Is btc price sustainable with growing downward selling pressure of energy use?

[colinistheman]

Now contrast that to gold and if no new money was entering the gold ecosystem, does the value of gold go lower? No, it stays the same without some kind of daily cash inflow just to keep it at the same value.

So it seems bitcoin has an upkeep cost and gold does not, when it comes to maintaining the value the same. And if that upkeep cost isn't paid (in bitcoin's case) then you get a gradually eroding price.

I think you are mistaken.

Mining gold also has costs.  The gold mining corporation must pay for these costs (equipment suppliers, employees, electricity, fuel, etc) with fiat currency.  This means that the gold mining corporation must dump their mined gold onto the market to cover their costs.  If this gold mining "upkeep cost" isn't paid with an equivalent amount of gold demand at the current gold exchange rate then gold gets a gradually eroding price.

This is simple economics.  It's true of gold, corn, pork, bitcoins, or any other valued commodity.  There is always a cost associated with producing the commodity.  If demand is higher than the supply, then the exchange rate increases.  If demand is lower than the supply, then the exchange rate decreases.

Yes I totally agree, but I am asking something a little different. I am not referring to the producing of the commodity (such as mining of gold out of the ground, or mining new bitcoins as in the reward for each new block).

I am referring to the simple act of allowing the existing mined coins to continue to exist. Gold can just exist, as it is. It's a physical object. Bitcoins cannot. Without continued use of (ever increasing quantities of) electricity, bitcoins do not exist (due to being digital in nature). Transactions must be continually be able to be put in blocks every 10 minutes or the bitcoins are worthless and for all intents and purposes don't "exist". Thus, there is a neverending "existence payment" (to coin a new term) in the form of electricity payments, just to have existing bitcoins continue to exist.

I find it a little challenging to put this concept into words, so I hope I am explaining it in an okay manner.

So the difference is you don't have to mine more gold to allow existing gold to continue to exist. If you stopped mining gold, the existing gold would still exist. But with bitcoin, you have to continually spend energy to mine, even if just to confirm transactions (not even talking about making new coins). There is a forced flow of money out of the bitcoin ecosystem to pay for energy, which puts constant downward pressure on the price. This is what has me concerned for a higher and higher hashrate network.

That all being said, bitcoin can of course do things no other money can. But I just wanted to focus on the costs of running the bitcoin network and the long-term effects that constant selling pressure has on the price of bitcoin.

[1715157073]

1715157073

[1715157073]

1715157073

[1715157073]

1715157073

[notlist3d]

I thought about this a little bit more.  There is no doubt that energy use is very important at this point. It's not so much a arms race of amount of hash, but amount of low cost hash.  Most big companies can follow the low cost electricity.

The big mining companies will NOT mine at a loss.   So this would bring a balance.  At a point where they are mining at a loss chances are they would shutdown after a time of losing money.  No company can lose money long term.

[hennessyhemp]

While this may be a lofty idea, my thought process is that if Bitcoin gets exponentially more profitable for miners than miners will be able to lead the world in new technologies related to power generation.  We already have ASIC's on the 20nm scale and even smaller ones in the works for mining machines, so what if we focused on improving the tech behind generating power.

To that end, I think solar cells, wind, and hydro plants are just a natural progression for miners, as you could effectively mine twice, bitcoin and the power to generate it.

Also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU

[notlist3d]

While this may be a lofty idea, my thought process is that if Bitcoin gets exponentially more profitable for miners than miners will be able to lead the world in new technologies related to power generation.  We already have ASIC's on the 20nm scale and even smaller ones in the works for mining machines, so what if we focused on improving the tech behind generating power.

To that end, I think solar cells, wind, and hydro plants are just a natural progression for miners, as you could effectively mine twice, bitcoin and the power to generate it.

Also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU

Solar, wind, hydro just is to expensive to start with.  I think people will chase cheap electricity vs something with high start up costs.

The big companies can chase cheap electricity where ever it is.   I predict this vs the solar/hydro/wind stuff.

[mrhelpful]

If the bitcoin is halved every 4 years, shouldnt we buying regadless then.

Due to limited supply, thats an instant value increase forming it as a commodity and can just worst case scenario represent a certain amount of gold. And have like a bank to utilized the units of supply instead of moving the physical gold around they assigned by units of bitcoin.

Of course, eventually they would have 1 sold bitcoin of some metrics table with higher bar counts to 1 bitcoin.

[alh]

If the bitcoin is halved every 4 years, shouldnt we buying regadless then.

Due to limited supply, thats an instant value increase forming it as a commodity and can just worst case scenario represent a certain amount of gold. And have like a bank to utilized the units of supply instead of moving the physical gold around they assigned by units of bitcoin.

Of course, eventually they would have 1 sold bitcoin of some metrics table with higher bar counts to 1 bitcoin.

The fact that the block reward is cut in half does nothing to the existing coins. Think of it as a reduction in the rate the dolar bill notes are printed. There are a wide variety of opinions (speculation) as to what will happen at the next halving. My understanding is that we have only had one previous halving, and it's difficult to draw any conclusions from that experience. I would argue that entire Bitcoin mining infrastructure is massively different than back in 2012, and any conclusions would be highly suspect. I also expect that there will be a great deal of "adjustment" that happens within farms and such as the time draws near. I have no idea how that will affect Bitcoin price though.

[noobtrader]

If the bitcoin is halved every 4 years, shouldnt we buying regadless then.

Due to limited supply, thats an instant value increase forming it as a commodity and can just worst case scenario represent a certain amount of gold. And have like a bank to utilized the units of supply instead of moving the physical gold around they assigned by units of bitcoin.

Of course, eventually they would have 1 sold bitcoin of some metrics table with higher bar counts to 1 bitcoin.

The fact that the block reward is cut in half does nothing to the existing coins. Think of it as a reduction in the rate the dolar bill notes are printed. There are a wide variety of opinions (speculation) as to what will happen at the next halving. My understanding is that we have only had one previous halving, and it's difficult to draw any conclusions from that experience. I would argue that entire Bitcoin mining infrastructure is massively different than back in 2012, and any conclusions would be highly suspect. I also expect that there will be a great deal of "adjustment" that happens within farms and such as the time draws near. I have no idea how that will affect Bitcoin price though.

imho atm there are 10% inflation which mean if adoption rate is less than 10% then price will decline. After 2016, inflation rate are around 4% which is more likely to stabilize the price at least even if adoption rate is constant. then after another 4 years the inflation will be less than 2%. the problem is more likely that there are no miner left due to lack of incentive, but by that time all electronic could be attached with micro miner in it that way we can keep the security of bitcoin network.

 

[notlist3d]

no

No to what?  You don't point to which part you don't agree with.

I would be careful of posting one sentence posts.  Mods normally don't like it....

[s1gs3gv]

no

No to what?  You don't point to which part you don't agree with.

I would be careful of posting one sentence posts.  Mods normally don't like it....

yes mom /jk lol

i guess you need to look up about a quarter of an inch from my reply to see the OP's question.

[notlist3d]

no

No to what?  You don't point to which part you don't agree with.

I would be careful of posting one sentence posts.  Mods normally don't like it....

yes mom /jk lol

i guess you need to look up about a quarter of an inch from my reply to see the OP's question.

I was just not sure which one you didn't agree.   I will say... I'm sure your not my son .  And double sure I cannot be a mom.

But in future please quote what you don't agree it makes it much easier.  I was up like 5 from your post, so I just wanted to make sure you did not mean me.

[philipma1957]

no

No to what?  You don't point to which part you don't agree with.

I would be careful of posting one sentence posts.  Mods normally don't like it....

yes mom /jk lol

i guess you need to look up about a quarter of an inch from my reply to see the OP's question.

I was just not sure which one you didn't agree.   I will say... I'm sure your not my son .  And double sure I cannot be a mom.

But in future please quote what you don't agree it makes it much easier.  I was up like 5 from your post, so I just wanted to make sure you did not mean me.

Ahh a bit paranoid.

  But his answer of no while 1 word  would be legit if it was his first post to the thread. not so sure. as I am a bit lazy to go back and look.  give me a minute.  Was his first Post to the thread so 'no'   would be a legit answer.
I have thought about this quite a bit  and I think no might be correct.
Yeah a do see a need for BTC.  But I am not sure demand  will be high enough.

3 big asic build self mining companies with 60% of the network have 0 incentive to grow hashrate.  They merely need   lower power costs every 9 months to 18 months time and maintain the same hash rate.  I think this forces price downwards. little by little.

 Unless a few speculators do a pump and pump and pump scheme.  Since all the coins in the world 14 mill = 3.3 bill usd.

Bill Gates  Warren Buffet  and an arab shiek or two could easily drive prices higher and higher and higher.. This factor  does not vanish until BTC is worth 600bill or so.   

 which is 4300 a coin  not sure if this happens. but you never know.

[s1gs3gv]

I'd approach the question from a slightly different angle.  It seems clear that BTC, while an interesting experiment, doesn't satisfy all the requirements for the role its advocates hope it could play in the financial system. And it is clear that stakeholders view the risks associated with significant changes to the protocol to enable new features as, well … risky. After another decade or so of experiments with other systems like ethereum we'll see bitcoin displaced by something much more interesting and capable.

Meanwhile, the price of bitcoin will continue to trend towards the cost of producing it, while there is demand for it ...

[noobtrader]

no

No to what?  You don't point to which part you don't agree with.

I would be careful of posting one sentence posts.  Mods normally don't like it....

yes mom /jk lol

i guess you need to look up about a quarter of an inch from my reply to see the OP's question.

I was just not sure which one you didn't agree.   I will say... I'm sure your not my son .  And double sure I cannot be a mom.

But in future please quote what you don't agree it makes it much easier.  I was up like 5 from your post, so I just wanted to make sure you did not mean me.

Ahh a bit paranoid.

  But his answer of no while 1 word  would be legit if it was his first post to the thread. not so sure. as I am a bit lazy to go back and look.  give me a minute.  Was his first Post to the thread so 'no'   would be a legit answer.
I have thought about this quite a bit  and I think no might be correct.
Yeah a do see a need for BTC.  But I am not sure demand  will be high enough.

3 big asic build self mining companies with 60% of the network have 0 incentive to grow hashrate.  They merely need   lower power costs every 9 months to 18 months time and maintain the same hash rate.  I think this forces price downwards. little by little.

 Unless a few speculators do a pump and pump and pump scheme.  Since all the coins in the world 14 mill = 3.3 bill usd.

Bill Gates  Warren Buffet  and an arab shiek or two could easily drive prices higher and higher and higher.. This factor  does not vanish until BTC is worth 600bill or so.   

 which is 4300 a coin  not sure if this happens. but you never know.

which mean, btc can rises to what ever price which its backer think reasonable.
i dont know why you think 4300 is a limit ?

i thought that limit is 50000 per btc