Topic: btc network after last halving (Read 170 times)

Most answers will be theoretical since it's going to take a century and more until the last halving happens and the last bitcoin will be mined. Too many things will happen as technology quickly is changing and the same goes might happen to the network of bitcoin, we don't know.

The common theory and thought about that if ever someone gets on that time in the future then one factor is about miners will still maintain it and that's where the fees will go since all bitcoin's are mined already.

Other than that, mostly are going to be speculations and we might get some glimpse of it but as I've said technology is quick in phasing and it might affect changes not just for bitcoin's network but for most things for which tech is needed.

it is possible to talk about it.. this forum is a discussion forum after all
and so..

well ill talk about it. and.. ill be frank
at the end of 2023
the world will continue to spin.
each day the sun will rise from the east and set in the west
the world will still orbit the sun
humans will still need to breathe oxygen and go to the toilet
babies will be born.. and.. people will die of multiple reasons

at the end of 2023
bitcoin will still be producing 6.25btc a block
mining will still be done via hashing using things called asics

heck ill go one step further
at the end of 2024
bitcoin will be producing 3.125btc a block
mining will still be done via hashing using things called asics

It is impossible to talk about what is going to happen to the world (including to bitcoin) by the end of 2023, when it comes to about 100 years from now (when the block reward reaches zero) it is not just impossible but also silly to try to predict it or try to speculate about what things are going to be like. By then everything is changed about bitcoin, cryptography, the internet, monetary system, hardware, etc.

other things to think about
the block reward will be less than an average "total fee" sooner then some think
where by:
if an average of paying 1 sat/byte at a average of 1.3mb block =1300000sat(0.013btc), the cross over of dependency is in the year 2056 whereby fee will mean more than block reward
(y2056: fee 0.013 reward 0.0122)
however if the average fee is 15 sat per byte. the cross over will happen in 2040
(y2040: fee 0.195 reward 0.0195)

some fools are trying to push people to think only ~2000tx per block(avg tx size 650byte) should remain but everyone should pay upto 15sat per byte to bring the cross over occurance forward by 16 years(from 2056-2040)

however what should occur over the next decade+ is that we should be moving the tx count to increase (scale(progressive)) per block to be more transactions.. thus people not having to pay more then western union prices for international value movements. and instead keep prices in the "cents" costs whilst still evolving the total fee for pool combined amount via more transactions

some fools think that more transactions/cheaper transactions will make less people want to be full nodes/miners.
they are just bait and switching and confusing people into silly idea's that bitcoin should not be a easy cheap p2p payment system just so they can sell other networks requiring middle men charging commission as the thing people should use instead

and so they think less transactions, more unneeded bloat.. and raising the costs is the way to go. pretending it will help keep people being full nodes/miners..

Still, a long way to go. More precisely, Somewhat 117 Years (+/-). Look at the picture below. I found it from the WO thread.

Here is a fun fact shared by hisslyness

I don't know how the network remains secure after the end of the mining process. But, I believe mining is not going to end. They will get the transaction fees that we spend. A couple of satoshis will be worth a lot (I hope). I am not an expert on it. All I am saying is from my assumption.

there will be niche subnetworks.. but dont even try to wait out for LN to be the one. it has too many flaws even the LN devs admit to. they cant find work arounds for all their faults. so new subnetworks would develop(sorry to be the bearer of bad news but im just being frank)

that said even if people were to use subnetworks for daily use. if you expect bitcoin to stay at ~2000 tx in years/decades means people wont be able to "settle" and actual claim(get confirmed) real value for years in a global majority use main+subnetwork system

because if it takes 2tx to open(lock) and close(settle) a subnetwork peg
then with JUST 200m people (400m onchain tx)
at a 2k tx a block = 288k a day =105,120,000 a year
yep needing 400m tx but only have 100m a year means people are locked into a subnetwork for 4 years.. for just 200m people

so yea transactions per block onchain need to scale up
even just to bring the scenario down to being able to shift funds around once a month (reasonable monthly spending plan most households expect)

---

it ends up the same game of the 1800's of how the gold got locked into bank vaults and then people only played with promissory notes for years.. until no one wanted to claim the gold and suddenly the spending of promissory notes became the only way to transact due to HUGE costs of settling bank notes for gold.. this means only the elite (hubs) gain the gold(btc)  and users just are left with unbacked inbound balances which they no longer have keys to

---

yep the bait and switch scam is this
people deposit funds into a lock. and then play on a subnetwork and while they still have balance to move they wont want to settle because its their balance and they still have balance to move thus dont need to settle out to rebalance.. . the only time they settle is to give up their balance when there is no more balance to give out. thus surrendering the value to the partner(on the route) because the balance is all placed in the other partners favour with nothing left for the user to use for himself, thus he is stuck and cant do nothing more. thus no point keeping that payment open.

thus end game is all coins move to partner at settlement

its the same game as the gold game vs bank notes of the 1800-1970
where the very final step is people are then just playing with "inbound balance" from hubs. where the hub(channel partner) gives part of its 'balance' and is internally structured to keep users in by making people spend that balance back to the partner

..
anyway back to bitcoin network.
bitcoin needs to offer more transactions per block. not just for bitcoin utility but also it helps reduce the cost per TX by spreading out total cost to miners by having more users per block

EG if a mining pool today wants $2000 = $1 per tx of a 2000tx block
EG if a mining pool in a couple years wants $20000 = $10 per tx of a 2000tx block

however
EG if a mining pool in a couple years wants $20000 = $1 per tx of a 20,000tx block

we should not be trying to make bitcoin "expensive" with "fee market bidding wars" where it ultimately costs $100 to settle.. nor by making these scams and schemes of reducing or stagnating tx count scaling such as the "conservative "scam of not growing block sizes with lean tx's.. then the switch to "censorship"scam of then letting in bloaty memes.
because it just means people wont want to:
a. use bitcoin at all due to $100 locking-in costs
b. unlock value if they are going to lose $100

people will end up just choosing a new mainnet coin to invest in

Though it is unlikely to happen but, my explanation is this --after the mining process is over, miners will no longer receive new bitcoins as a reward for verifying transactions. However, transaction fees will still be paid to miners to incentivize them to continue verifying transactions and maintaining the security of the network because the security of the bitcoin network will continue to rely on transaction fees incentivizing miners.
But why there are such people thinking too much ahead of time and scratching their heads about the impossible things that happen?

I know it probably has been examined too many times but I have always felt this fee system takes care of itself. I know even from my own use, dollar value of the fees I pay seem to be on an increasing trend (whilst keeping satoshi value rather constant if not even reducing thanks to improvements like segwit).

Too lazy to check if indeed the case. Too confident it will continue to be the case.

Bitcoin network will always remain strong, intact and very volatile irrespective of wether the entire bitcoin limited supply had been mined or not because the programmed protocols it is built upon will sustain it, miners received their reward from transactions, everyone buys and sells bitcoin independently as the price is volatile abd not centralized as well, the blockchain technology as serve as another protection for everything about bitcoin being transparent, immutable and trusted.

I understood OP's question and aptly responded to it.

I refered to layer 2 solutions like LN cause they could help reduce the load on chain.

Consider a situation where Mr. Bob opens a channel on LN and performs hundred of transactions through it before closing the channel, the on chan connection would be at the point where he opened the channel and when he closed it, so miners would only confirm two large transactions rather than hundreds of smaller ones, and the two large ones will come with a larger fee, increasing the fee paid for per block for the miner that confirms it, possibly making mining more profitable with just tx fees.

Bitcoin ming reward was 50 BTC before. I can ask a question at the time that bitcoin mining may not be profitable in 10 years when the block reward has reduced to 6.25 BTC. That might be what some people may think but not what that happened. More people join the mining and the hashrate increased. What I think is that transaction fee will gradually replace mining reward and we are still continue to see increase in hashrate in a way that the bitcoin blockchain is still very much secure.

I think what the OP means is that it is possible for bitcoin hashrate to continue to decrease if all bitcoin have been mined because miners may not see it profitable again and leave mining it, and maybe for other altcoins. Layer 2 solution like lightning network can help in scalability issue but can not help in strengthening the bitcoin blockchain.

If mining process is over (all miners shut down their minning rigs ASICs), hashrate ceases to exist (drop to 0), the network is dead. No confirmation will be made by any miner as consequence of a dead network.

Do you really think there will be no single Bitcoin miner on Earth?

Because if there is only one miner left, network difficulty will be adjusted after each 2,016 blocks that takes about 14 days (2 weeks), after many times, difficulty will be re-targeted to be lower and lower. Chance to see all miners shut down their rigs at the same time is very impossible.

Bitcoin mining difficulty. Everything you need to know

With a dead network, you can not talk about its security. Dead is the end of everything but fortunately if miners operate their ASICs again, network will become lively again.

This question has been asked several times and answered as well.

When the entire bitcoins have been mined, rewards from miners would be gotten entirely from transaction fees. This would not happen instantly, but slowly over the course of the years with each halving, this means that the system would have enough time to adjust to working entirely on tx fees.

A solution could be through growth in 2nd layer transactions like Lightening network, reducing the bulk of transactions performed on chain and when it is done, it would require a higher fee to compensate the miners.

P.S, all these are speculations, it remains to be seen how the network would operate at that time.

When the btc mining process is over, how will the network remain secure as the computational power ceases to exist?