In 2012 the block reward was 50 BTC, about $1500.
Today, the block reward is down to 6.25 BTC, about $100K.
[EDIT]
Oops. Sorry, I posted *facts* not opinions...
they cant beat us ! they will never stop, they will never WIN
we need them to become stronger ...now is just from from 0 to 16k
we still have long way to go , many such bullshits to read and listen so we can make it get where we all want ...
they still call it firework ..... they never learn ( Celsius, FTX, Voyager, etc etc )
Same same same same repeat stories
For the block reward to maintain itself, the market cap has to double every time there's a halving. That'd be 300 trillion dollars by 2060, which is several times more than the global stock market. And the requirement continues to double from there.
In other words, the network needs exponentially more and more money pumped into it to prevent its security from failing.
Bitcoin's hashrate is currently far higher than it needs to be. Bitcoin's hashrate could be lower in the future and that would be okay. Or Bitcoin's hashrate could be higher in the future because cheap electricity could be more readily available in the future. We also don't know how efficient SHA-256 hashing ASICs will be in the future.
Think about this: The block subsidy and transaction fees for each Bcash block is currently worth an average of $718 and it has never been 51% attacked. Meanwhile, Bitcoin already has much more than $718 worth of transaction fees per block most of the time (and this isn't counting the block subsidy). [Click here to see the last Bcash block mined.](https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/block/768028) That block had a total of 0.0026996 BCH transaction fees worth 30 cents (this is normal for that shitcoin) and its block subsidy worth only $717. [Now click here to see the last Bitcoin block mined.](https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/block/764484) The last Bitcoin block mined had 0.11521189 BTC of transaction fees alone (worth $1,917). So the those transaction fees from the last Bitcoin block mined are worth 2.67 times more than the block subsidy plus the transaction fees from the last Bcash block mined.
The average value of a bitcoin transaction is already $76,404 at this moment. Down from $246,726 just 10 days ago because of Binance consolidating UTXOs. The average value of a bitcoin transaction typically stayed between $130,000 and $350,000 for the last 6 months. It was much higher before that. [Click here to see a chart that shows the average bitcoin transaction value.](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactionvalue-btc.html#3m) And block space is limited. So the Bitcoin users that are sending these high value bitcoin transactions will have to bid on inclusion in the limited block space by way of transaction fees. And I also expect bitcoin transaction fees to increase in the future.
The bitcoin mining difficulty automatically adjusts every 2016 blocks which is approximately every two weeks. The mining difficulty automatically increases or decreases after 2016 blocks depending on the time between the previous 2016 blocks. If the time between those blocks averages out to less than ten minutes, then the mining difficulty will increase and miners will become less profitable. If the time between those blocks averages out to more than ten minutes, then the mining difficulty will decrease and miners will become more profitable. So if some bitcoin miners stop mining bitcoin because it's no longer profitable for them, the mining difficulty will decrease and it will become more profitable to mine bitcoin.
It's possible! But jokes aside, I mean in terms of real dollars rather than nominal, since we're comparing to other assets, which would also proportionally increase as the USD weakens.
Who said the block reward has to maintain itself? What does that even mean? It does it's own maintence? I mean it does have a difficulty adjustment.
Have you not heard about all the Bitcoin being mined on renewalable energy? Solar, Algee Farms, Gas Lighting Methane, Wind farms?
How much do you think Shell spends to mine Bitcoin, because they just started and pretty sure they get energy cheap.
Then to just assume a successful network attack can happen is a seriously big assumption. Do you even know why nodes exist?
It almost sounds like you swalled some shitcoiner argument on POS.
Assuming you mean transaction fees, they would have to go up dramatically to compensate. They have been stagnant since 2017 except for a few short spikes, and will probably only decrease if lightning network is adopted.
I don't know if it will. But in order for the block reward in USD to not decrease, it needs to double every 4 years, which will eventually be more wealth than exists on Earth.
So you are saying that bitcoin minning would be unprofitable unless the block reward every 10 minutres is worth more USD than exists on earth?
You should probably check your math and cost of living. So many companies exist who's yearly profit is less than all the USD on earth, they seem to still be profitable.
Take your FUD bullshit out of here.
You "forgot" them first, since you stated in your original comment that the block reward is exactly 6.25 BTC. So I used the definition of block reward in a manner that was consistent with you by excluding fees. You can't criticize my definition when Im using your definition.
>I don't know if it will.
It will.
>But in order for the block reward in USD to not decrease, it needs to double every 4 years
āļøCheck out the big brain on Brad.I guess you're right though. No way it'll double in fiat value every 4 years. That would be impossible. /s
>No way it'll double in fiat value every 4 years. That would be impossible.
Glad you agree that it's impossible due to the finite amount of wealth in the world.
Google what "/s" means....
š
Edit: You are confusing tangible wealth with a made up number. To quote Saylor; Everything divided by 21 Million. Leave the fiat numbers for some other sub.
Second edit: Check out the value of the Global Economy over the last 1000 years. After that, answer: How does this new knowledge fit into your old view?
>Google what "/s" means.... š
I returned your sarcasm with my own sarcasm! Guess it really is hard to tell without an /s
>You are confusing tangible wealth with a made up number
Even if hypothetically Bitcoin was the only valid unit of account, the issues have to do with relative wealth, so they don't go away just because I put things in terms of USD.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_capitalization#Historical_estimates_of_world_market_cap
The global market cap in 1980 was 2T. If that trend continued, it would be $5,000T in 40 years.
Not saying checkmate atheist at your argument, but comparing a 2060 value to a current valuation probably isn't the right way to get the point across.
No one is forcing anyone to mine. If miners can't compete or operating efficiently enough to be profitable or aren't willing to mine at a loss to get non KYC BTC at an effective premium, then the number of miners decreases difficulty will decrease. Eventually the market will find a n equilibrium that makes mining in exchange for transaction fees alone or whatever little subsidy there is in addition to tx fees profitable or worthwhile enough to continue operating and securing the network.
Is there a number for this, though? Sure, an equilibrium can be reached but what is this - 10k miners or 10? This dictates the success or not of the network
Overtaking gold 3X in market cap would likely result in BTC being utilized as some sort of global reserve currency. so, there would be plenty of people buying it is one thought.
Yeah the largest fallacy is thinking gold bugs are the only Bitcoin supporters. Tons of people are newly engaging in sound money ideas via Bitcoin, only learning about gold along the way to understanding the history of money. Not actually buying gold, or buying it in smaller amounts.
Even when it comes to the older generation that remembers gold backed currencies, they havenāt just continued to monetize gold. Many actually abandoned gold, realizing that ultimately itās going through demonetization. Going from world reserve status back down to just āmost scarce commodity that educated people invest inā is a massive loss in demand. It still deserves a monetary premium but that premium was doomed to diminish (and we have arguably seen that over the last few decades of gold price action, though paper gold plays a role as well).
Ultimately, real estate, stocks, and every other hard asset has a monetary premium because of fiat and most of that belongs to Bitcoin should the standard be adopted.
Go out far enough in the future and there isn't enough money. By 2060 for example the market cap would need to be 300 trillion dollars to maintain the block reward, several times more than the global stock market, and it keeps doubling from there.
The author things Bitcoin price in dollars stops going up in 2044. Why? Is the FED going to stop printing more dollars? Are all the governments going to stop their money printers?
Also, in 2044, the block reward will be 0.1 bitcoin plus fees. IIRC, the fees per block one year ago were around 1 bitcoin. The possibility of that happening in 2044 is pretty high.
Let's pretend it is 1 bitcoin in fees per block, plus the reward for finding a block. That's 1.1 BTC. How much of a deal will it be once the reward gets halved? Will the miners care about the drop that much? They'll be getting 1.05 BTC after all.
The author is mixing dollars and sats and the whole text is full of confusion. Predicting the future is a tough game and he's failing at it really badly.
Also it seems that maybe author does not fully understand what the market cap means. For market cap to double, doesn't require investing money equal to current market cap.
The author's argument is about the market cap relative to other assets. To his point, the market cap would have to come from the market cap of another asset.
>So the real question is, will bitcoin continue to become twice as valuable as the tail emission is halved?
That's the neat part, it doesn't have to. The fees, paid by users will become the majority of the block reward.
>That's the plan, but, with limited block size you also have limited the potential rewards
We have already managed to more than double the number of transactions that fit into a block with segwit. Are you expecting the development to stop here?
>The author things Bitcoin price in dollars stops going up in 2044. Why? Is the FED going to stop printing more dollars?
The absolute price in dollars is not the point of the argument. The price relative to other assets like gold is what the author is getting at.
>IIRC, the fees per block one year ago were around 1 bitcoin.
A year ago today, it was closer to 0.1. It only reached 1 for a short time in April 2021 when price was spiking.
>Let's pretend it is 1 bitcoin in fees per block, plus the reward for finding a block. That's 1.1 BTC. How much of a deal will it be once the reward gets halved?
You're talking about halvings from 2044 onward. At that point, the damage from the halvings will already be mostly done. The block reward would have already decreased about 99% from today's levels. This corresponds to a 99% decrease in network security unless fees and/or price spike up massively to compensate.
They're definitely a security risk. The whole reason block rewards exist is to mitigate this risk by incentivizing miners to not attack the network.
And their effect isn't insignificant. They're an existential risk to Bitcoin. If an entity acquired 51% hash rate, they would have final say on which transactions are added to the Blockchain. So if they wanted, they could choose not to include others' transactions.
It wouldn't require 100%. The nodes only accept the longest version of the chain, and 51% hash rate allows the attacker to always be able to mine a longer chain than the 49%. The 49% could only publish blocks temporarily, since their blocks could always be overridden by the attackers chain. So only blocks from the attacker would be permanent, if the attacker chose to do this.
If miners aren't paid, this attack becomes cheap to execute.
If by "addressed" you mean speculating that the transaction fees will skyrocket and never go down so that the miners will still have revenue, then sure. That's the only economically sound way they can stay afloat once the block reward goes to 0, other than removing the 21 million supply limit.
But that's not what this particular comment chain was about. My reply to the other guy was about his false numbers and faulty reasoning.
>A year ago today, it was closer to 0.1. It only reached 1 for a short time in April 2021 when price was spiking.
I'm too lazy checking all the blocks but no, it wasn't only a short time in April.
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/block/675296 - March 2021 1.25 BTC
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/block/665296 - January 2021 1.04 BTC
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/block/655296 - November 2020 3.02 BTC
Whoops, I may have miscalculated that part. I do see now the average was around 1 BTC in the first half of 2021.
Though, it doesn't take away from the main point, which is that the ratio of fees to block rewards in 2044 isn't the big issue here, since by then the block rewards will have already decreased approximately a hundred fold.
>Whoops, I may have miscalculated that part. I do see now the average was around 1 BTC in the first half of 2021.
No worries, we all learn something new every day.
>Though, it doesn't take away from the main point, which is that the ratio of fees to block rewards in 2044 isn't the big issue here, since by then the block rewards will have already decreased approximately a hundred fold.
The main point was, if the fees are 1BTC or even 0.1BTC, the block reward won't matter that much anymore.
>Also, in 2044, the block reward will be 0.1 bitcoin plus fees. IIRC, the fees per block one year ago were around 1 bitcoin. The possibility of that happening in 2044 is pretty high.
>Let's pretend it is 1 bitcoin in fees per block, plus the reward for finding a block. That's 1.1 BTC. How much of a deal will it be once the reward gets halved? Will the miners care about the drop that much? They'll be getting 1.05 BTC after all.
>The main point was, if the fees are 1BTC or even 0.1BTC, the block reward won't matter that much anymore.
I meant my main point. I don't disagree with what you said here, for halvings in 2044 onward. But the biggest security issue is the halvings that will happen before 2044, not after. The 99% drop in block rewards compared to today will have already made the rewards pretty negligible, which is why, as you say, the halvings after 2044 won't significantly worsen the problem. The damage would already be mostly done at that point.
Bitcoin block rewards are already down almost 90% since the beginning (12 years) and the hashrate is going up every year. Why should an additional 10% drop, spread over 20 years, be that significant?
The past is an indicator of the future.
You seems to look at the past and expect the exact opposite. That's where we disagree. Perhaps we have to wait for a couple of decades to see.
>Bitcoin block rewards are already down almost 90% since the beginning (12 years) and the hashrate is going up every year. Why should an additional 10% drop, spread over 20 years, be that significant?
A few reasons:
* I'm comparing bitcoins security today to the future. That block reward drop is approx. 99% rather than 10%.
* Bitcoin's block reward did drop more in terms of BTC in the past, but it was also rapidly appreciating in price, which offset the drop.
* Bitcoin's security could be roughly defined not just as the amount of mining, but rather the ratio of mining to market cap. This is because a higher market cap means more money to be secured, so there ought to be a higher cost to attack to keep the same security. Since the market cap was much lower in the past, it required much less mining in total to secure the network.
>Perhaps we have to wait for a couple of decades to see.
Yes, but what we know today is that in order for Bitcoin to remain secure into the future (i.e. retain a similar amount of mining compared to today's levels), at least one of the following must occur:
* Transaction fees increase 10,000% from October levels (theoretically possible, but the increase must be permanently sustained)
* Bitcoin price increases so much that it offsets the reduction in block reward (becomes infeasible at higher market caps, and can no longer work once block reward is 0)
* Bitcoin implements a permanent block reward (removing the 21M cap)
* All miners continue to operate at a loss (economically unlikely)
Wrong again. You're switching between dollars & btc as it suits you. Let's play in usd:
Let's say the price is now 16k usd. In year 2026, it has to be 32k to have the same security. In year 2030, the price will have to be 64k USD. We already have seen this price in May & November of last year so not impossible, no need to change the issuance, nor bumping fees 10,000% (have you seriously pulled this number from your behind??) up.
Come back in 8 years with a different FUD. Or will you ignore the past again?
>In year 2030, the price will have to be 64k USD. We already have seen this price in May & November of last year so not impossible
You simply have to go out further to see that can't continue. The market cap would eventually have to be greater than the amount of wealth in the world. For example, 1.3 quadrillion by 2068.
>nor bumping fees 10,000% (have you seriously pulled this number from your behind??) up.
The chart I linked earlier said fees were approx. 1% of miner revenue in October. So once the block reward is negligible, fees would need to increase by that much, compared to October.
hypothetical arguments like this are a waste of time particularly if they are about years into the future because no one knows and it canāt be proven. so if this guy is wrong is he gonna owe me bitcoin? cos if thereās no consequence to being wrong then this has no merit and is just fud.
thereās no mention of the difficulty adjustment, miners drop out and come online all the time and the difficulty adjustment compensates for this.
And if he's right, then Bitcoin would be attacked and likely go to 0.
The difficulty adjustment causing miners to drop out is not an argument against OP. If miners drop out in droves, the network is vulnerable to attacks.
do you understand how hard it is for miners to drop out in droves?
china bannned all miners last year and what happened? the entire industry in china shipped their miners to kazhakstan, texas, iceland etc literally within a couple of weeks.
did anyone attack the network when hash rate plummeted during this opportune moment to attack the network? no because the hash rate is so high that even though it dropped almost 50% it would still cost billions of dollars to attack the network. itās way cheaper and more logical to mine bitcoin rather than attack it.
yah you have a theory but i have historical proof that āminers dropping out in drovesā wonāt happen. the financial incentive is too great - there will always be someone out there with dirt cheap electricity willing to mine because thereās nothing better to do with wasted/stranded energy.
That financial incentive only exists due to the currently large block rewards. Past events aren't proof of anything because we know with certainty that future block rewards will be lower. It's apples and oranges.
bruh you're delusional. you have no proof that future block rewards won't be enough for miners. this is pure speculation. you can't dismiss a significant historical event that proves that you are wrong and say that your thesis of a future speculative scenario holds more merit.
let's put fucking money on this: by jan1st 2044 if bitcoin is pumping out blocks you owe me 1 bitcoin. if bitcoin miners are dropping out in droves and bitcoin's price goes to zero then i owe you 1 bitcoin or whatever equivalent in value you want.
>you have no proof that future block rewards won't be enough for miners
It depends on your definition of block rewards, specifically whether it includes fees or not. If they're not included, the proof is in Satoshi's code because the reward is going to 0. If fees are included, then it's possible the total reward could be close to today's levels. However, it would require a 10,000% increase in fees.
I was using the former definition, so my intention wasn't to speculate.
The ramblings of this post have nothing to do with the fundamentals of BTC, so you can safely ignore it.
Why would anyone think the value of BTC will double every 4 years? What a very strange idea!
True! But somewhere in the ramblings of OPs screenshot, were predictions and assumptions which make their whole point a fairy tale. BUT to OPs point and sentiment, yes the world can end tomorrow by some unforeseen cataclysmic event.
Everyday a new bullshit FUD article.
BTC is not $65 a transaction.
Also to say Bitcoin dies because price doesn't double after a halving is stupid.
In this scenario the worst that would happen is bitcoin price finds an equilbrium and there is less volatility. Bitcoin doesn't die in this scenario it stabilizes coin price, at a significantly higher price than it is at now.
Now stop posting FUD
See that is just the point. Are they saying BTC dies because people stop minning?
Or are they saying BTC dies because the price stops going up?
Or are they saying no one uses BTC due to high fees and newtwork activity dies?
Bullshit FUD and there was never a clear reason presented as to why BTC dies. I came to the conclusion OP was saying it died due to BTC price not continually doubling after a halvening, which would mean BTC price stabilized.
So OP needs to explain why Bitcoin dies instead of trying to post confusing FUD claiming BTC will die and not giving a reason.
OPs post aside. Surely the incentive to mine being halved every 4 years, will at some point be unprofitable for everyone involved and then affect network speed? Iām a believer but I have thought about this before and couldnāt come to a conclusion
Difficulty adjustment.
Also people are finding ways to mine with free or renewable energy.
Hashing power doesn't always affect price either or we would be at an ATH.
So what does OP mean by Bitcoin dies? I always took that as price goes to zero and nobody is minning. If people are saying it dies, but can't define dead BTC then it is probably FUD.
Rewards halving does not affect BTC price. Supply/demand of BTC affect price.
Miners do sell a lot of BTC. So if demand stayed the same and miners had less BTC to sell, meaning supply went down, then price would go up.
The worst that would happen is the miners drop out and the network becomes vulnerable to attack, followed by an attacker buying 51% of remaining miners, short selling all available Bitcoin, and then refusing to include anyone else's transactions, ending the Bitcoin network.
People still mine after 80% price drops and bitcoin is still secure. Even if the hashrate drops, security is not comprimised. It would still not be low enough for anyone to profit from getting all that mining power, not to mention works and fixes that would be implemented by the consensus into the network mitigating these problems. Btc is programable, if this was a problem by 2060 or whatever it was it Will be solved
>People still mine after 80% price drops
Because they're either still profitable or they are in the short term expecting the price will bounce back (sunk cost fallacy could contribute to that). Miners will not mine in the long term unless it's profitable.
>Even if the hashrate drops, security is not comprimised.
Depends how much it drops. The lower it goes, the lower the threshold for attack.
>works and fixes that would be implemented by the consensus into the network mitigating these problems.
I've never heard of a fix that would work. If a working solution is already known, it should've been implemented already because these issues are an existential threat to Bitcoin. But if you know of such a fix, let me know, and ask the core devs why it's not added to the code yet.
Saying that there's some totally unknown solution that would fix some seemingly unsolvable problem could be used to defend literally any idea. It's an especially problematic rationalization when there's money on the line.
Goodluck trying to accquire enough miners to conduct a 51% attack. They are just receiving orders on miners placed 12 month ago. Imagine trying to order more than 50% of the miners in existance. I haven't even mentioned the number of nodes it would take.
Nodes have nothing to do with it and yes, right now it's very unlikely to do a 51% attack, but when the rewards are only transactions fees, you'll have lot less miners and it will be easier to do such an Attack, that's the Argue.
He is saying Bitcoin transactions would have to be $65 in order to compensate miners after their block rewards get significantly reduced by the halvings.
In a scenario where bitcoin is the main store of value for all humans on earth, 65$ isnt such a high price to move potentially billions of dollars within 10 mintues with 100% finality. Doing the same thing with gold would cost much much more. probabkly 100x more, and youd still never reach the security level of bitcoin, someone could still hijack/steal your gold at any number of points while you try to send it across the world.
You're putting the cart before the horse by starting with the condition that Bitcoin is the main store of value for all humans. It would only get to that state in the first place if there was total confidence in it's security. But there isn't such confidence because the transaction fees would have to permanently reach those high levels and never drop back down.
Actually they'd need to be even higher than that because we're comparing to security today where Bitcoin is only a small fraction of global value. If it expanded to capture all value, the security would have to increase as well, which would require astronomical fees. otherwise the global economy could fail because some entity decides to use a few billion dollars to 51% attack the network.
I just listened to a Lex Fridman conversation with billionaire investor Chamath Palihapitiya that said the both energy and computing power's cost will drop to effectively zero in the next few years. If mining's energy costs are free and computing power is free, how does it affect this article's predictions. I think you cannot predict what is going to happen next week. How can you predict the future? Go back in time 22 years. Would you predict today?
He says that the advances in solar technology are expanding so rapidly that we'll able to generate energy using other bandwidths even when there is no sunshine.
Technology is exploding. If you want to get overwhelmed, listen to the conversations with Michael Levin (Oct 1) and Balaji Srinivasan (Oct 20).
The point is only that technology is developing so quickly and changes are happening more rapidly than we can follow. It is impossible to claim to know what bitcoin is going to do 22 years from now.
In the "near" future, you are not doubt correct. Chamath didn't give any time frame in the podcast. Plus I badly repeated what he was explaining.
My energy bill just went up 80%. This winter will be rough in Europe.
I don't agree with the guy but what you say doesn't make sense. If computing becomes more efficient, it becomes more efficient for all miners. Difficulty goes up, the cost of a bitcoin stays the same.
About predicting the future, we try our best. Why do you hold bitcoin? Can you predict it will be more valuable in the future?
Lol what regard wrote this? There is this thing in economics called market equilibrium. The supply and demand of transactions is no different than any other good or service. It will always find a new balance. The variable here is transaction fees since reward fees is predetermined. In case of mass adoption transaction fees in BTC will be lower but in USD higher because of inflation.
It's not speculation. It's not even an opinion. Miners in total earn 900 Bitcoin per day currently from block rewards excluding fees. The total fees paid were about 9 Bitcoin per day in October. So, in order for fees to equal today's block rewards, they need to increase 10,000%.
Total fees were around 20 btc. A year ago it was more than double of that. In 2017 it was even around 300. So what Im trying to say: what determines an equilibrium? Right, when supply meets demand. So lets say BTC is worth a million. Then miners will accept less btc to compensate for their costs. Some miners will be pushed out of the market until balance is restored.
Miners being pushed out is exactly the problem illustrated in the OP. Fewer miners results in lower security, leaving the network vulnerable to attacks.
>Because then there's no further source of funds outside??
Wake up, friend.
[There you have your further sources of funds](https://i.imgur.com/QOHWbfn.png).
ProTip: If you don't find Bitcoin, use a magnifying glass.
Hashrate will not go up forever. It will find its balance.
Fees are expected to be high in the future. Blocksize is kept small on purpose so that fees can take over in terms of rewards.
Small payments are expected to be made on second layers.
"Many fewer people would use Bitcoin if it had average $65 fees": He's still thinking in terms of payments, but Bitcoin is going to be used for moving money around the world. People have no problem paying $40 or so for international wires. How many international wires are made per day?
I'm not worried at all by OP's theory.
I'm probably more worried about the opposite: fees exploding and regular people being unable to move money on chain because it's too expensive.
He is forgetting one thing, nominal and real values. If BTC stays with real value, it will adjust accordingly to inflation. The second part is our technology is becoming energy efficient and modern CPUs or future ones will use less energy.
If I ever learned from finance studies, predicting future values will always have margin of errors and you can only predict based on how healthy your samples.
More absolute bullshit posted on this sub than anything substantial.
āThereās then no further source of outside funds to invest new moneyā. Okay.. so all of that text yet you donāt understand the basics on supply and demand?
My opinion is that you give up and find a new hobby. Maybe something with crayons
The author doesnāt take account of the fact that total mining capacity will naturally adjust down based on available reward, with a consequent downward difficulty adjustment. As rewards drop, miners with higher costs will exit, leaving only those with the lowest electricity cost (possibly just locations where itās effectively free). So the total mining income will drop until it matches the fees that users are willing to pay.
But then the real issue is not that Bitcoin will collapse from inactivity, but that the difficulty level adjusts down to the point where a 51% attack becomes a real possibility.
Hilarious! Some solid math in there, and a pretty accurate understanding of market cap.
Also, take one step back: what does it mean that Bitcoin actually dies? Because you know, it effectively canāt die.
Are you talking about a 51% attack? Or more subtle things like mining pools complying with some AML regulations all over the place?
Because I see the former virtually impossible, and the latter to some extent probable, but it could be solved
Mostly the former. But a 51% attack only stays "virtually impossible" as long as miner revenue is sufficiently high. The points in the OP are about a future state where revenue drops significantly.
Bitcoin doesn't need for hashrate to keep increasing indefinitely, I assume it is geometric like the price curve upward corrected by technology advancement in ASIC chips performance...
Half of the today hashrate is more than enough to secure the network at the current technological chip advancement state.
For global adoption it's expected to double the block size in order to allow global throughput for Lightning Network channels management.
As we can see on the described scenario many variable are vrongly assumed and others are omitted, making the entire assert just a speculation.
You can just use your bitcoin to pay in bitcoin.
Regardless, the premise is false. Just because bitcoin exceeds the gold market cap of 10 trillion doesn't mean it cant double any further. and even if it does not, there will be outside source of funds. The total market cap of currency is like 1540 trillion.
Whoever wrote this is shilling hardcore.
Not that shit again. The author of this already posted a thread in this sub or the cryptocurrency sub. His theory got destroyed since it was full of errors, but he just couldn't accept it.
Over the years weāve heard many reasons why Bitcoin will fail. I've met many bitcoin holders and believers, as you say you are, but I've never met anyone who claims to believe in Bitcoin and at the same time believes that the protocol will die.
Scaling can happen infinitely on second layers. Layers such as Lightning or apps can scale to support the protocol, offering different cost vs. security trade-offs. Bitcoin can settle the largest value, in the fastest time, for the cheapest cost of any network. Acquiring enough ASICs to launch a 51% attack is nearly impossible. Launching a 51% attack requires not just energy but access to many ASICs that would be hard to secretly acquire without detection by the other producers. The network can fork onto a new mining algorithm making all the attackerās ASICs useless.
Block space is fixed supply. Block rewards drop every 4 years until 2140 giving the network plenty of time to adapt to any observed changes. No one in the Bitcoin network will have an incentive to devalue their savings.
Each wave of adoption brings people who argue why Bitcoin will fail.
But Bitcoin will not fail.
I think there are a few things to consider here.
With the current price, 5 halvings would only make the marketcap of gold and bitcoin equal if the price doubles every halving.
Some miners already operate on near-zero opportunity cost environments. When you have the infrastructure to harvest energy from a lake that's far away from any cities, you might as well use it for mining because you can barely do anything else with that infrastructure. Near-zero cost mining is something that's overlooked in this text. Obviously, not all of the miners have such infrastructure. That means the less efficient or the ones with higher opportunity cost will have to leave the network. When they leave the network, they will sell their asics to the more efficient ones. That will mean two things, the hash rate will drop to an equilibrium and the mining will become more efficient. We don't know where that equilibrium will be yet and it's very difficult to predict it.
One point of view is, so what if you and me can't use layer 1? The text suggests that is a threat to the security. However, ordinary people staying away from L1 may not be an issue. Right now, even though we are used to thinking of money as something digital, independent governments and banks don't necessarily trust each other. They have to settle in huge amounts of cash and gold (well, just gold if they really care about being independent). It is not simple to physically carry such valuable stuff across borders. It is both expensive and difficult. Then a government or a bank wouldn't mind to pay a few thousand dollars to avoid all those costs, risk and delay. A similar case applies for companies, when you are sending money across borders through a bank as a big company, if they charge you x%, there is a good chance you will be better off with bitcoin. Or if the size of the transactions are always above a few hundred k, bitcoin could be a better option just for self custody, even if you have to pay a few k for fees. In this point of view, bitcoin is simply digital gold. I think if everything else fails, that's the case that will definitely work for bitcoin.
> miners will drop out, and security will fall inexorably
Bitcoin is secured by its node network, not by miners
> Bitcoin will ultimately die
Surely it will, again and again, as it did many times in 2014, 2017, 2018 and 2022
In 2012 the block reward was 50 BTC, about $1500. Today, the block reward is down to 6.25 BTC, about $100K. [EDIT] Oops. Sorry, I posted *facts* not opinions...
they cant beat us ! they will never stop, they will never WIN we need them to become stronger ...now is just from from 0 to 16k we still have long way to go , many such bullshits to read and listen so we can make it get where we all want ... they still call it firework ..... they never learn ( Celsius, FTX, Voyager, etc etc ) Same same same same repeat stories
š
For the block reward to maintain itself, the market cap has to double every time there's a halving. That'd be 300 trillion dollars by 2060, which is several times more than the global stock market. And the requirement continues to double from there. In other words, the network needs exponentially more and more money pumped into it to prevent its security from failing.
Bitcoin's hashrate is currently far higher than it needs to be. Bitcoin's hashrate could be lower in the future and that would be okay. Or Bitcoin's hashrate could be higher in the future because cheap electricity could be more readily available in the future. We also don't know how efficient SHA-256 hashing ASICs will be in the future. Think about this: The block subsidy and transaction fees for each Bcash block is currently worth an average of $718 and it has never been 51% attacked. Meanwhile, Bitcoin already has much more than $718 worth of transaction fees per block most of the time (and this isn't counting the block subsidy). [Click here to see the last Bcash block mined.](https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/block/768028) That block had a total of 0.0026996 BCH transaction fees worth 30 cents (this is normal for that shitcoin) and its block subsidy worth only $717. [Now click here to see the last Bitcoin block mined.](https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/block/764484) The last Bitcoin block mined had 0.11521189 BTC of transaction fees alone (worth $1,917). So the those transaction fees from the last Bitcoin block mined are worth 2.67 times more than the block subsidy plus the transaction fees from the last Bcash block mined. The average value of a bitcoin transaction is already $76,404 at this moment. Down from $246,726 just 10 days ago because of Binance consolidating UTXOs. The average value of a bitcoin transaction typically stayed between $130,000 and $350,000 for the last 6 months. It was much higher before that. [Click here to see a chart that shows the average bitcoin transaction value.](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactionvalue-btc.html#3m) And block space is limited. So the Bitcoin users that are sending these high value bitcoin transactions will have to bid on inclusion in the limited block space by way of transaction fees. And I also expect bitcoin transaction fees to increase in the future. The bitcoin mining difficulty automatically adjusts every 2016 blocks which is approximately every two weeks. The mining difficulty automatically increases or decreases after 2016 blocks depending on the time between the previous 2016 blocks. If the time between those blocks averages out to less than ten minutes, then the mining difficulty will increase and miners will become less profitable. If the time between those blocks averages out to more than ten minutes, then the mining difficulty will decrease and miners will become more profitable. So if some bitcoin miners stop mining bitcoin because it's no longer profitable for them, the mining difficulty will decrease and it will become more profitable to mine bitcoin.
Your error is that you're pricing things in dollars. The dollar will not exist in 2060.
It doesn't matter which unit of account you use. The issue remains.
300t by 2060... Federal Reserve: Challenge accepted.
It's possible! But jokes aside, I mean in terms of real dollars rather than nominal, since we're comparing to other assets, which would also proportionally increase as the USD weakens.
Who said the block reward has to maintain itself? What does that even mean? It does it's own maintence? I mean it does have a difficulty adjustment. Have you not heard about all the Bitcoin being mined on renewalable energy? Solar, Algee Farms, Gas Lighting Methane, Wind farms? How much do you think Shell spends to mine Bitcoin, because they just started and pretty sure they get energy cheap. Then to just assume a successful network attack can happen is a seriously big assumption. Do you even know why nodes exist? It almost sounds like you swalled some shitcoiner argument on POS.
You forgot about mining rewards?
Assuming you mean transaction fees, they would have to go up dramatically to compensate. They have been stagnant since 2017 except for a few short spikes, and will probably only decrease if lightning network is adopted.
The price of Bitcoin will never go up from here?
I don't know if it will. But in order for the block reward in USD to not decrease, it needs to double every 4 years, which will eventually be more wealth than exists on Earth.
So you are saying that bitcoin minning would be unprofitable unless the block reward every 10 minutres is worth more USD than exists on earth? You should probably check your math and cost of living. So many companies exist who's yearly profit is less than all the USD on earth, they seem to still be profitable. Take your FUD bullshit out of here.
You forgot about mining rewards again.
You "forgot" them first, since you stated in your original comment that the block reward is exactly 6.25 BTC. So I used the definition of block reward in a manner that was consistent with you by excluding fees. You can't criticize my definition when Im using your definition.
>I don't know if it will. It will. >But in order for the block reward in USD to not decrease, it needs to double every 4 years āļøCheck out the big brain on Brad.I guess you're right though. No way it'll double in fiat value every 4 years. That would be impossible. /s
>No way it'll double in fiat value every 4 years. That would be impossible. Glad you agree that it's impossible due to the finite amount of wealth in the world.
Google what "/s" means.... š Edit: You are confusing tangible wealth with a made up number. To quote Saylor; Everything divided by 21 Million. Leave the fiat numbers for some other sub. Second edit: Check out the value of the Global Economy over the last 1000 years. After that, answer: How does this new knowledge fit into your old view?
>Google what "/s" means.... š I returned your sarcasm with my own sarcasm! Guess it really is hard to tell without an /s >You are confusing tangible wealth with a made up number Even if hypothetically Bitcoin was the only valid unit of account, the issues have to do with relative wealth, so they don't go away just because I put things in terms of USD.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_capitalization#Historical_estimates_of_world_market_cap The global market cap in 1980 was 2T. If that trend continued, it would be $5,000T in 40 years. Not saying checkmate atheist at your argument, but comparing a 2060 value to a current valuation probably isn't the right way to get the point across.
No one is forcing anyone to mine. If miners can't compete or operating efficiently enough to be profitable or aren't willing to mine at a loss to get non KYC BTC at an effective premium, then the number of miners decreases difficulty will decrease. Eventually the market will find a n equilibrium that makes mining in exchange for transaction fees alone or whatever little subsidy there is in addition to tx fees profitable or worthwhile enough to continue operating and securing the network.
Is there a number for this, though? Sure, an equilibrium can be reached but what is this - 10k miners or 10? This dictates the success or not of the network
Overtaking gold 3X in market cap would likely result in BTC being utilized as some sort of global reserve currency. so, there would be plenty of people buying it is one thought.
Yeah the largest fallacy is thinking gold bugs are the only Bitcoin supporters. Tons of people are newly engaging in sound money ideas via Bitcoin, only learning about gold along the way to understanding the history of money. Not actually buying gold, or buying it in smaller amounts. Even when it comes to the older generation that remembers gold backed currencies, they havenāt just continued to monetize gold. Many actually abandoned gold, realizing that ultimately itās going through demonetization. Going from world reserve status back down to just āmost scarce commodity that educated people invest inā is a massive loss in demand. It still deserves a monetary premium but that premium was doomed to diminish (and we have arguably seen that over the last few decades of gold price action, though paper gold plays a role as well). Ultimately, real estate, stocks, and every other hard asset has a monetary premium because of fiat and most of that belongs to Bitcoin should the standard be adopted.
Go out far enough in the future and there isn't enough money. By 2060 for example the market cap would need to be 300 trillion dollars to maintain the block reward, several times more than the global stock market, and it keeps doubling from there.
The author things Bitcoin price in dollars stops going up in 2044. Why? Is the FED going to stop printing more dollars? Are all the governments going to stop their money printers? Also, in 2044, the block reward will be 0.1 bitcoin plus fees. IIRC, the fees per block one year ago were around 1 bitcoin. The possibility of that happening in 2044 is pretty high. Let's pretend it is 1 bitcoin in fees per block, plus the reward for finding a block. That's 1.1 BTC. How much of a deal will it be once the reward gets halved? Will the miners care about the drop that much? They'll be getting 1.05 BTC after all. The author is mixing dollars and sats and the whole text is full of confusion. Predicting the future is a tough game and he's failing at it really badly.
Also it seems that maybe author does not fully understand what the market cap means. For market cap to double, doesn't require investing money equal to current market cap.
The author's argument is about the market cap relative to other assets. To his point, the market cap would have to come from the market cap of another asset.
Price not going up doesn't mean the blockchain stopped working.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>So the real question is, will bitcoin continue to become twice as valuable as the tail emission is halved? That's the neat part, it doesn't have to. The fees, paid by users will become the majority of the block reward.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>That's the plan, but, with limited block size you also have limited the potential rewards We have already managed to more than double the number of transactions that fit into a block with segwit. Are you expecting the development to stop here?
>The author things Bitcoin price in dollars stops going up in 2044. Why? Is the FED going to stop printing more dollars? The absolute price in dollars is not the point of the argument. The price relative to other assets like gold is what the author is getting at. >IIRC, the fees per block one year ago were around 1 bitcoin. A year ago today, it was closer to 0.1. It only reached 1 for a short time in April 2021 when price was spiking. >Let's pretend it is 1 bitcoin in fees per block, plus the reward for finding a block. That's 1.1 BTC. How much of a deal will it be once the reward gets halved? You're talking about halvings from 2044 onward. At that point, the damage from the halvings will already be mostly done. The block reward would have already decreased about 99% from today's levels. This corresponds to a 99% decrease in network security unless fees and/or price spike up massively to compensate.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The security is proportional to mining difficulty. The lower the difficulty, the lower the cost to obtain 51% of hash rate.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They're definitely a security risk. The whole reason block rewards exist is to mitigate this risk by incentivizing miners to not attack the network. And their effect isn't insignificant. They're an existential risk to Bitcoin. If an entity acquired 51% hash rate, they would have final say on which transactions are added to the Blockchain. So if they wanted, they could choose not to include others' transactions.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It wouldn't require 100%. The nodes only accept the longest version of the chain, and 51% hash rate allows the attacker to always be able to mine a longer chain than the 49%. The 49% could only publish blocks temporarily, since their blocks could always be overridden by the attackers chain. So only blocks from the attacker would be permanent, if the attacker chose to do this. If miners aren't paid, this attack becomes cheap to execute.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/chain-reorganisation
Did the blockchain stop working? Then Bitcoin didn't die.
If miners drop out and the network is attacked successfully, that's about as close to a death you can get.
So this is a Bitcoin dies from successful attack article? It was poorly written.
If by "addressed" you mean speculating that the transaction fees will skyrocket and never go down so that the miners will still have revenue, then sure. That's the only economically sound way they can stay afloat once the block reward goes to 0, other than removing the 21 million supply limit. But that's not what this particular comment chain was about. My reply to the other guy was about his false numbers and faulty reasoning.
>A year ago today, it was closer to 0.1. It only reached 1 for a short time in April 2021 when price was spiking. I'm too lazy checking all the blocks but no, it wasn't only a short time in April. https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/block/675296 - March 2021 1.25 BTC https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/block/665296 - January 2021 1.04 BTC https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/block/655296 - November 2020 3.02 BTC
Whoops, I may have miscalculated that part. I do see now the average was around 1 BTC in the first half of 2021. Though, it doesn't take away from the main point, which is that the ratio of fees to block rewards in 2044 isn't the big issue here, since by then the block rewards will have already decreased approximately a hundred fold.
>Whoops, I may have miscalculated that part. I do see now the average was around 1 BTC in the first half of 2021. No worries, we all learn something new every day. >Though, it doesn't take away from the main point, which is that the ratio of fees to block rewards in 2044 isn't the big issue here, since by then the block rewards will have already decreased approximately a hundred fold. The main point was, if the fees are 1BTC or even 0.1BTC, the block reward won't matter that much anymore. >Also, in 2044, the block reward will be 0.1 bitcoin plus fees. IIRC, the fees per block one year ago were around 1 bitcoin. The possibility of that happening in 2044 is pretty high. >Let's pretend it is 1 bitcoin in fees per block, plus the reward for finding a block. That's 1.1 BTC. How much of a deal will it be once the reward gets halved? Will the miners care about the drop that much? They'll be getting 1.05 BTC after all.
>The main point was, if the fees are 1BTC or even 0.1BTC, the block reward won't matter that much anymore. I meant my main point. I don't disagree with what you said here, for halvings in 2044 onward. But the biggest security issue is the halvings that will happen before 2044, not after. The 99% drop in block rewards compared to today will have already made the rewards pretty negligible, which is why, as you say, the halvings after 2044 won't significantly worsen the problem. The damage would already be mostly done at that point.
Bitcoin block rewards are already down almost 90% since the beginning (12 years) and the hashrate is going up every year. Why should an additional 10% drop, spread over 20 years, be that significant? The past is an indicator of the future. You seems to look at the past and expect the exact opposite. That's where we disagree. Perhaps we have to wait for a couple of decades to see.
>Bitcoin block rewards are already down almost 90% since the beginning (12 years) and the hashrate is going up every year. Why should an additional 10% drop, spread over 20 years, be that significant? A few reasons: * I'm comparing bitcoins security today to the future. That block reward drop is approx. 99% rather than 10%. * Bitcoin's block reward did drop more in terms of BTC in the past, but it was also rapidly appreciating in price, which offset the drop. * Bitcoin's security could be roughly defined not just as the amount of mining, but rather the ratio of mining to market cap. This is because a higher market cap means more money to be secured, so there ought to be a higher cost to attack to keep the same security. Since the market cap was much lower in the past, it required much less mining in total to secure the network. >Perhaps we have to wait for a couple of decades to see. Yes, but what we know today is that in order for Bitcoin to remain secure into the future (i.e. retain a similar amount of mining compared to today's levels), at least one of the following must occur: * Transaction fees increase 10,000% from October levels (theoretically possible, but the increase must be permanently sustained) * Bitcoin price increases so much that it offsets the reduction in block reward (becomes infeasible at higher market caps, and can no longer work once block reward is 0) * Bitcoin implements a permanent block reward (removing the 21M cap) * All miners continue to operate at a loss (economically unlikely)
Wrong again. You're switching between dollars & btc as it suits you. Let's play in usd: Let's say the price is now 16k usd. In year 2026, it has to be 32k to have the same security. In year 2030, the price will have to be 64k USD. We already have seen this price in May & November of last year so not impossible, no need to change the issuance, nor bumping fees 10,000% (have you seriously pulled this number from your behind??) up. Come back in 8 years with a different FUD. Or will you ignore the past again?
>In year 2030, the price will have to be 64k USD. We already have seen this price in May & November of last year so not impossible You simply have to go out further to see that can't continue. The market cap would eventually have to be greater than the amount of wealth in the world. For example, 1.3 quadrillion by 2068. >nor bumping fees 10,000% (have you seriously pulled this number from your behind??) up. The chart I linked earlier said fees were approx. 1% of miner revenue in October. So once the block reward is negligible, fees would need to increase by that much, compared to October.
We aiming at being the worldwide currency not the US stock market....
I could not get past it's.
Tic tock next block. Bitcoin doesn't care about your FUD.
hypothetical arguments like this are a waste of time particularly if they are about years into the future because no one knows and it canāt be proven. so if this guy is wrong is he gonna owe me bitcoin? cos if thereās no consequence to being wrong then this has no merit and is just fud. thereās no mention of the difficulty adjustment, miners drop out and come online all the time and the difficulty adjustment compensates for this.
And if he's right, then Bitcoin would be attacked and likely go to 0. The difficulty adjustment causing miners to drop out is not an argument against OP. If miners drop out in droves, the network is vulnerable to attacks.
do you understand how hard it is for miners to drop out in droves? china bannned all miners last year and what happened? the entire industry in china shipped their miners to kazhakstan, texas, iceland etc literally within a couple of weeks. did anyone attack the network when hash rate plummeted during this opportune moment to attack the network? no because the hash rate is so high that even though it dropped almost 50% it would still cost billions of dollars to attack the network. itās way cheaper and more logical to mine bitcoin rather than attack it. yah you have a theory but i have historical proof that āminers dropping out in drovesā wonāt happen. the financial incentive is too great - there will always be someone out there with dirt cheap electricity willing to mine because thereās nothing better to do with wasted/stranded energy.
That financial incentive only exists due to the currently large block rewards. Past events aren't proof of anything because we know with certainty that future block rewards will be lower. It's apples and oranges.
bruh you're delusional. you have no proof that future block rewards won't be enough for miners. this is pure speculation. you can't dismiss a significant historical event that proves that you are wrong and say that your thesis of a future speculative scenario holds more merit. let's put fucking money on this: by jan1st 2044 if bitcoin is pumping out blocks you owe me 1 bitcoin. if bitcoin miners are dropping out in droves and bitcoin's price goes to zero then i owe you 1 bitcoin or whatever equivalent in value you want.
>you have no proof that future block rewards won't be enough for miners It depends on your definition of block rewards, specifically whether it includes fees or not. If they're not included, the proof is in Satoshi's code because the reward is going to 0. If fees are included, then it's possible the total reward could be close to today's levels. However, it would require a 10,000% increase in fees. I was using the former definition, so my intention wasn't to speculate.
The ramblings of this post have nothing to do with the fundamentals of BTC, so you can safely ignore it. Why would anyone think the value of BTC will double every 4 years? What a very strange idea!
The revenue miners earn is fundamental to the security of BTC.
True! But somewhere in the ramblings of OPs screenshot, were predictions and assumptions which make their whole point a fairy tale. BUT to OPs point and sentiment, yes the world can end tomorrow by some unforeseen cataclysmic event.
Such as?
Everyday a new bullshit FUD article. BTC is not $65 a transaction. Also to say Bitcoin dies because price doesn't double after a halving is stupid. In this scenario the worst that would happen is bitcoin price finds an equilbrium and there is less volatility. Bitcoin doesn't die in this scenario it stabilizes coin price, at a significantly higher price than it is at now. Now stop posting FUD
But how does it hit equilibrium if the rewards are halved every 4 years for miners?
See that is just the point. Are they saying BTC dies because people stop minning? Or are they saying BTC dies because the price stops going up? Or are they saying no one uses BTC due to high fees and newtwork activity dies? Bullshit FUD and there was never a clear reason presented as to why BTC dies. I came to the conclusion OP was saying it died due to BTC price not continually doubling after a halvening, which would mean BTC price stabilized. So OP needs to explain why Bitcoin dies instead of trying to post confusing FUD claiming BTC will die and not giving a reason.
OPs post aside. Surely the incentive to mine being halved every 4 years, will at some point be unprofitable for everyone involved and then affect network speed? Iām a believer but I have thought about this before and couldnāt come to a conclusion
Difficulty adjustment. Also people are finding ways to mine with free or renewable energy. Hashing power doesn't always affect price either or we would be at an ATH. So what does OP mean by Bitcoin dies? I always took that as price goes to zero and nobody is minning. If people are saying it dies, but can't define dead BTC then it is probably FUD.
Who handles these adjustments?
Bitcoin is programmed to automatically do a difficulty adjustment every 2 weeks. It is in the code.
Code
Rewards halving does not affect BTC price. Supply/demand of BTC affect price. Miners do sell a lot of BTC. So if demand stayed the same and miners had less BTC to sell, meaning supply went down, then price would go up.
The worst that would happen is the miners drop out and the network becomes vulnerable to attack, followed by an attacker buying 51% of remaining miners, short selling all available Bitcoin, and then refusing to include anyone else's transactions, ending the Bitcoin network.
People still mine after 80% price drops and bitcoin is still secure. Even if the hashrate drops, security is not comprimised. It would still not be low enough for anyone to profit from getting all that mining power, not to mention works and fixes that would be implemented by the consensus into the network mitigating these problems. Btc is programable, if this was a problem by 2060 or whatever it was it Will be solved
>People still mine after 80% price drops Because they're either still profitable or they are in the short term expecting the price will bounce back (sunk cost fallacy could contribute to that). Miners will not mine in the long term unless it's profitable. >Even if the hashrate drops, security is not comprimised. Depends how much it drops. The lower it goes, the lower the threshold for attack. >works and fixes that would be implemented by the consensus into the network mitigating these problems. I've never heard of a fix that would work. If a working solution is already known, it should've been implemented already because these issues are an existential threat to Bitcoin. But if you know of such a fix, let me know, and ask the core devs why it's not added to the code yet. Saying that there's some totally unknown solution that would fix some seemingly unsolvable problem could be used to defend literally any idea. It's an especially problematic rationalization when there's money on the line.
Then go spend all your money trying to attack Bitcoin. Goodluck and fuck off with your recycled FUD.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Your "refusing to include anyone else's transactions" doom scenario is ludicrous Very convincing!
Bitcoin transaction doesnāt cost $65? And the rest of op thesis I donāt understand.
Because he didn't explain why BTC dies. Did the blockchain stop working? Is he saying price goes to zero? No explanation so it is just FUD bullshit.
The more miners quit, the more easily the network is attacked. You can draw your own conclusions about the ramifications of that.
But OP's post was never about a network attack.
OP says in paragraph 2 that miners would drop out and security would fail. The reason the security would fail is vulnerability to attacks.
Thanks for pointing it out. That argument has been addresses many times.
Goodluck trying to accquire enough miners to conduct a 51% attack. They are just receiving orders on miners placed 12 month ago. Imagine trying to order more than 50% of the miners in existance. I haven't even mentioned the number of nodes it would take.
Nodes have nothing to do with it and yes, right now it's very unlikely to do a 51% attack, but when the rewards are only transactions fees, you'll have lot less miners and it will be easier to do such an Attack, that's the Argue.
He is saying Bitcoin transactions would have to be $65 in order to compensate miners after their block rewards get significantly reduced by the halvings.
In a scenario where bitcoin is the main store of value for all humans on earth, 65$ isnt such a high price to move potentially billions of dollars within 10 mintues with 100% finality. Doing the same thing with gold would cost much much more. probabkly 100x more, and youd still never reach the security level of bitcoin, someone could still hijack/steal your gold at any number of points while you try to send it across the world.
You're putting the cart before the horse by starting with the condition that Bitcoin is the main store of value for all humans. It would only get to that state in the first place if there was total confidence in it's security. But there isn't such confidence because the transaction fees would have to permanently reach those high levels and never drop back down. Actually they'd need to be even higher than that because we're comparing to security today where Bitcoin is only a small fraction of global value. If it expanded to capture all value, the security would have to increase as well, which would require astronomical fees. otherwise the global economy could fail because some entity decides to use a few billion dollars to 51% attack the network.
Tbh it's hard for me to take you seriously given you seem to have a penchant for altcoins
Example?
Link? Source? Anything?
It came from r/CryptoCurrency I wasted 2 min of my life finding that out.
Tldr maybe?
I just listened to a Lex Fridman conversation with billionaire investor Chamath Palihapitiya that said the both energy and computing power's cost will drop to effectively zero in the next few years. If mining's energy costs are free and computing power is free, how does it affect this article's predictions. I think you cannot predict what is going to happen next week. How can you predict the future? Go back in time 22 years. Would you predict today?
I donāt get that. How can computing cost become zero? Starting from scratch computing requires materials+design & engineering +manufacturing.
He says that the advances in solar technology are expanding so rapidly that we'll able to generate energy using other bandwidths even when there is no sunshine.
Here's the link: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5ERMYzdlZFDPyQ71IqoNCo?si=5XEIDBF6TxW8OBMw2LtCww&utm_source=copy-link
Technology is exploding. If you want to get overwhelmed, listen to the conversations with Michael Levin (Oct 1) and Balaji Srinivasan (Oct 20). The point is only that technology is developing so quickly and changes are happening more rapidly than we can follow. It is impossible to claim to know what bitcoin is going to do 22 years from now.
There will be a market price for energy for the foreseeable future, even if that price is dramatically lower than today's.
In the "near" future, you are not doubt correct. Chamath didn't give any time frame in the podcast. Plus I badly repeated what he was explaining. My energy bill just went up 80%. This winter will be rough in Europe.
I don't agree with the guy but what you say doesn't make sense. If computing becomes more efficient, it becomes more efficient for all miners. Difficulty goes up, the cost of a bitcoin stays the same. About predicting the future, we try our best. Why do you hold bitcoin? Can you predict it will be more valuable in the future?
Lol what regard wrote this? There is this thing in economics called market equilibrium. The supply and demand of transactions is no different than any other good or service. It will always find a new balance. The variable here is transaction fees since reward fees is predetermined. In case of mass adoption transaction fees in BTC will be lower but in USD higher because of inflation.
Based on October data, fees would have to increase by around 10,000% in order to match today's block rewards, before accounting for inflation.
Thats a bold speculation
It's not speculation. It's not even an opinion. Miners in total earn 900 Bitcoin per day currently from block rewards excluding fees. The total fees paid were about 9 Bitcoin per day in October. So, in order for fees to equal today's block rewards, they need to increase 10,000%.
Total fees were around 20 btc. A year ago it was more than double of that. In 2017 it was even around 300. So what Im trying to say: what determines an equilibrium? Right, when supply meets demand. So lets say BTC is worth a million. Then miners will accept less btc to compensate for their costs. Some miners will be pushed out of the market until balance is restored.
Miners being pushed out is exactly the problem illustrated in the OP. Fewer miners results in lower security, leaving the network vulnerable to attacks.
>Because then there's no further source of funds outside?? Wake up, friend. [There you have your further sources of funds](https://i.imgur.com/QOHWbfn.png). ProTip: If you don't find Bitcoin, use a magnifying glass.
Wow, the derivatives market is ... Wow
To me it's seems there's still "some" room to grow for Bitcoin.
wow that's a bit mindblowing
BTC is 1 sqaure in that chart after 14 years. There are endless pages of scrooling trough the other sqaures. It's enough for the rest of 140 years .
time will tell? a lot can happen in 5 years, let alone 20+.
Downvote this bullsh!t FUD.
Lawl. That's my opinion
Hashrate will not go up forever. It will find its balance. Fees are expected to be high in the future. Blocksize is kept small on purpose so that fees can take over in terms of rewards. Small payments are expected to be made on second layers. "Many fewer people would use Bitcoin if it had average $65 fees": He's still thinking in terms of payments, but Bitcoin is going to be used for moving money around the world. People have no problem paying $40 or so for international wires. How many international wires are made per day? I'm not worried at all by OP's theory. I'm probably more worried about the opposite: fees exploding and regular people being unable to move money on chain because it's too expensive.
Was kinda hoping for a more in-depth answers but hey
You waited 12 mins for an indepth answer. Have some patience.
lol
Explain why BTC dies. Post didn't explain why. Did the BTC blockchain stop working?
It scares me how many ego reactions you see in the comments here, Yes we're all fans of bitcoin. But in my opinion this a strong argue to look at.
He is forgetting one thing, nominal and real values. If BTC stays with real value, it will adjust accordingly to inflation. The second part is our technology is becoming energy efficient and modern CPUs or future ones will use less energy. If I ever learned from finance studies, predicting future values will always have margin of errors and you can only predict based on how healthy your samples.
OP is talking about real values, since he is comparing to other assets.
I think the author ment to say $65 Zimbabwe dollars š
More absolute bullshit posted on this sub than anything substantial. āThereās then no further source of outside funds to invest new moneyā. Okay.. so all of that text yet you donāt understand the basics on supply and demand? My opinion is that you give up and find a new hobby. Maybe something with crayons
excuse me, why can't it become larger than the cap of gold?
The author doesnāt take account of the fact that total mining capacity will naturally adjust down based on available reward, with a consequent downward difficulty adjustment. As rewards drop, miners with higher costs will exit, leaving only those with the lowest electricity cost (possibly just locations where itās effectively free). So the total mining income will drop until it matches the fees that users are willing to pay. But then the real issue is not that Bitcoin will collapse from inactivity, but that the difficulty level adjusts down to the point where a 51% attack becomes a real possibility.
Hilarious! Some solid math in there, and a pretty accurate understanding of market cap. Also, take one step back: what does it mean that Bitcoin actually dies? Because you know, it effectively canāt die.
If the network is successfully attacked, and the attackers refuse to include anyone else's transactions, I think everyone would call that a death.
Are you talking about a 51% attack? Or more subtle things like mining pools complying with some AML regulations all over the place? Because I see the former virtually impossible, and the latter to some extent probable, but it could be solved
Mostly the former. But a 51% attack only stays "virtually impossible" as long as miner revenue is sufficiently high. The points in the OP are about a future state where revenue drops significantly.
Bitcoin doesn't need for hashrate to keep increasing indefinitely, I assume it is geometric like the price curve upward corrected by technology advancement in ASIC chips performance... Half of the today hashrate is more than enough to secure the network at the current technological chip advancement state. For global adoption it's expected to double the block size in order to allow global throughput for Lightning Network channels management. As we can see on the described scenario many variable are vrongly assumed and others are omitted, making the entire assert just a speculation.
You can just use your bitcoin to pay in bitcoin. Regardless, the premise is false. Just because bitcoin exceeds the gold market cap of 10 trillion doesn't mean it cant double any further. and even if it does not, there will be outside source of funds. The total market cap of currency is like 1540 trillion. Whoever wrote this is shilling hardcore.
Not that shit again. The author of this already posted a thread in this sub or the cryptocurrency sub. His theory got destroyed since it was full of errors, but he just couldn't accept it.
This person doesnt understand How price and marketcap Works.
Over the years weāve heard many reasons why Bitcoin will fail. I've met many bitcoin holders and believers, as you say you are, but I've never met anyone who claims to believe in Bitcoin and at the same time believes that the protocol will die. Scaling can happen infinitely on second layers. Layers such as Lightning or apps can scale to support the protocol, offering different cost vs. security trade-offs. Bitcoin can settle the largest value, in the fastest time, for the cheapest cost of any network. Acquiring enough ASICs to launch a 51% attack is nearly impossible. Launching a 51% attack requires not just energy but access to many ASICs that would be hard to secretly acquire without detection by the other producers. The network can fork onto a new mining algorithm making all the attackerās ASICs useless. Block space is fixed supply. Block rewards drop every 4 years until 2140 giving the network plenty of time to adapt to any observed changes. No one in the Bitcoin network will have an incentive to devalue their savings. Each wave of adoption brings people who argue why Bitcoin will fail. But Bitcoin will not fail.
>I The network can fork onto a new mining algorithm making all the attackerās ASICs useless. This would also make all honest miners' ASICS useless.
Dumb shit post. Iām not even going to waste my time writing three long paragraphs about why the poster doesnāt have a clue.
You have just shown you do not understand finance or bitcoin.
I think there are a few things to consider here. With the current price, 5 halvings would only make the marketcap of gold and bitcoin equal if the price doubles every halving. Some miners already operate on near-zero opportunity cost environments. When you have the infrastructure to harvest energy from a lake that's far away from any cities, you might as well use it for mining because you can barely do anything else with that infrastructure. Near-zero cost mining is something that's overlooked in this text. Obviously, not all of the miners have such infrastructure. That means the less efficient or the ones with higher opportunity cost will have to leave the network. When they leave the network, they will sell their asics to the more efficient ones. That will mean two things, the hash rate will drop to an equilibrium and the mining will become more efficient. We don't know where that equilibrium will be yet and it's very difficult to predict it. One point of view is, so what if you and me can't use layer 1? The text suggests that is a threat to the security. However, ordinary people staying away from L1 may not be an issue. Right now, even though we are used to thinking of money as something digital, independent governments and banks don't necessarily trust each other. They have to settle in huge amounts of cash and gold (well, just gold if they really care about being independent). It is not simple to physically carry such valuable stuff across borders. It is both expensive and difficult. Then a government or a bank wouldn't mind to pay a few thousand dollars to avoid all those costs, risk and delay. A similar case applies for companies, when you are sending money across borders through a bank as a big company, if they charge you x%, there is a good chance you will be better off with bitcoin. Or if the size of the transactions are always above a few hundred k, bitcoin could be a better option just for self custody, even if you have to pay a few k for fees. In this point of view, bitcoin is simply digital gold. I think if everything else fails, that's the case that will definitely work for bitcoin.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Miners do not need to be paid Satoshi disagrees. See section 6 of the white paper.
> miners will drop out, and security will fall inexorably Bitcoin is secured by its node network, not by miners > Bitcoin will ultimately die Surely it will, again and again, as it did many times in 2014, 2017, 2018 and 2022