Bitcoin halving to be canceled?

[SebastianJu]

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

I tend to agree. Since a fixed amount will lead to deflation. The problem is, when you don't have a fixed amount then the urge to print more and more money is way too high, effectively driving the currency into inflation or building a bubble that will burst at one point in time. Of course the corresponding thing would be best but probably impossible to implement.

[SebastianJu]

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?

I think for one point it's small miners that want this. They should watch the big miners that understand the problem coming from that that would result in effectively losses for them in fact.

And the other part is that some think it will be a ponzi at one point since those who owned bitcoins at the start will be favored and become rich when everyone wants bitcoins and the price needs to rise.

The halving will not stop, that is sure at least.

[deisik]

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.

A halving free version means that the reward is constant, i.e. there is no halving, and thereby no limit on the number of coins mined. I don't say it is perfect, but it seems to be a better option, at least now. In fact, this whole topic is about just that...

And yes, Bitcoin already is a sort of Ponzi

[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

I tend to agree. Since a fixed amount will lead to deflation. The problem is, when you don't have a fixed amount then the urge to print more and more money is way too high, effectively driving the currency into inflation or building a bubble that will burst at one point in time. Of course the corresponding thing would be best but probably impossible to implement.

How is that? I didn't think about a way to implement the economically based restrictions on the supply of new coins, but who could have thought about a decentralized digital currency some ten years ago?

The absence of proof is not proof of absence

[SebastianJu]

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.

A halving free version means that the reward is constant, i.e. there is no halving, and thereby no limit on the number of coins mined. I don't say it is perfect, but it seems to be a better option, at least now. In fact, this whole topic is about just that...

And yes, Bitcoin already is a sort of Ponzi

That would mean indefinitely creating bitcoins. It would be the wrong sign to miners since we already have too many miners. We need to drop some. The network is 100 times more secure than needed which translates in one normal bitcoin transaction using energy in the height of 1.57 average us households use on one full day. Bigger transactions even more.

That is not healthy. We need to lose reward for mining so that these values get fixed a bit. It's not something that should be feared.

[SebastianJu]

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

I tend to agree. Since a fixed amount will lead to deflation. The problem is, when you don't have a fixed amount then the urge to print more and more money is way too high, effectively driving the currency into inflation or building a bubble that will burst at one point in time. Of course the corresponding thing would be best but probably impossible to implement.

How is that? I didn't think about a way to implement the economically based restrictions on the supply of new coins, but who could have thought about a decentralized digital currency some ten years ago?

The absence of proof is not proof of absence

You are right. This all is a big experiment. We really don't know enough about what will and might happen. We only can try to make bitcoin a success and protect it from harm. I guess we try to do the same on that front. But yes, only theories...

[deisik]

That would mean indefinitely creating bitcoins. It would be the wrong sign to miners since we already have too many miners. We need to drop some. The network is 100 times more secure than needed which translates in one normal bitcoin transaction using energy in the height of 1.57 average us households use on one full day. Bigger transactions even more

I'm not very familiar with technical issues involved with Bitcoin, though I think these issues can all be fixed (at least purely on technical grounds apart from requiring consensus between miners and all that shit). But the economic model behind Bitcoin as a currency is flawed, and it has been becoming more and more apparent now...

And then we are stuck at such simple things like the size of block, lol

[Sourgummies]

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

Why is there any question at all? It's in the code. You can't change that; it's a systematic part of the entirety of Bitcoin. Otherwise, inflation occurs and everything goes to crap, just like FIAT currencies. Well... it's just that people haven't noticed that things will get out of control with FIAT yet. That, or they're reliant on them.

[deisik]

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

This is the most wide-spread delusion that you can fix things by adding more decimal places. Things don't work this way. Money is instrumental, it serves to facilitate trade. But if there is no trade (that is, no exchange of goods and services) mediated in this currency, the number of places after the point is irrelevant...

You are confusing cause and effect by putting the cart before the horse

[Ejanend]

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

This is the most wide-spread delusion that you can fix things by adding more decimal places. Things don't work this way. Money is instrumental, it serves to facilitate trade. But if there is no trade (that is, no exchange of goods and services) mediated in this currency, the number of places after the point is irrelevant...

You are confusing cause and effect by putting the cart before the horse

We can always add 0s behind the decimal point when the value of bitcoin increase. We need to increase the value of bitcoin first.

[n691309]

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

The latter follows from the former

If the supply is unlimited then how much would cost a bitcoin? it is better to have restriction and a limit on supply as the price should be increased year by year until there are a small amount in market.

I have created another topic which discusses this issue in particular. Short version, the higher price (due to limited supply) turns Bitcoin into a Ponzi scheme, which would kill it eventually...

Well it can kill it or it will boost it one of these two, back to the topic now i think that even if this halving will be canceled there will not be a huge difference, only new mining rigs will be produced and the difficulty will be increased.

[mouneshwar123]

Why should it be canceled?
it is actually good to bitcoin world, btw good mining rewards too

[Ejanend]

Why should it be canceled?
it is actually good to bitcoin world, btw good mining rewards too

Even when the bitcoin reward is halved in 6 months, the mining is still profitable for most low electricity price users.

[jeremy grol]

Why has to be cancelled?

[nostal02]

The halving wont be canceled as its part of the program of bitcoin,with the halving it will also raise it price and thats what makes it valuable.
We know that if its hard to get its price is really awesome and can gain us profit.

[goinmerry]

Is this just some kind of a hoax or someone is scaring someone.  I dont think so. That will happen eventually. I think a lot might be affected if it will be canceled.

[mrhelpful]

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

The latter follows from the former

If the supply is unlimited then how much would cost a bitcoin? it is better to have restriction and a limit on supply as the price should be increased year by year until there are a small amount in market.

I have created another topic which discusses this issue in particular. Short version, the higher price (due to limited supply) turns Bitcoin into a Ponzi scheme, which would kill it eventually...

Well it can kill it or it will boost it one of these two, back to the topic now i think that even if this halving will be canceled there will not be a huge difference, only new mining rigs will be produced and the difficulty will be increased.

It can kill it? I think the demand for bitcoin would still be there.

I mean as long the price is still up, you`ll know for sure regardless halving or not we still be around.

[Amph]

Why has to be cancelled?

so miners can not lose profit with it, for each halving they need a major efficiency to remain profitable

[SebastianJu]

Why has to be cancelled?

so miners can not lose profit with it, for each halving they need a major efficiency to remain profitable

If you are a miner then surely that event is something not funny. Though halving has to happen to lower reward and weed out the amount of miners mining. The network is way too oversecured which results in each transaction eating an enourmous amount of power. Which in a result means bitcoin is far from being a green tech at the moment.

After the halving bitcoin will still be safe and there will always be miners who mine on the edge of profitability, most even under profitability.

[deisik]

The halving wont be canceled as its part of the program of bitcoin,with the halving it will also raise it price and thats what makes it valuable

The price has already risen. When I started this thread, the price was about $220, and one of the premises for Bitcoin halving cancellation was the price staying there (i.e. miners profits collapsing at the halving). Now that the price more than doubled (read miners profits surged), there is no more need for halving to be canceled. Whether the topic still needs to be written to is questionable...

Though I'm not going to lock it