Pages:
Author

Topic: Bitcoin halving to be canceled? - page 18. (Read 33718 times)

legendary
Activity: 3486
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
November 27, 2015, 06:53:14 PM
Is 2,100,000,000,000,000, i.e. 2.1 quadrillion, units enough?  No?  Please help me understand how many units is enough to allow transactions to flow unimpeded.  Bitcoin, with a minor change, can increase the number of units by carrying more precision as opposed to creating more Bitcoins; *without* debasing

This is the most wide-spread delusion that you can fix things by adding more decimal places. Things don't work this way. Money is instrumental, it serves to facilitate trade. But if there is no trade (that is, no exchange of goods and services) mediated in this currency, the number of places after the point is irrelevant...

You are confusing cause and effect by putting the cart before the horse

hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
Never ending parties are what Im into.
November 27, 2015, 06:41:29 PM
It's impossible to cancel halving. Or maybe is possible, but with tragic consequences.
Why is there any question at all? It's in the code. You can't change that; it's a systematic part of the entirety of Bitcoin. Otherwise, inflation occurs and everything goes to crap, just like FIAT currencies. Well... it's just that people haven't noticed that things will get out of control with FIAT yet. That, or they're reliant on them.
legendary
Activity: 3486
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
November 27, 2015, 06:38:10 PM
That would mean indefinitely creating bitcoins. It would be the wrong sign to miners since we already have too many miners. We need to drop some. The network is 100 times more secure than needed which translates in one normal bitcoin transaction using energy in the height of 1.57 average us households use on one full day. Bigger transactions even more

I'm not very familiar with technical issues involved with Bitcoin, though I think these issues can all be fixed (at least purely on technical grounds apart from requiring consensus between miners and all that shit). But the economic model behind Bitcoin as a currency is flawed, and it has been becoming more and more apparent now...

And then we are stuck at such simple things like the size of block, lol
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
November 27, 2015, 06:29:25 PM
Except you will stop anyway though then we would have 25 Bitcoin block rewards for some years from now and then suddenly only fees anymore. No time to adapt. Which most probably would break bitcoin.

The theory teaches us that the amount of money in circulation should correspond to the amount of goods being produced and traded. So far the best way of doing just that is by creating (and destroying) money through credit (but it is ostentatiously vulnerable to abuse by the powers to be)...

No fixed algorithm like halving can do such a trick

I tend to agree. Since a fixed amount will lead to deflation. The problem is, when you don't have a fixed amount then the urge to print more and more money is way too high, effectively driving the currency into inflation or building a bubble that will burst at one point in time. Of course the corresponding thing would be best but probably impossible to implement.

How is that? I didn't think about a way to implement the economically based restrictions on the supply of new coins, but who could have thought about a decentralized digital currency some ten years ago?

The absence of proof is not proof of absence

You are right. This all is a big experiment. We really don't know enough about what will and might happen. We only can try to make bitcoin a success and protect it from harm. I guess we try to do the same on that front. But yes, only theories...
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
November 27, 2015, 06:27:27 PM
Ok, then i don't understand your sentences:
Quote
The would-be miner says about switching to a halving-free version of Bitcoin, which is quite the opposite of the total block reward cancellation you mention. The idea of 21 million coin limit may have served to boost the Bitcoin usage initially, but it will ultimately and inevitably turn it into a Ponzi.

That sounds like you think the cap will turn it into a ponzi and a halving free version would be better.

A halving free version means that the reward is constant, i.e. there is no halving, and thereby no limit on the number of coins mined. I don't say it is perfect, but it seems to be a better option, at least now. In fact, this whole topic is about just that...

And yes, Bitcoin already is a sort of Ponzi



That would mean indefinitely creating bitcoins. It would be the wrong sign to miners since we already have too many miners. We need to drop some. The network is 100 times more secure than needed which translates in one normal bitcoin transaction using energy in the height of 1.57 average us households use on one full day. Bigger transactions even more.

That is not healthy. We need to lose reward for mining so that these values get fixed a bit. It's not something that should be feared.
legendary
Activity: 3486
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
November 27, 2015, 06:24:46 PM
Except you will stop anyway though then we would have 25 Bitcoin block rewards for some years from now and then suddenly only fees anymore. No time to adapt. Which most probably would break bitcoin.

The theory teaches us that the amount of money in circulation should correspond to the amount of goods being produced and traded. So far the best way of doing just that is by creating (and destroying) money through credit (but it is ostentatiously vulnerable to abuse by the powers to be)...

No fixed algorithm like halving can do such a trick

I tend to agree. Since a fixed amount will lead to deflation. The problem is, when you don't have a fixed amount then the urge to print more and more money is way too high, effectively driving the currency into inflation or building a bubble that will burst at one point in time. Of course the corresponding thing would be best but probably impossible to implement.

How is that? I didn't think about a way to implement the economically based restrictions on the supply of new coins, but who could have thought about a decentralized digital currency some ten years ago?

The absence of proof is not proof of absence
legendary
Activity: 3486
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
November 27, 2015, 06:19:50 PM
Ok, then i don't understand your sentences:
Quote
The would-be miner says about switching to a halving-free version of Bitcoin, which is quite the opposite of the total block reward cancellation you mention. The idea of 21 million coin limit may have served to boost the Bitcoin usage initially, but it will ultimately and inevitably turn it into a Ponzi.

That sounds like you think the cap will turn it into a ponzi and a halving free version would be better.

A halving free version means that the reward is constant, i.e. there is no halving, and thereby no limit on the number of coins mined. I don't say it is perfect, but it seems to be a better option, at least now. In fact, this whole topic is about just that...

And yes, Bitcoin already is a sort of Ponzi

legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
November 27, 2015, 05:21:38 PM
Is 2,100,000,000,000,000, i.e. 2.1 quadrillion, units enough?  No?  Please help me understand how many units is enough to allow transactions to flow unimpeded.  Bitcoin, with a minor change, can increase the number of units by carrying more precision as opposed to creating more Bitcoins; *without* debasing.

Or are we worried about how to fund the government (I suppose it is a necessary evil)?  Funding it through debasing the currency is being tried right now; I predict eventual failure.  Given the ability to debase, there will be no ceiling.

Or are you whining that you want to have more Bitcoins than you can afford?

I think for one point it's small miners that want this. They should watch the big miners that understand the problem coming from that that would result in effectively losses for them in fact.

And the other part is that some think it will be a ponzi at one point since those who owned bitcoins at the start will be favored and become rich when everyone wants bitcoins and the price needs to rise.

The halving will not stop, that is sure at least.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
November 27, 2015, 05:18:55 PM
Except you will stop anyway though then we would have 25 Bitcoin block rewards for some years from now and then suddenly only fees anymore. No time to adapt. Which most probably would break bitcoin.

The theory teaches us that the amount of money in circulation should correspond to the amount of goods being produced and traded. So far the best way of doing just that is by creating (and destroying) money through credit (but it is ostentatiously vulnerable to abuse by the powers to be)...

No fixed algorithm like halving can do such a trick

I tend to agree. Since a fixed amount will lead to deflation. The problem is, when you don't have a fixed amount then the urge to print more and more money is way too high, effectively driving the currency into inflation or building a bubble that will burst at one point in time. Of course the corresponding thing would be best but probably impossible to implement.
hero member
Activity: 882
Merit: 500
November 27, 2015, 05:17:29 PM
It's impossible to cancel halving. Or maybe is possible, but with tragic consequences.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
November 27, 2015, 05:15:57 PM
I think you miss that switching to a non block halving version of bitcoin will effectively break the 21 million coin limit. Since the block halving is calculated so that at the end 21 Million coins came into existence. If no block halving would happen then bitcoins would be created indefinitely. That's the definition of stopping the coin limit

I guess you have to read my posts more carefully

If we were to cancel the halving, can we remove the 21mil hard cap as well?

The latter follows from the former

Ok, then i don't understand your sentences:
Quote
The would-be miner says about switching to a halving-free version of Bitcoin, which is quite the opposite of the total block reward cancellation you mention. The idea of 21 million coin limit may have served to boost the Bitcoin usage initially, but it will ultimately and inevitably turn it into a Ponzi.

That sounds like you think the cap will turn it into a ponzi and a halving free version would be better.
hero member
Activity: 709
Merit: 503
November 27, 2015, 05:05:14 PM
Is 2,100,000,000,000,000, i.e. 2.1 quadrillion, units enough?  No?  Please help me understand how many units is enough to allow transactions to flow unimpeded.  Bitcoin, with a minor change, can increase the number of units by carrying more precision as opposed to creating more Bitcoins; *without* debasing.

Or are we worried about how to fund the government (I suppose it is a necessary evil)?  Funding it through debasing the currency is being tried right now; I predict eventual failure.  Given the ability to debase, there will be no ceiling.

Or are you whining that you want to have more Bitcoins than you can afford?
legendary
Activity: 3486
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
November 27, 2015, 04:38:55 PM
Except you will stop anyway though then we would have 25 Bitcoin block rewards for some years from now and then suddenly only fees anymore. No time to adapt. Which most probably would break bitcoin.

The theory teaches us that the amount of money in circulation should correspond to the amount of goods being produced and traded. So far the best way of doing just that is by creating (and destroying) money through credit (but it is ostentatiously vulnerable to abuse by the powers to be)...

No fixed algorithm like halving can do such a trick
legendary
Activity: 3486
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
November 27, 2015, 04:30:01 PM
I think you miss that switching to a non block halving version of bitcoin will effectively break the 21 million coin limit. Since the block halving is calculated so that at the end 21 Million coins came into existence. If no block halving would happen then bitcoins would be created indefinitely. That's the definition of stopping the coin limit

I guess you have to read my posts more carefully

If we were to cancel the halving, can we remove the 21mil hard cap as well?

The latter follows from the former
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
November 27, 2015, 04:10:54 PM
I'm against the halving too. I think all major pools should fork bitcoin to not-halving version which will be supported in the future to maintain miners profits.
I don't see why you want to do that at all? Lower supply means higher demands for bitcoin so the price will increase which pumps the price of it

The falsity of this assumption has been explained many times already (me included). Quoting myself again:

I think he refers to inflation and deflation. Stopping block reward completely would mean there would be less bitcoins in existance than the targetted 21million. Which would be deflation and would raise the value of each bitcoin. Though when you produce more bitcoins than 21 million then it would mean inflation. It's the same when the central bank of a country starts to produce more and more fiat money in order to pay their bills. The total worth of each currency unit would effectively diminished the more they print.

The would-be miner says about switching to a halving-free version of Bitcoin, which is quite the opposite of the total block reward cancellation you mention. The idea of 21 million coin limit may have served to boost the Bitcoin usage initially, but it will ultimately and inevitably turn it into a Ponzi. Gold is limited too, but its inherent qualities for which it is loved and valued gain from its scarcity (and only to a certain extent)...

On the other hand, Bitcoin as a payment system (its inherent quality) suffers from this limit badly



I think you miss that switching to a non block halving version of bitcoin will effectively break the 21 million coin limit. Since the block halving is calculated so that at the end 21 Million coins came into existence. If no block halving would happen then bitcoins would be created indefinitely. That's the definition of stopping the coin limit. Except you will stop anyway though then we would have 25 Bitcoin block rewards for some years from now and then suddenly only fees anymore. No time to adapt. Which most probably would break bitcoin.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
November 27, 2015, 04:03:32 PM
if it was done (the halving) every year, right now miners would be fucked basically

So how does it change the things now, before the next halving? If the halving weren't as rare as it is, would the miners have already been fucked by now? If they would (which seems to be your point), I see no reason why they won't be ruined by this halving...

What goes around comes about

it change the thing because they had time to improve the efficiency, now they have a better efficiency and can sustain the halving even with a <<<$100 price, if the halving was every years they would still be with the efficiency of 2011....

A better efficiency is fully accommodated over time by the rising difficulty, so we are effectively time-invariant in the long run (efficiency vs difficulty), i.e. the halving interval is irrelevant if we still hit the efficiency wall before the halving. In other words, your assumption would hold true only if (and for as long as) the efficiency outpaces the difficulty. Previously, this condition had been satisfied by the new more efficient equipment hitting the market on a pretty regular basis...

But now we seem to be well past that point
What are you talking about?
New chips hit the market just this summer. Give them some time if you already want new chips. However current chips are pretty effective at around
0.25 J/GH


If we were to cancel the halving, can we remove the 21mil hard cap as well?

How would we cancel the halving exactly? I thought that was something built in the system itself and couldn't be stopped, pretty much in all coins. Last one that got halved was litecoin and the price wasn't really affected at all by it. I Hardly doubt there is a way to remove the 21mil cap.

miners consensus above a certain % with the help of other people can potentially hard fork bitcoin and cancel the halving

it's all about consensus + hard fork, after all many alt coin are hard fork of bitcoin...

Though miners would have to convince bitcoiners that the fork is the new real bitcoin. I'm sure, when the cap is broken then the majority of bitcoiners would stay with the unbroken chain. And i'm pretty sure the forked coin will crash since it would be clear that the value is not as stable anymore. Like a country printing more and more money, devalueing all money in existence in the process.
legendary
Activity: 3248
Merit: 1070
November 27, 2015, 03:28:23 PM
Okay, but the question was not about "weighing" the new devices (s7) against the old ones (s5) in the current conditions in the industry. The question was whether the new miners will be as profitable after the halving as the old miners are today, i.e. before the halving...

To put it differently, will the new equipment make up for the loss of revenue due to halving?

yeah it will, and by a by far, i've done a good post about this in the speculation section, the result was 75 in profit for the s7 even after the halving

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13083425

I don't find that post of yours "good", mildly speaking. You are obviously shrinking from taking into account the capital expenditures. But please don't say that you can sell your old miner to buy a new one. This is irrelevant, since you would still need exactly the same amount of money. It doesn't matter where you obtain the money from if you want to estimate the profitability of a given piece of equipment. You could just save up the amount required off your wages, rob a bank, win a lottery, steal from your grandma, or just sell something else, lol...

And you are confusing revenue (income) with profits at that

it's a strategy that is always used in the mining scene, selling your miners to buy the new efficient one, i dunno from where you come but it worked always like that, and it's not irrelevant at all

no and i'm not confusing revenue with income, the $75 is the net profit per day, the income is the 300+, all clear in that post, which explain well

if for capital expenditures you mean the initial investment, this count nothing for big farm, because they can roi on each new equipment ina  few hours, since they roied on the other already
legendary
Activity: 3486
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
November 27, 2015, 03:26:22 PM
I'm against the halving too. I think all major pools should fork bitcoin to not-halving version which will be supported in the future to maintain miners profits.
I don't see why you want to do that at all? Lower supply means higher demands for bitcoin so the price will increase which pumps the price of it

The falsity of this assumption has been explained many times already (me included). Quoting myself again:

I think he refers to inflation and deflation. Stopping block reward completely would mean there would be less bitcoins in existance than the targetted 21million. Which would be deflation and would raise the value of each bitcoin. Though when you produce more bitcoins than 21 million then it would mean inflation. It's the same when the central bank of a country starts to produce more and more fiat money in order to pay their bills. The total worth of each currency unit would effectively diminished the more they print.

The would-be miner says about switching to a halving-free version of Bitcoin, which is quite the opposite of the total block reward cancellation you mention. The idea of 21 million coin limit may have served to boost the Bitcoin usage initially, but it will ultimately and inevitably turn it into a Ponzi. Gold is limited too, but its inherent qualities for which it is loved and valued gain from its scarcity (and only to a certain extent)...

On the other hand, Bitcoin as a payment system (its inherent quality) suffers from this limit badly

legendary
Activity: 3486
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
November 27, 2015, 02:46:57 PM
Okay, but the question was not about "weighing" the new devices (s7) against the old ones (s5) in the current conditions in the industry. The question was whether the new miners will be as profitable after the halving as the old miners are today, i.e. before the halving...

To put it differently, will the new equipment make up for the loss of revenue due to halving?

yeah it will, and by a by far, i've done a good post about this in the speculation section, the result was 75 in profit for the s7 even after the halving

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13083425

I don't find that post of yours "good", mildly speaking. You are obviously shrinking from taking into account the capital expenditures. But please don't say that you can sell your old miner to buy a new one. This is irrelevant, since you would still need exactly the same amount of money. It doesn't matter where you obtain the money from if you want to estimate the profitability of a given piece of equipment. You could just save up the amount required off your wages, rob a bank, win a lottery, steal from your grandma, or just sell something else, lol...

And you are confusing revenue (income) with profits at that
member
Activity: 64
Merit: 10
November 27, 2015, 02:24:16 PM
in these last 5 to 6 year the bitcoins gots great publicity and use .
since there are many advantage of use of bitcoins  , but there are some disadvantages also in form of illegal contracts , storing black money etc. that are tends to banned the digital currency in the some of the countries .
so in the future anything may be action about butcoins .
Pages:
Jump to: