Bitcoin.

1 BTC = 1/21m of BTC, forever. Realize how revolutionary that is, a trustless, fixed, autonomous, decentralized unit. That is what we've always wanted from money, it's why gold was used, because the natural properties of gold create an approximation of a unit. But gold isn't fixed in supply and is only trustless in physical form. As economies became more complicated gold needed to be abstracted rendering gold entirely trust-based, opening the door to corruption and the current sorry state of money.

What we want from money has always been the unit, by having an economic unit we reduce the number of prices from n^n to n. We cannot engage in complex economic calculation without a unit, but the units we've been forced to use out of necessity do not provide a clean economic signal, with a trustless fixed unit the efficiency of economic calculation is increased massively. BTC will continue to reward adopters as that is what the positive externality of trustless money yields.

That didn’t age well.

>>60622085
@$1m BTC only needs $164bn in annual inflows to offset current subsidy. To put BTC into perspective: $270bn of gold is mined every year, gold market needs $270bn (~$250bn sans all functional demand for gold) in net inflows every year just to tread water. Bitcoin subsidy halves every 4yrs, so net nominal inflows necessary to support a given price also half every 4yrs.

>>60620926
>too stupid to understand the utility of a fixed supply economic unit
Sad.

bitcoin is mooning in my country
did you buyed in your country?

Which part of “it goes to ∞ in-the-limit” did you not understand?

Never. Network effects are a positive feedback loop in economic units, and doge has inferior supply dynamics than BTC on top of its poorer network of use

Net Nominal Demand: n = d-s+h

Where:
d: Bitcoin’s demand
s: Subsidy
h: Hodler Sales

All in nominal terms

+n line go up
-n line go down

As s is fixed in bitcoin terms, we can calculate the neutral demand, the demand from which h does not diminish: s*price = $344m/7d @ $109k. h is finite, so any n > 0 will deplete h in-the-limit.

Over the last month, we’ve been averaging almost a $1bn/week into ETFs alone, almost 3x the necessary net inflows to support a $109k price.

Why do you persist in denying empirical reality, bobo?

>>60570885
Dull.

Economic units have demand not because of belief, but because their supply properties allow demand to alter price primarily instead of supply, enabling economically useful functionality such as Store of Value and other economic abstractions. This is why grain et al, despite having great “intrinsic value” and near-universal acceptance performs poorly as an economic unit, grain has huge elastic supply so increasing demand results in increased supply, instead of increased price, preventing the encoding of economic state information into the price of grain and therefore preventing the use of grain et al as an economic unit.

Gold has been used as an economic unit since antiquity because its low elastic supply render it a fine natural approximation of a unit, but it still possesses elastic supply, bitcoin surpasses gold primarily by possessing perfect inelastic supply, while network effects keep BTC ahead of newer imitations as they fail to improve on the systemically important properties of bitcoin.

>>60550344
>b-but it can do the useful thing AND useless shit!
Scaling for scalings sake is superfluous to its function as money, as a unit of account, the valuable thing is the information encoded within it's price. There's little friction in the conversion to or from other monies, so there's no additional information gained by using it as common currency, you'll arrive at the same real-terms price either way, as you're encoding the same information.

You did it to yourself, shitcoiner

A Trezor you fucking retard, not your keys, not your coins.

Diversification. Are you retarded? By diversifying you average out all of the “company” from the equities and are left with a good appreciation of an economic unit. Bitcoin does this natively, while having no carrying cost, counterparty risk, or enterprise/nation-state risk.

>4% btc back
Hot.