Topic: The deflationary problem - page 18. (Read 32501 times)

If in 2040 Bitcoin is still alive, there will be much more transactions per block, which also means much more transaction fees. Block Generation Reward will be nothing compared to transaction fees by then, so it doesn't matter if it's removed. Mining will still be profitable.
This has been discussed before.

I don't care.  This is today.  My hypothesis is for 2040.  If you don't understand this, i can't help you.

There's a reason to mine. You profit from transaction fees and new block generation reward.

IF YOU DO NOT KEEP INCREASING HASH THE NETWORK IS PRONE TO ATTACK.

That's a fact.  To claim inflation of bitcoins hurts the network is stupidity.  It creates a reason to mine.  Mining secures the network.  If you remove that reason to mine, the network will be compromised.

THE ONLY REASON BITCOINS ARE WORTH ANYTHING IS BECAUSE OF SECURITY.  If hash does not keep rising, the network will be compromised.  It's not a maybe.  It's a definite.

What the fuck?

Overprinting?  The difficulty keeps rising, the cost to generate 1 coin keeps rising.  If it didn't, then the network would be less secure.  Hash creates security.

Generating new coins CREATES SECURITY.  INFLATION in this system CREATES SECURITY.  Because it generates reward for mining.  Mining increases hash.  Hash increases security.

Why would you do someone to weaken the system?

You do realize that we already past the 500 most powerfull computers on earth COMBINED

I said it's irrelevant.

Transaction fees are 1 or 2 incomes for miners.

If you remove 1 income (block generation reward), then you decrease the profits of miners.  If you decrease a source of income, hash will likely drop.  Who cares?

If hash drops the network is less secure and prone to attack.

there is a limit on bitcoin to try and prevent the calamity that is overprinintg of fiat currency by a central source to pay off debts, pay for wars and buy prostitutes.  Cap production, there is no oppurtunity for the inflation that occurs with fiat.

the proof of work problems are set up in a way way where the difficulty will increase exponentially, but there will never be an end to the proof of work difficulty, removing your so called deficit of hash, allowing a stable and secure network.  

Reward for blocks will stop in 2040.  Yes or no?  If rewards for new blocks stop, miners will depend on transaction fees.   This decreases the revenue of the mining.  Thus mining is less profitable.  Only a fucking retard can't see this.

If mining is less profitable, hash will fall.  If hash falls the network is less secure.

Are you really having trouble understanding this?

Look up "Transaction fees"

Block generation will never stop. Please familiarize yourself with the way Bitcoin works before posting nonsense

Do you find fault in my analysis?

Sometime I just want to kill myself

I will introduce the concept of Sweft's Law and Sweft Attack below.

Sweft's Law:  The network hashrate of a proof of work cryptocurrency must rise at a rate at least equal to that of Moore's Law to provide minimal network security.

Sweft Attack:  A prolonged deflationary attack on a cryptocurrency network describing a situation in which a rogue miner processes transactions solely for the purpose of removing the fee of the transaction from circulation.  A necessary precondition for said attack is that the average transaction fee must exceeds the average rate of inflation.

Edit:  Originally titled the 2040 problem, a more apt title is the deflationary problem.  I use 2040 as a point where mining reward via block reward would be negligible.  I'm starting to believe this point where miners no longer profit enough to increase hash will come much sooner, perhaps by 2020.


Edit:  An explanation of Sweft's Law for those having trouble understanding it.

Moore's Law states that the number of transistors doubles every two years.
This means two years from now, the cost of the network (hash / ($ / hash)), given equivalent hash, will be half.
And half in another two years. And half in another 4 years.
That means in 6 years it will take 1/8th the amount of capital to replicate the original hash.
Thus, the network must grow at the rate of Moore's Law to sustain the value of its hash so that the value to replicate the original hash does not decrease.
That means that the network must double its hash every two years.
Every two years there has to be a capital investment equivalent to the cost of network hash / 2 to double the hash in accordance with Sweft's Law.


Edit:  I haven't posted in two years but i will provide an updated analysis below.

For BTC to to have value, miners must secure the network. If miners do not constantly increase hash, Moore's law will catch up to the network and it will become prone to attack. This should be easily accepted as fact. If you don't accept this premise i can't possibly help you understand the deflationary flaw in bitcoin.

If you don't understand, let me try to explain it again. If hash remains constant and doesn't increase for a number of years, technological advancements (Moore's Law) will make an 51% attack more likely.

Now what some people seem to argue is that tx fees will support mining growth.

This is true in two scenarios.

1) bitcoins are sent/received more frequently (velocity) 2) tx fees increase

I will addresses the problems with both scenarios.

The problem with #2 is that there is a cap on maximum fee the miners can charge, at 100%. So velocity remains constant, miners cannot increase profit beyond 100% tx fee. So this cannot create increasing profit.

The problem with #1 is that bicoins can be permanently lost, and there is a hard cap on the amount of bitcoins. That means that there will eventually be more bitcoin lost than are generated by block reward. This should be known as the 'Sweft point' where bitcoin turns into a deflationary currency from an inflationary one. Thus, to believe that transactions will increase as coins are lost, aka deflation, is not a sound proposition.

Another issue is that rogue miners can mine the network, charging tx fees and sending the coins to the trash. This would further exaggerate the deflationary tendency of the bitcoin design.

Thus it should be obvious to anyone that understands the issues to also understand that there exists a simple solution which will make the person who implements it rich.

Make an alt currency with a cap minimum 3% inflation. This will satisfy the profits of the miners and hash of the network.


Original:

In 2040 new block generation will be negligible, bitcoins will be fixed.  Miners will only be rewarded for transaction fees.  This may not seem like a problem, it IS.

The health of the network depends on constant hash growth.  Without constant hash growth, the network is prone to attack.  Why?

What protects the network right now is a high hashing rate.  This secures it from attack.  Without this, there is no security.  The price of bitcoins would fall.  The more hash, the more security, the higher the price will be.  Because it's impenetrable from exterior forces or supercomputers.  If a government were to be able to attack the network, 99% of the network, the system would fail.  If the system has the ability to fail, the price of bitcoins is worthless.

Thus, the whole network depends on hash.  The security and price, which is also reflective of hardware and electricity, and again, security.  The more hash the network has the more secure.

Thus, miners need incentive to increase hash.  They do this by generating new coins.  Thus you increase hash and create a more secure network.

The problem is that in 2040 new block generation will be negligible, and coins will be more or less fixed.  Now, people want to make you believe this is fine.  It's not.  It's stupid and beyond stupid.

The stupid part about is is that it removes an incentive for miners to increase hash.  It removes a revenue stream for miners.  New coin production is not BAD, it's GOOD.  Only a moron would think otherwise.

This is extremely important.

When you remove the reward for generation of new blocks, you remove a revenue stream for miners, hash will fall.  You say, who cares, hash falls.  

Hash secures the network.  It ensures that miners will profit and the miners ensure there is no double spending of coins.  If miners stop mining because intensives become smaller (loss of profit), hash goes down, the network is prone to attack.

Then the coin holders will be mining to protect their own money.  This will be an incentive of the richest members.  The problem is that every year hardware advances and you're no longer making as much money mining, maybe not even to cover the hardware costs to protect the network.  So now, the network is prone to attack.

This is irrespective of assuming whether or not transaction fees will support the network.  It's irrelevant.  The network will be weaker because you removed profit from miners.  Now, miners stop mining.  Thus, you decrease hash.

Bitcoins are only worth the hash(security) of the network.


R