The purpose of mining is to process transactions.  Since there is no centralized authority with control over the ledger (i.e. the Blockchain), there needs to be a way for transactions to be processed in a decentralized way.  Miners take upon this responsibility by using their hardware to process transactions, but of course, this comes with a cost (i.e. time + cost of hardware + electrical costs).  Accordingly, there needs to be an incentive for people to do this, and that's why miners are compensated with the block subsidy (currently at 25 BTC every ~10 minutes on average).

When the block subsidy runs out, there still needs to be an incentive for miners to keep processing transactions.  This is where transaction fees come into play.  Assuming BTC still exists when the block subsidy approaches zero, it is likely that the both the number of users and the daily volume of BTC transacted will be many times greater than what it is today, and so miners will receive the fees attached to each user transaction (by this point, it's possible that the sum of fees per block may be greater than the original 50 BTC subsidy).

"Old people" need to understand why mining is valuable and why it should be rewarded.  Don't explain it as something akin to "creating money out of thin air," but instead explain that miners are providing a useful service to the network by processing transactions, and this is a very valuable service.  Because this service supports every single user of the Bitcoin economy, it makes sense that the users pay something for this service (i.e. by paying a small transaction fee).  The beauty of the decentralized system is that this fee can be greatly reduced compared to other methods of payment like credit cards because the network itself only requires minimum infrastructure and therefore doesn't come with the insane overhead costs you can expect from a corporate entity like PayPal or a bank.  

Yep, or regulate it to death so it won't be mainstream,  or buy and sell large, random amounts frequently for an indefinite period of time to create intolerable volatility.

Based upon the number and type of questions you're asking, my guess is you haven't done a lot of personal research about Bitcoin.

First, despite what anyone is telling you on this forum, *nobody* here knows what the true state of quantum computing is like.   It's been asserted in this thread that quantum computing is nowhere near the point where we can crack SHA-256 with it.  This is almost assuredly true given that there is no known instance of quantum computers wreaking utter havoc on everything.  I'm pretty certain that if such an advanced computer existed, someone somewhere would have blown something up with it a long time ago.  But, when you go off talking about supercomputers, this is different than a quantum computer.  Currently, even an entire cluster of supercomputers wouldn't push the difficulty very high -- the network is currently *far* more powerful.

Second, if that's the best plan you think a bank could come up with, let me tell you something -- it sucks and is somewhat laughable.   As I just alluded to, supercomputers would definitely not be the way to go here.    Forcing some type of scenario where the profitability of mining drops to zero or becomes negative is somewhat pointless if all you're trying to do is stop people from mining.  Mining will always move towards an equilibrium between cost and benefits -- if difficulty increases to a point that threatens profitability, miners will drop out, and when the difficulty goes back down after they drop out, you'll see miners jumping back on board.

Third, even if you did have a quantum computer that was powerful enough to crack SHA-256, then believe me when I say there are a *lot* more profitable targets than Bitcoin.  

Fourth, what would it matter if they "drop the rent of supercomputing power?"   Aside from the fact that I mentioned earlier that supercomputers are little wimps compared to the Bitcoin network, how would making hashing power more affordable threaten the network?  

Currently, as I see it, the easiest way for a large entity to kill Bitcoin would simply be to buy enough ASICs to gain a majority share of the network hashrate so they can control it at will (or just buy and sell a large, random number of BTC every day to make it intolerably volatile for an indefinite period, but let's forget about that one for now).  A few billion dollars ought to be enough.  But then the question comes -- "WHY?"

Why spend a few billion (which, even for a bank, is a sizable amount of money) to kill a market that's only worth a few billion in the first place?  All this likely means is that one bank is now out a few billion dollars and are thus economically weaker compared to their competitors (i.e. other banks) who never spent even a penny.  Is a bank really going to sacrifice market share to its competitors based upon some *potential* treat?  Now, if the market cap of Bitcoin was tens or hundreds of billion dollars, this would imply that the network hashrate is many times greater, and now it becomes difficult for even a bank to scrounge up enough money to purchase the hardware required to gain a majority share of the network.

TL;DR:  Bitcoin has natural incentives built into it's core model that dissuade people from attacking it.

What clues then are indicated by corruption in other markets (e.g. DOGE forks, pump-and-dumps, etc.).  You conclusion that corruption implicates an organization is plausible, but a non-sequitur, don't you think?

By the way, you're still forgetting that the community *voted* to support the 184 billion BTC exploit fix.  If they didn't, nobody would be on the current blockchain.

For a kid in his mid-20's, you don't think he handles himself well given the ludicrous amount of money and attention he receives?

If I was Lebron James, I'm pretty sure I'd end up acting like Justin Bieber, or worse...like Lyndsay Lohan.

And I must say I'm really disappointed in myself for drawing these comparisons :/

Yes, you think and you have an opinion and you're sharing it.  You are voting by not using the software.  Those who are using it have elected to do so, so they've cast their votes, too.  Why promote centralization in a democratic -- if not at times seemingly anarchic -- community?

And why would someone just suddenly agree to *help destroy a multibillion-dollar market* if they don't agree with you?  

...You sure you've thought this through?  Good luck getting a profiting miner to stop so he can help devalue the currency he just mined

 

You're overlooking something.  I figured this would be a good-enough comment to quote before you go off into all caps.

The community *did* choose, by a majority vote, to allow Gavin to implement a fix to the protocol.  The fact is that an overwhelming majority of the community seems to trust Gavin.  There have already been plenty of attempts to release Bitcoin clones under a  'more fair' distribution model (e,g, Bytecoin) but none of them have ever gained much traction.

There are literally hundreds of alternatives to Bitcoin, and it's obvious to anyone who's familiar with them that a good number of them are technically superior to Bitcoin in a lot of ways.  For now, Bitcoin seems to be 'good enough' to most people that use it.  Of course it's possible that something far superior could come along -- possibly from a team of professionals supported by a major financial player -- that would clearly out-compete Bitcoin.  But, to date, the community has *always* chosen by selecting the cryptocurrency software of its choice.  There is nothing stopping someone from releasing a fork and promoting it.

Banned for not banning the guy who's about to ban me.

I can confirm this

Sold!

Fair enough.  When I sell, I *loathe* escrow, but when I'm the buyer I love having the option...

Although, I would like to point out that trusting an established escrow isn't much different than trusting a member (e.g. me) with a solid transaction history.  Either way you're putting your trust in someone.

I can sell one individually if you'd like.  I'll shoot you a PM.

Bump!  I have to move these!  Get some great physicals at a great price!

I assumed it was a rather absurd question, but sometimes you never know until you ask.

How thoughtful.

Same goes for all those Bitcoin idiots that pay more for the all-silver 10 BTC Casascius coin compared to the gold & silver 10 BTC coin, right?   

They're called collectibles for a reason.  There's psychological impact there. 

Ordinarily, yes, I would reluctantly consent to escrow, but I'm trying to sell these quickly because I have some personal matters that require it, and also because I'm doing a home remodel and I'd like to be showering by Wednesday.

As for the pictures, if it's the condition you're concerned with, I have extras, and if you're not satisfied with the condition, ship the coins you don't want back and I can swap them out and ship you replacements.

Yes, and not without gloves.   They were originally packaged in cardboard sleeves.  Then they went:  sleeves --> gloved hands --> plastic baggie --> tiny lock box --> safe.

I have a surplus and can try to select the nicest ones.

Edit:  Probably should mention that the firstbits I listed were randomly chosen, but all of my 2013s were purchased together, so the mint dates on all of them should be the same.  Same goes for the ones in the photos, but that doesn't matter cause you can't see the detail anyway :\

I also have a Janurary-minted 2012 in nice shape if you're interested.

 Major price cut for a short-time only!  Jump on the lot at 1.25 BTC per coin!

No worries, no offense taken.  This place is a rat's nest.

Fortunately, some of us have been around here for a few years, make thousands of posts with substance, and conduct dozens of flawless transactions to build trust   This turns faith into a belief.

But yes, the camera is horrible.