Topic: I've come full circle, BTC is the only worthwhile cryptocurrency - page 2. (Read 712 times)

sure, but there's a limit to that....

the minimum output size (i.e. the smallest amount of possible BTC you can send) is currently 182 satoshis (and that's segwit outputs only, non-segwit outputs have a minimum size of 546 satoshis)

so that means things will change somehow before we get to 2140, otherwise the value of BTC will be in effect capped to 182 satoshis being equivalent to the smallest individual item one can buy (so maybe the price of a single nail in a hardware store? something like that)

But the idea always was that 1 BTC could continually divide into smaller denominations to reflect the increasing buying power of the currency. It seems now that 2.1 quadrillion (i.e. 21 million BTC multiplied by 100 million satoshis constituting each 1 BTC) is not going to be enough, whether BTC is a dominant currency or not. Milli-satoshis are already in use on the Lightning network, but I see Lightning as a medium term stop-gap to some other way of solving the various scaling issues. Maybe Lightning itself will evolve to becomes an all-encompassing solution with no compromises, but it doesn't quite seem like that just yet (I'd happily be proven wrong however).


So there's an unknowable scenario in store for Bitcoin; only once all innovation in efficient production of goods has ceased will we know how many decimal places we need to subdivide each satoshi into. And only then will we know what the economics of mining with only fees as a reward will be. I guess we could speculate on the range of possibilities, but that naturally includes different ways of mining and/or structuring the blockchain (innovation is innovative ).


But of course, none of this will matter for at least 100 years. There's alot to do between now and then without trying to tackle these issues seriously, maybe something that happens between now and then will make this sort of speculation entirely a moot point.

There is no need for that:

https://i.ibb.co/L0dBWKB/2.png

Bitcoin is organically replacing block rewards with higher transaction fees - this bodes incredibly well for its future. BTC doesn't stop surprising, its almost as if the more one learn about it, and the more that unfolds, the more magic that happens.

At this point, I can only look at this piece of technology with absolute awe and I have never had this feeling about anything else in my lifetime.  Dare I say, I've become 'moved'?

you're right, it's not

don't really understand your point though, we're talking about the "new blockchain tech usurps satoshi's model" aspect, not general "future problems"

I think we have other problems (which can be easily fixed), like the 32 bit unsigned time counter... which is much closer than 2140 (year). That's got to be updated, but we have a few years to do that, and I don't think it's a very big issue if everyone is in agreement that it should be bumped to 64 bits. I'm not sure if this requires a hard fork tho, but I do know bitcoin likes time to be within 2 hours of every block or the median or average of the last several blocks, basically it wants the correct time and gives a tolerance.

no, it was Sergio Demian Lerner's concept. Although arguably it's just an evolution of the "tree-chain" concept, which was proposed by (former?) Bitcoin dev Peter Todd



that was my idea (but maybe Peter Todd suggested it as part of tree-chains? Not sure ) But it's really just a potential solution to the "2140 problem"; when the block subsidy ends, how do we incentivize mining new blocks? So it would seem like inducing armageddon for no reason if it was proposed to be rolled out any time like today, but 2140 is not today

if you are thinking about bitcoin being secure tho 2/3rds of the mining pools are backed by china and basically the same. if they really wanted to, they could fork bitcoin and NOBODY can do anything about it short of the core devs writing a patch to put it back..

i personally think that allowing mining pools has hurt bitcoin.. all its done is grouped together the miners and forced them to join a pool to get any earnings. as everyone talks about how decentralized bitcoin is..

The longest chain in a PoW has the most 'work' commited to it.  Changing a block in the past will require all subsequent blocks to be somehow remined at huge energy costs - the earlier the block, the higher the energy cost.  This is simply not the case with POS as you are effectively told what the longest chain is.

By extension POW has much better immutability which is perhaps the most important feature of any decentralised ledger technology.

Proposed by who? A Core developer?


That proposal is a little naive, isn't it? We've already seen what kind of drama the community had with the scaling debate. That proposal would be like nuclear war if taken seriously.

   
Of course, it is, In this cryptocurrency platform, Bitcoin is the only project which is profitable to me, I also think that Bitcoin has some special characteristics which make this one special, not only that but also it's really worth than any other project, from my experience, I assure you that Bitcoin holding and trading both are profitable, since there is a price volatility, Bitcoin will bring to you a good amount of money in the future, so it's really a worth project for anyone. that's why a lot of new investors have started again investing in this forum because they have finally realized that is the best option to do something special.

exactly this was suggested when "Directed Acyclic Graph" chains were newly proposed.

A big problem was how to mine using a chain that's really structured like a tree, how do you arrive at consensus on newly distributed money? And of course, the answer was to start with a satoshi style PoW uni-chain, mine all the coins, then fork to a DAG chain once there are no new coins left.

To some extent, I agree with you.For a couple of years in the running,it has been quite solid with volatility in the market and all,but then,not all altcoins are completely useless.

Better late than never. The OP's arguments are solid and technical, it also helps explains why bitcoin keeps the value it has, despite of being "backed by nothing" as some ignorant people claim. In fact its backed by code, which results in the aforementioned features described by OP.

If people wanted to know why bitcoin has the value it has, look no further and read what OP said, which has been said around here many times by many people, but still needs to be repeated again and again...

That's what I realized and learned too during those times that I lost from altcoins. I believed there is a reason for everything, sometimes we need to risk in other things for us to realize the real value of the one and only King of Crypto, we don't know the future, and we know and we believed that there are altcoins that are good project too, it's just that, it's not that worth it compare to Bitcoin.

I believe this is what many cryptocurrency users and investors have realized now that is making them to put more attention on bitcoin and which is why they are not buying more of all these altcoins again, because they know and believe now that bitcoin is the only coin for the future, and if there is any currency in crypto that will be accepted worldwide, it would be bitcoin.

I am quite so much disappointed in Ethereum a little bit, because they have a very solid background and a beginning, but it seems that they are trying not to end it well or sustain it, I am only waiting for their Ethereum 2.0 to be released before I fully conclude on this project to be one of the project that I should continue holding apart from bitcoin or not.

It IS money. Some use it as a storage of value, some use it as a medium of exchange, it's a unit of account in the blockchain.


Censorship-resistance will be its doom? Haha.

I believe you confuse "blockchains" with centralized databases.

I imagine a central bank currency is decentralized in the sense that the blockchain or full nodes of that chain run on bank computers all over the country. So there is no single database held by the banks, but all the banks and all the subsidiaries and all the branches and all the buildings are running full nodes.

The big top 5 or top 6 or whatever banks are the block producers, and its some sort of delegated proof of stake or even some sort of proof of work where the only hardware that can mine it belongs to the central bank / other branches of banks.

In theory, they can work with something that has longer block times too, like 20 minutes, 30 minutes, even 1 hour. It would be their final settlement layer which would be the base, and on top would be their centralized regularly banking layer for the instant transactions needed for every little thing every little client or depositor does.

Checks or Cheques still take a few days to clear, anything that "clears" in an hour would be better, and the public could have access to at least view this, like on some central bank block explorer specific to that chain.

That's how I imagine it could be. I don't really know what they want to do or how they intend to do it, maybe they'll just consult some blockchain start up companies to do it, and those guys will get paid a lot of money.

In the end, it's still fiat, but at least you can think of it as government stable coin.

It's the US government forcing customers from exchanges. The ones that still can be bothered accommodate US customers are a cut above in legitimacy.

If your blockchain has no monetary value then there's zero incentive to work to secure it which means it's effectively useless as anyone will be able to wipe it out.

If your blockchain is private and centralised, and that's the only scenario where a valueless chain could work, you may as well stick with databases in most cases.

i think you are trolling.. bitcoin is not money..
also the fact that most exchanges are banning US customers and the ones that stay available are shady has a lot to say about bitcoins future..

if buying drugs is bitcoins main feature, then its doomed.
and no i do believe that blockchain tech does not need to have any monetary value to work..

Spot on.

If there was somehow, a far better piece of decentralised distributed ledger that is invented in the future, this can just be forked into the Bitcoin network and the existing data is retained, or the Bitcoin data is transfered to the new distributed ledger.

You misunderstand bitcoin.  If the pool mining operators attack the network and its not in the interest of the individual miners, then the individual miners will exit the pool and mine for a operator that has their best interest at heart.

Lets pretend even if there was 2-3 entities that can attack the network, well the network will just fork and the chain that is accepted by the majority of the users will be the real bitcoin. 

A large mining pool would have to be completely irrational to 51% attack a network they and their users are heavily 'invested' in anyway.

PoS is not BFT, and is not comparable to the hardest and most secure cryptocurrency - Bitcoin.  In any case, POS/DAG etc coins are far more centralised than bitcoin with the vast majority of tokens held by the top few (the bell curve would actually look far more skewed than that of Bitcoin's).