iv4n
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3136
Merit: 1172
|
 |
November 24, 2015, 09:31:57 AM |
|
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
Hm I don't think things are so easy. I also believe there will be halving, but I also think there will be changes in future just I don't know which ones. I'm ready for surprises and I hope it will be good one's, and the bad ones can wait. Anyway as I read on internet no one mention it will be canceled so I believe in that for now! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bitcoin software, network, and concept is called "Bitcoin" with a capitalized "B". Bitcoin currency units are called "bitcoins" with a lowercase "b" -- this is often abbreviated BTC.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
1Referee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2170
Merit: 1427
|
|
November 24, 2015, 09:37:30 AM |
|
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
Hm I don't think things are so easy. I also believe there will be halving, but I also think there will be changes in future just I don't know which ones. I'm ready for surprises and I hope it will be good one's, and the bad ones can wait. Anyway as I read on internet no one mention it will be canceled so I believe in that for now! The block halving is great for Bitcoin. No one has to worry about the halving being cancelled. Whoever is talking about this just wants to cause confusion among the community. I will welcome any change that will help Bitcoin move forward. I hope one of the updates to include a temporary solution to the block size issue. 2MB blocks for now would be great. |
|
|
|
|
deisik (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3444
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
|
|
November 24, 2015, 09:43:40 AM
Last edit: November 24, 2015, 10:42:54 AM by deisik |
|
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
That would take just a few mining pools to "cooperate". Didn't exactly this we see last summer going on when thousands of unconfirmed transactions got stuck in queue? What happened back then tells us two important things. First, that they can easily work in sync (i.e. efficiently coordinate their actions whatever their ends might be), and, second, that they do actually control Bitcoin... And none of this bodes well in the long term, by any means |
|
|
|
|
HarryKPeters
|
|
November 24, 2015, 09:11:41 PM |
|
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
Hm I don't think things are so easy. I also believe there will be halving, but I also think there will be changes in future just I don't know which ones. I'm ready for surprises and I hope it will be good one's, and the bad ones can wait. Anyway as I read on internet no one mention it will be canceled so I believe in that for now! The block halving is great for Bitcoin. No one has to worry about the halving being cancelled. Whoever is talking about this just wants to cause confusion among the community. I will welcome any change that will help Bitcoin move forward. I hope one of the updates to include a temporary solution to the block size issue. 2MB blocks for now would be great. It is a mandatory step in the development of the network and prosperity of bitcoin. So yes it won't be cancelled. The title is misleading and since it suggest a eventual cancellation which is not true. A better title would be. Should the halving be cancelled? |
|
|
|
erickimani
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
November 25, 2015, 03:29:48 AM |
|
if they want it to be halved, it will be halved, sometimes we dont have much say on some decisions, do we?
|
|
|
|
|
ivanst776
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1003
|
|
November 25, 2015, 06:28:29 AM |
|
if they want it to be halved, it will be halved, sometimes we dont have much say on some decisions, do we?
I think that the halving procedure is an automatic process which i think we can't stop neither cancel it at all, maybe people will try but the result might be only a delay which i doubt. |
|
|
|
|
Amph
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3206
Merit: 1069
|
|
November 25, 2015, 08:03:22 AM |
|
if they want it to be halved, it will be halved, sometimes we dont have much say on some decisions, do we?
neither the miners, they need consensus of merchants, and merchants are pro the halving not against it so we are safe to think thta the halving will occur no matter what, unless miners want to kill bitcoin |
|
|
|
|
deisik (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3444
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
|
|
November 25, 2015, 09:02:54 AM |
|
It is a mandatory step in the development of the network and prosperity of bitcoin. So yes it won't be cancelled.
The title is misleading and since it suggest a eventual cancellation which is not true. A better title would be. Should the halving be cancelled?
That's what I think should happen and assume will happen ("unless miners want to kill bitcoin"). My logic is flawless, lol. If the halving is so beneficial for the "prosperity of bitcoin", why not cancel the miners reward altogether? Fly me to the moon |
|
|
|
|
zodiac3011
|
|
November 25, 2015, 03:12:17 PM |
|
It is a mandatory step in the development of the network and prosperity of bitcoin. So yes it won't be cancelled.
The title is misleading and since it suggest a eventual cancellation which is not true. A better title would be. Should the halving be cancelled?
That's what I think should happen and assume will happen ("unless miners want to kill bitcoin"). My logic is flawless, lol. If the halving is so beneficial for the "prosperity of bitcoin", why not cancel the miners reward altogether? Fly me to the moon cancel the miner's reward immediately right now actually is not a wise idea because everything takes time if you want to do that, do it gradually. Cut the reward to zero too fast this is a kill-switch for the whole bitcoin system |
|
|
|
|
graphicx
Member
Offline
Activity: 76
Merit: 10
|
|
November 25, 2015, 03:15:24 PM |
|
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
There will not be any halving anymore.Bitcoin will have doublings in the future. And the 21M coins limit raised or totally abandoned (like it happened with Dogecoin in the past)... what happened to doge? and how old is doge really |
|
|
|
|
|
ridery99
|
|
November 25, 2015, 03:17:22 PM |
|
I'm against the halving too. I think all major pools should fork bitcoin to not-halving version which will be supported in the future to maintain miners profits.
|
|
|
|
|
Amph
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3206
Merit: 1069
|
|
November 25, 2015, 03:22:54 PM |
|
It is a mandatory step in the development of the network and prosperity of bitcoin. So yes it won't be cancelled.
The title is misleading and since it suggest a eventual cancellation which is not true. A better title would be. Should the halving be cancelled?
That's what I think should happen and assume will happen ("unless miners want to kill bitcoin"). My logic is flawless, lol. If the halving is so beneficial for the "prosperity of bitcoin", why not cancel the miners reward altogether? Fly me to the moon because satoshi wanted that the reward was spread in a long time to permit adoption to take off, and to permit the efficiency to catch the reward itself if it was done (the halving) every year, right now miners would be fucked basically |
|
|
|
|
|
zodiac3011
|
|
November 25, 2015, 04:02:23 PM |
|
I'm against the halving too. I think all major pools should fork bitcoin to not-halving version which will be supported in the future to maintain miners profits.
I don't see why you want to do that at all? Lower supply means higher demands for bitcoin so the price will increase which pumps the price of it |
|
|
|
|
deisik (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3444
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
|
|
November 25, 2015, 04:36:46 PM
Last edit: November 25, 2015, 05:03:01 PM by deisik |
|
It is a mandatory step in the development of the network and prosperity of bitcoin. So yes it won't be cancelled.
The title is misleading and since it suggest a eventual cancellation which is not true. A better title would be. Should the halving be cancelled?
That's what I think should happen and assume will happen ("unless miners want to kill bitcoin"). My logic is flawless, lol. If the halving is so beneficial for the "prosperity of bitcoin", why not cancel the miners reward altogether? Fly me to the moon because satoshi wanted that the reward was spread in a long time to permit adoption to take off, and to permit the efficiency to catch the reward itself Okay, Bitcoin took off (at least, that's what they all say), so its time to cancel the halving? Or did it? If it didn't make it, what is the metric we should look at? |
|
|
|
deisik (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3444
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
|
|
November 25, 2015, 04:43:09 PM |
|
if it was done (the halving) every year, right now miners would be fucked basically
So how does it change the things now, before the next halving? If the halving weren't as rare as it is, would the miners have already been fucked by now? If they would (which seems to be your point), I see no reason why they won't be ruined by this halving... What goes around comes about |
|
|
|
deisik (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3444
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
|
|
November 25, 2015, 04:48:35 PM
Last edit: November 25, 2015, 05:00:20 PM by deisik |
|
I'm against the halving too. I think all major pools should fork bitcoin to not-halving version which will be supported in the future to maintain miners profits.
I don't see why you want to do that at all? Lower supply means higher demands for bitcoin so the price will increase which pumps the price of it The falsity of this assumption has been explained many times already (me included). Quoting myself again: Miners will produce only half the amount of bitcoins after the halving, but this doesn't in the least mean that the total supply of coins will diminish accordingly since they don't sell all their coins even now (when reward is high), and they are not the only ones who sell bitcoins. Given that a) they can't increase production (i.e. the number of new blocks found per unit of time, which could potentially offset the drop in reward), and b) they may actually begin suffering losses due to lower reward per block (I don't expect their profit margins to be high due to tight competition), I see it as mostly inevitable that they will have to sell more coins than they sold before the halving (i.e. now sell), in order to cover their expenses (which remain the same per block) Once the Bitcoin halving occurs, miners will get half as much what they earned before the halving. If their profit margins are not high enough to cover their operating expenses with twice as less (yeah) revenue, they will bear losses and will have to cease mining. But if, nevertheless, their profit margins are high (and they already got back their capital expenditures), then they don't need to sell all their coins in the first place In short, life is not what it seems |
|
|
|
spazzdla
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1000
|
|
November 25, 2015, 04:51:03 PM |
|
Why is this at page 13....
|
|
|
|
|
deisik (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3444
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
|
|
November 25, 2015, 04:56:51 PM |
|
what happened to doge?
and how old is doge really
They decapped it, lol. It was first meant to have a fixed number of coins ultimately mined (like Bitcoin), but the community (or developers behind it) was prudent and insightful to change the algorithms in Dogecoin at an early stage, so that there is no limit as to how many dogecoins can be produced... It's been around for two years already (first introduced on December 8, 2013) |
|
|
|
Amph
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3206
Merit: 1069
|
|
November 25, 2015, 05:14:53 PM |
|
if it was done (the halving) every year, right now miners would be fucked basically
So how does it change the things now, before the next halving? If the halving weren't as rare as it is, would the miners have already been fucked by now? If they would (which seems to be your point), I see no reason why they won't be ruined by this halving... What goes around comes about it change the thing because they had time to improve the efficiency, now they have a better efficiency and can sustain the halving even with a <<<$100 price, if the halving was every years they would still be with the efficiency of 2011.... |
|
|
|
|
deisik (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3444
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
|
|
November 25, 2015, 06:19:49 PM
Last edit: November 25, 2015, 06:34:44 PM by deisik |
|
if it was done (the halving) every year, right now miners would be fucked basically
So how does it change the things now, before the next halving? If the halving weren't as rare as it is, would the miners have already been fucked by now? If they would (which seems to be your point), I see no reason why they won't be ruined by this halving... What goes around comes about it change the thing because they had time to improve the efficiency, now they have a better efficiency and can sustain the halving even with a <<<$100 price, if the halving was every years they would still be with the efficiency of 2011.... A better efficiency is fully accommodated over time by the rising difficulty, so we are effectively time-invariant in the long run (efficiency vs difficulty), i.e. the halving interval is irrelevant if we still hit the efficiency wall before the halving. In other words, your assumption would hold true only if (and for as long as) the efficiency outpaces the difficulty. Previously, this condition had been satisfied by the new more efficient equipment hitting the market on a pretty regular basis... But now we seem to be well past that point |
|
|
|
|
