Now that the SEC has rejected the Winklevoss bitcoin ETF, I decided to actually glance through their S-1 (registration statement) that they filed with the SEC just for the heck of it. The S-1 requires a statement and discussion of possible risks associated with a security that is seeking SEC registration. In the Winklevoss S-1, I found this section particularly noteworthy (emphasis is original):
As the number of Bitcoins awarded for solving a block in the Blockchain decreases, the incentive for miners to continue to contribute processing power to the Bitcoin Network will transition from a set reward to transaction fees. The requirement from miners of higher transaction fees in exchange for recording transactions in the Blockchain may decrease demand for Bitcoins and prevent the expansion of the Bitcoin Network to retail merchants and commercial businesses, resulting in a reduction in the Blended Bitcoin Price.
If transaction fees paid for the recording of transactions in the Blockchain become too high, the marketplace may be reluctant to accept Bitcoins as a means of payment and existing users may be motivated to switch from Bitcoins to another Digital Math-Based Asset or back to fiat currency. Decreased use and demand for Bitcoins may adversely affect their value and result in a reduction in the Blended Bitcoin Price.
Not only is this a risk that they highlighted, my view is this is inevitable, and that mining fees will eventually become prohibitive not only to bitcoin expansion, but everyday bitcoin function. This is the flaw that will eventually render bitcoin unusable for everyday commerce, and the price will decline accordingly as demand for coins falls off as a result.
Mining fees will eventually kill bitcoin, the question is if this is avoidable with some type of change, or a predetermined fate that cannot be altered due to the nature of the ecosystem?
It depends on what we view as the nature of Bitcoin, will Bitcoin be used as a currency with a fixed supply and transactions breaking down into hundreds or thousands of satoshis or do we need to keep the value relative in only the first few digits. We can still break down bitcoin into multiple digits even if the price rises after all.
Or will we treat it as an asset-class that is a representative base index on which we base the price and value of all other cryptocurrencies upon as it does now when we price it on exchanges.
In terms of mining fees this is putting the cart before the horse in order to propel further growth it is inevitable that mining fees will decrease to increase user adoption as well as the block reward..
However in exchange we will see price appreciation and increased utility as all technologies related to Bitcoin and Blockchain technology develops and investment and capital is put into the sphere.
Stopping and slowing the number of transactions on the main chain just means that the incentive for side chains to do that same function grows. So is it a risk to Bitcoin perhaps if we hard-fork because there will be no base price for which other altcoins will be priced against in the period Bitcoin-A and Bitcoin-B exist. The more Bitcoin is worth, the more worthless it is as a currency.
The community will decide the path hard-fork to transactions and treat Bitcoin as a currency, soft-fork but keep mining fees consistent or something else.