I looked it up for you. It seems that you used this site. Looks familiar?

Could be possible that the site experiences extreme delays because of the small amounts. Or maybe somebody was really kind to fill in your address from your signature.

Well, if you didn't find that answer elsewhere on this website, then maybe you deserve it to be called a newbie.

There is no rule, law or right that miners have to get money only because the fact they are mining. So the price of Bitcoin doesn't have to go up. That's ridiculous. The number of miners will always be a balance between the money that can be made by mining and the costs of equipment, electricity, space, and expertise.

Another "I believe it is not fair" thread. It's never easy to make money. If it was, everybody would be rich. Bitcoin shouldn't be a vehicle that make people rich, it's an instrument to make payments and maybe store some value. The early adopters and developers got their fair share, that easy block reward was just their income paid for the time and money they put into it. The protocol as it is works fine until now, and if the decreasing rewards will fail in the future then so be it. Some other better crypto currency will pick up where Bitcoin left off. Maybe crypto currencies will fail all together.


Make a new one, or continue to use Bitcoin for payments or make some awesome new application for it.

OP: I think your question is perfectly fine asking why the reward is chosen as it is, but maybe you should leave out the "it's unfair" part.

Doesn't seem to be a good idea to lock unused Bitcoins. If someone is just saving it for some reason, they can lose them. And it doesn't solve the addresses with large amounts of Bitcoin. They can just move them every one or ten years to another address.
To determine the price of one BTC you don't have to know the total supply. It's always a matter of supply and demand.

Ah, newbie again? You can't just setback old members.

In my opinion newbie jail was a good thing. Newbies could ask often very good and sometimes very stupid questions, and were encouraged to investigate before posting onto the other sections. I also recommend to keep the newbie section. Curious to see how things go.

Thanks for your elaborate answers, they're quite helpful.

Other reason, same outcome. Don't forget, if you move coins, even from your own wallet to another that you own, it still is included in the block chain and it uses resources of the miners. They just get a compensation.

When you collect satochis from faucets, it means you have a lot of inputs with a small amount of BTC. When you make a new transaction you bundle all these small amounts, which in turn causes a large set of data. And the more data, the higher the fee. Fee is voluntary, but in most wallets mandatory. It's for your own good, otherwise it probably will never be accepted by miners. The fee ends up with the miner who mines the block.

So probably part of the transactions will never be accepted by any miner. But I cannot believe that if a block with only one transaction is found right after another, that there was no transactions in the pool whatsoever. Or can it be a strategy to not check the last block's integrity and which transactions it contains, and try to mine an empty block as fast as possible?

Secondly, transactions that are never going to be accepted don't disappear from the network after some timeout period?

And third, I understand that miners can implement their own way of making blocks. But when for example a miner only accepts blocks with 10 transactions, is there some regulating force that counter balances that?

Don't want to be rude, but shouldn't you find out for yourself? If somebody would have good information about making money out of something, he probably would not tell. Any other advise is just to direct you to a coin where he/she has a stake in.

Well, it should not really be a random formula. It has to be deterministic, otherwise nobody could check it.

I would place it next to planking, gangnam style, Chuck Norris facts, Diet Coke and Mentos, LOLcat, and Angry Birds.

Sometimes I notice on blockchain.info that a new block is found, but contains only one transaction. That one transaction is of course the block reward. This mostly happens if the block is found within a minute after the previous block. Nothing strange so far.
But when I look at the unconfirmed transactions, sometimes more than 2000 pop up. I don't know if blockchain.info gives a distorted view of the situation, but does somebody knows what is going on here.
Second thing I noticed, is that GHash.IO, at the moment the biggest pool, only appears to make blocks of ~243kB. BTC Guild often makes much bigger blocks. Probably it is up to them to choose how much transactions they want to include, but is it a good thing?

Always better than double taxation.

If it becomes to cheap, then the block chain would become very large. That wouldn't be good either.

I don't know if Satochi ever thought about the phenomenon of mining pools. But I wouldn't say that it is a major flaw, it is how Bitcoin is designed. The community is not even sure yet if the 50% is the critical boundary to attack Bitcoin or if it can be done with an even lower percentage of hashing power.
I'm not even sure if somebody would ever wanted to do that. If something like that would happen, maybe Bitcoin would fail all together. Then the attacker wouldn't get anything out of it, except killing Bitcoin.

I agree, that's one of the best ways to introduce people to Bitcoin. Hopefully they like it and start reading up on it.

It would be nice if you would list the casinos that you think aren't good enough. It works both ways then.

That only works if it is made sticky.