I'd suggest looking at the BTC chart with logarithmic scaling. I'm not saying it won't happen, but you can distinctly see how the exponential growth has greatly slowed down over time, so the move from 100k to a million is definitely not the same in terms of momentum and likelihood as the one from 10k to 100k.

(Of course that was under the previous 'house rules'; who knows what announcement will come out of the White House tomorrow.)

>look at the BTC chart with logarithmic scaling

Yes I've spent over a decade placing lines of best fit, usually in log-land; it all still seems early-phase of the S-curve (which I agree: you're correct about new adoption timelines; it's just not now) [0].

Governments are in early implementations of Bitcoin Strategic Reserves — which I will predict should increase the slope of the aforementioned log_line (i.e. BTC growth becomes even faster) as citizen access increases.

----

Honestly: I'm surprised my above bitcoin comment hasn't been further-downvoted... simply because HN-folks have "blasted" me for years on my lived experiences within bitcoin ecosystem. At present, I too am (still) anti-alt-coins =D

[Harrelson_wipes_tears_with_hundies.GIF]

[0] https://imgur.com/Yw9a8Pu

it's deceptive - the curve on the logarithmic chart looked the same when bitcoin was 100x less than it is now

Well, no, you can see that the rate of growth is slowing over time and the time spans for each 10x are getting longer, which would be what would you expect if we were getting closer to some kind of 'point of saturation'. Again, not saying we won't see 1 million, but I wouldn't use the "well we've seen a 10x five times now!" as an argument for thinking it's a sure thing.

Nothing is a certainty. But most people (especially on this site!) would argue that bitcoin not reaching $1M is close to one.

Reality is that the market cap of gold is now around $25T. If bitcoin matched that, it would put it at $1.5M/BTC, based on estimated 4M BTC lost forever. And bitcoin has way better monetary fundamentals than gold...

Additionally, adoption of new technology generally follows an S-curve.

>market cap of gold is now around $25T. If bitcoin matched that, it would put it at $1.5M/BTC

Market cap of gold is ~$22T. If bitcoin matched that, it would put it at 1.05M/BTC

>based on estimated 4M BTC lost forever

This is irrelevant to the conversation — even "lost" bitcoin are still included in the marketcap calculation of an asset.

>adoption of new technology generally follows an S-curve

I accept your premise, but IMHO bitcoin is still just getting started.

----

Based on my bitcoin usage (since 2012), bitcoin seems to have doubled approximately every eighteen months. Under this anecdotal observation, it could be just five years to $1M [0]

[0] but of course past performance doesn't predict future [1]

[1] Time IN the market beats timING the market — excited to keep waiting =P

> This is irrelevant to the conversation — even "lost" bitcoin are still included in the marketcap calculation of an asset.

If assets are destroyed or forever lost, they essentially no longer exist and so have no effect on the market cap.

If all but 1 bitcoin were lost, the total supply would then be 1 bitcoin. From then on, the 21M figure would just be an arbitrary number with no relevance to real world supply and demand. The world would be fighting over 100M sats.

> I accept your premise, but IMHO bitcoin is still just getting started.

Agree completely. It's clear from this website alone (filled with people of above-average technical knowledge and intelligence) that most of the world has no idea what it really is yet (they think they know). People who understand both the inherent flaws of Keynesian economics and the technological aspects of bitcoin are few and far between. But both are becoming increasingly obvious as each year passes, along with bitcoin's robustness for which time is only true test.