Bitcoin Forum

1 BTC per block at 21 mill coins is  .2% inflation a year, basically 0 due to lost coins.

IMO a small inflation is equaled out by lost coins.


*Edit*
If you don't understand what the halving in this thread is not for you, sorry.  A little more technical of a discussion.

Lost coins is unquantifiable. What if we start basing assumptions on what coins we think are "lost" only to later find out those coins weren't lost after all?

This may be worth considering at some point, if there is insufficient mining incentive to keep the network secure. However, the reward will drop under 1 BTC only after x halving (12.5->6.25->3.125->1.5625->0.78125) which should happen only after around 16 years.

Any predictions we make now are likely to be worthless.

However, I do agree with lucasjkr, assuming lost coins doesn't add much to the concept. However, an extremely small rate of inflation (1 BTC per block, or maybe even lesser) might be something to consider in the far future.

isn't the point of fee to keep the network alive? we have enough time to build the value, so by the time fee will be crucial for mining, they would have a very high value, and miners would keep mining without problem

Fees have to keep the network alive, if we don't keep to the original plan than it's better to support some other coin who does it.

Reducing the subsidy to 0 is good because it reduces the number of variables and potential problems. If you decide to continue the subsidy, then how do we know if its value is good for Bitcoin or bad for Bitcoin. There are problems right now that would be eliminated if there were no subsidy, (e.g. empty blocks).

On the other hand, off-chain transactions (such as lightning network) don't pay fees but still depend on the security of the block chain. In the future, if the majority of transactions are off-chain and don't pay fees, then the security of the transactions will be in jeopardy. One way of reducing the problem might be to keep a subsidy.

yeah gotta agree you cant put a number on the lost coins and
if they do people could "find" the coins and put us over 21 mill

yeah, probably it's better to look for what the meaning of lost coin, what the effect, where it goes, or at least we know how exactly we lost the coins.

Fees would/should keep it alive in the long term. But without starting a flame war, most of the hopes for scaling involve off-chain scaling, which effectively removes those transactions from the population that miners could hope to eventually collect fees on.

I can see the benefit of small, infinite inflation but Bitcoin should stay capped at 21m. That's one of, if not the most important features of Bitcoin and it should stay this way even if it's clear that BTC would work better uncapped.

That being said, if at some point vast majority decide to remove the cap and fork, then there's not much anyone can do about it.

In my opinion it doesn't take rocket science to know that the supply is shrinking faster than most people expect. Lost coins is a very frequent thing, sometimes it happens in big amounts. You can go on Reddit and you can read how a bunch of idiots that don't take the required security measures are always losing coins. Now, add in all the unreported coin losing and you will see how people losing coins forever is a very frequent thing. This + halving = the total supply is shrinking fast and Bitcoin will continue getting rarer and more valued.

I wasn't aiming to hit and maintain the 21 mill coins really. 

More so a very small inflation rate, .1%, shoot, .01% just to help miners keep mining in 20ish years.


A rate of inflation so small that the lost coins per year would dwarf it.


At this point I think it will always be impossible to know the exact amount of coins in circulation. 


Perhaps a min pay out of .001 BTC. 

Just something I have been thinking about for some time.  I see the risk in changing the payout structure as if it is changed once people get nervous it can change again :S..

Perhaps that merg mining idea is the best answer.

Yes, it is best to ignore them. We have a ceiling on inflation.
Actual inflation will be lower due to lost coins. We don't have to quantify how much lower.

The price probably will take care of that. Right now, halving coming, bitcoin is pumping hard and will keep that way till ~700-800$, then might have a lil drop to 600$.
That way, even with half reward miners will still have the same value(not bitcoin, but in USD for example).

Half reward and twice the price sounds ok.

Lost coins are far different than stolen coins. Lost coins are coins whose private key is lost, and therefore unspendable, not just under someone else's control. And it's pretty much impossible to demonstrate a lost key is actually lost. I could say "hey I lost my key and deleted my wallet.dat and 10,000 btc were lost", but woe to whoever revalues Bitcoin on that assumption, as I could have just been making that up to attempt to distort the price.

So no. Unless coins are sent to a burn address, it's dangerous to assume any coins that someone says are lost actually are. Surely there's some, but how do we actually evaluate any of those claims?

This idea has been discussed hundreds of times in the past.  In fact I would say it is the most often presented idea to "fix Bitcoin" over the years.

The bottom line is that anyone can fork Bitcoin at any time for any reason they want.  This is the most common idea, to remove the cap.

Once you fork for this reason (or any other) it is no longer Bitcoin - it is an alt coin.  Everyone that wants to continue the cap will continue on the Bitcoin protocol just fine.  Everyone that want to use the newly created alt coin will use it until it falls to the wayside and loses all value just like a vast majority of all alt coins do.

It almost sounds like you're saying that every hardfork (even with 99% or 100% support) will create an altcoin. If this was the case, the "real" Bitcoin died long time ago (as we had 2 hardforks already) and what we have now is an altcoin with hijacked name.

Let's get the our terminology straight:  If 100% agree with a change and follow it then it is a change, not a fork.  A fork will imply that some percentage of people follow the protocol change and the rest do not.  Do you really think anyone is running the protocol as it was before the two changes you describe above?  No, those were/are changes that everyone followed.

What is described in this thread would be a very controversial change that would not be followed by 100% of the miners and nodes.  I do claim that as long as there is some percentage of holdouts running the capped protocol and calling it Bitcoin - that is Bitcoin since the cap is one of the most fundamental parameters of the protocol.  The portion of miners and nodes that split off to form a cap-less alt coin protocol would not be Bitcoin as long as there is a viable Bitcoin (capped) protocol running.  That is what I meant, that is my story, and I am sticking to it.

how does halving work by the the way? how long does it take? a day, a week or a month?

This PoW won't last forever IMO
PoS coins are the future, but as it currently is, BitCoin is the gold.

i feel like this is something that should be discussed in the future, because there are so many unknown factors that are affecting it so everything that is said at this point is just blind speculation.

No, a blink of an eye. Or, to be precise, 10 minutes (on average)
Block 419.999: reward=25 bitcoins
Block 420.000: reward=12.5 bitcoins (not exactly sure if this is going to happen on block 420.000 or 420.001, but you got the point I hope)

that's why i'm against any off-chain shit, like LN and other crap like sidechain, capacity can be resolved in another way, via heavy optimization for example

No

Mining will run on mining fees

If you want to spend, just pay a small fee,

Since we already have over 2 transactions per second (and reached the limit of what the current bkocksize can support) by the time block rewards become really small we will probabkh have 1000s of transactions per second.   Even if the fees are really low, the miners will make lots of money from fees.

The block rewards are supposed to be a subsidy for miners to help them in the early days where the transaction fees aren't enough to make mining profitable. The network is expected and supposed to grow to sustain itself.

The most people with Bitcoin are hoping that the halving will be nice and that is because the value of the Bitcoin was already stable for a long time so that have now to recover and will slowly rise and that is nice.
But of course you cant control it and it will be really hard to know what the value will be some people even said that it wont rise in the halving.

i really didn't get what really happens when it halving other said that bitcoin will increase price but i know halve means half so it means the bitcoin price will go down but their telling to me that halving is the time that bitcoin price is going up can anyone explain me what really happens when it bitcoin halving ? thank for those who explain it to me thanks

The halving can come in soon but there has to be a price rise before that is going to happen other wise the price is going to be low. That is not a bad thing because then we can buy much more coins then at the moment.

I think for the good of bitcoin not for the good of one single group such as a group of miners. bitcoin need halving? perhaps up to a certain number?
for now there should be no discussion about this. bitcoin still requires halving for the next decade.

I highly doubt the fees will be enough to keep companies mining BTC...

I highly doubt the economics run that direction.  It is true that if fees do not rise then companies will not mine therefore fees will rise in order to keep companies mining BTC.

You are exaggerating. About 50 btc per day is currently paid in transaction fees.  Somebody is going to mine in order to earn those fees.


I don't think that is necessarily true either because there is a tragedy-of-the-commons problem, as in "I'll let someone else worry about miners getting paid".

The core issue is that the security against a 51% attack equals the cost of mining, which depends on mining revenue. If mining revenue is low, then the security will be low as well.

The only scenarios that will keep the fees (and thus security) sufficiently high are a limit on the block size that induces bidding on space in the block, a very large number of transactions paying 1 satoshi each (requiring an unlimited block size), or something in between.

never change,people will support bitcoin halving because they believe it will make bitcoin price better,and its non miner said,but miner said its hard to choose to support bitcoin halving.

A lot of blocks are already nearing 1 BTC in fees anyway, and it's only to grow further over time.

The only discussion would be about how sensible it would be to compensate for lost coins, if necessary.

50 BTC is nothing compared to the power currently used to mine BTC.

Now that we have established that fees will be enough to keep companies mining BTC, the issue is how much revenue is enough to secure Bitcoin. You seem to be assuming that the current cost of mining BTC is the minimum necessary, but I don't think that is true. I also don't think that 50 BTC per day is enough, so total fees will have to rise as the subsidy falls at some point, whether by increasing the fee per transaction or by increasing the number of transactions, or both.

If bitcoin hash rate is   X

and the world hash rate is 100 000 * X for mining crypto.. there will be problems as attacking bitcoin is a snooze.. :S..

We have never established the fees are enough to keep companies online.. they will bail 100%.  They have not choice but to follow profits or sink.

I think a small amount of every fee should be pooled, and some how miners, address holders vote on upgrades/ paying for fixes.

I do see what you are saying about the fees paying for the network though.

One future I imagine is BTC is the king of crypto but it is not cheap to use.  
Making a transaction for something important would want to be done on the most secure chain.
Due to being the most secure chain everyone wants a piece so they can make a transaction they know will last the ages.

The most people with Bitcoin are now waiting for a higher value and that is because they know that there will be more people that is going to have some profit soon.
But of course it will be really hard to know what the value will bring of Bitcoin but that is the risk that you should take.