You got that wrong. That may be the price, but the buying power would be as high as the factor of said calculation woud be, and that’s what I’m aiming at. I care for what you could BUY with it.

So buying Power simply would be 95k higher if the price is 1:1. Although it’s assumed that the price is 1:0 afterwards, degrading the dollar worthless. I hope people will understand this …

Maybe it is. Maybe not. The probability of this doesn’t need to be high, as you can easily invest a small amount like a single dollar to profit a lot.

Also, this calculation was just meant as a kind of orientation for Bitcoin’s potential buying power. If Bitcoin succeeds, you’ll be rich, and that’s the idea of investment in my opinion.

I have a silly calculation too.

If 5 million people took up bitcoin in the next few years, when there are about 10 million bitcoins say, that would be 2 bitcoins for every bitcoin user. Except a few thousand bitcoin users would have much more than 2 bitcoins. This means that in terms of buying power, 1 bitcoin will be quite a fair bit of buynsell, less than the decimal point would be where most business takes place in day to day terms.

Good eh.

By the way, if the bitcoin economy grew to be 1 percent of internet trade, how much money in dollar terms would you say that would represent?

Here are some US figures from Wikipedia, a few years old, but 1% of that would be one and a half billion dollars:


For 1% of US internet trade, and with 5 million bitcoins issued, and at their current value of around a dollar, each coin would need to be spent 300 times per year.

If that’s the case, i apologize for accusing you. Thought it was a bad joke.
Yeah, your calculation shows what difference investing in BTC, as long as it’s not an established currency, will make.
Basically, INVESTING in BTC (mining or gaining BTC any way) is a bonus pyramid scheme added to the value of the currency itself. When the pyramid scheme becomes unprofitable, BTC should be a widely accepted currency. If this is true, failure seems very unlikely to me.

Thanks to ribuck for at least some value. 300 times BTC per year is a lot, actually, but it’s doable if popularity and especially offered services continue to grow.

I hope this "idea" will somehow strengthen our belief in BTC’s value and help to get more people in.

edit:

It’d be like 26,6 according to 146.4m/5.5m at least. I’m confused now because of the 300 times, too.

One percent of the 146.4 billion turnover is 1.464 billion, not 146.4 million.

Doesn't seem to work like that, people prefer to hold the best money they can buy, Gresham's law. Quite logical really. The boiled-frog transition from gold to fiat was a hoodwinking for the ages by the banksters over the people. Time some frog-boiling went back the other way.

Why Blitzboom?  I did a similar calculation when I discovered Bitcoins, but never said anything about how valuable Bitcoins will be because I wanted to get mine while the price was low.  It still is, but buying them at $.06 and $.30 was fantastic.  I may buy more, but I'm waiting to see things unfold.  The other reason is because I want BTC to have plenty of time to strengthen before governments attempt to stop it assuming they haven't gone bankrupt yet and assuming they will even have to power to do so.  Egypt's government would have certainly made it difficult for Egyptians to use their BTCs AFAIK.

In response to the criticism of Blitz's original claim I will support his argument.  There is a finite amount of purchasing power that exists.  If infinite purchasing power existed it would have no meaning.  We can't directly measure quantities of purchasing power because it is an idea, but mediums of exchange offer a method of approximating this purchasing power.

Obvious evidence (besides the logical necessity) exists in the fact that when the U.S. gov't increases the quantity of dollars in existence it waters down the value of dollars.  This is because the sum of all dollars (both paper and electronic) represents a fixed quantity of purchasing power (how this amount was achieved is not relevant to my point).  To alter the number of dollars only changes the purchasing power per dollar.  To argue otherwise would be to suggest any government could create purchasing power by printing money, but this would create a situation of infinite purchasing power which negates the idea entirely.

The total amount of purchasing power in the world has been divided and allocated over all human history, across all assets, and in light of all economic events to arrive at the current situation of prices.  Fiat currency systems have a certain amount of this purchasing power.  If an individual sells 10k U.S. dollars today and buys 10k U.S. dollars worth of BTC at the same time then approximately 10k U.S. dollars worth of today's dollar purchasing power moved into BTC and the total purchasing power of the BTN will have gone up by the purchasing power equivalent to 10k U.S. dollars at today's valuation.  The total monetary base of U.S. dollars is ~$2.2 trillion (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE).  If all the purchasing power represented by this quantity of money were transferred into 21 million BTCs (and from no source other than this) we would have a BTC value of 2.2x10^12 21x10^6 = $104,762 per BTC at today's valuation of the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar (minus a small amount that would occur due to the point at which the value of the dollar equals the value of it as a piece of paper).  It is up to each individual to decide to what extent BTCs will replace or fail to replace other media of exchange to determine his/her appraisal of the final purchasing power of the BTN and individual BTCs.  (Also note that credit contraction would shrink the monetary base if it occurs and government interference in the market would also change the price to some uncertain degree).

The thing is I don't think it's wise to hire bitcoins with bitcoins (pay interest on them) but fiat is good for that sort of thing. Because of fundamental differences in the two forms of money, people have even more room to manouver in terms of thinking up crazy money-making schemes, they can skip between inflationary and deflationary centralized and decentralized models. Eventually fiat could be replaced entirely but that will take a while.

Besides, bitcoins are still mostly a commodity, their transition to being a currency as well (used directly to pay for g&s) is in my opinion a whole other dimension for growth of their value.