Topic: Is this the flaw in Bitcoin's design? (Read 1507 times)

Can't wait for this day

Bitcoin design is not wrong because it is frontal gates to other meta currencies. At first stage it price would rise to balance moment with mining price, and keep certain stability with stable growth in price and stable growth in mining. Ironically it is hard if we ever actually mine "all" of bitcoins. Mining difficulty might hit us to moment when even at only 1 bitcoin left to mine out, there would be only erosible to mine little parts, smaller and smaller every time until infinity.

Of course it is not important since from bitcoins thanks to exchange possibility we can move to different coin. Thinking about one coin above all others will be rather archaic. We can't have fully free and decentralized currency with any thing holding us back at our actions.

This is bullshit that the econometrists, the real terrorists, bombard us with every day.

Here is my example number 1xx to show why this is not true:

If someone has saved some sufficient value in the form of bitcoins, what will he do when the value doubles? Spend half, be happy with still having the sufficient value at hand for a rainy day.

Thank you!

I am very glad to know that I am wrong.

This has been discussed to death....

Its not how you think.

1) As the price rises, early adopters actually sell their coins (cashing out). Its just part of human nature to claim profits (at hefty percentage wise) and more coins being distributed. We have seen many evidence of this

2) Bitcoin is the first and only "deflationary" currency. So it will be a completely new concept for ppl to think of saving. Hence ppl can actually save and spend on things they want. With current fiat money system, your saving isnt a saving if it cant beat inflation. I know VND (Dong) is hyper inflating.... hence the Vietnamese ppl dont want to keep VND in saving, instead they like you keep their saving in deflating assets such as real estate and golds. Bitcoin is just like a deflating asset.

As of now bitcoin is in hyper-deflation stage due to adoption. So growth is exponential. It will be slow down and the trendline will be similar to gold.

3) If the last btc is mined, that means bitcoin has been widely/globally adopted. I strongly believe the transaction fee will still be incentive enough for miners. Do you know how much it cost financial institutions to secure their banking/monetary network? Now just look at payment network aspect, Visa and Mastercard do trillions dollars in transactions annually. If bitcoin network only take 0.5% of that amount in transaction fees, then it will still be very incentive for mining industry.

Do you think that when bitcoin will be worth 100.000$ each, people will want to keep them?
People will start buying houses or build new businesses or even buy google or apple 

But when Bitcoin increases its value, then Satoshi would increase it value too. So people want to keep it to get more value instead of spending it.

It is not clear what will happen to mining as the block reward is reduced. Many scenarios are possible.

This is not a flaw in Bitcoin. Each bitcoin is divisible into 100 million subunits (called satoshis). So even if bitcoin trades at a very high price, such as $1 million per bitcoin, each satoshi will only be worth one cent ($0.01). So a coffee will cost 200 satoshi.

50 to 100 million might have been better, but it's too late now. Even a higher number would eventually have similar issues.

I really like Bitcoin and I think a lot of if the limited available of Bitcoin is good or bad.

I found that if Bitcoin is widely adopted, with number of Bitcoin is limited but the need quite large therefore it lead price of bitcoin soar very high. With very high price, people don't want to use it, instead, they want to keep it to store their value, and then it make number of transactions in Bitcoin reduces.

When if no more Bitcoin generated, Bitcoin price could very high and number of transactions could very low, and it make no more incentive to let miners continue to secure the system. When the number of miners reduces, the network secure would be very weak and someone could break it with double spending, and could issue a lot of Bitcoins, and then the whole Bitcoin could be collapsed.

I hope that I am wrong, and please help me to prove that I am wrong.

Thank you.

(Sorry for my English)