Core/Blockstream are now in the Kübler-Ross "Bargaining" phase - talking about "compromise". Sorry, but markets don't do "compromise". Markets do COMPETITION. Markets do winner-takes-all. The whitepaper doesn't talk about "compromise" - it says that 51% of the hashpower determines WHAT IS BITCOIN.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5y9qtg/coreblockstream_are_now_in_the_k%C3%BCblerross/
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
1 BTC = 64 000 USD would be > $1 trillion market cap - versus $7 trillion market cap for gold, and $82 trillion of "money" in the world. Could "pure" Bitcoin get there without SegWit, Lightning, or Bitcoin Unlimited? Metcalfe's Law suggests that 8MB blocks could support a price of 1 BTC = 64 000 USD
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5lzez2/1_btc_64_000_usd_would_be_1_trillion_market_cap/
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Remember that BTC price has a ceiling proportional to number of tx it supports

The value of a network is proportional to the square of number of connected users [Source]. In case of crypto, we don't have the exact number of users, however number of tx is a good measure. Though HODLers can increase speculative value, number of users increase the real network value
Price closely mirrors the TX count in all major networks:
Price may go further up, however in long term is limited by blocksize limit that is a cap on number of tx
submitted by blockonomics_co to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

How Metcalfe's law in reverse could quickly devalue BTC (core)

Metcalfe's law states that a network's value is proportional to the square of its number of users. This makes sense, because users derive value from interacting with other users in the network. More users, more potential connections. This happens to work out to a squared proportionality.
Metcalfe's law has been used to explain the price explosion of BTC. More users allowed for more utility of a bitcoin. The price increased quadratically with the user base. Notice though, that currently BTC (core) cannot really be used as a medium of exchange anymore (without incurring large fees that is). Therefore, the number of potential connections between users has diminished substantially. Metcalfe's law would predict that the value of the network will follow this drop in utility quadratically. It works just the same in reverse after all.
The price of BTC (core) has experienced irrational exuberance against a background of rapidly deteriorating fundamentals. This is a recipe for a precipitous price decline. I have positioned myself accordingly.
Edit: suppose it suddenly cost 30 dollars to send a fax. The value of a fax machine would drop significantly. All participants in the fax network would be selling their fax machines for alternatives, causing the utility of the fax machine to drop even further. Soon, only hardcore fax believers would own a fax machine anymore. They would use it to send faxes only sparingly. After all, nobody wants to receive their fax anymore.
Edit 2: for BTC (core) this effect is enhanced as the recipient of the "fax" is supposed to resend the "fax" (in order for it to have utility) to others, incurring a fee. So even the receipt of a "fax" is taxed in a way.
Edit 3: don't HODL a fax machine
submitted by hodlgentlemen to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.54^2 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited

TL;DR
Details
(1) The current observed rates of increase in available network bandwidth (which went up 70% last year) should easily be able to support actual blocksizes increasing at the modest, slightly lower rate of only 54% per year.
Recent data shows that the "provisioned bandwidth" actually available on the Bitcoin network increased 70% in the past year.
If this 70% yearly increase in available bandwidth continues for the next 8 years, then actual blocksizes could easily increase at the slightly lower rate of 54% per year.
This would mean that in 8 years, actual blocksizes would be quite reasonable at about 1.548 = 32MB:
Hacking, Distributed/State of the Bitcoin Network: "In other words, the provisioned bandwidth of a typical full node is now 1.7X of what it was in 2016. The network overall is 70% faster compared to last year."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5u85im/hacking_distributedstate_of_the_bitcoin_network/
http://hackingdistributed.com/2017/02/15/state-of-the-bitcoin-network/
Reinstating Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize" for the next 8 years or so would effectively be similar to the 1MB "max blocksize" which Bitcoin used for the previous 8 years: simply a "ceiling" which doesn't really get in the way, while preventing any "unreasonably" large blocks from being produced.
As we know, for most of the past 8 years, actual blocksizes have always been far below the "max blocksize" of 1MB. This is because miners have always set their own blocksize (below the official "max blocksize") - in order to maximize their profits, while avoiding "orphan" blocks.
This setting of blocksizes on the part of miners would simply continue "as-is" if we reinstated Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize" - with actual blocksizes continuing to grow gradually (still far below the 32MB "max blocksize" ceilng), and without introducing any new (risky, untested) "game theory" or economics - avoiding lots of worries and controversies, and bringing the community together around "Bitcoin Original".
So, simply reinstating Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize" would have many advantages:
  • It would keep fees low (so users would be happy);
  • It would support much higher prices (so miners would be happy) - as explained in section (2) below;
  • It would avoid the need for any any possibly controversial changes such as:
    • SegWit/Lightning (the hack of making all UTXOs "anyone-can-spend" necessitated by Blockstream's insistence on using a selfish and dangerous "soft fork", the centrally planned and questionable, arbitrary discount of 1-versus-4 for certain transactions); and
    • Bitcon Unlimited (the newly introduced parameters for Excessive Block "EB" / Acceptance Depth "AD").
(2) Bitcoin blocksize growth of 54% per year would correlate (under Metcalfe's Law) to Bitcoin price growth of around 1.542 = 2.37x per year - or 2.378 = 1000x higher price - ie 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars after 8 years.
The observed, empirical data suggests that Bitcoin does indeed obey "Metcalfe's Law" - which states that the value of a network is roughly proportional to the square of the number of transactions.
In other words, Bitcoin price has corresponded to the square of Bitcoin transactions (which is basically the same thing as the blocksize) for most of the past 8 years.
Historical footnote:
Bitcoin price started to dip slightly below Metcalfe's Law since late 2014 - when the privately held, central-banker-funded off-chain scaling company Blockstream was founded by (now) CEO Adam Back u/adam3us and CTO Greg Maxwell - two people who have historically demonstrated an extremely poor understanding of the economics of Bitcoin, leading to a very polarizing effect on the community.
Since that time, Blockstream launched a massive propaganda campaign, funded by $76 million in fiat from central bankers who would go bankrupt if Bitcoin succeeded, and exploiting censorship on r\bitcoin, attacking the on-chain scaling which Satoshi originally planned for Bitcoin.
Legend states that Einstein once said that the tragedy of humanity is that we don't understand exponential growth.
A lot of people might think that it's crazy to claim that 1 bitcoin could actually be worth 1 million dollars in just 8 years.
But a Bitcoin price of 1 million dollars would actually require "only" a 1000x increase in 8 years. Of course, that still might sound crazy to some people.
But let's break it down by year.
What we want to calculate is the "8th root" of 1000 - or 10001/8. That will give us the desired "annual growth rate" that we need, in order for the price to increase by 1000x after a total of 8 years.
If "you do the math" - which you can easily perform with a calculator or with Excel - you'll see that:
  • 54% annual actual blocksize growth for 8 years would give 1.548 = 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 = 32MB blocksize after 8 years
  • Metcalfe's Law (where Bitcoin price corresponds to the square of Bitcoin transactions or volume / blocksize) would give 1.542 = 2.37 - ie, 54% bigger blocks (higher volume or more transaction) each year could support about 2.37 higher price each year.
  • 2.37x annual price growth for 8 years would be 2.378 = 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 = 1000 - giving a price of 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars if the price increases an average of 2.37x per year for 8 years, starting from 1 BTC = 1000 USD now.
So, even though initially it might seem crazy to think that we could get to 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars in 8 years, it's actually not that far-fetched at all - based on:
  • some simple math,
  • the observed available bandwidth (already increasing at 70% per year), and
  • the increasing fragility and failures of many "legacy" debt-backed national fiat currencies and payment systems.
Does Metcalfe's Law hold for Bitcoin?
The past 8 years of data suggest that Metcalfe's Law really does hold for Bitcoin - you can check out some of the graphs here:
https://imgur.com/jLnrOuK
https://i.redd.it/kvjwzcuce3ay.png
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*22ix0l4oBDJ3agoLzVtUgQ.gif
(3) Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize" would provide an ultra-simple, ultra-safe, non-controversial approach which perhaps everyone could agree on: Bitcoin's original promise of "p2p electronic cash", 100% on-chain, eventually worth 1 BTC = 1 million dollars.
This could all be done using only the whitepaper - eg, no need for possibly "controversial" changes like SegWit/Lightning, Bitcoin Unlimited, etc.
As we know, the Bitcoin community has been fighting a lot lately - mainly about various controversial scaling proposals.
Some people are worried about SegWit, because:
  • It's actually not much of a scaling proposal - it would only give 1.7MB blocks, and only if everyone adopts it, and based on some fancy, questionable blocksize or new "block weight" accounting;
  • It would be implemented as an overly complicated and anti-democratic "soft" fork - depriving people of their right to vote via a much simpler and safer "hard" fork, and adding massive and unnecessary "technical debt" to Bitcoin's codebase (for example, dangerously making all UTXOs "anyone-can-spend", making future upgrades much more difficult - but giving long-term "job security" to Core/Blockstream devs);
  • It would require rewriting (and testing!) thousands of lines of code for existing wallets, exchanges and businesses;
  • It would introduce an arbitrary 1-to-4 "discount" favoring some kinds of transactions over others.
And some people are worried about Lightning, because:
  • There is no decentralized (p2p) routing in Lightning, so Lightning would be a terrible step backwards to the "bad old days" of centralized, censorable hubs or "crypto banks";
  • Your funds "locked" in a Lightning channel could be stolen if you don't constantly monitor them;
  • Lighting would steal fees from miners, and make on-chain p2p transactions prohibitively expensive, basically destroying Satoshi's p2p network, and turning it into SWIFT.
And some people are worried about Bitcoin Unlimited, because:
  • Bitcoin Unlimited extends the notion of Nakamoto Consensus to the blocksize itself, introducing the new parameters EB (Excess Blocksize) and AD (Acceptance Depth);
  • Bitcoin Unlimited has a new, smaller dev team.
(Note: Out of all the current scaling proposals available, I support Bitcoin Unlimited - because its extension of Nakamoto Consensus to include the blocksize has been shown to work, and because Bitcoin Unlimited is actually already coded and running on about 25% of the network.)
It is normal for reasonable people to have the above "concerns"!
But what if we could get to 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars - without introducing any controversial new changes or discounts or consensus rules or game theory?
What if we could get to 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars using just the whitepaper itself - by simply reinstating Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize"?
(4) We can easily reach "million-dollar bitcoin" by gradually and safely growing blocks to 32MB - Satoshi's original "max blocksize" - without changing anything else in the system!
If we simply reinstate "Bitcoin Original" (Satoshi's original 32MB blocksize), then we could avoid all the above "controversial" changes to Bitcoin - and the following 8-year scenario would be quite realistic:
  • Actual blocksizes growing modestly at 54% per year - well within the 70% increase in available "provisioned bandwidth" which we actually happened last year
  • This would give us a reasonable, totally feasible blocksize of 1.548 = 32MB ... after 8 years.
  • Bitcoin price growing at 2.37x per year, or a total increase of 2.378 = 1000x over the next 8 years - which is similar to what happened during the previous 8 years, when the price went from under 1 USDollars to over 1000 USDollars.
  • This would give us a possible Bitcoin price of 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars after 8 years.
  • There would still be plenty of decentralization - plenty of fully-validating nodes and mining nodes), because:
    • The Cornell study showed that 90% of nodes could already handle 4MB blocks - and that was several years ago (so we could already handle blocks even bigger than 4MB now).
    • 70% yearly increase in available bandwidth, combined with a mere 54% yearly increase in used bandwidth (plus new "block compression" technologies such as XThin and Compact Blocks) mean that nearly all existing nodes could easily handle 32MB blocks after 8 years; and
    • The "economic incentives" to run a node would be strong if the price were steadily rising to 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars
    • This would give a total market cap of 20 trillion USDollars after about 8 years - comparable to the total "money" in the world which some estimates put at around 82 trillion USDollars.
So maybe we should consider the idea of reinstating Satoshi's Original Bitcoin with its 32MB blocksize - using just the whitepaper and avoiding controversial changes - so we could re-unite the community to get to "million-dollar bitcoin" (and 20 trillion dollar market cap) in as little as 8 years.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Qu'est-ce que le Bitcoin ? $50,000 Bitcoin YES Metcalfe's Law for BITCOIN $1 million ... What Does Metcalfe’s Law Tell Us About Bitcoin? With Frank Holmes Bitcoin: Beyond The Bubble - Full Documentary - YouTube Why Isn't More Being Invested In Crypto? (Part 1 - Regulatory Concerns)

Metcalfe’s Law (Wiki). March 29, 2018. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Two telephones can make only one connection, five can make 10 connections, and twelve can make 66 connections. Metcalfe’s law states the effect of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system (n 2). First formulated in this form by George Gilder in ... Following the law, the predictability of an imminent crash was possible and can be spotted. Metcalfe’s Law: Finding the value of Bitcoin, how much is it worth? In an analysis done by MIT, the value of bitcoin has been tried to determine by using the Metcalfe’s Law. When trying to decide how a money can be valued, people hold different views ... Metcalfe's law. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better. To install click the Add extension button. That's it. The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time. How to transfigure the Wikipedia . Would you like Wikipedia to always look as professional and up-to-date? We have ... Metcalfe's law sates that the value of a network increases exponentially as the amount of users increases. Bitcoin seems to be a prime example of... Metcalfe's law Last updated June 28, 2019 Two telephones can make only one connection, five can make 10 connections, and twelve can make 66 connections.. Metcalfe's law states the effect of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system (n 2).First formulated in this form by George Gilder in 1993, [1] and attributed to Robert Metcalfe ...

[index] [13015] [4514] [38660] [29101] [15781] [37632] [6420] [49598] [40895] [16729]

Qu'est-ce que le Bitcoin ?

Frank Holmes, chairman of HIVE Blockchain Technologies is our special guest, we discuss Metcalfe’s Law and what it says for Bitcoin’s long-term growth. We also gain fresh insights on how ... Bitcoin Technical Analysis & Bitcoin News Today: I'll use technical analysis on the Bitcoin price to make a Bitcoin price prediction. Watch the video to learn more! Watch the video to learn more ... Thanks for watching! For donations: Bitcoin - 1CpGMM8Ag8gNYL3FffusVqEBUvHyYenTP8 This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue This part 1 in a new series of videos where we'll explore what it will take for crypto to really take off, based on a recent survey of financial advisors. ----- Resources ----- UK Crypto Assets ...

#