Topic: Bitcoin security in the long term (Read 748 times)

I am very sure that bitcoin will still return to the highest price as it did a few years ago, but the question is whether bitcoin will be able to survive for the long term if this happens then I will never want to sell bitcoin when it is at the current price In this case.I will choose to survive if indeed this can happen as stated in the public.because we really hope that bitcoin is able to survive in the long term of security

If you mean that miners will not be interested in providing us with security and network,I think that they will still be interested in it. To my mind, when Bitcoin reaches its max total supply, miners will get just our commissions for running our transactions, but not new bitcoins as they do now. So there will still be people who want to be miners. To sum up, we shouldn’t be scared.

of course from something that is very popular and increasingly in demand.. will continue to be supported and cared for as best as possible, there is no way bitcoin will lose its security. We currently don't need to doubt that, bitcoin is the hope of all of us.

Miners will keep on mining as they can still make a decent commission in the market. Despite the huge expenses that they take every day but I think they are still at good and profiting from mining and that is why many keep their job.

But this is not what the OP has meant, he just thinks and doubted what will happen if the total market supply of Bitcoin will be mined? But I don't think this could wipe out the security we have and I have no doubt about that. As we are using blockchain technology no matter if we all mined the 21m, there is no reason why it makes Bitcoin unsecured.

Yes, it's not like bitcoin gets it's security compromised when all the coins are mined. Plus, if it has stayed like this for a decade, I think that we can assume that it will be like this for a really long time. Plus, there will always be developers that's going to improve the network.

The blockchain system also has a series of unique technical risks, such as vulnerabilities in smart contracts, such as attacks on consensus mechanisms, such as attacks on cross-chain and oracle data.

In terms of preventing the risks of the blockchain system, in addition to formulating technical standards, building a management and supervision technical system for blockchain systems and applications; improving laws and regulations to address the risks that may be faced by the application of blockchain in different industries at the level of laws and regulations Make specifications.

Hypothetically, miners will continue to secure the network and get paid with transaction fees once the last Bitcoin is mined in 2140. And all transactions on done on the blockchain will still continue to be recorded by the nodes. Well since we all we'd be dead by then, it's something I don't want to worry about for one second 😁

Bitcoin will still exist in the secure network. As long as it is profitable, miners will continue to hash and process transactions, and transaction fees will still exist.
Over time, the network will be much safer than it is now, and it will be less vulnerable to attacks. It will be balanced by transaction fees in some way.

When the maximum supply is reached the network won't experience high difficulty as now. As the transaction fee is the only source for the miners, this will serve as a value storage network. For this reason the development won't get disturbed. Same as now, the development will be happening as other cryptocurrencies too have a connection with the bitcoin network. Once the entire number of Bitcoin is mined the network will go even strong in security.

Bitcoin was already a stable and secured network which has been tested many times, yet many controversial issues from different opposing groups who wanted to grab btc down but failed so much. They didn't want bitcoin to be recognized, and what's happening now is a big slap to their face.
All the proofs have been given to all individuals who's still having doubts, so I advise to have short reviews at coinmarketcap and you'll see it as # 1 in the rank.

CMIIW if it reaches max supply miner only mining fee. and it seems that what happened will also be the same as what is happening now . I am not really  expert in bitcoin developing for that question. but what makes you think the bitcoin network will be more vulnerable when it reaches max supply?

I think bitcoin have already better security. and I hope Bitcoin will be more help higher and unique technology. Many people and investor use bitcoin so It's safe fairly. And The network protected by nodes.And I hope bitcoin security will be more updated in future.

maybe bitcoin should also have better security considering that in the future technology will be more sophisticated. in the long term the technology will be more updated. but it depends on the bitcoin system chain whether it can do more sophisticated security or not

therefore we have to concentrate and focus if we want to make a transaction, on the other hand we have to check again before pressing enter. I just found out about cases like this, where we paste and the results are different from what we copy, have you clicked something before? maybe it can be an experience for all

I don't think the Bitcoin ceiling will be attacked. Computing power is the key to protecting Bitcoin's security. The higher the computing power, the safer Bitcoin. When the Bitcoin mining supply reaches its maximum, there will be more nodes distributed all over the world, and more miners will be distributed all over the world. The Bitcoin network should become more and more secure to ensure that the longest chain has all The maximum workload of the network is therefore not easy to be modified and attacked. If you want to reach 51% to attack Bitcoin, you need very large financial support, which is more difficult. So in the long run, bitcoin will still be safe.

if that is possible all 21mil total supply will be mined someday, it leaves us no choice but to share it all. And the fact that Bitcoin still exists in the hands of the holders (excluded those lost numbers) miners could still be compensated. Those Bitcoins that have been hacked still can be used but not sure those Bitcoin's have been seized by the authorities. What worrying scenario is that if all has been out of control or it wasn't used already.
learning how to secure the remaining Bitcoins in the market is very important and we have to take some responsibility for it otherwise, we are just helping the market to collapse.

all 21m btc will be mined in 2140 , thats 119 years from now .
that time the computers are now super advanced and who knows maybe they can now be able to crack btc private keys ? but thats is something thats not our problem anymore because i think we couldntlast that long


it is ? well we have nothing to worry then because the btc users doesnt go down but it only goes up and when more people are using btc ,
 the value and the mining fee are also going up .

The security of Bitcoin depends on whether and how many people are using Bitcoin, that is, whether transaction fees are sufficient for mining activities. As long as people use Bitcoin, it will remain fairly safe.
The network is protected by nodes, and many miners are running nodes. They will be encouraged to continue to protect and update the blockchain in exchange for the payment of transaction fees associated with each block to ensure the security of Bitcoin.

maybe the current level of bitcoin security.can be said to be very strict.from the usual thing, because bitcoin not only needs.high security.but really needs.a very long time process.for a business.this must.always be considered by everyone for a safe very high. maybe this step is.very appropriate and needs.to be done for the future.process

if 21 million bitcoins have been mined there will be no effect on the security of blockchains but what is clear is that the nodes continue to grow and most likely transaction fees will increase because miners only get rewarded from the total transaction fee for 1 block
maybe you can learn more details first

You are of course right about coinbase transactions will forever exist. I meant that one day coinbase transactions will just not have a block reward anymore, my fault.

But what I still can't get my head around is if we don't have a block reward anymore, or let's say a block reward very close to zero, do you think fees will still be sufficient to keep the network running / the miners mining while at the same time be feasible enough to allow for micro transactions at scale?

safe? of course not from all sides there is no safe word here.
First, I think the security of the wallet must be monitored because there have been many cases claiming that the wallet has been hacked etc. so we need to double up on security because I'm sure the bad guys must have bad intentions if they find out.
the second in terms of price is quite good but remember that here it is fluctuating so it's hard to predict and for someone to hold slowly, of course there will be no problem because in the future many think that bitcoin will be bright but for those who hold it for a while I don't think it's suitable to say it's safe to invest here because of these fluctuations.

Bitcoin is The Futher of Global Money.Many people already Except BTC. Maney Country  Banned Bitcoin becuse They Don't Know BTC Algorithm.I hope Futher World Lead Bitcoin.The Bitcoin Mining Power is the most popular now a days. So People Easily Investment in Bitoicoin Economic financial Decentralization System.

I wonder why the indicator is a slightly better number of miners for security on the network.  Actually, there is no single technology that is safe from crime, even an electric current that can be deadly can be stolen by many people and that is a common thing.  If you demand perfection, nothing is perfect in this life.  Security can be achieved if we ourselves are able to keep our activities free from mistakes using technology.

You mean the network will be insecure if there are less miners? Well, I don't think it will happen very soon, the increasing numbers of hashrate means that bitcoin mining is profitable that more miners join the guessing game. Hashrate falls this month but it still much higher than the last few years.

Like what happened to china, they banned crypto mining, but simply people just ship the miners to other part of the world to continue the operation, what I mean, banning crypto on some area, or no longer suitable on that land or having a hard time on some part of the world due to electricity cost or etc. wont stop someone to continue their work if it gives them enough and probably more profit.

It is a far future and we can not know what will happen in the world and with bitcoin network & price in next 120 years.

Bitcoin miners receive income from block rewards and confirmation rewards (as transaction fees). If in next 120 years, the price of Bitcoin is a few millions of dollar and miners receive very big income from transaction fees by confirm transactions, I think they will keep mining.

They care about income, to pay power bills and to get beneficiaries. From where the income comes from, block rewards or transaction fees, it is not a big matter for bitcoin miners.

If they see unprofitable from mining, they will shut down their ASIC and Hash power will drop. The network might become less healthy, less secured.

This question will become clearer in next 40 years when the supply chart becomes flatter, and regulations from governments are in place.

The drop in incentive to secure the network with increase in mining to the point where most of the 21M supply of BTC is a real challenge.

Right now, miners mine because they are incentivised to do so by receiving rewards with every mined block but as that community becomes smaller and smaller, people would probably take a different angle to security because then there's no point in holding a very scarce assets like BTC if it's not valuable due to next to no security. Which groups will take that approach if security doesn't become obsolete in the next 100+ years is something I can't even start guessing as most people today will not be around then, and technology can take us much further in a century.

Interesting debate, nonetheless...

We can't predict the security of bitcoin in the long term, because most countries have now banned bitcoin mining, maybe the price of bitcoin in the future will continue to rise, and it is certain that many hold bitcoin, but the security of bitcoin in the future will improve,

Same here. There are still a lot of scenarios that could happen, so hang in there. Mine while the supply is still available and don't rush into decisions. When it comes to Bitcoin, there is nothing to lose. Since 2017, I've been making crypto every day. It doesn't matter if it drops more tomorrow, so you should be fine.

Of course, everyone who will do busines.sis always looking for profits.and will not want to suffer.losses, such as the current crypto world which will make our investments.long-term and the prices.issued.are also very transparent.and also make it.easier for.beginners to understand how this business.work for the present or the future

What are you talking about? Just because there's less bitcoin to be mined doesn't mean that the security of it wavers, it will still be the same as any other time in terms of security, the only effect of having less mined coins is that the supply isn't easily refreshed by fresh coins which may or may not make the prices go up.

there is a possibility that the network will become more insecure if there is less BTC to be mined, and it is possible that miners will stop mining if their land is no longer suitable. because every human must seek profit in all endeavors,

Bitcoin has existed for many years and has withstood the test of time and market. It has accumulated a large amount of computing power in the early stage of its development, and the Bitcoin network has gradually improved and is not vulnerable to attacks. With the development of Bitcoin, people will also be willing to pay higher fees to encourage miners to ensure network security.

Depending upon the price predictions the network will still be secured by the miners as they will earn huge transaction fees at that time also.The btc will become mainstream and there will lot of transactions in bitcoin network which will eventually results in more profits in the form of transaction fees at that time.The miners will not have to mine blocks using ASIC machines and will not earn block rewards but you can say transaction fees will be enough at that time to satisfy them and btc will be secured network.

The design of the bitcoin network is such that every single the network expands, and the networking effect expands, the security overall is increased.

true as you said, bitcoin remains on a secure network, because bitcoin is clearly the safest crypto, bitcoin prices in the future may rise again, we can make bitcoin an asset for the future, never be afraid to invest in bitcoin..

If you keep looking at all these things, then you’re sure going to drop out before that time comes, because you will discouraged. There are always a disadvantage to things, and there are also the advantages.

Moreover what you’re talking about now is something that is going to happen in many years to come, I believe before that time comes we are going to see a way to get around this, there’s going to be a solution for sure. And also when that time comes, the system will change and miners are going to be benefiting through transaction fees. There will likely be lots of people using cryptocurrency for transactions by then.

Coming from a John Perkins "Confessions of An Economic Hitman" point of view would it be outlandish to consider the CBDC to be the elephant in the room?   

It seems to be the antithesis of bitcoin and the most imminent threat moving forward. "Programmable money with identity embedded in it" as someone recently described it. With the allure of not only becoming the reserve currency but also having the ability to socially engineer down to the individual. Why would they let you buy bitcoin, or for that matter accept it in trade without going through fiat first? They gave El Salvador the middle finger. I'm not talking 120 years from now. Mainstream fud about the dollar no longer being the reserve currency within the next 20 years. What happens when the spending power of fiat continues to decline and CBDCs disallow direct trade? As people flee fiat they'll have to make a decision. I have always believed that if given the chance people would choose self sovereignty over centralization. But watching this play out I have to question that. The majority of users don't possess their own keys, less than 10k run nodes, even less coinjoin when it should be the norm right from mining forward.         

Let me use some quotes from another thread from earlier this year to help me get to my point:

philipma1957

mickeywith

The issue regarding the financial viability of running miners seems like it has the potential to become a security threat sooner than later. Nations are building out infrastructure. If the central bank gives them an ultimatum down the line because they view bitcoin as a genuine threat to the hegemony that seems problematic from a security standpoint. Introduce the CBDC with tons of carrots, and disallow all crypto related transactions. Could the network sustain that in a scenario with fiat continuing to lose buying power and hodlers have to run machines at a loss to keep the system honest? It seems like it would continue to centralize which would either lead to an attack from within to game the system, or they send in the jackals to utilize the infrastructure built out on CBDC friendly Nations if the threat persists.

I know it's a shorter time span but it seems on topic, and the question of which actors with what incentives could pull off an attack keeps coming up. I realize this is way more fud than should come from a first post. I'm actually quite bullish. I think many of the issues we face can be addressed. I'm here to attempt to better understand how.   
 
*edited to add names to quotes

everyone who is involved in the business world of course they want an absolute profit and every business does not always make a profit, but this business is more inclined to its prices that go up and down in an indefinite period of time as happens in times like today. this, but this business is more to the market, prices that sometimes go up sometimes also go down

Miners do not earn 0.001BTC per block for the fees, that is absolutely absurd and should never happen. Currently, miners earn anywhere from 0.1BTC to 1 BTC depending from the network conditions. Average count for the transactions appears to be about 2000 per block (3.3 TPS), so that is far lower than any realistic estimate for any mass adoption or any widely used payment processors, with LN or not. If we were to make optimizations throughout the years and/or make the block size larger, then I don't see a problem with fitting 10x that in a hundred years, maybe even more.

Currently, network throughput for the miners is about ~100EH/s, at it's peak was about 170EH/s. That is quite a large number and shows that even with current block rewards, it is very very far from being remotely profitable for any attackers. Remember, you don't only pay for electricity, you also pay for the ASICs themselves, the landspace, etc. I don't think it's too far of a stretch to assume that by the time block rewards are <1BTC, the fees would supersede it. It should only be a concern if the network becomes insecure *enough* to be attacked, not if the cost of mining can't be matched with the current estimates.

Yes.

But you don't have to think of it because it will happen for about 100+ years from now. And actually with the remaining supply that it got present for around 2.2M bitcoins left to be mined.

It won't change if it's about network's security, miners will continue to mine it as long as it's profitable.

I don't want to look rude, but I'll have to. You make no sense.

Nor do I, but the fact that the system makes the miners have a less incentive over time, scares me. There will be times in the future where a miner will earn less than 0.001 BTC for solving a block including the fees. If we assume that the supply (of both $ and BTC) remained the same and compare with the current security, one bitcoin has to cost around 231 million dollars. (~7*33000 = 0.001*x)

Then, we have the lightning network that reduces significantly the amount of transactions in the mempool. Sure, there are lots of factors to count, but, overtime, the system seems to be leaking.

In my very own opinion bitcoin will be secured in the very long term because although the supply was very small, still the bitcoin will be more profitable due to the less supply the demand will come higher also that's why the bitcoin will be still good in the long term and when it terms to the security of the bitcoin, it will be still secured due to that many people are using cryptocurrency still bitcoin will remain decentralized and secured in the long run.

I definitely hope it won't fluctuate forever. Yes, I agree that the point about the fluctuation is completely valid. I'm making a point about having either an increase in the price or the increase in the adoption. Either of which increases the profitability, either by relation to the fees or the profit from mining.

Granted, I do think that I might not be right about a sustained security as there are a ton of factors on that but I don't think that the security (or rather the hashrate) of the network would ever dwindle to dangerous levels. If it ever gets to the point where it is better to be dishonest than to be honest, then that would be a problem because the system fails.

No as in, there is a difference between a coinbase transaction and the coinbase rewards. Why would the coinbase be zero though, then where do the fees go?

You just slightly estimated it. I don't know if it's on your realization, but it seems rather disappointing to me than (probably) to you. The price won't be that fluctuating forever; not that there's a proof for this, but over time, the supply will be steady and if the demand is too (global adoption), then the miners can only rely on the amount of the transactions.

Otherwise, the security will be slowly decreasing over time.

I guess he/she means in 2140. They'll reward 0.00000000 BTC, right? Just like OP_RETURNs.

LN as of now still settles transactions on-chain so that'll be opening or closing a channel. If there is a still some degree of scarcity with on-chain transactions, then these kinds of settlement transactions will be more expensive but users won't have to pay a great deal of money when you spread it over to the many transactions that the user could've made while on LN.
Coinbase transactions will always exist. They're the only required transaction in a Bitcoin block.

When you talk about the fees for off-chain transactions, are you thinking about exchanges dividing their profits with miners? Or what other off-chain transactions are there that generate a fee?
For now we still have enough time to figure out a way to make Bitcoin work even when there are no coinbase transactions anymore. But that is still some time to go.

We consider Bitcoin as the king of cryptocurrencies. Therefore it is possible that it will maintain as secure investment and of course secure coin now and for the long run. If we have confident in new potential crypto, I guess we have more confident in Bitcoin that it is a secure and good investment for the long run.

It's complicated.

At that time, if it has accomplished its goal, miners will consist of groups that have very high end infrastructure and require that security due to controlling large values of bitcoin, so will continue to mine to ensure it.

OTOH, relying on that principle forever is poor future thinking. Like the year 2000 software bug, some things are thought of as having an EOL, when they can persist for much longer.
I disagree that transaction fees will make up for the mining loss. You want to move the small transactions off chain, which will reduce miners overall. You still have to keep miners engaged, and the block reward does that.

The block reward should be changed now for that time. Instead of a regular halving, it could be a regular 10% decrease to be more stable. The sooner this is agreed on, the easier it will be to ensure this impact later.

Yes, its security will remain the same throughout whether one hour is left or just 20 minutes.

The price volatility inherent in the leading names far eclipses those of other mainstream asset classes. .

It isn't that much of a concern. Miners cannot be concerned with fluctuating prices, so at the prices, we can estimate an electrical consumption of roughly 60Twh per year and that is excluding all the miners that are currently in the midst of being redeployed. Since fees in a block are quite variable, there is no point trying to estimate that. At current electrical consumption levels, the annualized consumption is more than Kuwait's which is quite significant. For each halving, which is every 4 years, for the sustained profits, we expect either a doubling of total transaction fees or price of Bitcoin just to maintain the profit margins.

Not out of the realm of possibility, 4 years is quite a long time. Even if we were to calculate using a far lower bound of computational power, it still wouldn't make sense or neither is it very feasible for anyone to attack it. The effects of halving is most significant at the start, with the transaction fees being more important in the later parts.

The bigger the Bitcoin organize develops, the more secure it gets to be. Over the long term, an natural security tradeoff will happen between the piece endowment and exchange expenses. As the arrange impact gets to be bigger, request for piece space increments, in this way diminishing the require for a square appropriation. We have experimental prove that this can be happening, and future projections see hopeful.

I am a big believer in bitcoin and security because bitcoin runs on a blockchain network which ensures its security. On the other hand, when the supply of bitcoins has been mined, of course this will be the moment that bitcoin users and investors have been waiting for, because we will see an increase in the price of bitcoin that will soar.

Not reducing security, but if bitcoin has run out and there are no more miners then there is nothing to help with security in the bitcoin network, because mining will make it very difficult for everyone to add new transaction blocks to the block chain. In simple terms mining makes exponentially cancel a transaction that has already taken place by requesting a rewrite of all blocks after the transaction.

With the advancement and continuous improvement of Internet technology, the Bitcoin network should become more and more secure, and there will be more miners distributed all over the world. If you want to attack Bitcoin, you need to perform a 51% hashrate attack, which will be very difficult. As Bitcoin is used more and more, people are willing to pay higher fees, and rewards may increase enough for miners to continue to be incentivized to provide security for the network.

Miners will remain to hash and process transactions if bitcoin's price by then reaches a lucrative amount. Though no new coins will be minted, the transaction fees would still be there. Oh and this is 120+ years in the future, and it's really hard to think about what's going to happen by then, especially if lots of threats that could possibly end life as we know it is looming and surfacing every now and then.

But yes, on paper and theoretically, miners will still hash if the world as a whole recognizes bitcoin as money and as a form of an acceptable payment.

That's a long way to go for bitcoin. So right now, we don't have to worry about such possible occurrence. And we don't even know by that time if bitcoin technology is still in use or already an obsolete tech. And most of us right now, will not see that day anymore.
And regarding quantum technology, right now, it is still more on speculation to how it will impact bitcoin tech. We need to see first the actual effect on bitcoin tech before we conclude on this aspect.

I think this is a very advanced level of thinking. You know that the amount of block rewards is halved every four years, meaning that one halving is completed after mining every 210,000 blocks. If it continues like this, we will be able to continue effortlessly with Bitcoin till 2150 without any worries. It is hoped that by the year 2150, an alternative solution will be invented. So it is easy to say yes Bitcoin still remains a secure network.

Remaining a secure network even as development continues Bitcoin is capable of something different. We know that Bitcoin uses blockchain technology to record everything. Bitcoin security in the long term does not need to be asked again. Some adoptions made on bitcoin will also support the development of bitcoin for the better.

Important subject; I had never thought of this. Watching.

I guess you mean that miners' incentive will become less and less overtime. Yeah, that might be true. If we assume that it will be globally adopted in the future and that its price will be less fluctuating, then each halving will simply make miners' profit halved, which means less computational power offered into the network and hence, less security.

I'm curious why this thread hasn't been filled with anxious replies and counter-arguments yet.

Everyone in the world just needs profits, no one willing to lose ever. So Bitcoin isn't different, those all we are in Bitcoin just wonder to make a profit, to be honest. No one actually bothering Bitcoin technology. So if miners can't make a profit once all Bitcoin mined, then no doubt all miners will leave. Why anyone will spend time and funds on mining if they can't make money. So, yes then there is a possibility Bitcoin blockchain would unsecured. But I don't think really it will happen. We can't imagine what will happen in 2140 even we can't imagine the Bitcoin price. It would possible miners would earn more than now. Depends on the price, but I believe somehow it will be balanced by Transaction fees.

In my opinion, if BTC is a place to store assets and can be widely paid, it is important that BTC has high security, and if BTC cannot guarantee a source of money to store, its value is only equal to 0.

What does Donald Trump have to do with this? 

Socialists, fascists and authoritarians in general don't like bitcoin since it interferes with their control over everyone else, so the current administration won't be friendlier to bitcoin over the long term.

I think the network will be able to operate successfully, and regarding the medium of exchange vs the store of value topic, I believe that it'll more likely be the store of value because transaction fees will be huge for day-to-day operations. But as more and more people learn and get interested in BTC, the demand is likely to rise, and given how mining won't be an option anymore, the price will keep going up.
A huge risk to Bitcoin security is quantum computing technology, and if there's a breakthrough by the middle of the next century, it would made Bitcoin obsolete.

I think so. In fact, I even think that by that time, the network is already a lot more secure than it is right now. Around the year 2140, when all the Bitcoin has been mined, Bitcoin is already the global currency. There would be more nodes spread across the world. There would be more miners which are also spread all over the world. That means the network is already very robust. It would take an unbelievably huge amount of money in order to cause the dreaded 51% attack on the network. Miners are still sufficiently rewarded though because the fees by that time would be more than enough because of the widespread use and high price.

You are correct theoretically. Bitcoin does become more insecure with less people using it. However, it doesn't mean its insecure. It just means its a little less vulnerable to attacks. However, Bitcoin was vulnerable to attacks during its growth, and before it hit the mainstream news. So, if anything you would probably expect Bitcoin to be attacked during that time. However, nothing substantial ever occurred.

Bitcoin doesn't have low security, and even if Bitcoin is mainly used for a store of value, there will still be a requirement for miners, nodes, and all that good stuff. I would argue that Bitcoin is much safer than any bank that you trust to hold your fiat currency. Banks are vulnerable to physical attacks, going bankrupt, while Bitcoin will remain fairly secure as long as people are using it.

As mentioned, one of the things making Bitcoin secure is the cost, and the damage you could do if you were to attack Bitcoin. There's only a few attack vectors which are practical, and even then it would have to be done by some of the richest people in the world, and the pay off even if they were to launch the attack isn't going to outweigh the investment required to attack Bitcoin in the first place. So, there is no incentive.

china continues to ban bitcoin mining, donald trump hates bitcoin, the tesla company no longer accepts payments in bitcoin, maybe this will be a question mark about bitcoin security going forward, we can't deny that many predict the price of bitcoin in the future will continue to rise, will continue to soar, so how do we secure our bitcoins in the future, is it possible that security in the future will still be the same as now???

before we jump into any field of work, it is definitely security that we prioritize most, if security is maintained we can be more free to work, as well as bitcoin, which we all know there must be pros and cons, some say bitcoin is not safe, bitcoin can destroy our wealth one day, but there are also those who have succeeded in bitcoin, future security issues I think, the same as now, we must be careful and don't be careless, we must know first before we move on..

bitcoin in the long term may be able to reach a fantastic price, but future security issues are still a question mark, because we don't know what the future will look like, because now mining has begun to be stopped in several countries, bitcoin will definitely decrease, while those holding bitcoin will increase, So what's the best solution going forward?

It ultimately depends on what you mean by "Bitcoin gone". If you are new and have only known bitcoin to be one of these 8 thousand others claiming to solve the blockchain trilemma, you'd be forgiven to think that bitcoin is just the most expensive coin. For someone with this motivation, a trillionaire (are there any), or a Government can surely reduce the fiat value of bitcoin and for them, bitcoin will be gone.

For those of us who love it for the sake of the network, the community, the legacy, the development and sheer audacity of its pseudonymous founder who embed a message for the world's most powerful lobby of people in its genesis blocks; for those of us, the network will never be gone, Bitcoin will never be gone.

This is what started it all. Just one lone cypherpunk convinced by the code of another one, "Running Bitcoin". This just goes to show that Bitcoin can never be gone till there are even two people who agree that it ought to run. And there are millions of us today. This is something you can never replicate with all the corporation/ foundation coins and their figureheads bamboozling newbies with jargon.

First of all, let's acknowledge that ASICs gets continually eliminated by the competition naturally as the rewards decreases. The network doesn't suddenly gets substantially insecure after the various halvings.

If the cost of executing such an attack gets low enough, that will probably mean Bitcoin isn't doing so well. Attacking it is pretty meaningless, we'll just fork it into another algorithm and the attackers don't earn anything and life goes on. ASICs are highly specialized and aren't that easy to manufacture and get your hands on. Both the electrical constraints, space constraints, hardware constraints will almost definitely persist in the future. These are legitimate hindrance to a successful attack. Purchasing so much ASICs and expending resources just to attack something that is half dead (if the network gets less secure) isn't very smart.

Try scaling the current stater of Bitcoin to any possible attacks, including the resources required, difficulty of obtaining them and the opportunity costs incurred by a state sponsored adversary or a very rich person. You can also scale it down to estimate what happens if a certain percentage of the miners gets eliminated.

What if the attack is not due to profit motives? For example, Governments perform an orchestrated attack or some mega rich trillionaire is bored and wants bitcoin gone.

Partially true, actually. The decrease in the block rewards are far more impactful at the start, 50 -> 25 -> 12.5 -> 6.25, etc. As we go through more halvings, the transaction fees becomes the major composition of the revenue for the miners. By the 10th halving, the block rewards will dwindle down to 0.1BTC per block. Miners who can't afford to mine will probably exit by then.

The game theory isn't affected. The same logic applies, if the miners or attackers stand to gain more from contributing honestly to the network, then there is no concern.

Depending on the price of Bitcoin in 2140 and how much bitcoin miners will get from transaction fees in one block.

The newest block https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/block/689370 has 0.255 BTC for miners as transaction fee. If Bitcoin has its price at $1 M, that transaction fees will be $255,000.

If in 2140, miners don't get profit with transaction fees from their mining and confirmation, they will shut down their ASICs and the network might be less secured.

Depends. I don't foresee it being much more desirable to attack Bitcoin, even if the hashrate of the network drops significantly. The profits gained from an attack is far lower than the cost and the complexity of its execution and double spent Bitcoins can potentially just be worthless still. If it remains as a store of value but the value is still fairly high, then there isn't any problems.

There are tons of factors to Bitcoin's survival. If the block rewards were to be reduced exponentially right now, it won't survive. There isn't any time for the market and the miners to adapt to the far lower profits. If we were to stretch out the decrease in the block rewards, there is far lesser shock for the miners to bear. Important to note that the fees are starting to form a more significant part of the miner's income. If no one uses Bitcoin, then I wouldn't think that there is a point to keep Bitcoin afloat anyways.

As of now, blocks has consistently been filled, less some blocks in the recent weeks. Thus, it isn't a stretch to assume that if the capacity were to be somehow increased, then the transactions and subsequently the fees would be greater as well.

Doesn't this argument assume that bitcoin will be a medium of exchange in the future? If bitcoin remains as nothing more than a store of value, the volume of transactions would be substantially reduced, which would lead to low security? And if bitcoin has low security, then it's basically worthless.

So does that mean bitcoin being a widely adopted medium of exchange is a necessary condition for it to survive (that is, it can't simply be a store of value)?

Yes. The compensation for the miners comes in the fees within the blocks. I'm assuming that the volume of transactions by then or the derived fee as a result of off-chain transactions would be sufficient to compensate for it.

It is highly unlikely that Bitcoin would insecure by then. The way the block rewards are reduced gradually pads any impact on the miner's income and we're most likely going to see the impact far sooner than the 2140 timeline.

When Bitcoin gets to a stage where the mined supply is basically 21m (that is, very little remaining btc left to be mined), will Bitcoin still remain a secure network?