Topic: Decreasing rewards - page 2. (Read 3895 times)
How about all the time writing the original code - that is "risk" in terms of time spent that could have been used to do other things / earn money.
$100 in electricity per month for something that might never be worth anything?
A CPU uses around the same amount of electricity as an incandescent lightbulb. More like $5-10 a month.
I'm interested in the design choices and the motives behind them.
Save the world.
From the idiocraty of bank strategies.
The very first users, when trying Bitcoin for the first time, were not aware that it was going to become what it is today - they put in time, effort and risk when no one else would.
What was the risk associated with mining the first blocks? A couple of minutes of personal time wasted, a couple of minutes of wear and tear on CPU, a dollar spent on electricity?
Man, that is a huge risk. I'm glad it paid off.
Not selling the mined coins at $0.0001
Not selling the mined coins at $0.001
Not selling the mined coins at $0.01
Not selling the mined coins at $0.1
Not selling the mined coins at $1
Not selling the mined coins at $10
Not selling the mined coins at $100
Not selling the mined coins at $1000
At every price increase, there is a risk that a bitcoin would never be worth more. At some point along the way, for most early miners, that risk became "huge".
Anyway, Bitcoin is where it is today thanks to the early adopters. If the reward schedule was different, you may have never heard about the failed experiment called Bitcoin.
The very first users, when trying Bitcoin for the first time, were not aware that it was going to become what it is today - they put in time, effort and risk when no one else would.
What was the risk associated with mining the first blocks? A couple of minutes of personal time wasted, a couple of minutes of wear and tear on CPU, a dollar spent on electricity?
Man, that is a huge risk. I'm glad it paid off.
$100 in electricity per month for something that might never be worth anything?
The very first users, when trying Bitcoin for the first time, were not aware that it was going to become what it is today - they put in time, effort and risk when no one else would.
What was the risk associated with mining the first blocks? A couple of minutes of personal time wasted, a couple of minutes of wear and tear on CPU, a dollar spent on electricity?Man, that is a huge risk. I'm glad it paid off.
You are missing an important point. Even though the cost was small, the risk was huge.
Let me ask you this: why don't you start your own alt coin and start mining it? After all, it takes very little effort -- even less now because everything is already done for you. You stand to make billions of dollars! Not interested? Why not?
The optimal crypto currency should have a built in algorithm for price stability, just like central banks try to target 1-2% inflation.
But I value Bitcoin as a store of wealth, and it can be used as a transaction system as well. Better than inflationary currency
Most of know (or should) what the rules were when we started to "play". Early adopters/miners who built this thing to what it is now took a huge leap of "faith" or interest or sheer force of believing in something until it was true.
We're late, we have to suck it up.
Ooor we're still early there is plenty of room for opportunity (just not in mining for us little guys ;-)
We're late, we have to suck it up.
Ooor we're still early there is plenty of room for opportunity (just not in mining for us little guys ;-)
The very first users, when trying Bitcoin for the first time, were not aware that it was going to become what it is today - they put in time, effort and risk when no one else would.
What was the risk associated with mining the first blocks? A couple of minutes of personal time wasted, a couple of minutes of wear and tear on CPU, a dollar spent on electricity?
Man, that is a huge risk. I'm glad it paid off.
Don't be such a huge p**** please. Have you ever invented the idea of a crypto-currency that could change the way the world uses money? Nope, I didn't think so. Rewards are due to innovators, especially if what they produce actually works in the real word.
It wasn't risk, it was genius.
But maybe such concept was beyond the brilliant mind of Satoshi.
Or maybe you're just butthurt you didn't start mining in 2011.
Which do you think is most likely?
I'm not butthurt. I was never interested in mining personally and do not mine any alt coins now.
I'm interested in the design choices and the motives behind them.
The very first users, when trying Bitcoin for the first time, were not aware that it was going to become what it is today - they put in time, effort and risk when no one else would.
What was the risk associated with mining the first blocks? A couple of minutes of personal time wasted, a couple of minutes of wear and tear on CPU, a dollar spent on electricity?
Man, that is a huge risk. I'm glad it paid off.
LOL
NO MINERS HAVE EVER GOTTEN RICH BY MINING
FUCKING TROLL
NO MINERS HAVE EVER GOTTEN RICH BY MINING
FUCKING TROLL
Should be able to send people back the newbie only area.
LOL
NO MINERS HAVE EVER GOTTEN RICH BY MINING
FUCKING TROLL
NO MINERS HAVE EVER GOTTEN RICH BY MINING
FUCKING TROLL
Why was Bitcoin designed in such a way that the rewards from mining decrease over time?
Because mining is not the way to get rich ...
"Mining" is the way to store and validate transactions !
The backbone of the network would still be made up of miners, who would mine in return for tx fees.
The optimal crypto currency should have a built in algorithm for price stability, just like central banks try to target 1-2% inflation.
Has that been proven?
Seems to me that with inflation, people hold as cash balances less than the amount that they would otherwise. Hence, it's suboptimal from their point of view. What other factors do you know of that exactly offset that effect? Or are you just talking out of your ass?
Also, who gets the 1-2% new money? The government? How do we know that they will spend the money efficiently?
Nope, just another economic theory, and we all know how many of them float around the toilet
FTFY
:-)
Cheers, your fix is welcomed and appropriate. That pic above is rather beautiful
The optimal crypto currency should have a built in algorithm for price stability, just like central banks try to target 1-2% inflation.
Has that been proven?
Seems to me that with inflation, people hold as cash balances less than the amount that they would otherwise. Hence, it's suboptimal from their point of view. What other factors do you know of that exactly offset that effect? Or are you just talking out of your ass?
Also, who gets the 1-2% new money? The government? How do we know that they will spend the money efficiently?
Nope, just another economic theory, and we all know how many of them float around the toilet
FTFY
:-)
But maybe such concept was beyond the brilliant mind of Satoshi.
Or maybe you're just butthurt you didn't start mining in 2011.
Which do you think is most likely?
Another "I believe it is not fair" thread. It's never easy to make money. If it was, everybody would be rich. Bitcoin shouldn't be a vehicle that make people rich, it's an instrument to make payments and maybe store some value. The early adopters and developers got their fair share, that easy block reward was just their income paid for the time and money they put into it. The protocol as it is works fine until now, and if the decreasing rewards will fail in the future then so be it. Some other better crypto currency will pick up where Bitcoin left off. Maybe crypto currencies will fail all together.
Make a new one, or continue to use Bitcoin for payments or make some awesome new application for it.
OP: I think your question is perfectly fine asking why the reward is chosen as it is, but maybe you should leave out the "it's unfair" part.
You're welcome to make your own version if you don't like this one. It was designed this way because the designer thought it was a good idea, so he tried it out. Try yours out and see how it goes.
Make a new one, or continue to use Bitcoin for payments or make some awesome new application for it.
OP: I think your question is perfectly fine asking why the reward is chosen as it is, but maybe you should leave out the "it's unfair" part.
The optimal crypto currency should have a built in algorithm for price stability, just like central banks try to target 1-2% inflation.
Has that been proven?
Seems to me that with inflation, people hold as cash balances less than the amount that they would otherwise. Hence, it's suboptimal from their point of view. What other factors do you know of that exactly offset that effect? Or are you just talking out of your ass?
Also, who gets the 1-2% new money? The government? How do we know that they will spend the money efficiently?
Nope, just another economic theory, and we all know how many of them float around the planet
Jump to: