Two things you have overlooked:

1. X grows every 10 minutes. What that mean if the buy side is constant?

2. Whether 12.5 or 25, it's very small compared to X.

 Or  miners will turn off unprofitable equipment when the price does not rise.

franky1, your explanations are pure fantasy and speculation. You have no evidence to back up your claims. You say that the reason that there was no immediate rise at the first halving is due to people focused on Christmas. LOL. Good luck supporting that claim.

Here is evidence against your claim of the existence of a "december lull".

12/2010 - Price falls from $0.25 to $0.20, then rises to $0.30: +50% (preceded by -20%)
12/2011 - Price rises from $3.20 to $5.00: +56%
12/2012 - Price rises from $12.40 to $13.20: +6%  (post-halving) <---
12/2013 - Price drops from $1150 to $750: -35%
12/2014 - Price drops from $380 to $310: -18%
12/2015 - Price rises from $360 to $470, then falls to $430: +31% (followed by -9% )

There is no "december lull". If anything, the halving appears to have prevented a change in price instead of causing one.

It is not a huge difference. Before the halving, the number of bitcoins increases by 0.024% each day. After the halving, the number of bitcoins will increase by 0.012% per day. A difference of 0.012% cannot be considered huge.

People that believe that the supply will decrease as a result of the halving are confusing supply with production. Supply and demand is a thing. Production and demand is not.

That's not how it works. Sellers (including miners) are free to ask for higher prices, but if buyers won't pay those prices (typically because others ask for less), then prices don't rise.

Each miner is free to decide on their own minimum acceptable fee and reject those transactions that don't meet the minimum. No enforcement of a uniform minimum is necessary.

Have you seen Airbitz? You might like its look.

A few years ago, blockchain.info scraped bitcointalk signatures for addresses and then generated tags for all the addresses they found. I don't know if they still do that.

After they refused to remove my tag, I removed the address from my signature and sent all the funds at that address through a mixer somewhere else.

Sorry, your proof is insufficient. I was active for a year before I registered an account at Bitcointalk. They could have also been active without registering accounts.

I agree. I'm pointing out that the marginal cost of the orphan risk could be very low. The result would be low miner revenue and thus insufficient deterrence of a 51% attack.

Also, note that artificially limiting the size of the blocks does not eliminate this risk because transactions can move to cheaper off-chain systems such as LN with the same result.

Nobody controls the transaction fee amounts. It is up to each individual miner to decide whether they want to include a transaction or not, and up to each node whether they want to relay a transaction or not.

So, there are no arguments to discuss.

Are you instead looking for predictions on the future of transaction fees? I think DannyHamilton provided a decent analysis. However, it is not clear that assumption #1 is a good assumption.


It is possible that economic incentive for miners to limit the number of transactions in their blocks is very low, and that could mean very low transaction fees if there is no artificial limit to the block size. As a result, mining revenue may not be sufficient to pay for maintaining the integrity of the block chain as the subsidy decreases.

Very nice summary. I never feel motivated enough to do such a thorough analysis every time someone asks, "should I mine bitcoins?", so I applaud your work.

Bitcoin value does not work like the values of stocks, oil, or gold.

Stocks have underlying value because companies produce things of value. Bitcoin does not.
Oil is consumed. If production goes to 0, so does the supply. Bitcoins are not consumed (except for lost coins).
Gold production depends on the price of gold. Bitcoin production is fixed.

Another word for "self perpetuating snowball effect" is "bubble". Bubbles pop.

I'm puzzled by all this talk about "the halving price". The halving itself has no effect on the price other than reducing the downward pressure of an ever-increasing supply.

Miners are free to include or exclude any transactions for any reason (as long as the included transactions are valid).

Since I am suspicious of BitClub, I am suspicious of the whole episode.

It is possible for Bitclub to have inserted the transaction into their block (without transmitting over the network to other miners).

It would have cost them nothing, and they could gain a favorable opinion by returning the bitcoins to themselves.


Danny, I'm curious why you write that the "from" address is just a guess. The transaction inputs all refer to ouputs in standard pay-to-pubkey-hash transactions with an address of 1QgT...agbh

So TA tells us that at some point the price will either go up, go down, or stay the same. Very insightful.

Here is one way of estimating the value: Assume 100% adoption means that all the money in the world is replaced by bitcoins. The base money supply is about $14 trillion. If that were replaced by the 15 million bitcoins in circulation, each bitcoin would be worth about $900,000. Take that number with a grain of salt. There are other significant factors.

The separate 2 and 3 BTC amounts would be combined when sent normally, but it is possible to do it differently, as Shorena pointed out.