Topic: The Halving - Good or Bad for Bitcoin? - page 23. (Read 83110 times)

I think the halving is better for bitcoin, the price will increased
its good to hold you bitcoin and sell it the halving before may the price will down when the halving is ends.

Not to worry, fruitful discussion is helpful!


Is there any way we could be aware if there was collusion between pools? Though would this not only be to impact the legitimacy of the blockchain? We can easily verify that unspent outputs don't go above 21 million, and people would start complaining if their coins were missing (though perhaps miners might target earlier and untouched ones in order to get away undetected). Nevertheless, there are some news outlets for the crypto-sphere that I feel would blow the whistle on such a thing if necessary (no great conspiracy persists forever undiscovered).

Anyone with capital can manipulate on exchanges; it just so happens that miners have the greatest vested interest at the moment. It just so happens at the moment that there are still people and pools with huge amounts of coins (generated when the block reward was double what it is now), so they can exert a significant effect on the market. But as we halve and halve again, coins will gradually become more distributed, so that the capacity for block reward and manipulation by mining-derived capital diminishes and the game becomes about Tx fees; that will happen sooner rather than later (perhaps by the next again halving; consider there will be eight further years of adoption in that time)

The halving hype just add the price to increase more but the reason behind is the law of demand and supply. We know for the fact that everyday is another day for bitcoins and it is not just an ordinary day because as time pass by the adopters increase with huge number.

Let's continue with the thorough dissection of your post, lol. I would most likely agree with your opinion that increasing the sale price of bitcoins mined is the prime reason as well as the ultimate aim behind miners' wish to manipulate the market, but I can't possibly agree with your inference that the only means of market manipulation available to them is just holding newly minted coins, for the sake of reducing supply. This may be true in respect to individual miners, but as we know, the driving force behind mining as of today is not these poor beggars but mining pools that have eaten up almost 100% of Bitcoin mining. To make things easier to understand, think of mining pools as large international corporations which consist of individual workers each of which, taken separately, can't influence anything but not the corporations themselves, some of which can even kick governments (let alone control markets). Similarly, while individual miners can pretty much only hold their coins (and pray), the mining pools are by no means restricted or otherwise limited in their ways of manipulating and cornering the market...

So, in essence, they can influence the market in any way possible that they see fit, including but not limited to buying coins at the market instead of selling them, which your point essentially boils down to

Yeah, it's really good right now because the price of bitcoin keep increase. But the real problem is the bitcoin's price will stay on the price or goes down when the halving hype is done.

Its true that the halving event will be good for bitcoin because the block mined reward will divide into two. Another thing that making the price go higher is the FOMO we feel and the chinese. Yes, we also feel the chinese 

halving make bitcoin be better. Now is the time towards halving and bitcoin prices climb to positive. I'm sure as halving the price of bitcoin will be increased significantly. it makes bitcoin users get incredible profits.

Well, I think that the halving will actually do good for bitcoin because just look at the price right now! The markets are going crazy, although I think that this is more like the normal price level for BTC.

It'll probably bring a few more price rises before the next halving

It should honestly be very good as the supply will reduce by 50% every single time, and early investors will gain money from this change, as you can see on the forums a lot of people are happy about
Interestingly, if you check this https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply out, you may see the answers to everything you want to know, i think it's been recommended before but just for good measure, as it makes a good read

I don't know the story behind GHash.IO's 51% gambit (as you call it), but I think that I can safely assume that they have abused their position too openly and too aggressively, and now we have 7-8 mining pools who will most likely act in by far more subtle ways to pursue their ends (having learned the lesson), which may differ substantially from the interests of individual miners that these pools consist of. We have witnessed the price increase more than 3 times in the course of the last year, but who is most interested in this hike and can actually affect the price? These are the same mining pools, though we are told now and then, here and there that the hike is due to the upcoming halving (which may actually be true to a certain extent)...

To me, it is not a question of whether they will exert their dominance, but rather of how subtle their ways will be

Looking at the present scenario I think this halving will be good for bitcoin, as price will  go higher then it will attract many new users and investors to invest their money into it.

The devil is in the detail. John Rockefeller's Standard Oil had been split into 33 (sic!) smaller companies for "sustaining a monopoly and restraining interstate commerce" (as per Wikipedia). IBM and Microsoft had been waiting for the same fate not so long ago but got off cheaply. What I want to say is that these monopolistic companies have to play by the rules established by the state, otherwise they get punished as the history clearly shows. In respect to the Bitcoin mining oligopoly, there are no such rules which they should or would follow...

In fact, the rules are essentially set up by themselves, so this state of affairs is in no way secure

I agree, it could be better, but you have to be pragmatic about it. In Britain, at least, there are only five major energy companies, similar story with supermarkets. Telecoms provision in the United States is essentially a duopoly, from what I remember. Having seven main mining pools is relatively secure (doesn't help that a large portion of the hashpower is in one country, granted, but I think it's safe for now). They're also comprised of individual miners, who receive the profits and decide what to do with them, rather than a single entity (the pool). Though some miners may have greater hashpower than others, I think the overall scheme is one of independence of one another. Also, if pools exert dominance, individual miners exert their free will to switch (as I believe occurred after GHash.IO's 51% gambit) and the system is rectified.


To the prices, the only reason I could think of miners wishing to manipulate the market is to increase the sale-price of newly mined bitcoin, which I believe usually is sold instantly as they don't want to hold volatile assets and seek to lock-in the profit. If we assume this is not true, the only manipulation that can be done is to hold mined coins to artificially reduce supply, but their capacity to do this naturally declines spectacularly after every 210,000 blocks and is a futile endeavour. Consider too that the fractional expansion with each block reward is only very slight and this seems less important than the manipulation downward that might be exerted by the Winklevosses or Satoshi. Central banks would intervene perhaps for protectionist purposes, or to influence trade in some way. They have the backing of government, and taxation, if they seek to act unilaterally, and that is a bad thing. Currency intervention does not always work, depending on the actors involved. Britain had to leave ERM II in the early 1990s as a result of George Soros' bearish pressure; the BoE piled cash into the affair but the Bundesbank refused to help; a failure. Markets prevail, and very easily; it's the inertia of the huddled masses. I'd like to be able to know what proportion of circulating bitcoins are in active exchange (I know the volume can be seen, but how much of this is back and forth game-playing?)


It does not force a price increase. Price is determined by the amount of fiat traders wish to exchange on exchanges; it is an influencing factor, but ultimately the two affairs are very much divorced.

My honest reflection on the halving is that it can be positive for bitcoin; many factors are at play, but we must consider what happens to mining and the security of the network. Many miners will be made unprofitable. The only way they can regain this profit is by refusing to process transactions unless they make up the shortfall (though this is $5/tr, half of Blockchain.info's $10). This is ridiculous, extortionate, and people will not pay. The bitcoin becomes nothing more than a speculative asset, and price may decline (it's been shown to correlate to volume before). Either way, miners are against the wall. The least profitable eventually switch off their ASICs (or mine altcoins, affecting their dynamic in untold ways, or perhaps contribute to breaking the SHA-256 for common passwords if they feel up to the challenge). What we see is a decline in hashpower, but not necessarily a decline in security, as long as there are enough independent players. A mining pool may make a 51% in such an instance; miners will just switch, as they did with GHash.

I believe that's the long term solution; BTC is being "over-mined" at the moment. We can cope with less hashpower.

To a certain extend we are still somewhat of an early adopter. At some point I expect institutional investors to take their position in the Bitcoin game. And that's when the prices will really go through the roof. It's good to take profits from time to time, but make sure you keep holding the majority of your coins. You'll not regret it.

Halving really is going to have a good effect for bitcoin and just for bitcoin and also as well other alt coins. Because bitcoin predicts also the price of
other alt coins as well.
And when the demand of bitcoin is going to be high the price also is going to increase.

it's good it force a price increase, it rise demand also it allow bitcoin to grow slowly

I think miners will still get a good profit because the price is increasing, maybe if the price will fall but in my opinion it would not be happening anymore, when the demand is high the price will rise and this is exactly what is happening now.

You could say both. Because I think the halving is currently doing bitcoin good in terms of the price, but seriously you gotta consider the longevity of that price. It could really go both ways after halving.

Bear in mind that the miners may not get a profit anymore...

The halving will be good for the bitcoin and it will increase in price but nothing more indeed will happen.
Its just that it will let the price grow and it will gain popularity also.

But that was not my premise. I meant to say that centralization inevitably leads to (a possibility of) market manipulation. In other words, if a market is highly decentralized (neither a single major player nor a group of big players are present), it is next to impossible to manipulate the market. This seems to be self-evident (well, at least to me). But nevertheless, regarding market manipulation for stabilization purposes (which should rather be called market intervention), for example, it is not uncommon for a Central bank to intervene in foreign exchange markets with the intention of influencing the exchange rate of its currency. In fact, there is nothing extraordinary in such interventions, which happen on a regular basis in many countries...

They are carried out with the aim of stabilizing the exchange rate for all domestic economic entities, and still more so for those entities which trade internationally