1BR: Should the block reward be 50 BTC for ages?

[waspoza]

As far as I know, lost coins don't increase blockchain size in any way. Only new transactions increase blockchain size.

They don't increase the size, but they do nothing productive and are a waste of everyone's resources. As the value of coins rise, and people die or lose coins or whatever, smaller and smaller outputs will be left stuck in the chain never to be redeemed, never to be forgotten.

Still, if you "redeem" lost coins, blockchain won't get smaller because of that. Most probably it wil get even bigger.

[1713599327]

1713599327

[1713599327]

1713599327

[1713599327]

1713599327

[gmaxwell]

Still, if you "redeem" lost coins, blockchain won't get smaller because of that. Most probably it wil get even bigger.

The pruned blockchain gets smaller. Which is relevant.

Also, looking at the poll question again..., the distribution schedule isn't even discussed in the whitepaper.

[waspoza]

Still, if you "redeem" lost coins, blockchain won't get smaller because of that. Most probably it wil get even bigger.

The pruned blockchain gets smaller. Which is relevant.

Yes, pruned would be smaller. But correct me if im wrong, pruned chain should be several megabytes of size, so lost coins "bloatness" is negligible anyway.

[Etlase2]

Still, if you "redeem" lost coins, blockchain won't get smaller because of that. Most probably it wil get even bigger.

Not if you combine multiple inputs to one or two outputs which is pretty standard practice. Plus you pay transaction fees for the continued health of the network.

Yes, pruned would be smaller. But correct me if im wrong, pruned chain should be several megabytes of size, so lost coins "bloatness" is negligible anyway.

Pruning removes spent inputs, it doesn't do anything to unspent outputs.

[waspoza]

Still, if you "redeem" lost coins, blockchain won't get smaller because of that. Most probably it wil get even bigger.

Not if you combine multiple inputs to one or two outputs which is pretty standard practice. Plus you pay transaction fees for the continued health of the network.

Yes, but even if you combine all lost unspent outputs and make only one transaction, block would be bigger by this one transaction, compared to stituation if we would do nothing at all.

Yes, pruned would be smaller. But correct me if im wrong, pruned chain should be several megabytes of size, so lost coins "bloatness" is negligible anyway.

Pruning removes spent inputs, it doesn't do anything to unspent outputs.

I already agreed that pruned would be smaller.

[Etlase2]

Yes, but even if you combine all lost unspent outputs and make only one transaction, block would be bigger by this one transaction, compared to stituation if we would do nothing at all.

Not with pruning.

I already agreed that pruned would be smaller.

It won't be several megabytes though, it will still be huge. Spent inputs are what gets pruned, that's it.

[waspoza]

It won't be several megabytes though, it will still be huge. Spent inputs are what gets pruned, that's it.

Ah ok, i think i read somewhere about several megabytes, but it was probably some other block shrinking method.

Still, I dont think that lost coins take meaningful space to worry about.

[makomk]

Say you did fork Bitcoin, and 95% of miners moved over to this new blockchain so they could be paid 50 BTC forever.

Now, 95% of non-miners stay with the real Bitcoin blockchain, and 5% of miners.

So 95% of miners are now mining this worthless fork that no one is actually using for transactions, because non-miners are still using the real Bitcoin blockchain instead.  The price drops on said worthless fork because no one is using it, and therefore no one wants it.  It starts to see values along the lines of Solidcoin when compared with real Bitcoins.

Meanwhile, the 5% of miners who stayed with the original Bitcoin blockchain are still happily mining along and keeping transactions moving along, the currency still has value, and people are still making transactions with it.

Now suppose that those 95% of miners decide that, because this isn't good enough, they should each dedicate 10% of their hashrate to preventing any transactions from being confirmed in the other chain by mining empty blocks and refusing to build on any block that isn't empty. (On the surface this would seem to run into the usual problems associated with collective action, but there are clever ways they could enforce this rule.) Suddenly you can't make any transactions with the original Bitcoin blockchain anymore.

[SgtSpike]

Say you did fork Bitcoin, and 95% of miners moved over to this new blockchain so they could be paid 50 BTC forever.

Now, 95% of non-miners stay with the real Bitcoin blockchain, and 5% of miners.

So 95% of miners are now mining this worthless fork that no one is actually using for transactions, because non-miners are still using the real Bitcoin blockchain instead.  The price drops on said worthless fork because no one is using it, and therefore no one wants it.  It starts to see values along the lines of Solidcoin when compared with real Bitcoins.

Meanwhile, the 5% of miners who stayed with the original Bitcoin blockchain are still happily mining along and keeping transactions moving along, the currency still has value, and people are still making transactions with it.

Now suppose that those 95% of miners decide that, because this isn't good enough, they should each dedicate 10% of their hashrate to preventing any transactions from being confirmed in the other chain by mining empty blocks and refusing to build on any block that isn't empty. (On the surface this would seem to run into the usual problems associated with collective action, but there are clever ways they could enforce this rule.) Suddenly you can't make any transactions with the original Bitcoin blockchain anymore.

Then the 95% of non-miners would buy up mining equipment and become miners to compete.

Interesting to think about though...

[Come-from-Beyond]

Then the 95% of non-miners would buy up mining equipment and become miners to compete.

Interesting to think about though...

Not really interesting. USA will just press [shutdown Bitcoin] button and both forks become useless bunch of numbers.

Bitcoin is based on the infrastructure that belongs to governments. If Bitcoin becomes a worldwide currency before we manage to create our own internet, then it will be wiped out.

[GernMiester]

Solidcoin what ever happened to that manass muncher realsolid? Just his name was enough to warrant an F off to SC.
Fun times laughing at his stupid rants about his bogus BTC wannabe garbage

[maqifrnswa]

If we continue to give 50 BTC per block, you are effectively taking a fee from every user even if they didn't need to pay for block verification. When the block rate goes to 0, then there is the voluntary transaction fee that will pay miners. Then the fee goes to something useful (faster processing). We're weening off of a communal fee for block verification (where everyone pays equally) to a pay-for-the-quality-you-need system. The Austrian school economists that are attracted to bitcoin think the 21m cap is brilliant and necessary. Without a hard cap, the every bitcoin holder continues to pay verification fees in perpetuity whether they make transactions or not.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Solidcoin what ever happened to that manass muncher realsolid? Just his name was enough to warrant an F off to SC.
Fun times laughing at his stupid rants about his bogus BTC wannabe garbage

We should expect worse-case scenario. Just in case.

[evoorhees]

I don't know why Satoshi decided to limit total qty of bitcoins to 21'000'000 coins. I suspect he made it to tempt early adopters with possibility to become very rich ppl. Now Bitcoin doesn't need such a trick and WE could change the plan. Bitcoin network exists due to hard work of miners and I dislike the idea to halve their reward in the nearest future. Of coz a lot of ppl will be against keeping the reward unchanged. But if these ppl r NOT miners then miners don't need to pay much attention to them. Miners r those who rule Bitcoin.

I suggest other plan. We'll know how many ppl support the idea to keep 50 BTC forever. We'll change the algo in the bitcoin client. When the time for 25 BTC reward comes we'll see which part of the network becomes the winner.

It's time for 1st Bitcoin Revolution...

 

To remove the 21m cap on Bitcoin would destroy the entire project. I wonder how happy the miners would be, if they can earn 50btc on every block forever, but the coins are worth zero.

To not undersatnd this concept is to be so ignorant of the economics behind Bitcoin that one should just slap oneself in the face. Mining Bitcoins is only valuable to the extent those coins are useful and scarce. Make them less scarce and they will be worth less in direct propotion. There is ZERO benefit to miners of removing the cap, or releasing more coins somehow. It does not create more wealth, it merely creates more money units that will reprice themselves in the market given the new number of units.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Make them less scarce and they will be worth less in direct propotion.

Direct proportion for the TOTAL amount of bitcoins. If early adopters own major part of all coins then they'll incur major part of loss.

Let's look at numbers:

U r an early adopter with 10'500'000 coins. I'm a miner. Total value of all bitcoins is 21'000'000 USD (1 BTC = 1 USD).
After I mine the rest of the coins (10'500'000) each of us has 10'500'000 BTC which is equal to 10'500'000 USD.
If mining reward algo was adjusted to allow to mine 42'000'000 coins, then I would have 31'500'000 BTC.
42'000'000 bitcoins would set price of 1 BTC to 0.5 USD, so u would have 5'250'000 USD and I would have 15'750'000 USD.

Now we can see, that miners would profit if the algo was changed. Higher mining reward is a way to "steal" wealth from early adopters. And this is the main cause why they r against any changes.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Now we can see, that miners would profit if the algo was changed. Higher mining reward is a way to "steal" wealth from early adopters. And this is the main cause why they r against any changes.

Imagine that! People want to be secure in the value of their possessions. Far out!

Hey! But bitcoin price will go up anyway. No so fast but still up, not down.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Now we can see, that miners would profit if the algo was changed. Higher mining reward is a way to "steal" wealth from early adopters. And this is the main cause why they r against any changes.

And in 20 years everyone today is an early adopter.  So maybe they say "there are 100x as many people" seems unfair we only get 50 BTC per block.  Maybe the block reward should be increased to 500 BTC per block.  Same exact logic used now.  The current miners benefit from a theft of the current existing coin holders.

That example should illustrate how any change in the minting rate however slight will cause a loss of confidence in Bitcoin.  If it can be changed once, it will be changed over and over.  The end state is a a "fed" like board will set itself up and attempt via a cartel of miners to optimally balance the economy via manipulation of the minting (or deminting rate).  Sound familiar? 

Now that "may" (I seriously doubt it) happen anyways even if the minting rate isn't changed in the near future but for me any change in the "rules" violates the social contract under which I chose to participate.  I am dumping my coins @ market and looking to see if some alt-coin can be devised which makes such changes impossible (or at least more difficult).  I doubt I would be the only one.

A claim that "this one change is the only one" is going to lack credibility.

[Come-from-Beyond]

That example should illustrate how any change in the minting rate however slight will cause a loss of confidence in Bitcoin.  If it can be changed once, it will be changed over and over.  The end state is a a "fed" like board will set itself up and attempt via a cartel of miners to optimally balance the economy via manipulation of the minting (or deminting rate).  Sound familiar?  

Now that "may" (I seriously doubt it) happen anyways even if the minting rate isn't changed in the near future but for me any change in the "rules" violates the social contract under which I chose to participate.  I am dumping my coins @ market and looking to see if some alt-coin can be devised which makes such changes impossible (or at least more difficult).  I doubt I would be the only one.

A claim that "this one change is the only one" is going to lack credibility.

Hell, u r right! Now I'm not so confident that we need to change anything in the plan...

[hazek]

Now that "may" (I seriously doubt it) happen anyways even if the minting rate isn't changed in the near future but for me any change in the "rules" violates the social contract under which I chose to participate.  I am dumping my coins @ market and looking to see if some alt-coin can be devised which makes such changes impossible (or at least more difficult).  I doubt I would be the only one.

You most certainly wouldn't be alone. The rules of Bitcoin are the main reason I am here and am using it.

[FreeMoney]

You most certainly wouldn't be alone. The rules of Bitcoin are the main reason I am here and am using it.

I see so few people say this, I sometimes wonder (I guess it goes without saying, but occasionally it needs said)! Thank you!

I have my software set so that I'll automatically keep using bitcoin even if someone else starts using a different system.