Bitcoin Forum

All this talk about miners dying, sovereigns taking over, etc. 
Article: https://cointelegraph.com/magazine/bitcoin-mining-industry-dead-2-years-halving-bit-digital-ceo/ (https://cointelegraph.com/magazine/bitcoin-mining-industry-dead-2-years-halving-bit-digital-ceo/)

Question: do you care who mines your transactions — or are you happy letting governments do it for you?

Use non custodial wallet, run your bitcoin full node, manage your UTXOs, change addresses well, and broadcast your transactions from your Bitcoin full node and with Tor connection, you will be well and don't have to worry about which mining pools, miners will mine your transactions.

"Bitcoin mining will be dead" as Bitcoin (block subsidy) halving effects has been discussed many times. It's a kind of "Bitcoin is dead" FUD too because Bitcoin blockchain is Proof of Work and without Bitcoin mining, the blockchain will be dead.

Fortunately, it has never been dead since 2009 and in 2023 and 2024, there were times that Bitcoin miners earned a lot of money from Bitcoin transaction fees. It's case studies on how Bitcoin miners can survive when Bitcoin block subsidy halves more and more with market cycles. Their main income will be from Bitcoin transactions and it has been proven since 2009 and more strongly demonstrated in 2023 and 2024 with Ordinals and Runes protocol transactions that overload Bitcoin mempools.

Inscriptions, Mempools, and Miners. (https://insights.glassnode.com/the-week-onchain-week-39-2023/)

The concern of the author OP quoted is about the cost of mining. He believes the government will move into mining because of its access to cheap electricity. I see this article as promoting FUD because there will always be cheap electricity for individual or corporate miners. Sam Tabar is just using this opportunity to promote Ethereum. Maybe we might have to bump this thread after two years to discuss the outcome of his predictions.  

I want Bitcoin to maintain its decentralized nature. Mining shouldn't be dominated by the government because they can use it as a tool to of control.  

I don't want to read this article. There's no point.
1.Who is talking about "miners dying"? Some miners are leaving the business, while others are joining. The same applies to every industry.
2.The governments would rather ban crypto mining completely, instead of joining the mining industry and investing millions of taxpayer's money into mining equipment and facilities.
3.AI data centers would pump the electricity prices, so cheap electricity might become a thing from the past. This might bring lower profits for the crypto miners, but I think that the mining difficulty will be adjusted, since more of the miners would stop mining.
4.I totally do not care who is "mining my transactions". Should we even care about this?

What I do not like is if bitcoin transactions will be censored. Bitcoin miners can be able to do that but they did not do it. If it is governments that are mining bitcoin, they can think that they have the power and start censoring transactions. I will not like government to be mining bitcoin. How it is now is not bed at all in a way that it is only few hash rates are the government (like the government of Bhutan) is contributing. But if it gets to the point of governments dominating, it is not a good thing.

There's something funny about miners crying in the media.


Yeah, well, mining is supposed to be low-margin, and every halving causes some miners to fold and creates opportunities for new entrants.

If sovereigns want to mine, go ahead. I don't care who mines my transactions as long as it's done according to the consensus rules I subscribe to.

Good luck to Bit Digital and their new Ethereum treasury strategy. GLHF.

Do I care who mines my transactions? No. It doesn’t make any difference to me. However, I can see the dangers of having any one entity get too much power over the network. Whether that is a government, individual, or a company. The best thing for Bitcoin is obvious and that is a decentralized mining network.

I guess it depends on what "government doing it for me" means. Will this mean an algorithm change, will they record my IP and connect it to a database to track me, and so on? I find it hard to believe the network will be sustainable if that were the case. Unless the network becomes really fast and allows so many people to send transactions with a lower fee, even if I can accept it, the network won't last long.

The average joe probably won't give a damn about it either, but they will certainly protest if their transaction takes a long time to get through.

Bitcoin is the symbol of decentralisation, so anyone could mine Bitcoin if they want, whether it's an individual or the government. So it doesn't make sense to care about who has been mining Bitcoin blocks. I just need to make sure that transaction has been confirmed. I am the owner of my funds, and I have to make sure sent funds have been received by the receiver address. Unless someone gains major hash power, then really it doesn't matter if concerned.

Can I ask why you are concerned about who is mining Bitcoin? Do you feel if the government is involved with mining, then there is any potential risk for Bitcoin users? If you have any concerns, then you can share them here. So we can discuss that specific issue.

As long as no party takes the most mining power to themselves and the consensus is the same: it's okay, because anybody with knowledge and resources can mine.

I don't care who mines my transaction, but I care if miners become more centralized.

This is scary actually if government is the one who mine our transactions, there's no room for tainted address.

Wait, those things doesn't make you're anonymous for the miners because they can know the address you use.

You can't solve the "tainted address" problem with any way except you're the miner, even you want to mix your money/trade via P2P, it's not possible since the miners blocked your address in the first place.

If miner truly think halving is disaster, then i would question their long term planning. They should've considered halving and other factors (e.g. difficulty that almost always rising) before deciding whether to mine Bitcoin.


Rather than who include my TX on block they mine, i have more concern whether the miner perform activity that usually deemed malicious such as 51% attack, selfish mining or intentionally censor/exclude TX).

The reason miners earned a lot of money from transaction fees between 2023 and 2024 was due to network congestion. Fees were excessively high, and hence every block was having a very high amount only in transaction fees apart from the block reward it would get to the miner that mines it. However, since we know a large percentage of people and entities weren't making transactions during that time and waiting for the network to get normal because of how high the fees were, the question that arises is, will people or other entities be using Bitcoin network if that becomes the norm?

What I mean is that if Bitcoin's transaction fees usually stay that high and network always stays congested, will it be a priority for transactions? Because no matter how valuable it becomes, affordable transaction fees and quick confirmation times will always matter for those making on-chain transactions, and if these are missing, things might start to take a negative turn.

I don't want to speculate on what the article promotes, but from reading it, you can see that he doesn't care about Bitcoin, he doesn't believe in it; he just cares about the profit. And that is totally fine, but he shouldn't spread FUD.
He's complaining simply because he's not making as much profit as he used to. The profit he was making when a block reward was 6.25btc is not very different from what they're making from the current 3.125btc reward, but make no mistake, it is still profitable. Even though electricity is expensive, the profit is substantial enough.

What he fails to understand is that the more the halving, the more Bitcoin price increases. It won't stay at 113k forever, and the higher the price, the more profit they make. Bitcoin mining will always be a viable option as long as it remains profitable, and as long as there is money to be made, companies will continue to find ways to stay profitable.

He believes accumulating Ethereum is better than accumulating Bitcoin, which is funny

Big mining companies actually have deep budget for their business and if they had experience from previous halvings, they will prepare their money for purchasing discount ASICs from weak mining pools.

Around the 2024 Bitcoin halving, I read news about minings planned for this mining rig purchases with good discount from other weak mining pools' capitulations.

Big and strong miners do know about Bitcoin total supply and its new coins releases by halving cycles so they do prepare their strategic mining very well.
The Economics of a Bitcoin Halving:
A Miner’s Perspective (https://www.fidelitydigitalassets.com/research-and-insights/economics-bitcoin-halvinga-miners-perspective)

Doesn't matter who mines the transactions since they will be subject to Bitcoin rules, otherwise Bitcoin-friendly ones will do their job or take their place. For example, a government controlled miner could be told to censored certain transactions, if they decide to do that, the free miners in other places will accept the transactions, and the controlled ones will lose the transaction fees. This is the point of decentralization — as control or power does not reside in few privileged hands. If the few refuses to do their jobs, nothing within the Bitcoin rules prevents others from ignoring them and taking over the jobs. And the nodes watch one another to ensure that the Bitcoin rules/principles are not violated

Well didn't  cared about it before. You bring something new to me. Basically I ain't care about it. Cause miner's job is mine btc and complete btc transaction. Although it's not centralized so it's not possible to track you , so I think it ain't matter who completed my transaction. Imo it ain't that big deal . But I saw an article that miners are taking losses for mining Bitcoin. That could be serious issue for now

The bitcoin core is decentlized and universally on-chain so whoever mining whether private or public, the protocol can not be altered.
There are also lot of countries and governments sponsoring and encourages its citizens to mine and they get taxed on profit making to generate economy revenues.
Despites all the association with bitcoin it can never be regulated.

No I don't care who mines it I care to be confirmed as soon as possible as one time I paid low fee and my transaction took over 12 days to be confirmed which it sucks

It's the same thing as asking if people care when the governments and the financial institutions have started buying Bitcoin and holding it. If they take over and gets the most share of the mining of blocks, can we stop them? no. But I think that any other entities that have the money to take a huge share in the network will also do it. What they only need is power and equipment and if they're ready for that, they'll also take the difficulty seriously because it's not only a one time thing that they should think of it about mining.

I’ll be blunt — I don’t want *any* government, especially the US government, having control over whether my transactions go through. The next step after that is obvious: gatekeeping whose transactions get included by requiring KYC. That’s not decentralization — that’s the exact opposite of what Bitcoin stands for.

Simply put  when you make a Bitcoin transaction  the miners are responsible for mining that transaction. They work according to the rules of the network  verifying blocks and confirming transactions. The mining process is automated  transparent and distributed  meaning that no single organization or government can control it. This arrangement ensures impartiality and independence for the user.
However  if we think of transactions under the control of a government or centralized institution  it is a lot like sending money through a bank. Here  the privacy of your transactions is limited  and the control is completely in their hands.
Another aspect of the Bitcoin mining process is cost and the environment. In recent years  it has been seen that large miners often ignore the environmental impact and worker safety. As mentioned in the Cointelegraph article  several miners have died and the control of large mining companies has become somewhat of an internal monopoly. Whether this problem is right or not is questionable.

So the question is  who do we trust: government control  where security is limited but freedom is limited  or in the hands of miners  where freedom is greater but there is some uncontrolled risk. In my view  the Bitcoin network's approach to private transactions is more secure and neutral than government regulation. If we can develop greener and safer mining technologies in the future  that risk can be further reduced.

Just another CEO in the crypto industry and the article also mentioned Michael Saylor saying that mining is a terrible business. This is of course who people are listening to nowadays. I think we should actually learn about mining from miners themselves instead.
Some countries may do the opposite. They might want to be ahead of the mining curve and lead the industry instead of going against it but of course not all countries are like this. There might definitely be ones who will outright ban crypto.

Yep, it depends on whether they see potential in it - many just think it's another way to get rid of the control they so desire, but some would love to realize the gains from what it can bring for them, especially smaller countries, imo.

Since the government cannot ask for KYC before mining a Bitcoin transaction, I don't care who mines my transaction.

I also find the title of the article misleading. According to the article, it stated that at some point when mining becomes less profitable, private companies would wind up operation, while government-owned mining farms would still be operational because of the availability of free electricity. So, let's assume this was right. If the government takes over mining, then how is Bitcoin mining going to be dead?

Government have their own decision to choose form between what they go after in bitcoin and cryptocurrency, they may decide today by investing or regulate other institution in the same crypto networks using bitcoin for many other purposes, we have the likes of how they have attacked on the miners in the past and achieve nothing from this before leaving them alone to their job, if today they also want to join in mining or any other related activities that pertains bitcoin use, they are welcome, but they must understand the true identity of a decentralized currency.

I do not care who mines my transaction since I trust the Bitcoin blockchain system.  In fact, I would be glad if the government joined in the Bitcoin mining process.  The more country trying to get involved in the mining activity, the more secure the network is.  Imagine global governments competing for the Bitcoin reward. That would be wow for the security of the blockchain.I also think with countries participating, the network will become more decentralized because each country will have a check on each other not to monopolize the network that can result to 51% attack.

I don't care what parties that mined my Bitcoin. Even if it's Government who did it, let's accept the fact that if cost to mine each bitcoin is getting even more non sense. Let's not forget about the fact that halving made cost to mine every bitcoin become hard to afford even by a mining company. I don't think that mining companies can stay for so long caused by debt bubble -

- will be forming in order in building more hashrate to mine BTC. There will be a time when Gov comes to help in securing the Bitcoin network by mining it with their surplus electricity. yeah, we hate it, but we need it.

I am not interested to read this article. i always use non-custodial wallet So it is not possible to track me personally and those who are mining are earning Bitcoin through mining and there is no chance of invalidating any block of Bitcoin so whoever is the miner can never invalidate my transaction and send it to the wrong address. so I have no worries about who is mining my transaction. And if miners cannot complete the transaction correctly, they will not receive any rewards. That is why they are also very careful to confirm all the blocks.

How do you think it's going to be possible for KYC to be required before including your transaction in a block? I don't think that's what you should be worried about. What i think is more worrisome is the possibility of targeting selected addresses and its transactions for longer delays purposefully or outright exclusion.It really doesn't matter, at least to me, who includes transactions as long as it is all done efficiently.
That said, governments are selfish and would likely exploit to its own advantage, anything they're interested and seek to involve in. 

I don't care who mines the block and who adds and process my transaction because either it is government, they are not getting any information about me, I am as anonymous with the government miners mining my tx into the block as I am anonymous with the one they are holding.

They can't do any harm; they can't hijack anyone's assets, either. So, this talk is nonsense to me. Although if they want to close their services as miners, they can; they can't confiscate my funds, so there is really nothing to fear about. I don't care who is mining my transaction, nobody should be that paranoid.

If mining isn't profitable, then we won't see the demand for ASIC is keep on increasing that makes your statement completely invalid. Hypothetically, if we say miners stopped because it is no more affordable and then the government is taking over the miners then they have no reason to keep the integrity of the network because decentralization is against their nature of governance so they all will try to bring down the network not the other way.

But as I said, it is an invalid argument.

If only governments can afford to mine, doesnt that just turn Bitcoin into the same kind of centralized currency we were trying to avoid in the first place?  Isnt that the whole point we would be losing?

mining can work for decades to come. if btc price goes up.

but if price does not rise btc and miners will struggle.

as for the government taking over fuck that.  USA alone owes over 34trillion government accounting is a fucking joke.

The increased demand for ASIC can come from the various parties i.e newminers or even government itself who have surplus electricity. Don't assume it's always coming from existing miners who are still profitable from their mining activity. That obviously pumping the hasrate difficulties, and skyrocketing the production cost of Bitcoin.  

If half a dozen country government decide to become bitcoin miners and censor transaction then it wont make much difference as a whole. Do you know how much hash power there is currently and how difficult or impossible it would be for a country to control 51% of the hashrate. I dont think any country could even control 10% of the hashrate, well perhaps maybe China.

So for most users this wouldnt be a big issue they would just need to wait longer for their transaction to get approved on the next block mined by another miner. And if it became a bigger issue then honestly bitcoins price would fall because people would just sell it and move to another blockchain that doesnt censor transactions.

Some miners may not mine again, making it profitable for the remaining miners. The price of bitcoin will later rise and those that did not stop mining will make higher profit if they do not sell when the price is low. Not selling at low prices will increase scarcity also.

Increased hash rate means an increase in new miners, irrespective it is solo miners or the government decides to start mining bitcoin with their unlimited electricity availability. ;D

Difficulty adjustment happens on it's own depending on the total hashrate on the network and it is an irrelevant factor though because if miners are not in profits then they won't be mining in the first place.

Even when all bitcoin have been mined miner will make money off of transaction fees and at that point im sure that it will be lucrative to an extent for them even so. It would have to be in order to keep the network running and for Bitcoin mining to continue. I will one day run my own node.

I'm not going to follow the link because cointelegraph is shit, pretty much like most of these "crypto news" sites. I remember coindesk used to be OK at the start then they became shit and people told them in the comments so they removed the whole comment section :D F all of them, I'm not going to make traffic for them.

As for the miners dying I believe this is all some form of an organized FUD campaign. Bitcoin price went down following the US FED announcements and suddenly every bad journalists tries to explain this move like it's the end of the world and some sort of internal problem of bitcoin like hard fork FUD, miners dying, government bans, or that it's because there's no reserve being made in the US yet.

Read between the lines. They're about to print the shit out of USD and yhe whole USD rally post FED announcement is fake.