Only $360mio of inflow needed to keep current price and reach next halving!

[Fiat_Hodler]

If the majority of bitcoin-exchange market supply is coming from mining, which currently seems to be the case,

Not at all.  Not even if we assume miners selling every coin they mine.
Source: blockchain.info

and that supply halves, that's a supply shock. If demand remains the same, the price must roughly double.

A fundamental misunderstanding of how the market works.
If that was really the case, GM could simply cut the number of cars manufactured in half, and double the price. Profit!

Really comparing bitcoin to cars???

If there were only 100 cars in existence and there would never be any more, then we destroyed 50 of them , yes, the price of the remaining cars would skyrocket...

[xeretix]

If the majority of bitcoin-exchange market supply is coming from mining, which currently seems to be the case,

Not at all.  Not even if we assume miners selling every coin they mine.
Source: blockchain.info

and that supply halves, that's a supply shock. If demand remains the same, the price must roughly double.

A fundamental misunderstanding of how the market works.
If that was really the case, GM could simply cut the number of cars manufactured in half, and double the price. Profit!

Really comparing bitcoin to cars???

If there were only 100 cars in existence and there would never be any more, then we destroyed 50 of them , yes, the price of the remaining cars would skyrocket...

err yeah, if Biitcoin was the only money in existence, or even the only crypto...

But let's work with your example: "If there were only 100 cars in existence and there would never be any more, then we destroyed 50 of them , yes, the price of the remaining cars would skyrocket..."

No, it would not.  People will learn to walk, or ride scooters, or trains, or fly.  Other car manufacturers would appear (just like other coins are appearing).

You're starting with the same misconception that Beanie Babies enthusiasts fell victim to: Limited supply guarantees value.  Of course, it doesn't.  I don't need to own a Beanie, and I certainly don't need to own a bitcoin--I can chose to simply ignore both & use my CC.

[nicked]

If the majority of bitcoin-exchange market supply is coming from mining, which currently seems to be the case,

Not at all.  Not even if we assume miners selling every coin they mine.
Source: blockchain.info

and that supply halves, that's a supply shock. If demand remains the same, the price must roughly double.

A fundamental misunderstanding of how the market works.
If that was really the case, GM could simply cut the number of cars manufactured in half, and double the price. Profit!

Really comparing bitcoin to cars???

If there were only 100 cars in existence and there would never be any more, then we destroyed 50 of them , yes, the price of the remaining cars would skyrocket...

err yeah, if Biitcoin was the only money in existence, or even the only crypto...

But let's work with your example: "If there were only 100 cars in existence and there would never be any more, then we destroyed 50 of them , yes, the price of the remaining cars would skyrocket..."

No, it would not.  People will learn to walk, or ride scooters, or trains, or fly.  Other car manufacturers would appear (just like other coins are appearing).

You're starting with the same misconception that Beanie Babies enthusiasts fell victim to: Limited supply guarantees value.  Of course, it doesn't.  I don't need to own a Beanie, and I certainly don't need to own a bitcoin--I can chose to simply ignore both & use my CC.

Bitcoin may not be the only coin out there but, it's the only one with a massively giant network behind it.

[xeretix]

If the majority of bitcoin-exchange market supply is coming from mining, which currently seems to be the case,

Not at all.  Not even if we assume miners selling every coin they mine.
Source: blockchain.info

and that supply halves, that's a supply shock. If demand remains the same, the price must roughly double.

A fundamental misunderstanding of how the market works.
If that was really the case, GM could simply cut the number of cars manufactured in half, and double the price. Profit!

Really comparing bitcoin to cars???

If there were only 100 cars in existence and there would never be any more, then we destroyed 50 of them , yes, the price of the remaining cars would skyrocket...

err yeah, if Biitcoin was the only money in existence, or even the only crypto...

But let's work with your example: "If there were only 100 cars in existence and there would never be any more, then we destroyed 50 of them , yes, the price of the remaining cars would skyrocket..."

No, it would not.  People will learn to walk, or ride scooters, or trains, or fly.  Other car manufacturers would appear (just like other coins are appearing).

You're starting with the same misconception that Beanie Babies enthusiasts fell victim to: Limited supply guarantees value.  Of course, it doesn't.  I don't need to own a Beanie, and I certainly don't need to own a bitcoin--I can chose to simply ignore both & use my CC.

Bitcoin may not be the only coin out there but, it's the only one with a massively giant network behind it.

Sure, until miners decide to point their gear to another coin.  Remember, reward halving means miners will gross half as much as they do now.  Depending on BTC price at that time, their net could become negative.

[gentlemand]

Sure, until miners decide to point their gear to another coin.  Remember, reward halving means miners will gross half as much as they do now.  Depending on BTC price at that time, their net could become negative.

There aren't very many alternative coins that a Bitcoin ASIC could mine. And even fewer that are actually worth anything.

[xeretix]

Sure, until miners decide to point their gear to another coin.  Remember, reward halving means miners will gross half as much as they do now.  Depending on BTC price at that time, their net could become negative.

There aren't very many alternative coins that a Bitcoin ASIC could mine. And even fewer that are actually worth anything.

There's nothing worth mining now because it's hard to compete with BTC at its current block reward. This may all change next year if BTC price doesn't double by the time block reward is halved.

The whole thing kinda feeds on itself, think the kindling model. Bitcoin is strong because it's strong; because a large, expensive network of miners is behind it. Turn that network to a clone coin, and bitcoin's no longer strong, the clone coin is.

[gentlemand]

There's nothing worth mining now because it's hard to compete with BTC at its current block reward. This may all change next year if BTC price doesn't double by the time block reward is halved.

The whole thing kinda feeds on itself, think the kindling model. Bitcoin is strong because it's strong; because a large, expensive network of miners is behind it. Turn that network to a clone coin, and bitcoin's no longer strong, the clone coin is.

Well, I'd be very intrigued to see what happened if that did come about. It would certainly be spectacular if nothing else.

[xeretix]

Well, I'd be very intrigued to see what happened if that did come about. It would certainly be spectacular if nothing else.

I never understood why the block reward isn't adjusted gradually (each consecutive block having a slightly lower reward), rather than by halving it every X number of blocks.  Any idea?

[gentlemand]

I never understood why the block reward isn't adjusted gradually (each consecutive block having a slightly lower reward), rather than by halving it every X number of blocks.  Any idea?

I'm sure someone better qualified can come up with that answer. I just post dick jokes.

Satoshi certainly had amazing foresight in many areas, block rewards falling off a cliff every few years like clockwork doesn't seem very connected to how the real world works to me but there must be a compelling reason why, or maybe it was just a load easier to code.

[xeretix]

I'm sure someone better qualified can come up with that answer. I just post dick jokes.

This social experiment can sure use them

...The name of the book was The Big Board. It was about an Earthling man and woman who were kidnapped by extraterrestrials. They were put on display in a zoo on a planet called Zircon-212.

These fictitious people in the zoo had a big board supposedly showing stock market quotations and commodity prices along one wall of their habitat, and a news ticker, and a telephone that was supposedly connected to a brokerage on Earth. The creatures on Zircon-212 told their captives that they had invested a million dollars for them back on Earth, and that it was up to the captives to manage it so that they would be fabulously wealthy when they were returned to Earth.

The telephone and the big board and the ticker were all fakes, of course. They were simply stimulants to make the Earthlings perform vividly for the crowds at the zoo—to make them jump up and down and cheer, or gloat, or sulk, or tear their hair, to be scared shitless or to feel as contented as babies in their mothers' arms.

The Earthlings did very well on paper. That was part of the rigging, of course. And religion got mixed up in it, too. The news ticker reminded them that the President of the United States had declared National Prayer Week, and that everybody should pray. The Earthlings had had a bad week on the market before that. They had lost a small fortune in olive oil futures. So they gave praying a whirl. It worked. Olive oil went up.

[Elwar]

Well, I'd be very intrigued to see what happened if that did come about. It would certainly be spectacular if nothing else.

I never understood why the block reward isn't adjusted gradually (each consecutive block having a slightly lower reward), rather than by halving it every X number of blocks.  Any idea?

Easily predictable and accountable money supply. 50/25/12.5 etc. is a lot easier than .000135323 less reward next block.