This fixed supply is going to eat Bitcoin

[rasho321]

So the real question for Cyprtocurrencies is are they economical.  To be economical, the cost to sustain them, the actual "mining" costs, needs to be economical for the number of transactions.  So you need to look at the cost of the transaction and see if the mining costs are sustainable.  Bitcoin has a huge cost to mine this is the cost of the computers and the electricity to run them.  As time goes on the computations get harder and harder making transaction costs higher and higher and the price always going up this is sustainable but at some point there will be no more coins to mine and there will have to be transaction costs charged.  As the price levels off and there will be no more currency created (out of thin air) there will be no way to pay for the mining except through transaction fees.  Now if miners want to cover the costs to mine they will have to take a portion of the transaction and for this to be economical it can only be a small fraction of the transaction value.  So the currency must be able to accommodate 10s of thousands of transactions per second at a fraction of the amount of the transaction. So far bit coin does about 3-4 transactions per second. So we are not even close yet.  The real question is is it possible to have a sufficiently "hard" (read secure) cyrptocurrency that can accommodate 10s of thousands of transactions a second at a cost that is a fraction of the transaction?  Currently the big credit card companies are doing it at about 2%.  The question is can a Cryptocurrency do the same thing securely at a lower cost? Not yet and may be not for a long time if ever.

The value of a cyrptocurrency is not it's price it's the technology that supports it. The Tech is open source and can be implemented by anyone so what you are "buying" now are Tulips.

[stompix]

You really need to go and learn more about bitcoin.
Or stop copy pasting from stupid blogs or newspapers.

  As time goes on the computations get harder and harder making transaction costs higher and higher and the price always going up this is sustainable but at some point there will be no more coins to mine and there will have to be transaction costs charged.

This is so wrong in so many places I will not even try to correct it.Better erase it or throw the post in the recycle bin .

Difficulty is adjusted based on how many miners plug in their gear. They will not mine if the reward is smaller than the cost.
At this point difficulty will go down, but the network can go on even with one FPGA miner. (this not to say a p1 133mhz miner).

There are no transactions cost being "charged". Nobody is charging you a fee.
You pay that fee on your own, you pay as much as you want. The miners are not charging you, they are either accepting it or declining it.

And with the tulips comparison, are we still talking about tulips? Common.... give it a rest.

[coinycoiny]

Bitcoin uses a lot of electricity.

Someone has to pay for it.

Its not the miners.

[Anti-Cen]

Bitcoin uses a lot of electricity.

Someone has to pay for it.

Its not the miners.

Clearly you have a lot to learn and having 20,000 miners has just lead to a CPU war that keep hardware
manufactures in profit and all the wasted energy keep big oil happy.

BTC would work fine with 100 full node, 200 is better and forget the bullshit about 51% attack because
a decent bit of software like used by everyone else works just fine and the miners are just rip off merchants
because the translation cost was $0.10 at the start of the year so nice try with the propaganda but you
won't fool me.

[squatz1]

Bitcoin uses a lot of electricity.

Someone has to pay for it.

Its not the miners.

You fail to understand that in timesof issues, innovation will happen. So yes, at the moment a lot of power is being used by Bitcoin and other altcoin farms all around the world-- but this doesn't mean that there isn't resarch and development being put into cryptocurrency right now.

People will fix this problem, as if it will save people money (and it will, as less electricity usage in mining = more money for the farm owner) it will be fixed.

You've really gotta learn from the people here and not the people that areon the MSM

[Yakamoto]

So the real question for Cyprtocurrencies is are they economical.  To be economical, the cost to sustain them, the actual "mining" costs, needs to be economical for the number of transactions.  So you need to look at the cost of the transaction and see if the mining costs are sustainable.  Bitcoin has a huge cost to mine this is the cost of the computers and the electricity to run them.  As time goes on the computations get harder and harder making transaction costs higher and higher and the price always going up this is sustainable but at some point there will be no more coins to mine and there will have to be transaction costs charged.  As the price levels off and there will be no more currency created (out of thin air) there will be no way to pay for the mining except through transaction fees.  Now if miners want to cover the costs to mine they will have to take a portion of the transaction and for this to be economical it can only be a small fraction of the transaction value.  So the currency must be able to accommodate 10s of thousands of transactions per second at a fraction of the amount of the transaction. So far bit coin does about 3-4 transactions per second. So we are not even close yet.  The real question is is it possible to have a sufficiently "hard" (read secure) cyrptocurrency that can accommodate 10s of thousands of transactions a second at a cost that is a fraction of the transaction?  Currently the big credit card companies are doing it at about 2%.  The question is can a Cryptocurrency do the same thing securely at a lower cost? Not yet and may be not for a long time if ever.

The value of a cyrptocurrency is not it's price it's the technology that supports it. The Tech is open source and can be implemented by anyone so what you are "buying" now are Tulips.

The big thing for Bitcoin is that everything you're saying becomes impactful around 2140. There are no issues with the mining before then and you have to remember that, by that time, Bitcoin will either be boom or bust and it will either be insanely popular or it will die out, partially due to what you're listing as potential detractors in the future of the community. And it almost certainly won't be the same thing that it is today, and it will likely be changed so that it can accommodate such a transaction volume. That is, assuming there is a need for it and the Core team is willing to let the blocks grow to be able to confirm those many transactions.

[HeRetiK]

The fixed supply and ever dropping block reward is the only thing that keeps Bitcoin sustainable. The fact that at one point in time miners will merely have the transaction fees to survive on, is the only thing that will keep Bitcoin's electricity usage in check. Even if blocks where half empty after block rewards have subsided with Bitcoin trading at less than a dollar, mining would still reach a profitable equilibrium in one way or another.

Bitcoin uses a lot of electricity.

Someone has to pay for it.

Its not the miners.

If you are arguing that in the end Bitcoin buyers are footing the bill, thus capping the amount that miners are willing to pay for electricity, you would be correct.

Otherwise I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

[coinycoiny]

Bitcoin uses a lot of electricity.

Someone has to pay for it.

Its not the miners.

Clearly you have a lot to learn and having 20,000 miners has just lead to a CPU war that keep hardware
manufactures in profit and all the wasted energy keep big oil happy.

BTC would work fine with 100 full node, 200 is better and forget the bullshit about 51% attack because
a decent bit of software like used by everyone else works just fine and the miners are just rip off merchants
because the translation cost was $0.10 at the start of the year so nice try with the propaganda but you
won't fool me.

Not sure what I have to learn. Miners turn off their machines if they don't make a profit. Since we are still seeing transactions going through then someone is paying the electricity costs of a small country. Clue, its not the miners.

Miners are paid by new coins (inflation) and transaction fees.

That is fact not propaganda. Deal with it.

[Anti-Cen]

Bitcoin will work just as good (Bad Really) with 100 full nodes but we have 20,000 miners taking part in
CPU wars that makes hardware manufactures rich and all the energy waste keeps big oil
happy.

Bankers want in and the Lightning Network which is nothing more than a sticking plaster
lets them in as you can see from the link below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHFrf5ci_g

We have been served a low ball with the fees and they might fool a few people
with the excuses but any software developer that is not a script kiddy can see
what is going on here and slow speeds and crazy $45 transaction fees has made
the currency unusable so let that whales buy it all back and hold the baby when
the music stops.

[Anti-Cen]

Not sure what I have to learn. Miners turn off their machines if they don't make a profit. Since we are still seeing transactions going through then someone is paying the electricity costs of a small country. Clue, its not the miners.

Miners are paid by new coins (inflation) and transaction fees.

That is fact not propaganda. Deal with it.

Yes fact 20,000 machine just to deal with 7 transactions a second and it will still be 7 if we have 100,000 miners
or just one hundred.

See the white-paper "Virtual free transactions fees" and get back to me when them dollar signs in your
eyes have been removed because your excuse somehow is not working but if you would like to send
me a copy of any degrees you have in computer science then maybe I will listen to you.

Regards MCSD, Msc