Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 07:57:13 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: The deflationary problem  (Read 30777 times)
Sweft
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 136


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 11:41:12 PM
 #1

I will introduce the concept of Sweft's Law and Sweft Attack below.

Sweft's Law:  The network hashrate of a proof of work cryptocurrency must rise at a rate at least equal to that of Moore's Law to provide minimal network security.

Sweft Attack:  A prolonged deflationary attack on a cryptocurrency network describing a situation in which a rogue miner processes transactions solely for the purpose of removing the fee of the transaction from circulation.  A necessary precondition for said attack is that the average transaction fee must exceeds the average rate of inflation.

Edit:  Originally titled the 2040 problem, a more apt title is the deflationary problem.  I use 2040 as a point where mining reward via block reward would be negligible.  I'm starting to believe this point where miners no longer profit enough to increase hash will come much sooner, perhaps by 2020.


Edit:  An explanation of Sweft's Law for those having trouble understanding it.

Moore's Law states that the number of transistors doubles every two years.
This means two years from now, the cost of the network (hash / ($ / hash)), given equivalent hash, will be half.
And half in another two years. And half in another 4 years.
That means in 6 years it will take 1/8th the amount of capital to replicate the original hash.
Thus, the network must grow at the rate of Moore's Law to sustain the value of its hash so that the value to replicate the original hash does not decrease.
That means that the network must double its hash every two years.
Every two years there has to be a capital investment equivalent to the cost of network hash / 2 to double the hash in accordance with Sweft's Law.


Edit:  I haven't posted in two years but i will provide an updated analysis below.

For BTC to to have value, miners must secure the network. If miners do not constantly increase hash, Moore's law will catch up to the network and it will become prone to attack. This should be easily accepted as fact. If you don't accept this premise i can't possibly help you understand the deflationary flaw in bitcoin.

If you don't understand, let me try to explain it again. If hash remains constant and doesn't increase for a number of years, technological advancements (Moore's Law) will make an 51% attack more likely.

Now what some people seem to argue is that tx fees will support mining growth.

This is true in two scenarios.

1) bitcoins are sent/received more frequently (velocity) 2) tx fees increase

I will addresses the problems with both scenarios.

The problem with #2 is that there is a cap on maximum fee the miners can charge, at 100%. So velocity remains constant, miners cannot increase profit beyond 100% tx fee. So this cannot create increasing profit.

The problem with #1 is that bicoins can be permanently lost, and there is a hard cap on the amount of bitcoins. That means that there will eventually be more bitcoin lost than are generated by block reward. This should be known as the 'Sweft point' where bitcoin turns into a deflationary currency from an inflationary one. Thus, to believe that transactions will increase as coins are lost, aka deflation, is not a sound proposition.

Another issue is that rogue miners can mine the network, charging tx fees and sending the coins to the trash. This would further exaggerate the deflationary tendency of the bitcoin design.

Thus it should be obvious to anyone that understands the issues to also understand that there exists a simple solution which will make the person who implements it rich.

Make an alt currency with a cap minimum 3% inflation. This will satisfy the profits of the miners and hash of the network.


Original:

In 2040 new block generation will be negligible, bitcoins will be fixed.  Miners will only be rewarded for transaction fees.  This may not seem like a problem, it IS.

The health of the network depends on constant hash growth.  Without constant hash growth, the network is prone to attack.  Why?

What protects the network right now is a high hashing rate.  This secures it from attack.  Without this, there is no security.  The price of bitcoins would fall.  The more hash, the more security, the higher the price will be.  Because it's impenetrable from exterior forces or supercomputers.  If a government were to be able to attack the network, 99% of the network, the system would fail.  If the system has the ability to fail, the price of bitcoins is worthless.

Thus, the whole network depends on hash.  The security and price, which is also reflective of hardware and electricity, and again, security.  The more hash the network has the more secure.

Thus, miners need incentive to increase hash.  They do this by generating new coins.  Thus you increase hash and create a more secure network.

The problem is that in 2040 new block generation will be negligible, and coins will be more or less fixed.  Now, people want to make you believe this is fine.  It's not.  It's stupid and beyond stupid.

The stupid part about is is that it removes an incentive for miners to increase hash.  It removes a revenue stream for miners.  New coin production is not BAD, it's GOOD.  Only a moron would think otherwise.

This is extremely important.

When you remove the reward for generation of new blocks, you remove a revenue stream for miners, hash will fall.  You say, who cares, hash falls.  

Hash secures the network.  It ensures that miners will profit and the miners ensure there is no double spending of coins.  If miners stop mining because intensives become smaller (loss of profit), hash goes down, the network is prone to attack.

Then the coin holders will be mining to protect their own money.  This will be an incentive of the richest members.  The problem is that every year hardware advances and you're no longer making as much money mining, maybe not even to cover the hardware costs to protect the network.  So now, the network is prone to attack.

This is irrespective of assuming whether or not transaction fees will support the network.  It's irrelevant.  The network will be weaker because you removed profit from miners.  Now, miners stop mining.  Thus, you decrease hash.

Bitcoins are only worth the hash(security) of the network.


R
1480795033
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480795033

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480795033
Reply with quote  #2

1480795033
Report to moderator
1480795033
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480795033

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480795033
Reply with quote  #2

1480795033
Report to moderator
1480795033
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480795033

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480795033
Reply with quote  #2

1480795033
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480795033
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480795033

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480795033
Reply with quote  #2

1480795033
Report to moderator
mewantsbitcoins
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 11:46:31 PM
 #2

Sometime I just want to kill myself
Sweft
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 136


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 11:47:15 PM
 #3

Do you find fault in my analysis?
mewantsbitcoins
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 11:48:11 PM
 #4

Block generation will never stop. Please familiarize yourself with the way Bitcoin works before posting nonsense
Nick
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 54


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 11:49:15 PM
 #5

Look up "Transaction fees" Wink
Sweft
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 136


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 11:49:44 PM
 #6

Reward for blocks will stop in 2040.  Yes or no?  If rewards for new blocks stop, miners will depend on transaction fees.   This decreases the revenue of the mining.  Thus mining is less profitable.  Only a fucking retard can't see this.

If mining is less profitable, hash will fall.  If hash falls the network is less secure.

Are you really having trouble understanding this?
prizzy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 12


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 11:50:55 PM
 #7

there is a limit on bitcoin to try and prevent the calamity that is overprinintg of fiat currency by a central source to pay off debts, pay for wars and buy prostitutes.  Cap production, there is no oppurtunity for the inflation that occurs with fiat.

the proof of work problems are set up in a way way where the difficulty will increase exponentially, but there will never be an end to the proof of work difficulty, removing your so called deficit of hash, allowing a stable and secure network.  

If you would like to donate any amount for any anitcs you would like me to perform, film and post on youtube.

1NJKJmoRPSU8NeSoy2efwQNwSbRmJQyrn

Also looking to buy small amounts oc BTC via PP.
Message me for details, must be reputabke on this forum and any rep on Bitcoun-OTC would help.
Sweft
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 136


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 11:51:17 PM
 #8

Look up "Transaction fees" Wink

I said it's irrelevant.

Transaction fees are 1 or 2 incomes for miners.

If you remove 1 income (block generation reward), then you decrease the profits of miners.  If you decrease a source of income, hash will likely drop.  Who cares?

If hash drops the network is less secure and prone to attack.
mewantsbitcoins
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 11:52:40 PM
 #9

You do realize that we already past the 500 most powerfull computers on earth COMBINED
Sweft
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 136


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 11:53:16 PM
 #10

there is a limit on bitcoin to try and prevent the calamity that is overprinintg of fiat currency by a central source to pay off debts, pay for wars and buy prostitutes.  Cap production, there is no oppurtunity for the inflation that occurs with fiat.

the proof of work problems are set up in a way way where the difficulty will increase exponentially, but there will never be an end to the proof of work difficulty, creating yor so called deficit of hash, allowing a stable and secure network.  

What the fuck?

Overprinting?  The difficulty keeps rising, the cost to generate 1 coin keeps rising.  If it didn't, then the network would be less secure.  Hash creates security.

Generating new coins CREATES SECURITY.  INFLATION in this system CREATES SECURITY.  Because it generates reward for mining.  Mining increases hash.  Hash increases security.

Why would you do someone to weaken the system?
Sweft
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 136


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 11:55:45 PM
 #11

You do realize that we already past the 500 most powerfull computers on earth COMBINED
I don't care.  This is today.  My hypothesis is for 2040.  If you don't understand this, i can't help you.

There's a reason to mine. You profit from transaction fees and new block generation reward.

IF YOU DO NOT KEEP INCREASING HASH THE NETWORK IS PRONE TO ATTACK.

That's a fact.  To claim inflation of bitcoins hurts the network is stupidity.  It creates a reason to mine.  Mining secures the network.  If you remove that reason to mine, the network will be compromised.

THE ONLY REASON BITCOINS ARE WORTH ANYTHING IS BECAUSE OF SECURITY.  If hash does not keep rising, the network will be compromised.  It's not a maybe.  It's a definite.
Nick
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 54


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 11:56:43 PM
 #12

Look up "Transaction fees" Wink

I said it's irrelevant.

Transaction fees are 1 or 2 incomes for miners.

If you remove 1 income (block generation reward), then you decrease the profits of miners.  If you decrease a source of income, hash will likely drop.  Who cares?

If hash drops the network is less secure and prone to attack.
If in 2040 Bitcoin is still alive, there will be much more transactions per block, which also means much more transaction fees. Block Generation Reward will be nothing compared to transaction fees by then, so it doesn't matter if it's removed. Mining will still be profitable.
This has been discussed before.
mewantsbitcoins
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 11:57:16 PM
 #13

You do realize that we already past the 500 most powerfull computers on earth COMBINED
I don't care.  This is today.  My hypothesis is for 2040.  If you don't understand this, i can't help you.

There's a reason to mine. You profit from transaction fees and new block generation reward.

IF YOU DO NOT KEEP INCREASING HASH THE NETWORK IS PRONE TO ATTACK.

That's a fact.  To claim inflation of bitcoins hurts the network is stupidity.  It creates a reason to mine.  Mining secures the network.  If you remove that reason to mine, the network will be compromised.

THE ONLY REASON BITCOINS ARE WORTH ANYTHING IS BECAUSE OF SECURITY.  If hash does not keep rising, the network will be compromised.  It's not a maybe.  It's a definite.

Yea, probably by the aliens from space  Grin
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
June 04, 2011, 11:57:26 PM
 #14

Reward for blocks will stop in 2040.  Yes or no?

No, the block reward will not end in 2040.  It will not end until about 2129.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
da2ce7
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Live and Let Live


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 11:58:32 PM
 #15

It's not a maybe.  It's a definite.

What is a maybe is that you don't understand how bitcoin works...

What a definite is that you are not God, therefore you cannot 'know' the future.

One off NP-Hard.
Sweft
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 136


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 11:58:56 PM
 #16

You do realize that we already past the 500 most powerfull computers on earth COMBINED
I don't care.  This is today.  My hypothesis is for 2040.  If you don't understand this, i can't help you.

There's a reason to mine. You profit from transaction fees and new block generation reward.

IF YOU DO NOT KEEP INCREASING HASH THE NETWORK IS PRONE TO ATTACK.

That's a fact.  To claim inflation of bitcoins hurts the network is stupidity.  It creates a reason to mine.  Mining secures the network.  If you remove that reason to mine, the network will be compromised.

THE ONLY REASON BITCOINS ARE WORTH ANYTHING IS BECAUSE OF SECURITY.  If hash does not keep rising, the network will be compromised.  It's not a maybe.  It's a definite.

Yea, probably by the aliens from space  Grin
Listen dude.

It's pretty simple.

If you remove an incentive (money) to mine, you'll decrease hash.  That's a fact.

If you decrease hash the network is less secure.  That's a fact.

Why do you want less people mining?  Mining should be rewarded because it secures the network.  If we're decreasing the average time a block is rewarded, then mining is less profitable.  We don't want that.  It's stupid.
Sweft
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 136


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:00:08 AM
 #17

There's a simple fix to this solution.  Don't decrease intensives for people to mine.  Once you do you compromise the network.

I don't know why you people are so hostile to this.  It should be very easy to understand.
mewantsbitcoins
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:00:36 AM
 #18

Where do these lunatics come from?
Coma
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:01:25 AM
 #19

Vladimir
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


-


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:01:39 AM
 #20

m8, the reward was effectively reduced almost in half a week ago (again)... so what?

-
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!