Bitcoin halving to be canceled?

[Amph]

It seems that your definition of efficiency is heavily lopsided. My understanding of efficiency is entirely economic, i.e. I don't care about power consumption and hashrates as such. All I care is the balance of costs and revenues. In other words, the miner that incurs less cost and brings in more revenue is more efficient (i.e. does more with less) than the one that does the opposite...

That's what all technical parameters ultimately boil down to

my definition is different, talking about the initial investment as efficiency is a no-sense, the efficiency is only related to consumption, and the s7 consume half of the s5, so x2 efficiency

The problem is it doesn't in the least guarantee that with an s7 you will profit twice as much as with an s5 given only its half as much power consumption. Initial investment (aka capital expenditure) as a part of fixed costs defines your break-even point. You still have to shell out on the equipment first, whether you love it or not. Your personal opinion (lol) that you can sell your miner is not related to this, and I highly doubt that you will get for it the same price which you bought it at after a few months of operation (and more so before the halving)...

Even if you personally will be lucky to sell your device at its original price tag

in fact the profit is much higher than a s5, becuse you need also more psu for the s5 since it consume more

i've done the math about it and it was highly in favor of the s7

the fact that it cost more, does not mean anything, you can always sell it for the same value even after many months, guaranteed

If the equipment still brings in cash, it makes no sense economically to sell it (prior to break-even at least). Otherwise, you would be better off by not buying it in the first place (all other things being equal). But if it stops bringing in enough revenue at some point (negative cash flow), you won't be able to profitably sell it...

If only out of pure luck to some goof, lol

it's a strategy used to reach roi faster nothing else, there is a big part of trading in mining as well, it's not mining only, anymore

you can actually be lucky and sell above the market price with new equipments, there are cases of this happened already in the mining section

because there is a high demand for new asic

[SebastianJu]

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

There definitely are risks and yes miners control the network. I was surprised to read that satoshi foresaw that situation and wasn't concerned about it.

At the end the miners can't be too brutal. Otherwise user would fork and that's it. The real power is with the users.

[SebastianJu]

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 halving was implemented to give an initial reward for miners to provide their service. This reward brings bitcoins into existence too. Though it is only temporary until bitcoin adoption is so high that the fees are high enough to compensate miners.

Well, if the ones that want to keep 1 megabyte blocks win then this won't work out. The fees could not rise anymore because we have more and more adoption, adoption would be stopped because only a certain amount of transactions could be confirmed. Instead they would try to make bitcoin transactions more expensive by everyone competing to get his transaction confirmed. That obviously will make bitcoin very unattractive.

[SebastianJu]

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.

Let me guess... you are a miner, right?

That would be a stupid idea because even though you would get more bitcoins as a number, you would crash bitcoin because it would mean that bitcoins would be created indefinitely. Which means every bitcoin in existence will lose worth constantly. It's named inflation and happens when you print more and more money.

Thankfully satoshi knew the risks of inflation and made a hard cap. It will never be removed. If it will then bitcoin price would crash anyway. That's why the pools never would be stupid enough to enforce it with forking.

[SebastianJu]

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?

The fee. Bitcoin took off but only slightly. The current status surely is not the target already. When adoption is so high that the fees are high enough to reward miners and at least make the network secure a couple of times then we would not need block rewards beside fee anymore. But we have a long way to go till that.

[SebastianJu]

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:

I think he refers to inflation and deflation. Stopping block reward completely would mean there would be less bitcoins in existance than the targetted 21million. Which would be deflation and would raise the value of each bitcoin. Though when you produce more bitcoins than 21 million then it would mean inflation. It's the same when the central bank of a country starts to produce more and more fiat money in order to pay their bills. The total worth of each currency unit would effectively diminished the more they print.

[deisik]

It seems that your definition of efficiency is heavily lopsided. My understanding of efficiency is entirely economic, i.e. I don't care about power consumption and hashrates as such. All I care is the balance of costs and revenues. In other words, the miner that incurs less cost and brings in more revenue is more efficient (i.e. does more with less) than the one that does the opposite...

That's what all technical parameters ultimately boil down to

my definition is different, talking about the initial investment as efficiency is a no-sense, the efficiency is only related to consumption, and the s7 consume half of the s5, so x2 efficiency

The problem is it doesn't in the least guarantee that with an s7 you will profit twice as much as with an s5 given only its half as much power consumption. Initial investment (aka capital expenditure) as a part of fixed costs defines your break-even point. You still have to shell out on the equipment first, whether you love it or not. Your personal opinion (lol) that you can sell your miner is not related to this, and I highly doubt that you will get for it the same price which you bought it at after a few months of operation (and more so before the halving)...

Even if you personally will be lucky to sell your device at its original price tag

in fact the profit is much higher than a s5, becuse you need also more psu for the s5 since it consume more

i've done the math about it and it was highly in favor of the s7

Okay, but the question was not about "weighing" the new devices (s7) against the old ones (s5) in the current conditions in the industry. The question was whether the new miners will be as profitable after the halving as the old miners are today, i.e. before the halving...

To put it differently, will the new equipment make up for the loss of revenue due to halving?

[deisik]

you can actually be lucky and sella bove the market price with new equipments, there are cases of this happened already in the mining section

because there is a high demand for new asic

You yourself said that s5 is nothing new, but you can still sell it for the same price which you bought it at when it was top notch and ahead of the pack. And now you talk about new devices only. Who is going to buy the old equipment that will be pretty much useless after the halving?

[Amph]

It seems that your definition of efficiency is heavily lopsided. My understanding of efficiency is entirely economic, i.e. I don't care about power consumption and hashrates as such. All I care is the balance of costs and revenues. In other words, the miner that incurs less cost and brings in more revenue is more efficient (i.e. does more with less) than the one that does the opposite...

That's what all technical parameters ultimately boil down to

my definition is different, talking about the initial investment as efficiency is a no-sense, the efficiency is only related to consumption, and the s7 consume half of the s5, so x2 efficiency

The problem is it doesn't in the least guarantee that with an s7 you will profit twice as much as with an s5 given only its half as much power consumption. Initial investment (aka capital expenditure) as a part of fixed costs defines your break-even point. You still have to shell out on the equipment first, whether you love it or not. Your personal opinion (lol) that you can sell your miner is not related to this, and I highly doubt that you will get for it the same price which you bought it at after a few months of operation (and more so before the halving)...

Even if you personally will be lucky to sell your device at its original price tag

in fact the profit is much higher than a s5, becuse you need also more psu for the s5 since it consume more

i've done the math about it and it was highly in favor of the s7

Okay, but the question was not about "weighing" the new devices (s7) against the old ones (s5) in the current conditions in the industry. The question was whether the new miners will be as profitable after the halving as the old miners are today, i.e. before the halving...

To put it differently, will the new equipment make up for the loss of revenue due to halving?

yeah it will, and by a by far, i've done a good post about this in the speculation section, the result was 75 in profit for the s7 even after the halving

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1255965.msg13083425#msg13083425

[JITENDERPAR2]

in these last 5 to 6 year the bitcoins gots great publicity and use .
since there are many advantage of use of bitcoins  , but there are some disadvantages also in form of illegal contracts , storing black money etc. that are tends to banned the digital currency in the some of the countries .
so in the future anything may be action about butcoins .

[deisik]

Okay, but the question was not about "weighing" the new devices (s7) against the old ones (s5) in the current conditions in the industry. The question was whether the new miners will be as profitable after the halving as the old miners are today, i.e. before the halving...

To put it differently, will the new equipment make up for the loss of revenue due to halving?

yeah it will, and by a by far, i've done a good post about this in the speculation section, the result was 75 in profit for the s7 even after the halving

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1255965.msg13083425#msg13083425

I don't find that post of yours "good", mildly speaking. You are obviously shrinking from taking into account the capital expenditures. But please don't say that you can sell your old miner to buy a new one. This is irrelevant, since you would still need exactly the same amount of money. It doesn't matter where you obtain the money from if you want to estimate the profitability of a given piece of equipment. You could just save up the amount required off your wages, rob a bank, win a lottery, steal from your grandma, or just sell something else, lol...

And you are confusing revenue (income) with profits at that

[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:

I think he refers to inflation and deflation. Stopping block reward completely would mean there would be less bitcoins in existance than the targetted 21million. Which would be deflation and would raise the value of each bitcoin. Though when you produce more bitcoins than 21 million then it would mean inflation. It's the same when the central bank of a country starts to produce more and more fiat money in order to pay their bills. The total worth of each currency unit would effectively diminished the more they print.

The would-be miner says about switching to a halving-free version of Bitcoin, which is quite the opposite of the total block reward cancellation you mention. The idea of 21 million coin limit may have served to boost the Bitcoin usage initially, but it will ultimately and inevitably turn it into a Ponzi. Gold is limited too, but its inherent qualities for which it is loved and valued gain from its scarcity (and only to a certain extent)...

On the other hand, Bitcoin as a payment system (its inherent quality) suffers from this limit badly

[Amph]

Okay, but the question was not about "weighing" the new devices (s7) against the old ones (s5) in the current conditions in the industry. The question was whether the new miners will be as profitable after the halving as the old miners are today, i.e. before the halving...

To put it differently, will the new equipment make up for the loss of revenue due to halving?

yeah it will, and by a by far, i've done a good post about this in the speculation section, the result was 75 in profit for the s7 even after the halving

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1255965.msg13083425#msg13083425

I don't find that post of yours "good", mildly speaking. You are obviously shrinking from taking into account the capital expenditures. But please don't say that you can sell your old miner to buy a new one. This is irrelevant, since you would still need exactly the same amount of money. It doesn't matter where you obtain the money from if you want to estimate the profitability of a given piece of equipment. You could just save up the amount required off your wages, rob a bank, win a lottery, steal from your grandma, or just sell something else, lol...

And you are confusing revenue (income) with profits at that

it's a strategy that is always used in the mining scene, selling your miners to buy the new efficient one, i dunno from where you come but it worked always like that, and it's not irrelevant at all

no and i'm not confusing revenue with income, the $75 is the net profit per day, the income is the 300+, all clear in that post, which explain well

if for capital expenditures you mean the initial investment, this count nothing for big farm, because they can roi on each new equipment ina  few hours, since they roied on the other already

[SebastianJu]

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

What are you talking about?
New chips hit the market just this summer. Give them some time if you already want new chips. However current chips are pretty effective at around
0.25 J/GH


If we were to cancel the halving, can we remove the 21mil hard cap as well?

How would we cancel the halving exactly? I thought that was something built in the system itself and couldn't be stopped, pretty much in all coins. Last one that got halved was litecoin and the price wasn't really affected at all by it. I Hardly doubt there is a way to remove the 21mil cap.

miners consensus above a certain % with the help of other people can potentially hard fork bitcoin and cancel the halving

it's all about consensus + hard fork, after all many alt coin are hard fork of bitcoin...

Though miners would have to convince bitcoiners that the fork is the new real bitcoin. I'm sure, when the cap is broken then the majority of bitcoiners would stay with the unbroken chain. And i'm pretty sure the forked coin will crash since it would be clear that the value is not as stable anymore. Like a country printing more and more money, devalueing all money in existence in the process.

[SebastianJu]

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:

I think he refers to inflation and deflation. Stopping block reward completely would mean there would be less bitcoins in existance than the targetted 21million. Which would be deflation and would raise the value of each bitcoin. Though when you produce more bitcoins than 21 million then it would mean inflation. It's the same when the central bank of a country starts to produce more and more fiat money in order to pay their bills. The total worth of each currency unit would effectively diminished the more they print.

The would-be miner says about switching to a halving-free version of Bitcoin, which is quite the opposite of the total block reward cancellation you mention. The idea of 21 million coin limit may have served to boost the Bitcoin usage initially, but it will ultimately and inevitably turn it into a Ponzi. Gold is limited too, but its inherent qualities for which it is loved and valued gain from its scarcity (and only to a certain extent)...

On the other hand, Bitcoin as a payment system (its inherent quality) suffers from this limit badly

I think you miss that switching to a non block halving version of bitcoin will effectively break the 21 million coin limit. Since the block halving is calculated so that at the end 21 Million coins came into existence. If no block halving would happen then bitcoins would be created indefinitely. That's the definition of stopping the coin limit. Except you will stop anyway though then we would have 25 Bitcoin block rewards for some years from now and then suddenly only fees anymore. No time to adapt. Which most probably would break bitcoin.

[deisik]

I think you miss that switching to a non block halving version of bitcoin will effectively break the 21 million coin limit. Since the block halving is calculated so that at the end 21 Million coins came into existence. If no block halving would happen then bitcoins would be created indefinitely. That's the definition of stopping the coin limit

I guess you have to read my posts more carefully

If we were to cancel the halving, can we remove the 21mil hard cap as well?

The latter follows from the former

[deisik]

Except you will stop anyway though then we would have 25 Bitcoin block rewards for some years from now and then suddenly only fees anymore. No time to adapt. Which most probably would break bitcoin.

The theory teaches us that the amount of money in circulation should correspond to the amount of goods being produced and traded. So far the best way of doing just that is by creating (and destroying) money through credit (but it is ostentatiously vulnerable to abuse by the powers to be)...

No fixed algorithm like halving can do such a trick

[David Rabahy]

Is 2,100,000,000,000,000, i.e. 2.1 quadrillion, units enough?  No?  Please help me understand how many units is enough to allow transactions to flow unimpeded.  Bitcoin, with a minor change, can increase the number of units by carrying more precision as opposed to creating more Bitcoins; *without* debasing.

Or are we worried about how to fund the government (I suppose it is a necessary evil)?  Funding it through debasing the currency is being tried right now; I predict eventual failure.  Given the ability to debase, there will be no ceiling.

Or are you whining that you want to have more Bitcoins than you can afford?

[SebastianJu]

I think you miss that switching to a non block halving version of bitcoin will effectively break the 21 million coin limit. Since the block halving is calculated so that at the end 21 Million coins came into existence. If no block halving would happen then bitcoins would be created indefinitely. That's the definition of stopping the coin limit

I guess you have to read my posts more carefully

If we were to cancel the halving, can we remove the 21mil hard cap as well?

The latter follows from the former

Ok, then i don't understand your sentences:

The would-be miner says about switching to a halving-free version of Bitcoin, which is quite the opposite of the total block reward cancellation you mention. The idea of 21 million coin limit may have served to boost the Bitcoin usage initially, but it will ultimately and inevitably turn it into a Ponzi.

That sounds like you think the cap will turn it into a ponzi and a halving free version would be better.

[jeremy grol]

It's impossible to cancel halving. Or maybe is possible, but with tragic consequences.