|
The initial subsidy was 5,000,000,000 satoshis (50 BTC) per block. This value is halved every 210,000 blocks until it reachs zero. If you add up all the subsidies, you will get a number slightly less than 2,100,000,000,000,000 satoshis (21 million BTC).
It is not known exactly why 2,100,000,000,000,000 was picked, but it is thought that it was picked because it fits in the mantissa of a 64-bit floating point number, and the generation parameters are simple and reasonable.
|
|
|
|
How about the case of gold? Isn't that almost purely a store of value just because its shiny and society puts a value on it?
I do see your point about the fees being a driving force for miners to mine, but if BTC had 0 fees tomorrow and only block reward payouts then would mining come to a halt and price crash down?
What do you think about his distaste for protocols and the theory that constant forking will occur to dilute them down to purely the cost of computing?
Gold had a very long tradition as a currency. I feel that its value is still supported by that tradition, but it won't last forever. I can't think of why an absence of fees would cause all miners to quit while they still earn the subsidy. The idea that a very large number of forks will dilute the value is not supported by history. There are thousands of cryptos (most of which are worth very little compared to the value of Bitcoin), and Bitcoin is still about 40% of the total. The network effect determines where the value will go. Eventually, we will see only a handful of significant currencies, and the rest will be niche coins at best. |
|
|
|
My first issue, even without reading the paper, is that in order to be a store-of-value, there must be some value to store. If Bitcoin is nothing more than a store-of-value, then it has none. Now, on to the paper. The author claims that PQ (in MV = PQ) is the the cost of running the system (mining in the Bitcoin case), and concludes that the value of M can be primarily based on its use as a store-of-value, with little regard to its utility as a payment system. Unfortunately, that is both circular reasoning and contradictory in the Bitcoin case. The truth is that the cost of mining depends on M because of the subsidy and on the utility as the payment system because of the fees. Please note that M, in this case, represents the value of the money supply.M depending on PQ when PQ depends on M is circular reasoning. Actually, both depending on each other is reasonable if you consider it to be something like a feedback loop, but in that case both M and PQ must then depend on other factors. M depending on the cost of mining, which in turn depends on fees, is a direct statement that M depends on the utility as a payment system. Thus the conclusion that Bitcoin's value can be unrelated to its utility as a payment system is a contradiction. |
|
|
|
|
One problem with writing that "X is backed by Y", is that there are many meanings for "backed by". Without stating what you mean by "backed by", this discussion will go nowhere.
|
|
|
|
... the POW system and the miners are what create the coins and give us basis for a price point. Without that system in place we wouldn't have originating prices. ...
How do you explain proof-of-stake coins having a price greater than 0? |
|
|
|
|
Every economist will tell you that tariffs are destructive to everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Jordan Belfort is a convicted scammer. He has yet to pay restitution to the people that he stole millions of dollars from. He has no credibility.
He is no more than a footnote to Charles Ponzi, and not even the greatest footnote.
|
|
|
|
You can do a site specific search in Google. Just prefix your search with site:BitcoinTalk.org
For example enter this into the search box
site:BitcoinTalk.org AxeGrinder
Yes, unfortunately Google is better at searching this site than the site's own search function. |
|
|
|
|
It is not clear from your post just what you think the situation is, and what we are supposed to respond to.
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like whales are the new boogeyman, now.
Anyway, it is not surprising that whales have increased their holdings. The price has dropped 65% and that means that many people have exited, and a huge number of bitcoins have been sold to the people that have remained, whether they are whales or minnows.
|
|
|
|
|
I have no idea why you wrote about Coinbase, but the article shows that Bitstrade is running a Ponzi scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
It is crazy and not sustainable, yet I can't think of why it might be a problem.
|
|
|
|
Ok, for all of you that insist that Bitcoin is not useless, tell me! What do you use Bitcoin for? Please don't tell me what it could be used for or how other people might use it. I want to know how you use it. Also, please don't tell me about trading or hodling. Those are not uses. |
|
|
|
|
The U.S. can be just about as bad.
39.6% Federal tax on short term gains
12.3% California tax on short term gains
0.9% Medicare Tax
= 52.8%
|
|
|
|
|
All those people that say that Bitcoin is backed by nothing, but the dollar is backed by the fact that you have to pay taxes with it are going to have to come up with a new story.
|
|
|
|
|
Your question made me think of an interesting exploit. In any fork of bitcoin that does not support segwit, anyone can spend the bitcoins at any segwit address.
|
|
|
|
|
If your account hasn't been credited, then you need to contact the exchange. Other than confirming that everything looks good on the block chain, it would be difficult for anyone else to help determine why it has not been credited.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
