U.Today - When Bitcoin (BTC) crossed the six-figure milestone today, breaching $100,000 for the first time, it did not just mark a historic moment in the cryptocurrency's journey. It also reignited discussion about the foresight of Hal Finney, one of Bitcoin's earliest supporters and a pioneer in the digital currency space.
Back in January 2009, when Bitcoin was still obscure, Finney shared a bold thought experiment that has since become legendary in crypto circles. He figured that if Bitcoin took off and became the go-to global payment system, its value could theoretically match the total wealth of the world.
He used the estimates of global household wealth - which ranged from $100 trillion to $300 trillion - to calculate a potential price of $10 million per Bitcoin, assuming a total supply of 20 million coins.
The $100,000 milestone has prompted many to revisit this crazy prediction, including Adam Back, a well-known figure in the crypto space and an early contributor to Bitcoin's development.
In a recent post, Adam Back looked back at Bitcoin's growth trajectory and noted that its previous leap from $1,000 to $100,000 took just under eight years. If things keep going the same way, Back thinks Bitcoin could reach the next phase of exponential growth by the early 2030s.
Catch
But the path forward for BTC is anything but linear. Back said that models can shift, and adoption patterns often speed up once a tipping point is reached. Economic forces, such as the potential hyperinflation of fiat currencies, add another layer of unpredictability.Hal Finney's vision from 2009 was not meant to be a traditional prediction. It was more of a thought-provoking look at what Bitcoin could become. Today, as Bitcoin reaches a new six-figure high, Finney's thoughts serve as a reminder of the big ambitions and possibilities that have defined the cryptocurrency since it first started.
Could Bitcoin ever reach the values Finney imagined? While the future is unclear, today's milestone suggests that his early ideas were not completely off the mark.
This article was originally published on U.Today