Topic: .. (Read 3681 times)
A 3-year reorg would mean I effectively lose all my coins (since I bought them 2 years ago). Also, I do undersand that the protocol changes (and I know about the hard forks that have already happened), but losing my coins because of changes in the protocol goes against everything Bitcoin promises.
You know that possibility is not very likely.
Exactly, that was my point. It was kind of sarcastic. I have full confidence that it's astronomically improbable.
See, that's what I hate about written conversation, sarcasm is hard to present effectively. I'm glad you know that though. I thought you might be nuts but I was trying to be nice. lol
A 3-year reorg would mean I effectively lose all my coins (since I bought them 2 years ago). Also, I do undersand that the protocol changes (and I know about the hard forks that have already happened), but losing my coins because of changes in the protocol goes against everything Bitcoin promises.
You know that possibility is not very likely.
Exactly, that was my point. It was kind of sarcastic. I have full confidence that it's astronomically improbable.
A 3-year reorg would mean I effectively lose all my coins (since I bought them 2 years ago). Also, I do undersand that the protocol changes (and I know about the hard forks that have already happened), but losing my coins because of changes in the protocol goes against everything Bitcoin promises.
You know that possibility is not very likely.
Many people think that bitcoin must retain several "features" in order to continue to be considered "bitcon" both the 21 million limit and PoW are among them. If the consensus was that some amount more then 21 million coins could be mined then the new altcoin could still be "name" bitcoin and could potentially be the largest crypto currency however would no longer be what satashi had created. This is regardless of how "good" of an idea either of these changes are.
Yep, Bitcoin is whatever the people agree it is. Bitcoin, for good or bad, is already not exactly what Satoshi created because other people have already changed and updated the code. So far the changes have been relatively minor and for the better. Hopefully that pattern will continue.
Of course, there's always the possibility that this block will be orphaned in an epic 3-year reorg, but that doesn't seem too likely.
If such a reorg happens, then I won't bother with Bitcoin ever again.
You shouldn't assume that Bitcoin will stay in the same form for its entire life. That almost never happens with anything. What version of OS are you using? Is it the same as the first one you ever used? Probably not, right? Changes to the code happen all the time and major changes can happen at any time. I just hope all future changes end up for the better and none of them end up splitting the users into two camps.
Restating what you said to ensure I understand you correctly, If everyone using Bitcoin agreed to make the horrible code change necessary to increase the maximum number of Bitcoins above the current 21m then Bitcoin would become an altcoin. I guess that depends on the definition of altcoin. I suppose you could think of it as an alternate of itself. For that matter, any major change, like PoW to PoS, would make it an alternate of itself. Those things would also make two very divided camps of users, some supporting the change and the intelligent ones. Increasing the quantity of Bitcoins erases one of the basic principals Bitcoin was founded on called "scarcity". Scarcity just means "in short supply" and is a value point for Bitcoin.
Of course, there's always the possibility that this block will be orphaned in an epic 3-year reorg, but that doesn't seem too likely.
If such a reorg happens, then I won't bother with Bitcoin ever again.
You shouldn't assume that Bitcoin will stay in the same form for its entire life. That almost never happens with anything. What version of OS are you using? Is it the same as the first one you ever used? Probably not, right? Changes to the code happen all the time and major changes can happen at any time. I just hope all future changes end up for the better and none of them end up splitting the users into two camps.
A 3-year reorg would mean I effectively lose all my coins (since I bought them 2 years ago). Also, I do undersand that the protocol changes (and I know about the hard forks that have already happened), but losing my coins because of changes in the protocol goes against everything Bitcoin promises.
Of course, there's always the possibility that this block will be orphaned in an epic 3-year reorg, but that doesn't seem too likely.
If such a reorg happens, then I won't bother with Bitcoin ever again.
You shouldn't assume that Bitcoin will stay in the same form for its entire life. That almost never happens with anything. What version of OS are you using? Is it the same as the first one you ever used? Probably not, right? Changes to the code happen all the time and major changes can happen at any time. I just hope all future changes end up for the better and none of them end up splitting the users into two camps.
Restating what you said to ensure I understand you correctly, If everyone using Bitcoin agreed to make the horrible code change necessary to increase the maximum number of Bitcoins above the current 21m then Bitcoin would become an altcoin. I guess that depends on the definition of altcoin. I suppose you could think of it as an alternate of itself. For that matter, any major change, like PoW to PoS, would make it an alternate of itself. Those things would also make two very divided camps of users, some supporting the change and the intelligent ones. Increasing the quantity of Bitcoins erases one of the basic principals Bitcoin was founded on called "scarcity". Scarcity just means "in short supply" and is a value point for Bitcoin.
Of course, there's always the possibility that this block will be orphaned in an epic 3-year reorg, but that doesn't seem too likely.
If such a reorg happens, then I won't bother with Bitcoin ever again.
You shouldn't assume that Bitcoin will stay in the same form for its entire life. That almost never happens with anything. What version of OS are you using? Is it the same as the first one you ever used? Probably not, right? Changes to the code happen all the time and major changes can happen at any time. I just hope all future changes end up for the better and none of them end up splitting the users into two camps.
Really? Where did I blow it?
Sorry. Didn't mean to include you in the list. I've edited the list and removed your name.
Is it even possible?
- snip -All it takes are a couple of lines of code changes.
- snip -
And 100% consensus from everyone running a full node on the network, which is probably a lot more difficult to get than it sounds.
Is it even possible?
Sure. And Bitcoin number 42.000.000 can be mined as well.All it takes are a couple of lines of code changes.
You know like, "hey, deflationary is stupid, screw that".
Really? Where did I blow it? (I forgot with rewards, didn't I, LF uses relative addressing in his talking)
The last block with rewards could be solved by a single miner running on a 386sx/16 chip if there was only one miner left in the network but it would still only take that miner 10 minutes on average since the difficulty would have sunk as other miners left the network.
C
The last block with rewards could be solved by a single miner running on a 386sx/16 chip if there was only one miner left in the network but it would still only take that miner 10 minutes on average since the difficulty would have sunk as other miners left the network.
C
Of course, there's always the possibility that this block will be orphaned in an epic 3-year reorg, but that doesn't seem too likely.
If such a reorg happens, then I won't bother with Bitcoin ever again.
You shouldn't assume that Bitcoin will stay in the same form for its entire life. That almost never happens with anything. What version of OS are you using? Is it the same as the first one you ever used? Probably not, right? Changes to the code happen all the time and major changes can happen at any time. I just hope all future changes end up for the better and none of them end up splitting the users into two camps.
Of course, there's always the possibility that this block will be orphaned in an epic 3-year reorg, but that doesn't seem too likely.
If such a reorg happens, then I won't bother with Bitcoin ever again.
As such, it is already guaranteed that LESS than the originally intended number of bitcoins will be mined, and there is a possibility that LESS than the intended remaining amount of bitcoins yet to be mined will be.
Example: The coinbase transaction of block 124724 claims 49.999 999 99 BTC where the subsidy was 50 BTC and the total of all included fees was 0.01 BTC.
Of course, there's always the possibility that this block will be orphaned in an epic 3-year reorg, but that doesn't seem too likely.
Due to a bug in some mining software early on, there were some blocks where the block subsidy was not claimed by the miner when they solved and broadcast the block. Those bitcoins were therefore not "mined" and now cannot ever be mined.
Mea culpa. Knew it, forgot about it, didn't think to account for it. Thanks.
- snip -
I wonder if you might take the time to set me straight.
- snip -
I wonder if you might take the time to set me straight.
- snip -
jbreher,
Much like fryarminer your mistake is rather slight. It might even be considered to be excessive by some for me to say that you were "incorrect".
Specifically when you said:
Quote
Is there a possibility that LESS than 21 million coins will ever be mined? Probable?
No. Well, not in the sense that all the bitcoins (slightly less than 21 Mill) will be mined. If nobody else is going to mine them, my descendants will.
Due to a bug in some mining software early on, there were some blocks where the block subsidy was not claimed by the miner when they solved and broadcast the block. Those bitcoins were therefore not "mined" and now cannot ever be mined.
Although it's generally unlikely, there is always the possibility that some miner in the future could also choose (either intentionally or accidentally) to broadcast a block that does not pay them the full subsidy that they are due.
As such, it is already guaranteed that LESS than the originally intended number of bitcoins will be mined, and there is a possibility that LESS than the intended remaining amount of bitcoins yet to be mined will be.
Hi Danny - I've learned a lot from your posts over the years. So much that I consider your statements semi-authoritative, pending evidence to the contrary.
I wonder if you might take the time to set me straight. I have made a couple of assertions in this thread. From a brief review, all I can detect that clashes with your statements is my use of the term 'reward' to indicate the coinbase reward, where you use the term 'subsidy' (you use the term 'reward' to refer to the sum of your 'subsidy' plus our shared understanding of 'transaction fees'):
I thought my usage made the distinction clear, so it must be the term itself for which I am being called out? If so, where is the authoritative glossary of 'approved' bitcoin terms? If not, what other errors have I committed?
Thanks!
There is so much misinformation and misunderstanding and just plain incorrect statements in this thread, I don't even know where to start correcting them all.
Everyone who *thinks* they know how this works and has made a statment based on their belief needs to go get educated before they answer any more questions for anyone on this forum. You are just spreading misinformation and confusion.
This includes:
...
jbreher
...
Everyone who *thinks* they know how this works and has made a statment based on their belief needs to go get educated before they answer any more questions for anyone on this forum. You are just spreading misinformation and confusion.
This includes:
...
jbreher
...
I wonder if you might take the time to set me straight. I have made a couple of assertions in this thread. From a brief review, all I can detect that clashes with your statements is my use of the term 'reward' to indicate the coinbase reward, where you use the term 'subsidy' (you use the term 'reward' to refer to the sum of your 'subsidy' plus our shared understanding of 'transaction fees'):
Quote
between the last fraction of a coin reward, and the transaction fees, it should cover the energy costs
I thought my usage made the distinction clear, so it must be the term itself for which I am being called out? If so, where is the authoritative glossary of 'approved' bitcoin terms? If not, what other errors have I committed?
Thanks!
Not that I can answer for Danny, but his corrections often remind me off my Math Profs. A lack of precision can be considered false and I value these corrections especially since english is not my first language and I indeed missuse words in a way that lacks said precision. I dont think its a specific list of words that is acceptable, but any words that are able to express the different concepts of fees and the subsidy for the fees while bitcoin is still young.
@ jonald_fyookball: Sorry I missread. Probably because I read "last block" a few times before.
Why the hell does anyone care what's going to happen in 2140? Are you a vampire planning your future retirement?
There are many reasons. Country regulators for example care about what would happen after the last bitcoin has been mined.
Ok, here's a likely outcome: Bitcoin is the way of the future and businesses take over development, perfect the PoW security system and house huge transaction servers to completely erase transaction delay.
Here's another one: WWIII happens 100 years from now and we are all thrown into the dark ages.
And another: The child is just becoming a toddler and an ogre kills it as it's taking its first baby steps.
I just don't think there is any use in looking at that right now. Anything the powers that be like Andreas say to regulators will be the letter of the currently written code (which is subject to change within the next 120 or so years). I still think the most likely outcome is that businesses around the world control transaction processing. It will probably be more decentralized than it is today.
Hi Danny - I've learned a lot from your posts over the years. So much that I consider your statements semi-authoritative, pending evidence to the contrary.
I wonder if you might take the time to set me straight. I have made a couple of assertions in this thread. From a brief review, all I can detect that clashes with your statements is my use of the term 'reward' to indicate the coinbase reward, where you use the term 'subsidy' (you use the term 'reward' to refer to the sum of your 'subsidy' plus our shared understanding of 'transaction fees'):
I thought my usage made the distinction clear, so it must be the term itself for which I am being called out? If so, where is the authoritative glossary of 'approved' bitcoin terms? If not, what other errors have I committed?
Thanks!
There is so much misinformation and misunderstanding and just plain incorrect statements in this thread, I don't even know where to start correcting them all.
Everyone who *thinks* they know how this works and has made a statment based on their belief needs to go get educated before they answer any more questions for anyone on this forum. You are just spreading misinformation and confusion.
This includes:
...
jbreher
...
Everyone who *thinks* they know how this works and has made a statment based on their belief needs to go get educated before they answer any more questions for anyone on this forum. You are just spreading misinformation and confusion.
This includes:
...
jbreher
...
I wonder if you might take the time to set me straight. I have made a couple of assertions in this thread. From a brief review, all I can detect that clashes with your statements is my use of the term 'reward' to indicate the coinbase reward, where you use the term 'subsidy' (you use the term 'reward' to refer to the sum of your 'subsidy' plus our shared understanding of 'transaction fees'):
Quote
between the last fraction of a coin reward, and the transaction fees, it should cover the energy costs
I thought my usage made the distinction clear, so it must be the term itself for which I am being called out? If so, where is the authoritative glossary of 'approved' bitcoin terms? If not, what other errors have I committed?
Thanks!
Jump to: