Bitcoin halving to be canceled? - page 25.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3486

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Kozlov on November 11, 2015, 05:18:19 PM

Quote from: deisik on November 11, 2015, 05:10:11 PM

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

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

Kozlov

full member

Activity: 212

Merit: 100

Quote from: deisik on November 11, 2015, 05:10:11 PM

Quote from: SebastianJu on November 11, 2015, 04:38:54 PM

Quote from: deisik on November 11, 2015, 03:12:00 AM

Quote from: SebastianJu on November 10, 2015, 06:29:28 PM

The problem will solve itself. The reward over time is only as low as many miners take part in the mining game. Lower the reward and many miners will switch off their unprofitable miners. Which means the remaining rewards will be split through the remaining miners, which means they will earn more.

I don't particularly disagree with the said. In fact, I already mentioned something to that tune somewhere in the thread earlier. There are two major issues with this, though. First, this problem is apparently the flaw in design (an arbitrarily set number), at least, the way it is set up to work (if anyone begs to differ, think about how non-optimal (or, better, disruptive) the halving is/will be). Second, the disrupture in Bitcoin operation may be fatal to it, meaning it may never fully recover from this halving...

I don't see why this halving should be different. I mean even when 50 or 70% of all miners are switched off then, it doesn't matter at all since the remaining miners will earn more because they don't need to share. I think because of that no problem can arise.

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

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%.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3486

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: SebastianJu on November 11, 2015, 04:38:54 PM

Quote from: deisik on November 11, 2015, 03:12:00 AM

Quote from: SebastianJu on November 10, 2015, 06:29:28 PM

The problem will solve itself. The reward over time is only as low as many miners take part in the mining game. Lower the reward and many miners will switch off their unprofitable miners. Which means the remaining rewards will be split through the remaining miners, which means they will earn more.

I don't particularly disagree with the said. In fact, I already mentioned something to that tune somewhere in the thread earlier. There are two major issues with this, though. First, this problem is apparently the flaw in design (an arbitrarily set number), at least, the way it is set up to work (if anyone begs to differ, think about how non-optimal (or, better, disruptive) the halving is/will be). Second, the disrupture in Bitcoin operation may be fatal to it, meaning it may never fully recover from this halving...

I don't see why this halving should be different. I mean even when 50 or 70% of all miners are switched off then, it doesn't matter at all since the remaining miners will earn more because they don't need to share. I think because of that no problem can arise.

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

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Quote from: Sir_lagsalot on November 11, 2015, 06:46:38 AM

Well, yes mining pools have the most power. But do they have ultimate control? No. Even satoshi doesn't have that. to stop/delay the halving, we'd have to all agree to a change in the coin's source code. Which is also making a totally different coin. Something like Bitcoin XT, which isn't really working out that well. One other reason why bitcoin is so successful is it's specific amount of coins and it's unique supply. If we change this, the price of bitcoin will plummet.

So no, I dont think the halving will be cancelled.

You are right. The miner have the power but ultimately the user have the power. Us bitcoiners that can chose to use a fork of bitcoin, believing that this is the real bitcoin that holds the real value. I mean at the end the price will decide which fork wins. And the price gets established by the users and traders.

Though when i think about it, what if the corrupt miners take the forked coins and sell them all. Pushing the price of the forked bitcoin down to the bottom. Of course the forked bitcoiners could do the same. Though i wonder what the outcome of this would be.

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Quote from: deisik on November 11, 2015, 05:03:42 AM

Quote from: Barnabe on November 11, 2015, 04:48:49 AM

You can summarize this by a simple question.
Would you switch to a "miners-fork" where halfing is not done ?
I know I wouldn't.

I have no bitcoins at the moment (well, I seem to have been paid by bit-x today, but this is dust). I sold whatever I had at 460. If that was at the top (I didn't follow the price closely), then I was just lucky, and I'm done with Bitcoin, wtf...

So, personally, I don't care

Nah, that is normal for bitcoin. And yes, you were near the top. If you follow the price then you might have even more coins at the end. At one point in time bitcoin price will stabilize when adoption is higher.

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Quote from: deisik on November 11, 2015, 03:12:00 AM

Quote from: SebastianJu on November 10, 2015, 06:29:28 PM

The problem will solve itself. The reward over time is only as low as many miners take part in the mining game. Lower the reward and many miners will switch off their unprofitable miners. Which means the remaining rewards will be split through the remaining miners, which means they will earn more.

I don't particularly disagree with the said. In fact, I already mentioned something to that tune somewhere in the thread earlier. There are two major issues with this, though. First, this problem is apparently the flaw in design (an arbitrarily set number), at least, the way it is set up to work (if anyone begs to differ, think about how non-optimal (or, better, disruptive) the halving is/will be). Second, the disrupture in Bitcoin operation may be fatal to it, meaning it may never fully recover from this halving...

I don't see why this halving should be different. I mean even when 50 or 70% of all miners are switched off then, it doesn't matter at all since the remaining miners will earn more because they don't need to share. I think because of that no problem can arise.

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Quote from: jaysabi on November 10, 2015, 11:41:21 PM

Quote from: deisik on November 10, 2015, 05:22:06 PM

Quote from: Nemo1024 on November 10, 2015, 04:21:23 PM

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. Cheesy

)

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.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3486

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Nemo1024 on November 11, 2015, 08:40:25 AM

Quote from: deisik on November 10, 2015, 05:30:18 PM

If no, why not then give me half of your earnings?

Because you are making a logical mistake here. Why should I? You are transferring to a personal level a global market. When halving occurs, everything else, the rest of the Bitcoin economy, is indexed to that pretty quickly.

It is not my mistake. You shouldn't, but this is exactly the same situation why you wouldn't (want to) give half of your earnings in favor of some vague concept you called a global market. Money is always personal, wtf. And I'm highly dubious that you actually mine Bitcoin these days...

But you are welcome to leave a message on the blockchain

Nemo1024

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1014

Quote from: jaysabi on November 10, 2015, 11:41:21 PM

Quote from: deisik on November 10, 2015, 05:22:06 PM

Quote from: Nemo1024 on November 10, 2015, 04:21:23 PM

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.

Well put. I can recommend as casual reading Stephen Baxter's and Terry Prattchett's "Long Earth", where the authors explore the "parallel Earths" opening up, and (in a sub-plot) the sudden unlimited access to gold from all those instances, devaluing gold pretty quickly.

Nemo1024

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1014

Quote from: deisik on November 10, 2015, 05:30:18 PM

If no, why not then give me half of your earnings?

Because you are making a logical mistake here. Why should I? You are transferring to a personal level a global market. When halving occurs, everything else, the rest of the Bitcoin economy, is indexed to that pretty quickly.

I won't be giving you half of my future BTC0.390625 per block earnings just the same as I won't be giving you half of my past BTC50 earnings.

[/quote]

Quote from: Nemo1024 on November 10, 2015, 04:21:23 PM

BTC50 or BTC25 or BTC12.5 or BTC6.25 or BTC3.125 or BTC1.5625 or BTC0.78125 or BTC0.390625 ...

Okay, we are well past the 50 BTC reward, but may I hope that you will make do equally well with the remaining numbers right now?
[/quote]

I do. Thank you for your concern. Cool

Sir_lagsalot

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 251

Well, yes mining pools have the most power. But do they have ultimate control? No. Even satoshi doesn't have that. to stop/delay the halving, we'd have to all agree to a change in the coin's source code. Which is also making a totally different coin. Something like Bitcoin XT, which isn't really working out that well. One other reason why bitcoin is so successful is it's specific amount of coins and it's unique supply. If we change this, the price of bitcoin will plummet.

So no, I dont think the halving will be cancelled.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3486

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: dinofelis on November 11, 2015, 05:27:22 AM

So, yes, miners could, if they were totally corrupt or stupid, decide to get away from the halving protocol, and kill bitcoin that way, because then they have shown that miners can get together in a 51% cartel, and decide what they want about how many bitcoins will exist, and who will get them. They can then overnight decide also to reward themselves one billion bitcoins each. Why wouldn't they?

Do you really think that the Bitcoin people (i.e. that relatively small group of people who presently control the Bitcoin mining) are somehow particularly different from those who created the piles of shitcoins?

To think bad of people is a sin but rarely a mistake, lol

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

I think the possibility of miners changing the protocol not to see the halving would imply that the very next day, the bitcoin price would be about $0,-.

The whole concept of bitcoin is that it is based on a non-inflationary belief ; on the idea that there is no arbitrary central bank that can switch on the bill press at will. The day that you see that miners can decide to change this, you can expect that a year later, they decide to double or triple their rewards. After all, what would stop them if the first change in protocol passed ?
That would mean that the bitcoin production is unlimited and can at any moment be changed at random, if enough miners want so.

It is as if you discovered that there's a chemical way of turning sand into gold. Who is going to buy gold now at high prices ?

So, yes, miners could, if they were totally corrupt or stupid, decide to get away from the halving protocol, and kill bitcoin that way, because then they have shown that miners can get together in a 51% cartel, and decide what they want about how many bitcoins will exist, and who will get them. They can then overnight decide also to reward themselves one billion bitcoins each. Why wouldn't they ?

anthonycamp

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: madken7777 on September 22, 2015, 03:16:34 PM

Can not cancel something that is build into the design.

i agree with the engenniren of it the halfing can ocur and will ocur if the price goes up its their problem

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3486

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Barnabe on November 11, 2015, 04:48:49 AM

What will happen after the halving is that the supply of bitcoin will be lower (less coins injected into the system) and the price will adjust (each bitcoin will be more expensive because they are more difficult to find).
At the end (long term), the miner's situation will remain the same. He will mine less, but the coins will be more expensive so the end result is the same for them.

Quoting myself on the topic (the relevant parts), lol

Quote from: deisik on September 26, 2015, 02:37:50 PM

Miners will produce only half the amount of bitcoins after the halving, but this doesn't in the least mean that the total supply of coins will diminish accordingly since they don't sell all their coins even now (when reward is high), and they are not the only ones who sell bitcoins. Given that a) they can't increase production (i.e. the number of new blocks found per unit of time, which could potentially offset the drop in reward), and b) they may actually begin suffering losses due to lower reward per block (I don't expect their profit margins to be high due to tight competition), I see it as mostly inevitable that they will have to sell more coins than they sold before the halving (i.e. now sell), in order to cover their expenses (which remain the same per block)

Quote from: deisik on September 29, 2015, 07:56:54 AM

Once the Bitcoin halving occurs, miners will get half as much what they earned before the halving. If their profit margins are not high enough to cover their operating expenses with twice as less (yeah) revenue, they will bear losses and will have to cease mining. But if, nevertheless, their profit margins are high (and they already got back their capital expenditures), then they don't need to sell all their coins in the first place

Quote from: deisik on October 03, 2015, 08:59:23 AM

Unless they (miners) raise the limit and do something with the halving, Bitcoin adoption rate is doomed to stagnate. This doesn't necessarily mean that the price will collapse, but it will if just a few of the top Bitcoin holders decide to part with their stash

In short, things don't work the way you think they should

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3486

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Barnabe on November 11, 2015, 04:48:49 AM

You can summarize this by a simple question.
Would you switch to a "miners-fork" where halfing is not done ?
I know I wouldn't.

I have no bitcoins at the moment (well, I seem to have been paid by bit-x today, but this is dust). I sold whatever I had at 460. If that was at the top (I didn't follow the price closely), then I was just lucky, and I'm done with Bitcoin, wtf...

So, personally, I don't care

Barnabe

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 503

★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!

Quote from: deisik on November 11, 2015, 03:28:11 AM

Quote from: jaysabi on November 10, 2015, 11:41:21 PM

Quote from: deisik on November 10, 2015, 05:22:06 PM

Quote from: Nemo1024 on November 10, 2015, 04:21:23 PM

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.

Value of gold is set by the laws of nature, which humans cannot change at their whimsy (at least, so far). It doesn't matter where it lives or originates, since humans cannot change their own nature either (just in case you're going to bring forward the argument of subjective value and all that crap). Bitcoin, on the hand, is, like fiat monies, the deliberate brain-child of men, and, as such, it is not "bestowed" with the same level of confidence (that nature provides)...

This "confidence" is undermined by definition

You can summarize this by a simple question.
Would you switch to a "miners-fork" where halfing is not done ?
I know I wouldn't.

Every miner would want to in the short term, but the coins mined in their fork would have no value, because nobody would want to buy them.
Who would want to buy something that is not rare and can be produced Ad vitam æternam ? Plus it would lose a lot of it's value overtime because of the inflation (more coins are produced and always will).

What will happen after the halving is that the supply of bitcoin will be lower (less coins injected into the system) and the price will adjust (each bitcoin will be more expensive because they are more difficult to find).
At the end (long term), the miner's situation will remain the same. He will mine less, but the coins will be more expensive so the end result is the same for them.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3486

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: jaysabi on November 10, 2015, 11:41:21 PM

Quote from: deisik on November 10, 2015, 05:22:06 PM

Quote from: Nemo1024 on November 10, 2015, 04:21:23 PM

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.

Value of gold is set by the laws of nature, which humans cannot change at their whimsy (at least, so far). It doesn't matter where it lives or originates, since humans cannot change their own nature either (just in case you're going to bring forward the argument of subjective value and all that crap). Bitcoin, on the hand, is, like fiat monies, a deliberate brain-child of men, and, as such, it is not "bestowed" with the same level of confidence (that nature provides)...

This "confidence" is undermined by definition

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3486

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: SebastianJu on November 10, 2015, 06:29:28 PM

The problem will solve itself. The reward over time is only as low as many miners take part in the mining game. Lower the reward and many miners will switch off their unprofitable miners. Which means the remaining rewards will be split through the remaining miners, which means they will earn more.

I don't particularly disagree with the said. In fact, I already mentioned something to that tune somewhere in the thread earlier. There are two major issues with this, though. First, this problem is apparently the flaw in design (an arbitrarily set number), at least, the way it is set up to work (if anyone begs to differ, think about how non-optimal (or, better, disruptive) the halving is/will be). Second, the disrupture in Bitcoin operation may be fatal to it, meaning it may never fully recover from this halving...

Tmdz

hero member

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1000

There is no possible way they will allow politics to influence the supply of bitcoin, this is not fiat. Bitcoin has a few set rules that we know we can relay on, halving is one of them and trust no one. Look the reason people are thinking about this is because the drop in price and to that I say don't worry about it, things will sort themselves out.

Topic: Bitcoin halving to be canceled? - page 25. (Read 33718 times)