Mining in 20 years time | Bitcointalksearch.org

Pesmand

newbie

Activity: 19

Merit: 4

Quote from: veleten on October 02, 2016, 05:47:53 PM

I haven't made up my mind yet if increasing the block size is a good idea or not
what I know for sure that mining in 20 years time will have seen us through at least 4 reward halving,
so the block reward is smaller and the miners main profit is from the transaction fees
how will this affect the speed of transactions?
are bitcoin v2,v3 or any changes to blockchain really necessary?

Increasing the block size is good if you want more transactions on the main chain so that there will be more users.

veleten

legendary

Activity: 2016

Merit: 1107

I haven't made up my mind yet if increasing the block size is a good idea or not
what I know for sure that mining in 20 years time will have seen us through at least 4 reward halving,
so the block reward is smaller and the miners main profit is from the transaction fees
how will this affect the speed of transactions?
are bitcoin v2,v3 or any changes to blockchain really necessary?

Clement Kaliyar

hero member

Activity: 1302

Merit: 532

Quote from: termion on September 30, 2016, 06:06:56 AM

Bitcoin 1.0 may die 2017-2018... Bitcoin 2.0 go in September 2016 - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-p2p-bitcoin-two-1616884 http://www.bitcointwo.xyz ... Maybe in 2020 will be Bitcoin 3.0 ...

what kind of projects are those!!!!! i am hearing about those for the first time looks like some copy cats wannabes ,what ever it is in 20 years time the kind of big miners which we see in china right now will be closing their doors as it wont be that profitable unless and until bitcoin prices triples from what it is now ,transaction fees might increase and i expect the core developers will find a solution regarding that too.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: leowonderful on October 01, 2016, 05:55:50 PM

Quote from: Umotand on October 01, 2016, 01:10:07 PM

The mining transaction fee has to increase, but the price of the bitcoin should also increase to attract more miners.

It's inevitable that fees will increase; if we increase the blocksize right now, fees will indeed lower, but this will have a negative effect in the future when blocks are pretty much all mined. The price of bitcoin is uncontrollable, and although it's highly likely that will increase, it's not guaranteed. Most of us won't even be alive by the time blocks are all mined in terms of block reward without transaction fees; it's not a huge issue to us at the moment.

As I've been told, the transaction fees are market determined, i.e. by the "buyer". In this case, the buyer would be Bitcoin senders and not the miners. Right now, miners could simply drop the transactions if the latter didn't have enough fees (or no fees at all) and mine just for the sake of getting the reward. This is what seemed to have happened in July, 2015, when literally thousands of transactions got stuck unconfirmed (some ironically called it "testing Bitcoin limits")...

But when there is no more reward to mine for, would the miners reject transactions as easily?

leowonderful

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 1130

Bitcoin FTW!

Quote from: Umotand on October 01, 2016, 01:10:07 PM

Quote from: jaysabi on October 01, 2016, 08:12:05 AM

Quote from: deisik on September 30, 2016, 06:03:33 AM

Quote from: FeranD on September 30, 2016, 05:52:38 AM

Quote from: ekissane on July 10, 2016, 03:12:53 AM

99.21875% will be mined in 20 years time. If electricity isn't very cheap by then and/or if bitcoin isn't worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, it's hard to imagine anybody wanting to mine then. How will transactions then be verified?

I think there is always a solution. Does bitcoin community has developers with ability to change code and submit new feautres? If yes, that's a number one resolution. Otherwise i heard switching to POS(Proof-of-Stake) system will give node runners a reward for approving transactions.

The solution has been there right from the start, and there is no need to change anything in the code just because the cap of 21M coins will be hit one day. Mining will not stop due to no more coins to be mined. Miners will profit from transaction fees, and they are already profiting from them right now (up to a few percentages of mining reward)...

In short, this problem is essentially nonexistent

I still see a potential problem in that in order for miners to be kept interested, mining fees will have to rise significantly to offset the loss of new coin generation rewards they currently earn, and at the point where fees are significant enough to keep the network properly decentralized, will using bitcoin in any capacity be cost-competitive? Micro-transactions are something that bitcoin has a huge advantage over the traditional banking system, but it seems to me micro-transactions will become impossible in the future with the rise in mining fees that will accompany the loss of new coin generation rewards.

The mining transaction fee has to increase, but the price of the bitcoin should also increase to attract more miners.

It's inevitable that fees will increase; if we increase the blocksize right now, fees will indeed lower, but this will have a negative effect in the future when blocks are pretty much all mined. The price of bitcoin is uncontrollable, and although it's highly likely that will increase, it's not guaranteed. Most of us won't even be alive by the time blocks are all mined in terms of block reward without transaction fees; it's not a huge issue to us at the moment.

Umotand

newbie

Activity: 16

Merit: 0

Quote from: jaysabi on October 01, 2016, 08:12:05 AM

Quote from: deisik on September 30, 2016, 06:03:33 AM

Quote from: FeranD on September 30, 2016, 05:52:38 AM

Quote from: ekissane on July 10, 2016, 03:12:53 AM

99.21875% will be mined in 20 years time. If electricity isn't very cheap by then and/or if bitcoin isn't worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, it's hard to imagine anybody wanting to mine then. How will transactions then be verified?

I think there is always a solution. Does bitcoin community has developers with ability to change code and submit new feautres? If yes, that's a number one resolution. Otherwise i heard switching to POS(Proof-of-Stake) system will give node runners a reward for approving transactions.

The solution has been there right from the start, and there is no need to change anything in the code just because the cap of 21M coins will be hit one day. Mining will not stop due to no more coins to be mined. Miners will profit from transaction fees, and they are already profiting from them right now (up to a few percentages of mining reward)...

In short, this problem is essentially nonexistent

I still see a potential problem in that in order for miners to be kept interested, mining fees will have to rise significantly to offset the loss of new coin generation rewards they currently earn, and at the point where fees are significant enough to keep the network properly decentralized, will using bitcoin in any capacity be cost-competitive? Micro-transactions are something that bitcoin has a huge advantage over the traditional banking system, but it seems to me micro-transactions will become impossible in the future with the rise in mining fees that will accompany the loss of new coin generation rewards.

The mining transaction fee has to increase, but the price of the bitcoin should also increase to attract more miners.

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: deisik on September 30, 2016, 06:03:33 AM

Quote from: FeranD on September 30, 2016, 05:52:38 AM

Quote from: ekissane on July 10, 2016, 03:12:53 AM

99.21875% will be mined in 20 years time. If electricity isn't very cheap by then and/or if bitcoin isn't worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, it's hard to imagine anybody wanting to mine then. How will transactions then be verified?

I think there is always a solution. Does bitcoin community has developers with ability to change code and submit new feautres? If yes, that's a number one resolution. Otherwise i heard switching to POS(Proof-of-Stake) system will give node runners a reward for approving transactions.

The solution has been there right from the start, and there is no need to change anything in the code just because the cap of 21M coins will be hit one day. Mining will not stop due to no more coins to be mined. Miners will profit from transaction fees, and they are already profiting from them right now (up to a few percentages of mining reward)...

In short, this problem is essentially nonexistent

I still see a potential problem in that in order for miners to be kept interested, mining fees will have to rise significantly to offset the loss of new coin generation rewards they currently earn, and at the point where fees are significant enough to keep the network properly decentralized, will using bitcoin in any capacity be cost-competitive? Micro-transactions are something that bitcoin has a huge advantage over the traditional banking system, but it seems to me micro-transactions will become impossible in the future with the rise in mining fees that will accompany the loss of new coin generation rewards.

termion

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 533

Bitcoin 1.0 may die 2017-2018... Bitcoin 2.0 go in September 2016 - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-p2p-bitcoin-two-1616884 http://www.bitcointwo.xyz ... Maybe in 2020 will be Bitcoin 3.0 ...

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: FeranD on September 30, 2016, 05:52:38 AM

Quote from: ekissane on July 10, 2016, 03:12:53 AM

99.21875% will be mined in 20 years time. If electricity isn't very cheap by then and/or if bitcoin isn't worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, it's hard to imagine anybody wanting to mine then. How will transactions then be verified?

I think there is always a solution. Does bitcoin community has developers with ability to change code and submit new feautres? If yes, that's a number one resolution. Otherwise i heard switching to POS(Proof-of-Stake) system will give node runners a reward for approving transactions.

The solution has been there right from the start, and there is no need to change anything in the code just because the cap of 21M coins will be hit one day. Mining will not stop due to no more coins to be mined. Miners will profit from transaction fees, and they are already profiting from them right now (up to a few percentages of mining reward)...

In short, this problem is essentially nonexistent

FeranD

newbie

Activity: 19

Merit: 0

Quote from: ekissane on July 10, 2016, 03:12:53 AM

99.21875% will be mined in 20 years time. If electricity isn't very cheap by then and/or if bitcoin isn't worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, it's hard to imagine anybody wanting to mine then. How will transactions then be verified?

I think there is always a solution. Does bitcoin community has developers with ability to change code and submit new feautres? If yes, that's a number one resolution. Otherwise i heard switching to POS(Proof-of-Stake) system will give node runners a reward for approving transactions.

marcuslong

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ekissane on July 10, 2016, 03:12:53 AM

99.21875% will be mined in 20 years time. If electricity isn't very cheap by then and/or if bitcoin isn't worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, it's hard to imagine anybody wanting to mine then. How will transactions then be verified?

Let us see if bitcoin still alive in that year for me even the cheapest electricity can mine bitcoin we are always depending on the hard we are using if we are using much more powerful hard mining then we can mine more bitcoin in a day in that year and we know that every year there are upgrading.

20kevin20

legendary

Activity: 1134

Merit: 1598

In 20 years, a 1TH/s rig will be absolutely nothing. If Bitcoin will make it until then, the price will be at an insane amount and mining will be only for the rich. We will also be rich then, because of the huge price. I can't really predict much though, because you never know what the future is going to be for us.

Yadstiker

full member

Activity: 373

Merit: 100

Quote from: gkv9 on September 22, 2016, 01:01:20 PM

There were people who said that even if miners stop mining, Satoshi left Bitcoin with a setup in which it will still run the network without mining extra coins, thus confirming the transactions and fulfilling the requirements of the protocol... I hope we won't see a downfall in this, or this might be an end of Bitcoins???

I never heard about that. The mining is the only way to secure the network. It might be PoW or PoS.

gkv9

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1000

!!! RiSe aBovE ThE StoRm !!!

There were people who said that even if miners stop mining, Satoshi left Bitcoin with a setup in which it will still run the network without mining extra coins, thus confirming the transactions and fulfilling the requirements of the protocol... I hope we won't see a downfall in this, or this might be an end of Bitcoins???

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Lumada on September 21, 2016, 12:14:10 PM

Quote from: deisik on September 18, 2016, 08:18:45 AM

1M bitcoins is only around 600 million dollars. He is not even a dollar billionaire, by any yardstick (let alone being one of the richest people in the world). If he decided to cash out that would instantaneously crash the price. So his seeming wealth is ephemeral, for some part at least. On the other hand, what taxes should he pay?

How should they be calculated?

If you look beyond the next 10 years, the bitcoin price could be $100,000 each, that make him much richer.

Wealth is only measured in money, but money itself can be considered as wealth only as long as real wealth can be bought with it. And not some abstract wealth (houses, yachts, girls, boys, whatever), but the wealth that you can make use of. If you had 1 trillion dollars in cash, what could you actually buy with it? You could try to buy Apple shares, for example, but would people who have a controlling stake in this company agree to sell it? When you come to think of it, you inevitably come to a conclusion that being money-rich is not the same as just being rich...

I mean, in the proper sense of the word, i.e. possessing wealth that you are able to swallow and digest, so to speak

Lumada

sr. member

Activity: 520

Merit: 250

Quote from: deisik on September 18, 2016, 08:18:45 AM

Quote from: AdolfinWolf on September 18, 2016, 07:51:56 AM

Quote from: deisik on September 17, 2016, 03:01:57 PM

Quote from: Shiroslullaby on September 17, 2016, 02:50:33 PM

I think one of the reasons Satoshi wanted to remain anonymous, was to NOT be the BDFL.
For him, Bitcoin was more of an experiment, a creation to make and let loose, and let the world decide what would happen.
If it fails, it fails. If it creates other coins, other forks, blockchains, new ideas, that is the most important thing.

If Satoshi was in control of everything, and had the final say, would we be here having these discussions?

It's a difference which makes the difference

Having the final say and being in control of everything are two completely different things. The first letter in the acronym stands for benevolent. Being benevolent means here that the "dictator" has to remain open to valid criticism at all times, otherwise risking forking of the project in case strong disagreements arise between him and the rest of the gang. As I have said earlier, democracy doesn't work in anything important if played for real

To be honest, i think one of the reasons he wants to be anonymous is because he is one of the richest people on earth right now. Imagine all the coins he can possible have etc, and he didnt paid a cent of taxes over all that money, he is able to completely control some markets with the bitcoin, do you know how gladly governments wanna know who he is?

1M bitcoins is only around 600 million dollars. He is not even a dollar billionaire, by any yardstick (let alone being one of the richest people in the world). If he decided to cash out that would instantaneously crash the price. So his seeming wealth is ephemeral, for some part at least. On the other hand, what taxes should he pay?

How should they be calculated?

If you look beyond the next 10 years, the bitcoin price could be $100,000 each, that make him much richer.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: AdolfinWolf on September 18, 2016, 07:51:56 AM

Quote from: deisik on September 17, 2016, 03:01:57 PM

Quote from: Shiroslullaby on September 17, 2016, 02:50:33 PM

I think one of the reasons Satoshi wanted to remain anonymous, was to NOT be the BDFL.
For him, Bitcoin was more of an experiment, a creation to make and let loose, and let the world decide what would happen.
If it fails, it fails. If it creates other coins, other forks, blockchains, new ideas, that is the most important thing.

If Satoshi was in control of everything, and had the final say, would we be here having these discussions?

It's a difference which makes the difference

Having the final say and being in control of everything are two completely different things. The first letter in the acronym stands for benevolent. Being benevolent means here that the "dictator" has to remain open to valid criticism at all times, otherwise risking forking of the project in case strong disagreements arise between him and the rest of the gang. As I have said earlier, democracy doesn't work in anything important if played for real

To be honest, i think one of the reasons he wants to be anonymous is because he is one of the richest people on earth right now. Imagine all the coins he can possible have etc, and he didnt paid a cent of taxes over all that money, he is able to completely control some markets with the bitcoin, do you know how gladly governments wanna know who he is?

1M bitcoins is only around 600 million dollars. He is not even a dollar billionaire, by any yardstick (let alone being one of the richest people in the world). If he decided to cash out that would instantaneously crash the price. So his seeming wealth is ephemeral, for some part at least. On the other hand, what taxes should he pay?

How should they be calculated?

AdolfinWolf

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1427

Quote from: deisik on September 17, 2016, 03:01:57 PM

Quote from: Shiroslullaby on September 17, 2016, 02:50:33 PM

I think one of the reasons Satoshi wanted to remain anonymous, was to NOT be the BDFL.
For him, Bitcoin was more of an experiment, a creation to make and let loose, and let the world decide what would happen.
If it fails, it fails. If it creates other coins, other forks, blockchains, new ideas, that is the most important thing.

If Satoshi was in control of everything, and had the final say, would we be here having these discussions?

It's a difference which makes the difference

Having the final say and being in control of everything are two completely different things. The first letter in the acronym stands for benevolent. Being benevolent means here that the "dictator" has to remain open to valid criticism at all times, otherwise risking forking of the project in case strong disagreements arise between him and the rest of the gang. As I have said earlier, democracy doesn't work in anything important if played for real

To be honest, i think one of the reasons he wants to be anonymous is because he is one of the richest people on earth right now. Imagine all the coins he can possible have etc, and he didnt paid a cent of taxes over all that money, he is able to completely control some markets with the bitcoin, do you know how gladly governments wanna know who he is?

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Shiroslullaby on September 17, 2016, 02:50:33 PM

I think one of the reasons Satoshi wanted to remain anonymous, was to NOT be the BDFL.
For him, Bitcoin was more of an experiment, a creation to make and let loose, and let the world decide what would happen.
If it fails, it fails. If it creates other coins, other forks, blockchains, new ideas, that is the most important thing.

If Satoshi was in control of everything, and had the final say, would we be here having these discussions?

It's a difference which makes the difference

Having the final say and being in control of everything are two completely different things. The first letter in the acronym stands for benevolent. Being benevolent means here that the "dictator" has to remain open to valid criticism at all times, otherwise risking forking of the project in case strong disagreements arise between him and the rest of the gang. As I have said earlier, democracy doesn't work in anything important if played for real

Shiroslullaby

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

I think one of the reasons Satoshi wanted to remain anonymous, was to NOT be the BDFL.
For him, Bitcoin was more of an experiment, a creation to make and let loose, and let the world decide what would happen.
If it fails, it fails. If it creates other coins, other forks, blockchains, new ideas, that is the most important thing.

If Satoshi was in control of everything, and had the final say, would we be here having these discussions?

Topic: Mining in 20 years time (Read 6222 times)