Twitter CEO: Bitcoin to become the world's single currency within 10 years

[Negotiator]

https://cointelegraph.com/news/twit...-become-worlds-single-currency-within-a-decad

Twitter CEO Says Bitcoin Will Become World’s ‘Single Currency’ Within A Decade


"Jack Dorsey, the CEO of both Twitter and payment service Square, has said that he sees Bitcoin (BTC) as the world’s – and Internet’s – single future currency, The Times reports today, March 21.

Dorsey believes that Bitcoin’s leading emergence will take “probably over ten years, but it could go faster”:

“The world ultimately will have a single currency, the Internet will have a single currency. I personally believe that it will be Bitcoin.”

At the end of February 2018, Dorsey had previously said that Square will focus on developing more options for interacting with Bitcoin via their Cash App, calling it a “transformation technology for our industry.”

Dorsey did note to The Times that he does not believe that at the moment BTC has the capabilities to become an effective currency, namely as a medium of exchange:

“It’s slow and it’s costly, but as more and more people have it, those things go away. There are newer technologies that build off of blockchain and make it more approachable.”

Last week, Lightning Labs, a (LN) developer, released the first Bitcoin ready LN implementation, making free and instantaneous BTC transactions closer to reality. Dorsey had participated in their $2.5 mln seed finance round, as did Litecoin’s (LTC) creator Charlie Lee."

A single global currency would be awesome and the sooner we get there the better. I personally don't think it will be Bitcoin but I wouldn't rule it out either.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

So Mr Twitter thinks bitcoin will be the World’s single currency in 10 years time. So what does that mean for its price? World broad money supply is estimated at $90trillion. Divide that by the limited supply of bitcoin and you get a price of $5million per bitcoin. Boss keep that stop limit in place

Amazing how two guys of similar background have such diverse forecasts. Mr PayPal thinks there is an 80% chance it will be 0, Mr Twitter seems fairly convinced it will be around $5m.

From time to time people question as to which discipline is best placed to comment on the value of bitcoin - is it the nerds or is it the economists? Well with nerds ranging between 0 and $5M and economists unanimous that bitcoin is in a bubble, I suppose that gives an answer.

 

[Leo]

Last week, Lightning Labs, a (LN) developer, released the first Bitcoin ready LN implementation, making free and instantaneous BTC transactions closer to reality.

I'm not sure we're that much closer with LN, there's still two bitcoin transactions required to set up every single LN payment channel, another two if those node owners want to bring their funds back to bitcoin to cash out or spend on straight bitcoin transactions. Every time you want to fund your channel, another transaction, dispute resolution, another transaction.

If you get lots of people trying to use LN, they're still going to be restricted by the blockchain scaling issues.

Who's going to pay for the routing nodes? There's talk of a need for watchtowers to police LN as it's open to fraud, they'll need to be funded. Does anyone know what the current LN dispute resolution window is set to? I've seen reference to 24 hours, but nothing authoritive.

 

[Leo]

Think about how this could be used if you were abroad and you had a Medical emergency and the hospital could get instant access to your entire medical history.....could save your life!

Going back a few days now, but I can't see this as being a good idea. Why would you want to broadcast your detailed medical history to the entire world? To me, this proposal just seems to be yet another company with a database and marketing it as blockchain to drum up interest and uninformed investment.

At a time when there's concern about health insurers offering discounts on fitness trackers because of what they will do with the data gathered, concerns over data secreted from social media platforms, I can't see a major push to publish medical histories being a good thing.

What this company really seem to be selling is a private service providing access to medical data to the patient and any partner medical facility willing to pay for such access. This isn't proposing global access, and I don't see what advantages storing such records in a blockchain would have over a traditional database.

 

[Sunny]

So Mr Twitter thinks bitcoin will be the World’s single currency in 10 years time. So what does that mean for its price? World broad money supply is estimated at $90trillion. Divide that by the limited supply of bitcoin and you get a price of $5million per bitcoin. Boss keep that stop limit in place

Amazing how two guys of similar background have such diverse forecasts. Mr PayPal thinks there is an 80% chance it will be 0, Mr Twitter seems fairly convinced it will be around $5m.

Just accept it Duke. You are just not hip enough or young enough or cool enough or smart enough to see the world is changing........Bet you are still one of those people who still uses 'the Facebook' thing.......Jeez

 

[Firefly]

So Mr Twitter thinks bitcoin will be the World’s single currency in 10 years time. So what does that mean for its price? World broad money supply is estimated at $90trillion. Divide that by the limited supply of bitcoin and you get a price of $5million per bitcoin. Boss keep that stop limit in place

Thanks Duke, needed a lift this morning!

 

[Negotiator]

Going back a few days now, but I can't see this as being a good idea. Why would you want to broadcast your detailed medical history to the entire world? To me, this proposal just seems to be yet another company with a database and marketing it as blockchain to drum up interest and uninformed investment.

At a time when there's concern about health insurers offering discounts on fitness trackers because of what they will do with the data gathered, concerns over data secreted from social media platforms, I can't see a major push to publish medical histories being a good thing.

What this company really seem to be selling is a private service providing access to medical data to the patient and any partner medical facility willing to pay for such access. This isn't proposing global access, and I don't see what advantages storing such records in a blockchain would have over a traditional database.

I stongly disagree. With centralized databases these organizations (hospitals etc) are subject to local data protection laws and would not be allowed to share your data with any third party. Even with the patient's permission it would be a slow and cumbersome process to retrieve the data (even if the patient wanted it themselves). Using perhaps some form of DAPP or smart contract on the blockchain you would have direct access to your data and can share it instantaneously with anyone you choose. Also the information could be updated so you always have an up to date record at any given time.

I don't the inner technical details on how exactly this might be set up but I'd imagine it can be done relatively easily even with today's blockchain technology. Perhaps permissioned blockchains, DAPP, Smart Contracts etc I don't know. Maybe I'm smoking drugs but I see this as a really clear use case that would benefit everyone!

 

[Sunny]

I stongly disagree. With centralized databases these organizations (hospitals etc) are subject to local data protection laws and would not be allowed to share your data with any third party. Even with the patient's permission it would be a slow and cumbersome process to retrieve the data (even if the patient wanted it themselves). Using perhaps some form of DAPP or smart contract on the blockchain you would have direct access to your data and can share it instantaneously with anyone you choose. Also the information could be updated so you always have an up to date record at any given time.

I don't the inner technical details on how exactly this might be set up but I'd imagine it can be done relatively easily even with today's blockchain technology. Perhaps permissioned blockchains, DAPP, Smart Contracts etc I don't know. Maybe I'm smoking drugs but I see this as a really clear use case that would benefit everyone!

I am sure there probably are uses for blockchain technology in health and other industries (at the moment it is vastly overstated though) but it won't be in the transfer of health records. It will never happen. If I get treated for STI or mental illness and I deal with a doctor that is not my normal GP, I do not want that on a permanent blockchain for my normal doctor or any other medical professional to see if I allow them access. Companies will insist on their doctors getting access to the blockchain containing your information rather than doing medicals when employing people. Again, I don't want my company to know I was treated for depression 15 years ago. I don't want my employers, health insurance companies or drug companies to know if I had an abortion or drug/alcohol addiction.

 

[TheBigShort]

I may be way-off the charts here, but I my thinking of all this blockchain stuff is that it decentralizes information from central databases and allows the individual to be holder of all this information.

So for instance, I could set up one (or multiple blockchains, if I desired), this 'The Big Short' blockchain could, within it, hold my personal data, my medical records, my educational qualifications, my money, my purchases, my sales, my music collection, my business plans, my holiday snaps, etc...etc....

The blockchain would only be accessible by me. Central databases held by the likes of Sky, Spotify, AXA, Vodafone etc and authorities, like Passport Office, Drivers Licence, HSE, Dept of Education etc would still have access to data that is relevant to them and where I have engaged with them. But I will know for what purpose it is being held and used and who has access to it, and more importantly, who has accessed it.

So if I buy a movie off Sky Store, I have my record and they have their record on their blockchain. If they share that information I will know about it and with whom they have shared it, or even better, they need my permission to share that information, in which case I can charge for each time they do (not sure why as consumers we don't do this anyway) in the currency of the internet - satoshi's!

A lot of this stuff is already happens when you tick the marketing box after registering with another company on-line, but in reality you have no control of what happens to information and data associated with you - the FB controversy a case in point.

Obviously all of that brings its own problems, but that's why there are smart people looking for solutions to all these problems.
With all that, instead of FB selling my information for their profit, I can sell my own information to FB, or elsewhere, or not.

 

[Leo]

I stongly disagree. With centralized databases these organizations (hospitals etc) are subject to local data protection laws and would not be allowed to share your data with any third party.

All this company are doing is implementing a private centralized database and throwing in blockchain terminology to get headlines. If you want to opt in, you sign over your rights to that data and give them permission to share it with third parties. The solution you envisaged where any medical facility in the world could access patient data wouldn't be subject to data protection in the same way, as users would essentially be voluntarily publishing their data to a public blockchain. There is no solution that would allow millions of healthcare workers around the world to access your data while keeping it private.

Even with the patient's permission it would be a slow and cumbersome process to retrieve the data (even if the patient wanted it themselves).

What advantage has blockchain (public or private) over a traditional relational system? Your Linked In profile for example, anyone can look you up anywhere instantly, how would blockchain make that more accessible? What is the cumbersome challenge that blockchain overcomes?

Using perhaps some form of DAPP or smart contract on the blockchain you would have direct access to your data and can share it instantaneously with anyone you choose.

The problem here being any system that makes such data so widely available will not be able to offer much in the way of protection for that data.

 

[Leo]

The blockchain would only be accessible by me. Central databases held by the likes of Sky, Spotify, AXA, Vodafone etc and authorities, like Passport Office, Drivers Licence, HSE, Dept of Education etc would still have access to data that is relevant to them and where I have engaged with them.

If it's only accessible by you, what are the advantages of putting all this data into a blockchain? Keeping your entertainment media together with personal data exposes you to risk. I've no problem giving a media player app access to my audio, video, or image files, but no way do I want them accessing my personal records. If you give others access to your blockchain, how do you limit them to just the elements you want to share with them?

But I will know for what purpose it is being held and used and who has access to it, and more importantly, who has accessed it.

Unfortunately that's impossible. Ultimately the data will be just like any other, 1s and 0s, once someone else reads it, you lose all control and will not have any visibility into what they are doing with it.

Blockchain has many good uses as a system of public record, but in my opinion, many of the companies trying to shoehorn it into solutions where it offers no tangible benefit are just trying to cash in on the craze.

 

[MrEarl]

Hello,

I wonder if Jack Dorsey also thought that Twitter would be the only form of communication that the world would be using, in 10 years times ?

Long term, I can see there being one currency in use across the world, but I see it as being in over 100 years time, not in 10 years time. Also, I seriously doubt that it will be Bitcoin. Bitcoin has missed the opportunity to become a true medium of exchange, with too many people speculating on it's value and too few, expensive, and inefficient routine commercial transactions taking place, where Bitcoin is the method of payment. Thankfully, there are numerous other cryptos that are more than capable of becoming a genuine single future currency.

BTW, I read on a certain well respected financial discussion website that Bitcoin could be worth $5m a coin ... all in

 

[elacsaplau]

Firstly, I would just like to thank French air traffic controllers for this opportunity to spend time on AAM.

For the record, I have now dis-invested over 99% of my BTC holding. I/we now retain just two - one for me and one for the boss. The rationale for this retention was "ar eagla na heagla" something like Dorsey's prediction ever does come to pass. Were it to transpire and I had no coins left, I think the seller's remorse would probably kill me! Arguably - and I'm sure some will - $5m is a bit of a long-shot (say, very roughly, 5,000,000 / 8,000) but chicken feed compared to BTC's journey to date (8,000 / 0.08)! [Please no one explain the behavioural faux pas - hey I'm in France - of what I've just written to me].

I've no meaningful insights on which way to bet on BTC at the moment - the only thing that I can predict with certainty is that Dorsey's comments will give rise to at least three, very possibly more, "Bitcoin is a bag of air / worth nothing / madness of crowds" counter utterances for Brendan.......(who hopefully see the funny side of my prediction!)

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Wow! $8,000 is 1% of elac's holding in bitcoin (before divestment). So that was aggregate holdings of $800K. Any regrets you left $1.2M on the table

I put bitcoin's growth to date as from 5,000 bitcoin per pizza to $8,000 per bitcoin. That's about 8 million to one and if repeated in future would make bitcoin worth $64bn each.

Warning: past performance is not necessarily a guide to the future. Bitcoin prices can rise as well as fall.

 

[ant dee]

Internet money, assuming it would come to pass, would hardly mean the whole worlds market cap.

 

[TheBigShort]

If it's only accessible by you, what are the advantages of putting all this data into a blockchain? Keeping your entertainment media together with personal data exposes you to risk. I've no problem giving a media player app access to my audio, video, or image files, but no way do I want them accessing my personal records. If you give others access to your blockchain, how do you limit them to just the elements you want to share with them?

Thats not how I'm thinking of it in my head, but seeing as I'm only trying to understand of how others are thinking of it, best let is rest here for a while until a clearer picture emerges (if ever)

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Internet money, assuming it would come to pass, would hardly mean the whole worlds market cap.

Not the market cap of all financial assets but yes he means the market cap of all monetary assets. M2 is broad money supply, it is effectively made up of M1 which performs the medium of exchange function of money plus term deposits which represent the store of value function. Mr. Twitter believes that in 10 years, maybe less, these functions of money over the whole World will be served by a single currency, bitcoin. The US$, the €, the £ in a very short space of time a thing of the past.

I presume Mr Twitter is a smart guy, but as someone else alluded to we only have to think Trump to realise that successful billionaire does not correlate with possession of common sense.

 

[elacsaplau]

Wow! $8,000 is 1% of elac's holding in bitcoin (before divestment). So that was aggregate holdings of $800K. Any regrets you left $1.2M on the table

Just to clarify. When I said BTC holding, what I meant was the number of BTCs held. We now have two left. As this is less than 1% of original holding, you can take it that we did hold, at one point, more than 200. The average selling price of the coins is a fair bit less than the current price. I have already admitted to being an aggressive seller throughout 2017.

Of course, had we stayed on the horse a bit longer, we would have made more money. Inversely, some people think we were stone mad to stay on as long as we did. It's pretty easy to get confused between best strategy and best outcome in all of this!

 

[Firefly]

Just to clarify. When I said BTC holding, what I meant was the number of BTCs held. We now have two left. As this is less than 1% of original holding, you can take it that we did hold, at one point, more than 200. The average selling price of the coins is a fair bit less than the current price. I have already admitted to being an aggressive seller throughout 2017.

Of course, had we stayed on the horse a bit longer, we would have made more money. Inversely, some people think we were stone mad to stay on as long as we did. It's pretty easy to get confused between best strategy and best outcome in all of this!

C'mon you know what we all want to know....how much did you make?

 

[MrEarl]

Elacsaplau,

Delighted to see that you did well on Bitcoin.

Out of interest, would you go into Bitcoin heavier again (heavier than the two coins you still hold) ?