Bitcoin halving to be canceled? - page 21.

zodiac3011

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 500

Quote from: deisik on November 25, 2015, 04:02:54 AM

Quote from: HarryKPeters on November 24, 2015, 04:11:41 PM

It is a mandatory step in the development of the network and prosperity of bitcoin. So yes it won't be cancelled.

The title is misleading and since it suggest a eventual cancellation which is not true. A better title would be. Should the halving be cancelled?

That's what I think should happen and assume will happen ("unless miners want to kill bitcoin"). My logic is flawless, lol. If the halving is so beneficial for the "prosperity of bitcoin", why not cancel the miners reward altogether?

Fly me to the moon

cancel the miner's reward immediately right now actually is not a wise idea because everything takes time if you want to do that, do it gradually. Cut the reward to zero too fast this is a kill-switch for the whole bitcoin system

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: HarryKPeters on November 24, 2015, 04:11:41 PM

It is a mandatory step in the development of the network and prosperity of bitcoin. So yes it won't be cancelled.

The title is misleading and since it suggest a eventual cancellation which is not true. A better title would be. Should the halving be cancelled?

That's what I think should happen and assume will happen ("unless miners want to kill bitcoin"). My logic is flawless, lol. If the halving is so beneficial for the "prosperity of bitcoin", why not cancel the miners reward altogether?

Fly me to the moon

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1072

Quote from: erickimani on November 24, 2015, 10:29:48 PM

if they want it to be halved, it will be halved, sometimes we dont have much say on some decisions, do we?

neither the miners, they need consensus of merchants, and merchants are pro the halving not against it

so we are safe to think thta the halving will occur no matter what, unless miners want to kill bitcoin

ivanst776

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1003

Quote from: erickimani on November 24, 2015, 10:29:48 PM

if they want it to be halved, it will be halved, sometimes we dont have much say on some decisions, do we?

I think that the halving procedure is an automatic process which i think we can't stop neither cancel it at all, maybe people will try but the result might be only a delay which i doubt.

erickimani

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

if they want it to be halved, it will be halved, sometimes we dont have much say on some decisions, do we?

HarryKPeters

hero member

Activity: 896

Merit: 1000

Live Stars - Adult Streaming Platform

Quote from: 1Referee on November 24, 2015, 04:37:30 AM

Quote from: iv4n on November 24, 2015, 04:31:57 AM

Quote from: Collateral on November 24, 2015, 03:55:51 AM

yes it will happen for sure, it base of bitcoin supply but if they mess with bitcoin supply then users will lose their faith in bitcoin that will take bitcoin to hell

Hm I don't think things are so easy. I also believe there will be halving, but I also think there will be changes in future just I don't know which ones. I'm ready for surprises and I hope it will be good one's, and the bad ones can wait. Anyway as I read on internet no one mention it will be canceled so I believe in that for now!

The block halving is great for Bitcoin. No one has to worry about the halving being cancelled. Whoever is talking about this just wants to cause confusion among the community. I will welcome any change that will help Bitcoin move forward. I hope one of the updates to include a temporary solution to the block size issue. 2MB blocks for now would be great.

It is a mandatory step in the development of the network and prosperity of bitcoin. So yes it won't be cancelled.

The title is misleading and since it suggest a eventual cancellation which is not true. A better title would be. Should the halving be cancelled?

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: SebastianJu on November 23, 2015, 05:13:42 PM

You are right... the asic tech is not much further to develop i think. So it might be that alot miners will be switched off. Though when at past times more and more miners were switched on, leading to shorter conf time for some days, then it would be ok when the same happens in the other direction. What i doubt is that everyone will switch off instantly. That never happened and will not most probably

That would take just a few mining pools to "cooperate". Didn't exactly this we see last summer going on when thousands of unconfirmed transactions got stuck in queue? What happened back then tells us two important things. First, that they can easily work in sync (i.e. efficiently coordinate their actions whatever their ends might be), and, second, that they do actually control Bitcoin...

And none of this bodes well in the long term, by any means

1Referee

legendary

Activity: 2170

Merit: 1427

Quote from: iv4n on November 24, 2015, 04:31:57 AM

Quote from: Collateral on November 24, 2015, 03:55:51 AM

yes it will happen for sure, it base of bitcoin supply but if they mess with bitcoin supply then users will lose their faith in bitcoin that will take bitcoin to hell

Hm I don't think things are so easy. I also believe there will be halving, but I also think there will be changes in future just I don't know which ones. I'm ready for surprises and I hope it will be good one's, and the bad ones can wait. Anyway as I read on internet no one mention it will be canceled so I believe in that for now!

The block halving is great for Bitcoin. No one has to worry about the halving being cancelled. Whoever is talking about this just wants to cause confusion among the community. I will welcome any change that will help Bitcoin move forward. I hope one of the updates to include a temporary solution to the block size issue. 2MB blocks for now would be great.

iv4n

legendary

Activity: 3346

Merit: 1191

Quote from: Collateral on November 24, 2015, 03:55:51 AM

yes it will happen for sure, it base of bitcoin supply but if they mess with bitcoin supply then users will lose their faith in bitcoin that will take bitcoin to hell

Hm I don't think things are so easy. I also believe there will be halving, but I also think there will be changes in future just I don't know which ones. I'm ready for surprises and I hope it will be good one's, and the bad ones can wait. Anyway as I read on internet no one mention it will be canceled so I believe in that for now!

Collateral

newbie

Activity: 12

Merit: 0

yes it will happen for sure, it base of bitcoin supply but if they mess with bitcoin supply then users will lose their faith in bitcoin that will take bitcoin to hell

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Quote from: deisik on November 23, 2015, 09:08:56 AM

Quote from: SebastianJu on November 23, 2015, 07:46:34 AM

Quote from: deisik on November 21, 2015, 03:56:15 AM

10 hours occasionally corresponds to 100 minutes on average, just like today we sometimes see 50-60 minutes between confirmations with 10 minutes allegedly being the average. Regarding 90% of all miners leaving (in terms of hashing power) and why it makes sense, you only need to find out that this number is made up from just a few major mining pools (5-6 maybe)...

Certainly not hundreds of individual independent miners

Of course that's possible to happen, even though it should be rarely the case. Well, at the end we think around a topic that is highly speculative and most probably not a real problem. Nothing like that will happen when blockhalving happens. The same way nothing big happened with the other halving before.

That's the most shaky argument so far. First, everything happens for the first time some day, and shit hits the fan more often than not. Second, when was the last halving? What were the miners' profit margins back then? I remember that in 2013 we had more powerful and economical mining equipment entering the market every now and then...

How do the matters stand right now?

You are right... the asic tech is not much further to develop i think. So it might be that alot miners will be switched off. Though when at past times more and more miners were switched on, leading to shorter conf time for some days, then it would be ok when the same happens in the other direction. What i doubt is that everyone will switch off instantly. That never happened and will not most probably. Especially not in the average timeframe of 1 week until the next diff adjustment takes place. Miners tend to observe first before they act.

I might be wrong though but that's how i see miners.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: SebastianJu on November 23, 2015, 07:46:34 AM

Quote from: deisik on November 21, 2015, 03:56:15 AM

10 hours occasionally corresponds to 100 minutes on average, just like today we sometimes see 50-60 minutes between confirmations with 10 minutes allegedly being the average. Regarding 90% of all miners leaving (in terms of hashing power) and why it makes sense, you only need to find out that this number is made up from just a few major mining pools (5-6 maybe)...

Certainly not hundreds of individual independent miners

Of course that's possible to happen, even though it should be rarely the case. Well, at the end we think around a topic that is highly speculative and most probably not a real problem. Nothing like that will happen when blockhalving happens. The same way nothing big happened with the other halving before.

That's the most shaky argument so far. First, everything happens for the first time some day, and shit hits the fan more often than not. Second, when was the last halving? What were the miners' profit margins back then? I remember that in 2013 we had more powerful and economical mining equipment entering the market every now and then...

How do the matters stand right now?

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Quote from: deisik on November 21, 2015, 03:56:15 AM

Quote from: SebastianJu on November 20, 2015, 11:18:10 PM

Quote from: deisik on November 17, 2015, 02:49:39 AM

Two weeks indeed is much better than half a year, though I leave you to decide on this issue with the other poster pretending it to take 145 days. I don't say that the low timeframes are not valid, I just say that they don't matter as much as the high ones, if anything at all. In other words, 10 minutes won't change anything since this is what we already have today, but 10 hours and 100 minutes on average will be an entirely new story...

And likely not a good one with a happy end

For 100 minutes 90%!!! of all miners need to stop. For 10 hours you know it's way more. And it would not make sense at all that so many miners stop because less miners mean they will earn more because they don't have to share with the other miners that left. Of course that will only happen once difficulty is adjusted but surely there will be no big immediate leaving of the network.

10 hours occasionally corresponds to 100 minutes on average, just like today we sometimes see 50-60 minutes between confirmations with 10 minutes allegedly being the average. Regarding 90% of all miners leaving (in terms of hashing power) and why it makes sense, you only need to find out that this number is made up from just a few major mining pools (5-6 maybe)...

Certainly not hundreds of individual independent miners

Of course that's possible to happen, even though it should be rarely the case. Well, at the end we think around a topic that is highly speculative and most probably not a real problem. Nothing like that will happen when blockhalving happens. The same way nothing big happened with the other halving before.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: SebastianJu on November 20, 2015, 11:18:10 PM

Quote from: deisik on November 17, 2015, 02:49:39 AM

Two weeks indeed is much better than half a year, though I leave you to decide on this issue with the other poster pretending it to take 145 days. I don't say that the low timeframes are not valid, I just say that they don't matter as much as the high ones, if anything at all. In other words, 10 minutes won't change anything since this is what we already have today, but 10 hours and 100 minutes on average will be an entirely new story...

And likely not a good one with a happy end

For 100 minutes 90%!!! of all miners need to stop. For 10 hours you know it's way more. And it would not make sense at all that so many miners stop because less miners mean they will earn more because they don't have to share with the other miners that left. Of course that will only happen once difficulty is adjusted but surely there will be no big immediate leaving of the network.

10 hours occasionally corresponds to 100 minutes on average, just like today we sometimes see 50-60 minutes between confirmations with 10 minutes allegedly being the average. Regarding 90% of all miners leaving (in terms of hashing power) and why it makes sense, you only need to find out that this number is made up from just a few major mining pools (5-6 maybe)...

Certainly not hundreds of individual independent miners

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Quote from: deisik on November 17, 2015, 02:49:39 AM

Quote from: SebastianJu on November 16, 2015, 07:17:56 PM

Check out the difficulty history table here: https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty

It would not be months, it would be a maximum of 2 weeks until we would have 10 minutes blocks in average again. And even when we would have blocks with a timeframe of 10 hours occassionally, the average would be 100 minutes and there would be blocks with 10 minutes too. You can't only claim the high timeframe exceptions as valid, the low one are valid too

Two weeks indeed is much better than half a year, though I leave you to decide on this issue with the other poster pretending it to take 145 days. I don't say that the low timeframes are not valid, I just say that they don't matter as much as the high ones, if anything at all. In other words, 10 minutes won't change anything since this is what we already have today, but 10 hours and 100 minutes on average will be an entirely new story...

And likely not a good one with a happy end

For 100 minutes 90%!!! of all miners need to stop. For 10 hours you know it's way more. And it would not make sense at all that so many miners stop because less miners mean they will earn more because they don't have to share with the other miners that left. Of course that will only happen once difficulty is adjusted but surely there will be no big immediate leaving of the network.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: jaysabi on November 18, 2015, 02:38:04 PM

Quote from: deisik on November 17, 2015, 02:30:52 AM

I don't say that gold specifically is genetically programmed into us. But the prerequisites for its becoming valuable are. Gold just happened to be there...

"Glittery stones" are mostly precious gems too, lol

The landscaping around my house is filled with white glittery rocks that reflect light in a very attractive way. Those rocks are virtually worthless. Being glittery has nothing to do with being valuable. Scarcity is the key component.

You seem to be quoting my posts even without understanding them. I didn't say that all glittery stones are precious gems, as you have obviously failed to grasp. Do you suffer from dyslexia? Regarding scarcity, this is also highly arguable and debatable, since things that are not useful in any meaningful way are not valued even if they are scarce (the elusive Joe). The converse also holds true. Things that are useful remain useful and valuable even in abundance (since their value comes from their usefulness, not their scarcity or abundance). Thereby, scarcity, in general, is not the key component, lol...

Billionaires happen to value money even more than average people (that's why they are who they are, I think). Scrooge McDuck is said to be the world's richest person (plenty of money), but this doesn't make him into a spendthrift

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: jaysabi on November 18, 2015, 02:35:37 PM

We were talking about whether or not gold's value is a learned trait or instinctual. You didn't address any points, you simply changed the subject. Gold's value does come from its specific traits, I've never said otherwise. But people still learn to value it, as opposed to being born valuing it as you were trying to maintain.

You started with "human perception" ("no no, gold has no inherent value") and ended up with "important qualities", lol. Whom are you going to fool? And now you dare blame with changing the subject, wtf?

Nevertheless, here's my post which you decided to outragingly ignore

Quote from: deisik on November 17, 2015, 02:30:52 AM

I don't say that gold specifically is genetically programmed into us. But the prerequisites for its becoming valuable are. Gold just happened to be there...

We value what is useful, beneficial and attractive to us. These are the prerequisites I'm talking about. I assume you won't argue with the fact the perceptions of hunger, thirst and beauty are hard-coded into us? But should I say it again that this is irrelevant to the question discussed? If you want to talk about these issues, make a new topic and I will most likely post there...

I don't think anyone is quite happy reading this altercation

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

I see that you are further trying to obfuscate matters. I repeat it once again (as I had said it even before your started this futile polemics), it is irrelevant from which gold derives its value. This value cannot be separated from gold by human volition (those "important qualities"), whether you like it or not. That's what makes it different from Bitcoin...

Is this really so hard to understand?

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2016

Merit: 1115

Quote from: deisik on November 17, 2015, 02:30:52 AM

I don't say that gold specifically is genetically programmed into us. But the prerequisites for its becoming valuable are. Gold just happened to be there...

"Glittery stones" are mostly precious gems too, lol

The landscaping around my house is filled with white glittery rocks that reflect light in a very attractive way. Those rocks are virtually worthless. Being glittery has nothing to do with being valuable. Scarcity is the key component.

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2016

Merit: 1115

Quote from: deisik on November 17, 2015, 02:37:45 AM

Quote from: jaysabi on November 16, 2015, 10:23:51 PM

Quote from: deisik on November 14, 2015, 04:33:51 AM

Quote from: jaysabi on November 13, 2015, 03:33:59 PM

Quote from: deisik on November 12, 2015, 02:38:16 PM

Confidence in gold is based on inborn feelings and instincts (which are fixed and universal), while confidence in Bitcoin is purely rational and based on functions attributed to it (which can be called off). Without them it is useless. In this way it is no different from any other fiat money out there, as I said previously. Gold, on the other hand, is loved for what it is, in and of itself, not for what people set it to do. You are bringing forth concepts which are irrelevant to the question and trying to challenge what I have already at first made clear and then set aside as irrelevant...

Namely, the origin of value, subjective vs objective

Yes, this is the crux of what I am saying. You are not born valuing gold. It is a learned trait. There is nothing natural or instinctual about it.

So you are saying that everyone is being taught what is beautiful and what is ugly? Now tell me what universally bootstrapped gold in the first place (the issue of primary cause) if this is a learned trait as you say, in all those ancient civilizations divided by oceans and deserts, who had access to it...

Was it the same person (Doctor) Who taught them to love gold?

No, you're assigning values of beauty. I'm speaking only about monetary value. People learned gold was valuable, and it was so through tradition. The tradition was established by the earliest civilizations in Asia and Africa where gold possessed two important qualities: it was naturally scarce, and it was so malleable that it could be cold-shaped into jewelry without heat or sophisticated tools. These two factors to a technologically primitive civilization assured that gold would be coveted by the highest classes in society to designate their superiority. Once that trait is established, it's just a matter of tradition. It didn't have to be gold, it's just random happenstance that it was. You give a gold nugget to a child, and it's just a rock. They have no idea it's valuable because there's nothing innate or instinctual about it. They just haven't learned to covet it yet.

You are talking in empty cliches. In any case, you yourself confirm that value of gold comes about through its "important qualities" (and you omitted its indestructibility), which cannot be taken from it (you can't "unmake" gold), lol...

But these are not the qualities that made gold so valuable, though

We were talking about whether or not gold's value is a learned trait or instinctual. You didn't address any points, you simply changed the subject. Gold's value does come from its specific traits, I've never said otherwise. But people still learn to value it, as opposed to being born valuing it as you were trying to maintain.

Topic: Bitcoin halving to be canceled? - page 21. (Read 33769 times)