Altering the declining reward scheme would make me want to leave Bitcoin. If I sell my Bitcoins then the price will go down *unless* there are more buyers thinking the opposite of me.
I don't think it will be modified, it will ruin the original idea satoshi had, which will cause many more to leave not just you 
Topic: Bitcoin halving to be canceled? - page 22. (Read 33718 times)
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
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
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
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
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
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?
Surely a baby won't love gold more than any other glittery stone. I wonder where you got the idea from that the valuation of gold could be somehow genetically
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
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
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.
There was much hype about the Fed raising interest rates in 2015, but we are still there, at the lowest possible level (wtf, it is even no longer the lowest possible limit). Bitcoin halving in July, 2016, is talked about as much, but will it really happen?
I ain't sure
I ain't sure
What the hell are you talking about??? are you delusional or you don't actualy know how bitcoin works? Of course it will be halving next year. It halves every 4 years and will continue to do so until there's no more coins to be mined.
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
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?
Surely a baby won't love gold more than any other glittery stone. I wonder where you got the idea from that the valuation of gold could be somehow genetically.
In places where gold was very common it was only loved because of it's special color, for example the aztecs were wondering why these crazy hispanics were to crazy about that metal. And if suddenly half of earth would turn into gold then surely you would not assume that we would still see it as a valuable metal. It always depends on if it is useful for production, art, jewelry or similar things. Gold can serve that purpose and has a value because of that.
Once must understand that halving is an essential part of the Bitcoin protocol, aimed at approximating the natural increase in scarcity, observed in other money systems, like gold (as opposed to currencies, like dollar, which can be printed ad infinitum)
The problem is that Bitcoin itself is not natural. As I have said elsewhere (and been attacked by assclowns of all stripes and denominations, lol), Bitcoin, in this aspect, is no different than any other fiat money out there (or currency, if you please), my point being that mimicking scarcity (or any other quality) of its counterparts such as gold doesn't endow it with the resilience and robustness due to their inherent value (entrenched deep in the minds and nature of people)...
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Scarcity is part of what gives both gold and bitcoin value. The only reason anything has any value at all is that everyone believes it to be true. This is true of bitcoin, gold, and fiat. Confidence in the particular monetary system is what bestows value, and part of the confidence in bitcoin is the built in scarcity of a hard cap and halving block rewards along the way. If that confidence is undermined, then the value/utility of the monetary system is going to fall, and that's true of gold and fiat too.
What you write about the value is not fully true. There is the intrinsic value too. Gold for example has many usecases in electronics and more places. This means it has a value that comes from being gold alone. Not from the value it has from speculation or believe. So gold might crash but there should always be a bottom value. Of course the question is if so much gold can be used at all. But there are other items that are used as a kind of currency that has it's own value. Let's say cigarettes in war times. Some smoke them away, because they are stupid, some sell them for a warm jacket and are allowed to life because of that. But even when no one would want them, their value would be none for others, there is still a value in using it. (If you can say that at all about cigarettes.
)The same can't be said about bitcoin. You have nothing than some virtual flags if the value is crashing and everyone believes it is nothing worth.
Right, but now you're talking about utility as opposed to just perception of value. Using a resource for industrial uses gives it a value, but that value is a smaller subset of the total value which includes perception of the resource as an asset or store of value, which makes it usable as money. There are plenty of resources that are both scarce and have utility for industrial purposes but are not used for storing value or as money, and the only difference there is that they aren't widely perceived to be have a value to someone in the future. Gold is a special case, but its status is also arbitrary. It's just one of the resources that is scarce and that everyone agrees is valuable. It didn't have to be gold, but its ease of finding to early civilizations probably had a lot to do with why it was gold and not something else.
You are right. The value of gold is typically higher than it's value for electronics. Though i wanted to say that gold has an intrinsic value. Even when nobody believes in the value of gold as a currency anymore, it still would have a value. If nobody believes in cryptocurrencies anymore then you have nothing. Rubbish zeros and ones.
Again you are exaggerating, the block time is occasionally 50-60 minutes. So, with 90% of the hash rate gone, it will occasionally take 10 hours. The table shows what will happen to the average block time if the hash power is cut by 90%.
I'm curious why you deny the evident. Even if 60 minutes today is occasional (which is not good, mildly speaking), then it will be 100 minutes on average, right?
What is +1 and +2 in that table?
While 100 minute block times would cause difficulties and consternation, I don't believe it would necessarily bring down Bitcoin. People that need faster confirmation times would go elsewhere, but the effect would only be temporary
So you think that after a lot of people don't get their transactions confirmed for a few months (which would obviously crash the price, thereby essentially nullifying their Bitcoin holdings they got trapped with), peeps will continue to use it? I'm highly doubtful on this, wtf. Many folks here talked about confidence (and still more thought about it)...
I guess it is the right time they showed up (thought again)
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.
And this is very hypothetical. It did not happen in the past that miners switched off big parts of the network because mining became unprofitabel. It happened, if at all, in steps that were unproblematic.
Are you kidding? It is not uncommon to see new blocks mined as rare as one per hour. If the major mining pools (which mine over 90% of new blocks) stop operation, the blockchain will be frozen
You are exaggerating. If 90% of the hash rate turns off, then blocks will be found on average every 100 minutes (instead of every 10 minutes) until the next difficulty change, which will be in less than 140 days.
Everything will return to normal in less than 175 days.
Okay, let's take your figures. Now we allegedly have 10 minutes between confirmations on average. I don't believe these numbers (the transaction weighted mean interval should be significantly higher, simple average being useless), but given that it is often much more than that (50-60 minutes and above), it would amount to 500-600 minutes if 90% of the hash rate is turned off. 600 minutes is 10 hours, Carl. Now we have 10 hours of waiting within which the network is essentially down, and many thousands (millions?) of unconfirmed transactions piling up...
Do you really think Bitcoin will ever recover from that glut? After a week Bitcoin will be as dead as a doornail due to escalation effects
| Period | Block TIme | Duration |
| Current | 100 minutes | < 140 days |
| +1 | 25 minutes | 35 days |
| +2 | 10 minutes | 14 days |
I don't quite understand what this table means. Care to explain?
If you claim that often blocks are found only after an hour then you can't let fall under the table that with the same chance blocks are found way faster than 10 minutes. The 10 minutes really are the average that was mathematically determined to be used to the next time.
I don't know how the matters stand at the moment, but in August there was a transactional glut, i.e. there were a few thousand unconfirmed transactions that didn't get confirmed in time (up to 50,000, if I'm not mistaken). I got caught too, my ~1 BTC transaction hadn't been confirmed for 2 days. I guess it was a deliberate effort by miners to stimulate the price, since I saw a lot of new blocks with only the miner's TX in them...
Therefore, it is hard to predict what the miners can be up to
Therefore, it is hard to predict what the miners can be up to
The Chinese have a fairly good idea where miners are going, and what they are doing - they make them and have the biggest mining operations in the world. I'd say the Russians are in on this, 100%.
I assume that the Bitcoin network will be paralyzed (at least temporarily) if 70% of miners (i.e. mining pools) decide to call it a day and be done with that
That would be true only for a short time until the difficulty adjusted. If really so many miners stopped instantly, which would not happen in one day timeframe, then it could mean that new blocks are only found every 25 minutes or so. Then when the difficulty adjusted then it should be again at 10 minutes.
Are you kidding? It is not uncommon to see new blocks mined as rare as one per hour. If the major mining pools (which mine over 90% of new blocks) stop operation, the blockchain will be frozen
Yes, it would mean that we would need 10 times the time to find a new block. So 100 minutes per block. But there is simply no reason to believe that something like that should happen. Why should it happen? Only because mining is not rewarding anymore does not mean that everyone disables his miners instantly. That did not happen in the past too.
I don't know how the matters stand at the moment, but in August there was a transactional glut, i.e. there were a few thousand unconfirmed transactions that didn't get confirmed in time (up to 50,000, if I'm not mistaken). I got caught too, my ~1 BTC transaction hadn't been confirmed for 2 days. I guess it was a deliberate effort by miners to stimulate the price, since I saw a lot of new blocks with only the miner's TX in them...
Therefore, it is hard to predict what the miners can be up to
Therefore, it is hard to predict what the miners can be up to
That was because the stresstests. Someone created piles of junktransactions with a sligthly higher fee than legit transactions so that miners included the more expensive transactions and normal transactions got stuck. The problem was not that too view miners exist but that each block only can hold transactions worth 1mb of data
This is what I had been told. But it's cold comfort, given that I got caught personally (for 2 days, Сarl!) and generally don't believe such stories, lol. The theory of the more expensive transactions crowding out normal transactions doesn't hold since it fails to provide a viable explanation for empty blocks...
Um, that is no theory. We know who did the stresstest, we know the transactions that were spam and so on. The empty blocks have a different explaination and they happen all the time. Regardless of spam attacks.
The reason for empty blocks are that some miners think they will have an advantage when they create a very tiny block. Because you will win the 25Bitcoins when >50% of all nodes accept your block as the next valid block. So if you send out a very small block then chances are that your block will be spread very fast through the bitcoin network. Maybe you even will orphan a big block that was created a second before your block.
Though that is not a really usefull way to handle things. Because someone created a propagation network. He can propgate full blocks in a matter of a couple seconds. Which means it is very fast. Even with full blocks. No need to use empty blocks then anymore when you use that network.
But empty blocks and spam attacks have nothing to do together.
I was thinking that it is an automatical algorithm which deduced the block reward by 50% isn't it? I don't think that someone can control this fact.
you change the schedule and you lose bitcoin period
I think now to change the algo and halving would be really bad for BTC lovers and miners everywhere. Yes it is harder to mine but isn't this what made BTC attractive in the first place/ The fact that it is rare and gets rarer and harder to find? If they turn Bitcoin into another Doge, it is pretty well doomed in my opinion..
Such a change would affect seriously the trust nature and the purpose for which it was created. The thought of posing should be avoided to prevent speculation.
There was much hype about the Fed raising interest rates in 2015, but we are still there, at the lowest possible level (wtf, it is even no longer the lowest possible limit). Bitcoin halving in July, 2016, is talked about as much, but will it really happen?
I ain't sure
I ain't sure
Obviously, nobody want a fork at this point. All players want stability.
to be canceled? How to cancel it actually? it's already programmed somehow right? Or we can change it?
Of course it can't be cancelled. This whole thread makes no sense at all yet people keep posting. OP should just lock this thread!
to be canceled? How to cancel it actually? it's already programmed somehow right? Or we can change it?
it's work based on consensus, they release their client(the miners) and they see how many accept it, probably no one since this is one of the worst change ever like the one of the 21M cap
Isn't it technically impossible to cancel the Bitcoin halving, is it? If there would any doubt then it would have deep impact in trusting Bitcoin.
There was much hype about the Fed raising interest rates in 2015, but we are still there, at the lowest possible level (wtf, it is even no longer the lowest possible limit). Bitcoin halving in July, 2016, is talked about as much, but will it really happen?
I ain't sure
I ain't sure
to be canceled? How to cancel it actually? it's already programmed somehow right? Or we can change it?
Jump to: