Topic: - (Read 1459 times)

I guess I miscommunicated.

Speculators aren't users. In fact they are somewhat anti-users. They only hold, never spend. In the classical capital flow diagram they would be the ones who have exchange accounts that are not set up "for delivery" only "for contract settlement".

In the market where speculation accounts for anywhere between 90% and 99% of the economic activity omitting that reservoir of capital is either pointless or an attempt to deceive/falsify. Trying to track the fees (which are less than a fraction of percent or ever per mille) and disregarding the futures market seems like a weird joke or deep misunderstanding.

You could include the  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%E2%80%93Scholes_model somewhere in your diagram. It could make your model both more powerful and more dissertable.

I also can't happen to note that you are shy of your alma mater and seem to be unclear what it means to defend your thesis in public. It is not the same as being defensive.

The idea is that by the time the block reward runs out, Bitcoin will be mainstream and actually used as a currency. At this point, it should have enough transactions to produce enough fees for the miners. Also, while many treat Bitcoin as a speculative commodity, many others, myself included, see Bitcoin as the future of currency.

I thought that conversion to/from fiat would happen within an Exchange (e.g. Coinbase), and NOT a Bank. I can't see sending BTC to a Bank which they then keep in an account? What would they do with the BTC I sent them? I guess they could bundle up BTC to make a "loan", although they could never lend more BTC than they had "deposits", like they can today. It's really not obvious to me what role a traditional Bank would play in a Bitcoin universe.

I really think the whole mining segment will have a radically different look in 20 years, if Bitcoin doesn't collapse before then. All the existing massive mining infrastructure can't be supported by BTC transaction fees in terms of electricity costs alone. I really have never understood (believed) the "end game" for mining. How many Petahsh and mining companies are really needed to support Bitcoin once it tries to be a currency for real. Right now most folks treat Bitcoin, myself included, like a highly volatile speculative commodity. At this time, as a currency, it blows (to put it bluntly).

Why do banks exist in your model? My simplistic understanding of Bitcoin is that folks have 1 or more wallets and that transactions happen, and nary a bank to be seen in that transaction. Almost every thing I read touting the benefits of Bitcoin proudly proclaim the lack of any kind of "Central bank". It's hard to see that there is service a bank could provide in a Bitcoin universe.

I understand the "Exchange" box, though it seems that it's more of a "Currency converter", and has precious little value beyond that.

While modeling Bitcoin may be interesting, in the long run (i.e. a few decades), the whole mining component largely evaporates. Once most of the 21 million coins are minted (aka mined), then there's no more currency created.

I believe you forgot the server nodes, I would add them to this diagram cause without full nodes miners are useless.  The play a very important part in blockchain technology.

Your model omits the speculators and the speculation on the future prices of Bitcoin, on this forum known as HODL-ers, from the misspelling of HOLD.

Therefore I would say it is nearly worthless.

Which school approved this as a master thesis in a computing-related field? This looks like some sort of rather weak economic sciences thesis.

Blockchain providers are not necessarily miners. They should be the full nodes, which have a copy of the blockchain and all transactions and validate them. Miners on the other hand, are connected to full nodes and generate blocks which every full node then retains a copy of. I think that Miners and blockchain providers should be separate, or miners should be a subset of blockchain providers.

#1. I think the portion around 'pools' has some issues.  While an important part of the mining ecosystem, I do wonder if you're going down a rabbit hole by including them in the first place.
Just for example:
Right now there's an output from pools to Blockchain Providers labeled 'Tx Fee'.  Pools don't pay transaction fees to miners - they embody miners.  The coinbase transaction is fee-less.  If a pool mines to a particular address or script and then later pays out from that, that's grand.. but at that point they're under the Users node.
Similarly, there's a 'Tx Fee' going from Users to Pools.  But users of a pool don't really pay a 'Tx Fee'.  They're simply withheld a portion of the block reward.  Depending on the pool's exact setup, the pool fee could be paid straight from the block reward, meaning there would be an optional loop going from Pools, right back to Pools.
I may be mis-reading the chart, though.

Some general bits: There appears to be a label missing between Users and Blockchain Providers, wherever you use "Money/BTC" perhaps use "Funds" except at the Exchanges which between it and Users should have Bitcoin/Money vs Money/Bitcoin (to signify the exchange).  Not entirely sure why there's a connection between Blockchain Providers and Exchanges either.

At this point, I'm not sure I'm even reading the chart right

#2-#4, I'll leave to previous answers.  These get asked quite a few times over on reddit, for example.  That said, there have been recent musings at least on point #3 in relationship to block sizes, so there may be some new insights.

-