Bitcoin halving to be canceled?

[SebastianJu]

Again you are exaggerating, the block time is occasionally 50-60 minutes. So, with 90% of the hash rate gone, it will occasionally take 10 hours. The table shows what will happen to the average block time if the hash power is cut by 90%.

I'm curious why you deny the evident. Even if 60 minutes today is occasional (which is not good, mildly speaking), then it will be 100 minutes on average, right?

What is +1 and +2 in that table?

While 100 minute block times would cause difficulties and consternation, I don't believe it would necessarily bring down Bitcoin. People that need faster confirmation times would go elsewhere, but the effect would only be temporary

So you think that after a lot of people don't get their transactions confirmed for a few months (which would obviously crash the price, thereby essentially nullifying their Bitcoin holdings they got trapped with), peeps will continue to use it? I'm highly doubtful on this, wtf. Many folks here talked about confidence (and still more thought about it)...

I guess it is the right time they showed up (thought again)

Check out the difficulty history table here: https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty

It would not be months, it would be a maximum of 2 weeks until we would have 10 minutes blocks in average again. And even when we would have blocks with a timeframe of 10 hours occassionally, the average would be 100 minutes and there would be blocks with 10 minutes too. You can't only claim the high timeframe exceptions as valid, the low one are valid too.

And this is very hypothetical. It did not happen in the past that miners switched off big parts of the network because mining became unprofitabel. It happened, if at all, in steps that were unproblematic.

[SebastianJu]

Once must understand that halving is an essential part of the Bitcoin protocol, aimed at approximating the natural increase in scarcity, observed in other money systems, like gold (as opposed to currencies, like dollar, which can be printed ad infinitum)

The problem is that Bitcoin itself is not natural. As I have said elsewhere (and been attacked by assclowns of all stripes and denominations, lol), Bitcoin, in this aspect, is no different than any other fiat money out there (or currency, if you please), my point being that mimicking scarcity (or any other quality) of its counterparts such as gold doesn't endow it with the resilience and robustness due to their inherent value (entrenched deep in the minds and nature of people)...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Scarcity is part of what gives both gold and bitcoin value. The only reason anything has any value at all is that everyone believes it to be true. This is true of bitcoin, gold, and fiat. Confidence in the particular monetary system is what bestows value, and part of the confidence in bitcoin is the built in scarcity of a hard cap and halving block rewards along the way. If that confidence is undermined, then the value/utility of the monetary system is going to fall, and that's true of gold and fiat too.

What you write about the value is not fully true. There is the intrinsic value too. Gold for example has many usecases in electronics and more places. This means it has a value that comes from being gold alone. Not from the value it has from speculation or believe. So gold might crash but there should always be a bottom value. Of course the question is if so much gold can be used at all. But there are other items that are used as a kind of currency that has it's own value. Let's say cigarettes in war times. Some smoke them away, because they are stupid, some sell them for a warm jacket and are allowed to life because of that. But even when no one would want them, their value would be none for others, there is still a value in using it. (If you can say that at all about cigarettes. )

The same can't be said about bitcoin. You have nothing than some virtual flags if the value is crashing and everyone believes it is nothing worth.

Right, but now you're talking about utility as opposed to just perception of value. Using a resource for industrial uses gives it a value, but that value is a smaller subset of the total value which includes perception of the resource as an asset or store of value, which makes it usable as money. There are plenty of resources that are both scarce and have utility for industrial purposes but are not used for storing value or as money, and the only difference there is that they aren't widely perceived to be have a value to someone in the future. Gold is a special case, but its status is also arbitrary. It's just one of the resources that is scarce and that everyone agrees is valuable. It didn't have to be gold, but its ease of finding to early civilizations probably had a lot to do with why it was gold and not something else.

You are right. The value of gold is typically higher than it's value for electronics. Though i wanted to say that gold has an intrinsic value. Even when nobody believes in the value of gold as a currency anymore, it still would have a value. If nobody believes in cryptocurrencies anymore then you have nothing. Rubbish zeros and ones.

[SebastianJu]

Confidence in gold is based on inborn feelings and instincts (which are fixed and universal), while confidence in Bitcoin is purely rational and based on functions attributed to it (which can be called off). Without them it is useless. In this way it is no different from any other fiat money out there, as I said previously. Gold, on the other hand, is loved for what it is, in and of itself, not for what people set it to do. You are bringing forth concepts which are irrelevant to the question and trying to challenge what I have already at first made clear and then set aside as irrelevant...

Namely, the origin of value, subjective vs objective

Yes, this is the crux of what I am saying. You are not born valuing gold. It is a learned trait. There is nothing natural or instinctual about it.

So you are saying that everyone is being taught what is beautiful and what is ugly? Now tell me what universally bootstrapped gold in the first place (the issue of primary cause) if this is a learned trait as you say, in all those ancient civilizations divided by oceans and deserts, who had access to it...

Was it the same person (Doctor) Who taught them to love gold?

Surely a baby won't love gold more than any other glittery stone. I wonder where you got the idea from that the valuation of gold could be somehow genetically.

In places where gold was very common it was only loved because of it's special color, for example the aztecs were wondering why these crazy hispanics were to crazy about that metal. And if suddenly half of earth would turn into gold then surely you would not assume that we would still see it as a valuable metal. It always depends on if it is useful for production, art, jewelry or similar things. Gold can serve that purpose and has a value because of that.

[BTCBinary]

There was much hype about the Fed raising interest rates in 2015, but we are still there, at the lowest possible level (wtf, it is even no longer the lowest possible limit). Bitcoin halving in July, 2016, is talked about as much, but will it really happen?

I ain't sure

What the hell are you talking about??? are you delusional or you don't actualy know how bitcoin works? Of course it will be halving next year. It halves every 4 years and will continue to do so until there's no more coins to be mined.

[jaysabi]

Confidence in gold is based on inborn feelings and instincts (which are fixed and universal), while confidence in Bitcoin is purely rational and based on functions attributed to it (which can be called off). Without them it is useless. In this way it is no different from any other fiat money out there, as I said previously. Gold, on the other hand, is loved for what it is, in and of itself, not for what people set it to do. You are bringing forth concepts which are irrelevant to the question and trying to challenge what I have already at first made clear and then set aside as irrelevant...

Namely, the origin of value, subjective vs objective

Yes, this is the crux of what I am saying. You are not born valuing gold. It is a learned trait. There is nothing natural or instinctual about it.

So you are saying that everyone is being taught what is beautiful and what is ugly? Now tell me what universally bootstrapped gold in the first place (the issue of primary cause) if this is a learned trait as you say, in all those ancient civilizations divided by oceans and deserts, who had access to it...

Was it the same person (Doctor) Who taught them to love gold?

No, you're assigning values of beauty. I'm speaking only about monetary value. People learned gold was valuable, and it was so through tradition. The tradition was established by the earliest civilizations in Asia and Africa where gold possessed two important qualities: it was naturally scarce, and it was so malleable that it could be cold-shaped into jewelry without heat or sophisticated tools. These two factors to a technologically primitive civilization assured that gold would be coveted by the highest classes in society to designate their superiority. Once that trait is established, it's just a matter of tradition. It didn't have to be gold, it's just random happenstance that it was. You give a gold nugget to a child, and it's just a rock. They have no idea it's valuable because there's nothing innate or instinctual about it. They just haven't learned to covet it yet.

[deisik]

Confidence in gold is based on inborn feelings and instincts (which are fixed and universal), while confidence in Bitcoin is purely rational and based on functions attributed to it (which can be called off). Without them it is useless. In this way it is no different from any other fiat money out there, as I said previously. Gold, on the other hand, is loved for what it is, in and of itself, not for what people set it to do. You are bringing forth concepts which are irrelevant to the question and trying to challenge what I have already at first made clear and then set aside as irrelevant...

Namely, the origin of value, subjective vs objective

Yes, this is the crux of what I am saying. You are not born valuing gold. It is a learned trait. There is nothing natural or instinctual about it.

So you are saying that everyone is being taught what is beautiful and what is ugly? Now tell me what universally bootstrapped gold in the first place (the issue of primary cause) if this is a learned trait as you say, in all those ancient civilizations divided by oceans and deserts, who had access to it...

Was it the same person (Doctor) Who taught them to love gold?

Surely a baby won't love gold more than any other glittery stone. I wonder where you got the idea from that the valuation of gold could be somehow genetically

I don't say that gold specifically is genetically programmed into us. But the prerequisites for its becoming valuable are. Gold just happened to be there...

"Glittery stones" are mostly precious gems too, lol

[deisik]

Confidence in gold is based on inborn feelings and instincts (which are fixed and universal), while confidence in Bitcoin is purely rational and based on functions attributed to it (which can be called off). Without them it is useless. In this way it is no different from any other fiat money out there, as I said previously. Gold, on the other hand, is loved for what it is, in and of itself, not for what people set it to do. You are bringing forth concepts which are irrelevant to the question and trying to challenge what I have already at first made clear and then set aside as irrelevant...

Namely, the origin of value, subjective vs objective

Yes, this is the crux of what I am saying. You are not born valuing gold. It is a learned trait. There is nothing natural or instinctual about it.

So you are saying that everyone is being taught what is beautiful and what is ugly? Now tell me what universally bootstrapped gold in the first place (the issue of primary cause) if this is a learned trait as you say, in all those ancient civilizations divided by oceans and deserts, who had access to it...

Was it the same person (Doctor) Who taught them to love gold?

No, you're assigning values of beauty. I'm speaking only about monetary value. People learned gold was valuable, and it was so through tradition. The tradition was established by the earliest civilizations in Asia and Africa where gold possessed two important qualities: it was naturally scarce, and it was so malleable that it could be cold-shaped into jewelry without heat or sophisticated tools. These two factors to a technologically primitive civilization assured that gold would be coveted by the highest classes in society to designate their superiority. Once that trait is established, it's just a matter of tradition. It didn't have to be gold, it's just random happenstance that it was. You give a gold nugget to a child, and it's just a rock. They have no idea it's valuable because there's nothing innate or instinctual about it. They just haven't learned to covet it yet.

You are talking in empty cliches. In any case, you yourself confirm that value of gold comes about through its "important qualities" (and you omitted its indestructibility), which cannot be taken from it (you can't "unmake" gold), lol...

But these are not the qualities that made gold so valuable, though

[deisik]

Check out the difficulty history table here: https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty

It would not be months, it would be a maximum of 2 weeks until we would have 10 minutes blocks in average again. And even when we would have blocks with a timeframe of 10 hours occassionally, the average would be 100 minutes and there would be blocks with 10 minutes too. You can't only claim the high timeframe exceptions as valid, the low one are valid too

Two weeks indeed is much better than half a year, though I leave you to decide on this issue with the other poster pretending it to take 145 days. I don't say that the low timeframes are not valid, I just say that they don't matter as much as the high ones, if anything at all. In other words, 10 minutes won't change anything since this is what we already have today, but 10 hours and 100 minutes on average will be an entirely new story...

And likely not a good one with a happy end

[rychallenge]

Altering the declining reward scheme would make me want to leave Bitcoin.  If I sell my Bitcoins then the price will go down *unless* there are more buyers thinking the opposite of me.

I don't think it will be modified, it will ruin the original idea satoshi had, which will cause many more to leave not just you

[jaysabi]

Confidence in gold is based on inborn feelings and instincts (which are fixed and universal), while confidence in Bitcoin is purely rational and based on functions attributed to it (which can be called off). Without them it is useless. In this way it is no different from any other fiat money out there, as I said previously. Gold, on the other hand, is loved for what it is, in and of itself, not for what people set it to do. You are bringing forth concepts which are irrelevant to the question and trying to challenge what I have already at first made clear and then set aside as irrelevant...

Namely, the origin of value, subjective vs objective

Yes, this is the crux of what I am saying. You are not born valuing gold. It is a learned trait. There is nothing natural or instinctual about it.

So you are saying that everyone is being taught what is beautiful and what is ugly? Now tell me what universally bootstrapped gold in the first place (the issue of primary cause) if this is a learned trait as you say, in all those ancient civilizations divided by oceans and deserts, who had access to it...

Was it the same person (Doctor) Who taught them to love gold?

No, you're assigning values of beauty. I'm speaking only about monetary value. People learned gold was valuable, and it was so through tradition. The tradition was established by the earliest civilizations in Asia and Africa where gold possessed two important qualities: it was naturally scarce, and it was so malleable that it could be cold-shaped into jewelry without heat or sophisticated tools. These two factors to a technologically primitive civilization assured that gold would be coveted by the highest classes in society to designate their superiority. Once that trait is established, it's just a matter of tradition. It didn't have to be gold, it's just random happenstance that it was. You give a gold nugget to a child, and it's just a rock. They have no idea it's valuable because there's nothing innate or instinctual about it. They just haven't learned to covet it yet.

You are talking in empty cliches. In any case, you yourself confirm that value of gold comes about through its "important qualities" (and you omitted its indestructibility), which cannot be taken from it (you can't "unmake" gold), lol...

But these are not the qualities that made gold so valuable, though

We were talking about whether or not gold's value is a learned trait or instinctual. You didn't address any points, you simply changed the subject. Gold's value does come from its specific traits, I've never said otherwise. But people still learn to value it, as opposed to being born valuing it as you were trying to maintain.

[jaysabi]

I don't say that gold specifically is genetically programmed into us. But the prerequisites for its becoming valuable are. Gold just happened to be there...

"Glittery stones" are mostly precious gems too, lol

The landscaping around my house is filled with white glittery rocks that reflect light in a very attractive way. Those rocks are virtually worthless. Being glittery has nothing to do with being valuable. Scarcity is the key component.

[deisik]

I see that you are further trying to obfuscate matters. I repeat it once again (as I had said it even before your started this futile polemics), it is irrelevant from which gold derives its value. This value cannot be separated from gold by human volition (those "important qualities"), whether you like it or not. That's what makes it different from Bitcoin...

Is this really so hard to understand?

[deisik]

We were talking about whether or not gold's value is a learned trait or instinctual. You didn't address any points, you simply changed the subject. Gold's value does come from its specific traits, I've never said otherwise. But people still learn to value it, as opposed to being born valuing it as you were trying to maintain.

You started with "human perception" ("no no, gold has no inherent value") and ended up with "important qualities", lol. Whom are you going to fool? And now you dare blame with changing the subject, wtf?

Nevertheless, here's my post which you decided to outragingly ignore

I don't say that gold specifically is genetically programmed into us. But the prerequisites for its becoming valuable are. Gold just happened to be there...

We value what is useful, beneficial and attractive to us. These are the prerequisites I'm talking about. I assume you won't argue with the fact the perceptions of hunger, thirst and beauty are hard-coded into us? But should I say it again that this is irrelevant to the question discussed? If you want to talk about these issues, make a new topic and I will most likely post there...

I don't think anyone is quite happy reading this altercation

[deisik]

I don't say that gold specifically is genetically programmed into us. But the prerequisites for its becoming valuable are. Gold just happened to be there...

"Glittery stones" are mostly precious gems too, lol

The landscaping around my house is filled with white glittery rocks that reflect light in a very attractive way. Those rocks are virtually worthless. Being glittery has nothing to do with being valuable. Scarcity is the key component.

You seem to be quoting my posts even without understanding them. I didn't say that all glittery stones are precious gems, as you have obviously failed to grasp. Do you suffer from dyslexia? Regarding scarcity, this is also highly arguable and debatable, since things that are not useful in any meaningful way are not valued even if they are scarce (the elusive Joe). The converse also holds true. Things that are useful remain useful and valuable even in abundance (since their value comes from their usefulness, not their scarcity or abundance). Thereby, scarcity, in general, is not the key component, lol...

Billionaires happen to value money even more than average people (that's why they are who they are, I think). Scrooge McDuck is said to be the world's richest person (plenty of money), but this doesn't make him into a spendthrift

[SebastianJu]

Check out the difficulty history table here: https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty

It would not be months, it would be a maximum of 2 weeks until we would have 10 minutes blocks in average again. And even when we would have blocks with a timeframe of 10 hours occassionally, the average would be 100 minutes and there would be blocks with 10 minutes too. You can't only claim the high timeframe exceptions as valid, the low one are valid too

Two weeks indeed is much better than half a year, though I leave you to decide on this issue with the other poster pretending it to take 145 days. I don't say that the low timeframes are not valid, I just say that they don't matter as much as the high ones, if anything at all. In other words, 10 minutes won't change anything since this is what we already have today, but 10 hours and 100 minutes on average will be an entirely new story...

And likely not a good one with a happy end

For 100 minutes 90%!!! of all miners need to stop. For 10 hours you know it's way more. And it would not make sense at all that so many miners stop because less miners mean they will earn more because they don't have to share with the other miners that left. Of course that will only happen once difficulty is adjusted but surely there will be no big immediate leaving of the network.

[deisik]

Two weeks indeed is much better than half a year, though I leave you to decide on this issue with the other poster pretending it to take 145 days. I don't say that the low timeframes are not valid, I just say that they don't matter as much as the high ones, if anything at all. In other words, 10 minutes won't change anything since this is what we already have today, but 10 hours and 100 minutes on average will be an entirely new story...

And likely not a good one with a happy end

For 100 minutes 90%!!! of all miners need to stop. For 10 hours you know it's way more. And it would not make sense at all that so many miners stop because less miners mean they will earn more because they don't have to share with the other miners that left. Of course that will only happen once difficulty is adjusted but surely there will be no big immediate leaving of the network.

10 hours occasionally corresponds to 100 minutes on average, just like today we sometimes see 50-60 minutes between confirmations with 10 minutes allegedly being the average. Regarding 90% of all miners leaving (in terms of hashing power) and why it makes sense, you only need to find out that this number is made up from just a few major mining pools (5-6 maybe)...

Certainly not hundreds of individual independent miners

[SebastianJu]

Two weeks indeed is much better than half a year, though I leave you to decide on this issue with the other poster pretending it to take 145 days. I don't say that the low timeframes are not valid, I just say that they don't matter as much as the high ones, if anything at all. In other words, 10 minutes won't change anything since this is what we already have today, but 10 hours and 100 minutes on average will be an entirely new story...

And likely not a good one with a happy end

For 100 minutes 90%!!! of all miners need to stop. For 10 hours you know it's way more. And it would not make sense at all that so many miners stop because less miners mean they will earn more because they don't have to share with the other miners that left. Of course that will only happen once difficulty is adjusted but surely there will be no big immediate leaving of the network.

10 hours occasionally corresponds to 100 minutes on average, just like today we sometimes see 50-60 minutes between confirmations with 10 minutes allegedly being the average. Regarding 90% of all miners leaving (in terms of hashing power) and why it makes sense, you only need to find out that this number is made up from just a few major mining pools (5-6 maybe)...

Certainly not hundreds of individual independent miners

Of course that's possible to happen, even though it should be rarely the case. Well, at the end we think around a topic that is highly speculative and most probably not a real problem. Nothing like that will happen when blockhalving happens. The same way nothing big happened with the other halving before.

[deisik]

10 hours occasionally corresponds to 100 minutes on average, just like today we sometimes see 50-60 minutes between confirmations with 10 minutes allegedly being the average. Regarding 90% of all miners leaving (in terms of hashing power) and why it makes sense, you only need to find out that this number is made up from just a few major mining pools (5-6 maybe)...

Certainly not hundreds of individual independent miners

Of course that's possible to happen, even though it should be rarely the case. Well, at the end we think around a topic that is highly speculative and most probably not a real problem. Nothing like that will happen when blockhalving happens. The same way nothing big happened with the other halving before.

That's the most shaky argument so far. First, everything happens for the first time some day, and shit hits the fan more often than not. Second, when was the last halving? What were the miners' profit margins back then? I remember that in 2013 we had more powerful and economical mining equipment entering the market every now and then...

How do the matters stand right now?

[SebastianJu]

10 hours occasionally corresponds to 100 minutes on average, just like today we sometimes see 50-60 minutes between confirmations with 10 minutes allegedly being the average. Regarding 90% of all miners leaving (in terms of hashing power) and why it makes sense, you only need to find out that this number is made up from just a few major mining pools (5-6 maybe)...

Certainly not hundreds of individual independent miners

Of course that's possible to happen, even though it should be rarely the case. Well, at the end we think around a topic that is highly speculative and most probably not a real problem. Nothing like that will happen when blockhalving happens. The same way nothing big happened with the other halving before.

That's the most shaky argument so far. First, everything happens for the first time some day, and shit hits the fan more often than not. Second, when was the last halving? What were the miners' profit margins back then? I remember that in 2013 we had more powerful and economical mining equipment entering the market every now and then...

How do the matters stand right now?

You are right... the asic tech is not much further to develop i think. So it might be that alot miners will be switched off. Though when at past times more and more miners were switched on, leading to shorter conf time for some days, then it would be ok when the same happens in the other direction. What i doubt is that everyone will switch off instantly. That never happened and will not most probably. Especially not in the average timeframe of 1 week until the next diff adjustment takes place. Miners tend to observe first before they act.

I might be wrong though but that's how i see miners.

[Collateral]

yes it will happen for sure, it base of bitcoin supply but if they mess with bitcoin supply then users will lose their faith in bitcoin that will take bitcoin to hell