Topic: What might happen when Bitcoin reaches its 21million coins limit? (Read 291 times)

The last bitcoin is expected to be mined by 2140. None of us will live to see that time, so we will never know the answer to this question. Already, according to various estimates, from four to six million bitcoins have been lost. This figure will constantly increase, although perhaps not at such a rapid pace, since, due to the high price of bitcoin, its safety will be treated more frugally.
But no one knows what might happen to the cryptocurrency in another hundred years. Perhaps by that time bitcoin will completely change the current issue will not be relevant.

CBDCs may have the edge over cryptocurrencies, as they would be regulated by the government and be more stable and reliable.  But Bitcoin offers privacy and decentralization, which CBDCs could never do for their part.

After all bitcoins have been mined, there will be no more bitcoin to mine. Miners will no longer be rewarded for successfully mining a block into the blockchain; instead, they will only be rewarded for confirming transactions (transaction fees). The price will most likely be x100 of what it is now😁. About the price is just a mere speculation, we can't really tell what the outcome will be by that time, but I'm sure none of us alive today will witness it happening, and my reply today will be live until that day to see.

Additionally, with the widespread adoption of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), trust and access to digital currencies like Bitcoin may increase, so BTC may potentially gain significant value during these dates.

When all 21 million Bitcoins have been mined in 2140, mining rewards will cease, and the only source of income for miners will be transaction fees, which are expected to incentivize miners to continue securing the network.

The impact on the price of BTC when mining stops would depend on the supply-demand dynamics at that point in time. With a fixed supply and potential demand, the scarcity of BTC could potentially increase its value, but it ultimately depends on the overall adoption and usage of BTC in the future.

Once 21 million Bitcoins are produced, miners' block rewards will only consist of transaction fees.

Once Bitcoin reaches the 21 million units limit, demand for the Bitcoin network may increase due to limited supply. This could cause the price of Bitcoin to increase. On the other hand, transaction fees may also increase, as block rewards will consist of transaction fees. This could make it more expensive for Bitcoin users for lower-amount transactions.

However, it is difficult to make a clear prediction in this regard, given that there is much more time before the 21 million Bitcoin cap is reached. Also, the Bitcoin protocol could be updated to address scalability issues as needed to respond to this situation.

The worst thing that is in my mind is that there are no more miners and probably there will be no more bitcoin transaction validators because they are no longer getting the new bitcoins they get as their wages, maybe they will stop being interested in bitcoins? I personally what scenario will be carried out in the future and what will it be like if a maximum of bitcoins is already on the market, but to reach 21 million coins it takes tens of years that maybe we can speculate at that time and we cannot predict that era with the thoughts we have have now.

As already said on this thread, the last bitcoin will be mined in 2140, which is 117 years away. This question will only be answered in 2140 when there won't be any reward for miners in terms of bitcoins. Defiantly, there will be a reward in some other form for Miner who are putting their efforts in securing the network. Otherwise, no one will voluntarily pay for electricity and buy expensive devices just to keep Bitcoin network secure.

it wont kill bitcoin immutability

hard consensus does not delete old blocks. old blocks remain. the immutibility is sustained
thats the whole point

its soft consensus that allows rule changes without nodes being ready to perform validity checks

please learn some basic concepts it seems you are just reading old propaganda crap from 5+ years ago

changing rules. hard or soft is about future blocks.. thus nothing to do with immutability( existing blocks)

though yes some idiot can completely do stupid things like make their node reject any block containing for instance legacy tx. and then doing Initial Block download.. thus rejecting every block. but then they are just rejecting their own blockchain acceptance and throwing themselves off the network

---

soft= new stuff activates without majority nodes requirement to being ready to fully validate the new stuff because they just stupidly accept new stuff as valid without checks

hard= nodes need to upgrade to be ready to validate new stuff before the new stuff activates.

learn the risk options that occur when going soft. where things get added to a block and treated as accepted without nodes checking/verifying/validating it as acceptable.. by blindly accepting it without consent/choice/check


hard consensus requires majority of node agreement(consent) before changes activate
soft does not require majority of node agreement(consent)

its the soft you should be concerned about..
.. take some time to think about it

This has been discussed too many times if you care to search about it and you will be directed to different threads having same discussion about what happens when we reach 21M coins supply.The answer always remain same that the miners will be encouraged to keep the network secured with transaction fees only but still we are talking about period of more then 100 years so we can only make predictions and actual results will be out then only.So hold your coins for long period if you can.

Not sure where you got the idea that I said there would be a 50x blocksize increase this year.
I didn't say anything about a single limit increase nor when such a hypothetical increase would happen.

Seems like you are just trying to put words into my mouth so that you have something to put down.

I was using 50x as an example, the point of which was that even if in the future at some point bitcoin blocks were 50x larger (or whatever amount larger you want to use as an example) than today we'd still need the same L2 solutions we need at the current block size. So that kinda shows the flaw in thinking larger blocks are needed, because they won't solve the problem of transaction capacity. Only L2 can do that. Which is why the ideas behind the crappy BCH and BSV were rejected.



And as I was saying one of the most fundamental, important, and unique things about Bitcoin, one of the things that makes it great money, one of the reasons why every single other cryptocurrency would make terrible money, is that it is immutable. If hard forks start getting implemented that kills the idea of Bitcoin immutability. It opens Bitcoin up to anything being changed. I'm not saying there can't ever be any hard forks, as there MIGHT come a time or two when Bitcoin does need a fundamental upgrade, but that would be a dangerous thing and it should only be done if the only other option is something terrible happening to Bitcoin. Since block size increase wouldn't actually solve anything because regardless of blocksize Bitcoin would still need L2 solutions for mass usage, block size increase seems like not a very good reason to hard fork.

Obviously blocksize COULD increase over time as internet speeds increase and much larger hard drive sizes get cheaper, meaning much larger blocks wouldn't hurt decentralization. And yea this would allow a bit more mining income once the reward gets real small and it would allow cheaper on-chain transactions. But the main reason to not do it is that it'd kill Bitcoin's immutability. So that sort of thing should only get done if stuff like fees and feasibility of mining actually become very dire and threaten the viability of Bitcoin. Which may never happen, and it certainly won't happen soon. And presumably in the far future L2 will be heavily used so that the on-chain tx fees won't get super high. And mining being a self-adjusting system won't likely ever be in peril though I suppose there is a bit of worry that income would get so low that it could actually hurt Bitcoin's decentralization but that certainly isn't a given.

actually the latest motivations is to change things without a strong consensus consent. changing things without nodes being ready for said changes.. which is more riskier and bad network security
the reason they do it is because doing it the proper hard way, means core would not get to throw random crap in easily. so they wanted a back door
and look what happens. the tx count is decreasing and the bloat of stupid memes abuse of space is increasing.. risking the utility of bitcoin remaining a payment network with this stupid backdoor policy


your argument is keep things low for 120 years. or leap to 50x this year to be one world currency?? (facepalm)
actual reality is neither
its progressive scaling over time. not 'huge leaps today or never' approach you assume



actually its more about when new power generators come online they are not built just for todays demands they are built for demands of the next 50 years
meaning demand:capacity in the initial years is 1:4 meaning current demand is paying 4x to cover yearly cost of re-reimbursing the build cost
however mining will move into a region and buy up allotments of the excess 3 ratio thus bring down the average cost per kwh due to more income for the power station. and over the decades as more native residential/industry demands want to use more of the capacity. miners would move their asic shipping containers to the next region offering spare excess capacity on their new build power generation


L2 does have a place. but the current prototypes and concepts being played around with have flaws and only fit small niches
ther will be development once the snake oil salesmen of current concepts realise they are chasing their own tail on flawed design. and development then start moving away from those concepts and come up with better ones.

but while that happens bitcoin needs to scale too.
if you think bitcoin should remain at a 2000 tx per block for 120 years. you are not thinking hard enough
and no... jumping to 50x in the next year is not the option either

de-cludging the currently allowed 4mb to actually allow a 4x scaling compared to the 1mb limit would bring tx count from an average of back-then 1600tx to a plausible 6400tx a block

then say for this posts demonstration sake, every 4 years is a 4x factor(reasonable scaling)
(not your silly 50x)

after all 20 years ago (5 scale periods)
we went from
harddrives of 4gb to hard drives of 4tb (1000x)
56kb internet to 56mb internet (1000x)

so basic math
   2023                    2024                      2028                 2032    
4mb(6400tx)   16mb(25,600tx)   64mb(102,400tx)  256mb(409,600tx)

   2036                  2040    
1gb(1638400)   4gb(6553600)

and as you can see thats the 1000x over 20 years we have seen tech scaling previously. thus able in future

remember we already have 1gb PER SECOND internet available now. thus will be the norm in 20 years
meaning a 4gb per 10 minutes (600 seconds) wont be a issue by then
4gb per 600 seconds is (6.72mbyte/sec =53.76mbit/sec - again achievable in 20 years, becasue its achievable now)

also if we factor in an assumption of whole population wanting to lock up value each month(like debit/credit cards) meaning 2 payments a month(lock and unlock to rebalance)

6553600 * 4032 /2 = allows  13,212,057,600 (locks+unlock combined) a month
by which would be the population base of that period

however sticking to 2000tx a block (for those 20 years) means only 4,032,000 rebalances of L2 a month.
meaning if there are 200m users(low ball number). they can only rebalance/move onchain. once every 50 months.. 2bill population =500month rebalance
no one can plan that far ahead their daily spending.
and thus if you want to promote that people should lock up value in a alternative system to bitcoin for 50 months. then you are trying to suggest that bitcoin should not be a payment system or a currency.

people would just end up using a different mainnet and not even bother with bitcoin in the situation you prescribe

and that is why bitcoin should scale onchain aswell we create NEW l2 that actually work and do as promised. instead of the current paradigm we are stuck in with silly people just saying "be patient"

So you are assuming the block limit will be increased? I don't think that is a good assumption to make, just because that requires hard fork and at least right now not doing any hard forks is kind of the culture of bitcoin. I think mostly just because doing one hard fork opens up the idea of changing things more drastically and opens up the idea that Bitcoin isn't immutable.

I mean it would be good in the future once internet speeds are much greater and when having like a 100 TB hard drive is cheap if Bitcoin would be able to handle more transactions...BUT handling more transactions on-chain isn't a real solution. Because even if you say 50x the block limit, that still wouldn't be anywhere enough to handle mass global transactions. Now, yes, it would help miners as having that many transactions would totally resolve any idea that mining profits won't be enough once the reward ends, but mining will work itself out anyways as its a self-adjusting system. The question then is, do we want to make Bitcoin mutable in order to enlarge the blockchain greatly but still not be able to handle mass usage. If it doesn't actually solve the problem why would we do it which would cause more issues?

This was decided back in 2017 with the block size war and those who wanted a centralized high-data altcoin made their large blocks and left to watch their money disappear. L2 is the solution to mass transactions while mining will work itself out since its a self-adjusting system. So there really isn't a need to do anything, and thus Bitcoin stays immutable and safeguards one of its most important and unique aspects.

Mining will likely eventually shift almost entirely to business who operate directly at power stations and get very cheap energy while getting rid of mass energy waste in the system and greatly enhance the energy infrastructure of the world all while keeping mining costs very low, and people/companies/governments taking advantage of stranded energy to also mine very cheaply. Thus even if the mining income goes down greatly the cost should also go down and even if hash power likely hits a peak at some point and then falls we have to realize Bitcoin mining is ALREADY globally secure and nothing could ever attack it as long as mining stays decentralized globally. So if hash power increases for a few more decades and then starts to drop to a long term equilibrium that is fine because  Bitcoin's security will still be far in excess of what it is today, miner's will make their income, L2 will handle millions of transactions, on-chain transactions should still be cheap enough for moving money around or making large transactions, and Bitcoin will remains immutable and therefore secured for permanent viability as hard global money.

After the Bitcoin supply hits its maximum, no more bitcoins will ever be produced. The only anticipated source of income for bitcoin miners is from transaction fees.

The effect on Bitcoin miners when the cryptocurrency hits its upper supply limit will likely vary depending on how Bitcoin evolves as a cryptocurrency. If the cryptocurrency blockchain handles a sizable number of transactions in 2140, bitcoin miners may still be able to make money solely from transaction processing fees.

Bitcoin mining fees will disappear when the Bitcoin supply reaches 21 million. After that, miners will likely earn income only from transaction processing fees rather than a combination of block rewards and transaction fees.

Who told you that? Don't listen to them anymore.

Even when the last Bitcoin (or rather satoshi) has been mined, the mining process will never be finished.
The only thing that's finished then is the initial distribution of coins.

no mining = no new blocks
no new blocks = no transaction will ever be "confirmed", they would be stuck in mempool forever

So, if people want bitcoin transactions to work, someone needs to mine blocks, no matter with or without generating new coins.

If we are using a rough calculation, the last stock of Bitcoin was probably mined around 2140 .  When the last Bitcoin has been mined and there are no new Bitcoins, the Bitcoin mining process will be finished.

 Even though the Bitcoin supply is running out, Bitcoin miners can still profit from Bitcoin.  This is because Bitcoin transactions that occur on the blockchain network will require a series of verifications.  So, the miner's role will shift as the party that verifies the transaction.

In that distant time there will be many great changes that have taken place, some of which we can imagine and others we know nothing about.

For example, one scenario is that the price of bitcoin will reach a million dollars at that distant time in the future, and therefore the small fees that miners receive in satoshi will have an attractive value to continue their work.

Another scenario is that whales that own thousands of bitcoins will play an important role in maintaining the stability and continuity of the network by covering miners' fees, because if the bitcoin network collapses, whales will lose billions of dollars.

How is the 21 Million Bitcoin Cap Defined and Enforced?

After 21M total supply is reached, miners will earn their income from transaction fees.

In technical, 21M total supply can be changed but who will support that proposal. Increasing total supply of Bitcoin is harmful and it won't bring benefit to anyone. It's harmful because people have solid reasons to think that if total supply can be changed one time from 21M to assumed 42M, it will possibly be changed again in future to like 84M or 128M.

Side effect is people will lose their belief in Bitcoin and its protocol and price will not have reasons to grow more.