The deflationary problem

[gigabytecoin]

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 

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.

There are already transaction fees in upwards of 2-3 BTC per block.

By 2040... if bitcoins are still around then... I expect each bitcoin to be worth about a few million USD in today's equivalent.

Sure you will be mining fewer "bitcoins", but you will be receiving greater "value" for each one you do receive until the end of time.

[1714220894]

1714220894

[BombaUcigasa]

I don't understand the problem reported in the OP. Am I tested for trolling resistance?

Did this guy read the first two paragraphs of the bitcoin thesis and then started screaming that he invented the table salt? Why aren't moderators suspending his ass until he learns to voice his questions in a civilized manner? Doesn't he check at least one block on blockexplorer.com to see how big the transaction fees are for just 30% of the total bitcoin mass?

[kstepyra]

Am I tested for trolling resistance?

Yes.

[cyberaa]

i think the world will end next year so why dont u just give me your bitcoins ?
thanks

[Terpie]

This issue hadn't been addressed, please stop saying that.  It's a lie.

If it had been addressed someone would have Provided a sufficient explanation in this thread.  I have yet to see one.

Thus to me this issue is problematic for bit coin.

People assume wrongfully that inflation is bad.   To respect to security, inflation is not only beneficial but necessary.  Otherwise a declining hash will compromise the security of the network.

1. This problem wouldn't be a '2040' problem, it would be a problem every time mining rewards were lowered every 4ish years. Not to mention, your title shows a lack of research, as BTC will still be created way after 2040.

2. This is an issue with marginal security of the network, and a very small marginal change at that. If Bitcoin makes it to the last BTC creation date, the change in marginal security of the network due to removal of this reward will be VERY small. It would be insane to think it would cause a detrimental effect to the network.

3. There is a balance that must be created between features that incentivize users and incentivize miners. What's the 'sweet spot' reward amount that most most maximally incentivies miners while also encourages people to adopt the currency? Under your premises, 60 BTC per block would also make the network more secure, so where do you propose we fix the reward at and why? Network security is not the end-all-be-all of bitcoin. Most people that use BTC right now would not use a currency that inflated in perpetuity, this is a design feature and would incompatible with your proposal.

[Sweft]

This issue hadn't been addressed, please stop saying that.  It's a lie.

If it had been addressed someone would have Provided a sufficient explanation in this thread.  I have yet to see one.

Thus to me this issue is problematic for bit coin.

People assume wrongfully that inflation is bad.   To respect to security, inflation is not only beneficial but necessary.  Otherwise a declining hash will compromise the security of the network.

1. This problem wouldn't be a '2040' problem, it would be a problem every time mining rewards were lowered every 4ish years. Not to mention, your title shows a lack of research, as BTC will still be created way after 2040.

2. This is an issue with marginal security of the network, and a very small marginal change at that. If Bitcoin makes it to the last BTC creation date, the change in marginal security of the network due to removal of this reward will be VERY small. It would be insane to think it would cause a detrimental effect to the network.

3. There is a balance that must be created between features that incentivize users and incentivize miners. What's the 'sweet spot' reward amount that most most maximally incentivies miners while also encourages people to adopt the currency? Under your premises, 60 BTC per block would also make the network more secure, so where do you propose we fix the reward at and why? Network security is not the end-all-be-all of bitcoin. Most people that use BTC right now would not use a currency that inflated in perpetuity, this is a design feature and would incompatible with your proposal.

That's obvious.  Hash will be tested at the first reward point in a year or so.  If hash falls significantly, we can say the bitcoin experiment will end in failure.  If hash continues to rise, then it's possible that mining can continue.

The issue with your presentation, and everyone else that has explained this, is that "transaction fees will support mining."  

1) There's no proof of this.
2) It really does not matter.

I'll explain why it doesn't matter, and it should be obvious by now - unless you have not read anything or don't think.  It doesn't matter because even if transaction fees support hash (which there is no proof), you still deduct a revenue source (block reward) from miners.  Which means, miners make less money than they would if there was block reward.  It's very simple.  Shouldn't be hard to explain.

Since miners make less money than they would with transactions fees and block reward, we assume that hash will decrease once block reward decreases.

(Mining profit = block reward + fees)
 
(Mining profit = (block reward)/2 + fees) in 1 year

(Mining profit = (block reward)/4 + fees) in 5 years

(Mining profit = (block reward)/8 + fees) in 9 years

It should be obvious that if you remove a source of mining income, miners will profit less.  This will decrease hash, hash secures the block chain, and it will devalue bitcoins.

INFLATION IS NOT THE ENEMY

I don't know why people believe INFLATION(BITCOIN) = INFLATION(FIAT).  It's NOT TRUE.  Inflating bitcoins costs computational power, A LOT of it.  Inflating paper currency costs almost nothing.  

Inflating bitcoins also secures the NETWORK.  Because it gives miners profit.  When mines profit, hash increases.  When hash increases bitcoins become more valuable because they're more secure and less prone to attack.

So please, enough with the "fees will support the network."  There's no proof of it, and even if there is, it's irrelevant because inflation + fees are more beneficial.

[Sweft]

The other issue is with the velocity of money.  A deflating currency decreases the velocity of money.  If money is worth more tomorrow, you're less likely to spend it.  If you know tomorrow your money is worth less, you're more likely to spend it. 

This issue has to be address with respect to miners.

If the velocity of money decreases (with a deflating currency), the processing nodes will experience less transactions which will decrease mining reward.

Everything about a deflating currency is BAD for miners.  If miners do not support the network with hash, the network will become vulnerable to attack.

A deflating currency creates a vulnerability inside the network to attack through the decrease in hash.

This is a fact.  The fact that people are hostile to consider this point of view is unfortunate.  If they're acting in their self interest then so be it.  But this is a very problematic possible outcome for the future of bitcoins.

[Terpie]

Yes, security will drop marginally. If the network is more powerful than the top 500 super computers in the world RIGHT NOW, then by the time this issue arrives, the network will be so insanely robust and secure, that a marginal drop in security will have a negligible if ANY effect on people's expectations that the network could survive an attack. As for the inflation argument, it has been discussed ad nauseum, and essentially, if you believe in your idea, go ahead and start inflatacoin and see if anyone wants to adopt it. Otherwise, please stop telling us we're doing it wrong. Funny how we have yet to see anyone put their time and energy where there mouth is.

[kstepyra]

@thread poster - at first it is going like 1/2 of the amount generated every 4 years, so it will simply go really low amount in 2100's. About transaction fees and mining - simple math man..

if now we have fees around 0.1 - 1 BTC / block - let's call it 0.3 BTC.
Let's say we have 50 transactions per block (just took a look for couple last blocks on blockexplorer) - so it's 0.006 btc / transaction. - lets even call it 0.005 BTC (~10c)

If visa really have 4000 transactions / s (and that's only VISA) then it will be at CURRENT! fee rate 12000 BTC / block   - which is about $210000 / 10 minutes for mining for all miners - which is about $30.000.000 per day for all hashing guys. So where's the problem man? Let's even say that power consuption is like $0.1 /kwh and miners mine only when they have $0.9(probably current ratio) in return for every 1kwh lost. That's about 2,500.00 Thash/s  which is like 500 times our current hash rate! If there will be need then fees will increase to get enough miners running. Remember also about block rewards till 2100 yr. To attack network someone will need to put in the machines like $1.000.000.000 dollars minimum, and it will be traceable as big power consumption on specific area, someone buying like ~5 000 000 computers of same type etc etc. - it's not that easy as you think.

Maybe i did some mistakes in calculations, or information specified is not completly proper - but for sure FEEs can be readjusted to meet network requirements.

One thing is sure -> more people in the system - safer system.

Read that carefully, and remember - if bitcoin will somehow lose its popularity that means it's not necessary anymore  - so why secure it and produce quadrillions of bitcoins to miners?
Also this is calculation for current prices and production. If prices will go to $1000 /BTC then fees will go to 0.0001 or less, everything will be balanced anyway.

[Quantumplation]

This issue hadn't been addressed, please stop saying that.  It's a lie.

If it had been addressed someone would have Provided a sufficient explanation in this thread.  I have yet to see one.

Thus to me this issue is problematic for bit coin.

People assume wrongfully that inflation is bad.   To respect to security, inflation is not only beneficial but necessary.  Otherwise a declining hash will compromise the security of the network.

1. This problem wouldn't be a '2040' problem, it would be a problem every time mining rewards were lowered every 4ish years. Not to mention, your title shows a lack of research, as BTC will still be created way after 2040.

2. This is an issue with marginal security of the network, and a very small marginal change at that. If Bitcoin makes it to the last BTC creation date, the change in marginal security of the network due to removal of this reward will be VERY small. It would be insane to think it would cause a detrimental effect to the network.

3. There is a balance that must be created between features that incentivize users and incentivize miners. What's the 'sweet spot' reward amount that most most maximally incentivies miners while also encourages people to adopt the currency? Under your premises, 60 BTC per block would also make the network more secure, so where do you propose we fix the reward at and why? Network security is not the end-all-be-all of bitcoin. Most people that use BTC right now would not use a currency that inflated in perpetuity, this is a design feature and would incompatible with your proposal.

That's obvious.  Hash will be tested at the first reward point in a year or so.  If hash falls significantly, we can say the bitcoin experiment will end in failure.  If hash continues to rise, then it's possible that mining can continue.

The issue with your presentation, and everyone else that has explained this, is that "transaction fees will support mining."  

1) There's no proof of this.
2) It really does not matter.

I'll explain why it doesn't matter, and it should be obvious by now - unless you have not read anything or don't think.  It doesn't matter because even if transaction fees support hash (which there is no proof), you still deduct a revenue source (block reward) from miners.  Which means, miners make less money than they would if there was block reward.  It's very simple.  Shouldn't be hard to explain.

Since miners make less money than they would with transactions fees and block reward, we assume that hash will decrease once block reward decreases.

(Mining profit = block reward + fees)
 
(Mining profit = (block reward)/2 + fees) in 1 year

(Mining profit = (block reward)/4 + fees) in 5 years

(Mining profit = (block reward)/8 + fees) in 9 years

It should be obvious that if you remove a source of mining income, miners will profit less.  This will decrease hash, hash secures the block chain, and it will devalue bitcoins.

INFLATION IS NOT THE ENEMY

I don't know why people believe INFLATION(BITCOIN) = INFLATION(FIAT).  It's NOT TRUE.  Inflating bitcoins costs computational power, A LOT of it.  Inflating paper currency costs almost nothing.  

Inflating bitcoins also secures the NETWORK.  Because it gives miners profit.  When mines profit, hash increases.  When hash increases bitcoins become more valuable because they're more secure and less prone to attack.

So please, enough with the "fees will support the network."  There's no proof of it, and even if there is, it's irrelevant because inflation + fees are more beneficial.

You are claiming that the hashing rate has to increase forever.  The bitcoin economy is doomed anyway, under that logic, since there is a finite limit to the processing power of the network, and one day that will be reached.  Stagnation does not equate to a decrease in security.

Similarly, a decease in payout doesn't mean that all miners will stop mining.  Just as WE have no proof that what you say is true, YOU have no proof that miners will quit because of a minor drop in profitability.  In fact, we have more evidence than you do, since the profitability of mining has been decreasing for some time now (difficulty rate increase), and us miners are still here.  The fees, however, ARE there, and ARE providing a profit for miners, and ARE increasing over time, and WILL be there based on the current rules.  And, if bitcoin has enough miners that it can't be compromised, it stands to reckon that it has enough USERS to produce a high volume of transactions, such that the tiny amount of fee with each will accumulate to large payouts.  We've provided sample math for you, and you've chosen to ignore it.

[Maged]

Guys, I think I get it! Since the value of a bitcoin follows the difficulty, we should increase the current block reward to 50,000 BTC! We'll all be 1000 times richer!

In all seriousness, don't feed the troll. We won't have any meaningful data until the first drop in the block reward, but the current indications are that we'll be fine. This has been discussed to death in the past, so let's just suspend this discussion until we have that data.

[MoonShadow]

Actually, I am more concerned about the 2038 problem. And I'm not concerned about it all that much.

Yeah, really.  At least the 2038 is a real problem.

[mewantsbitcoins]

Actually, I am more concerned about the 2038 problem. And I'm not concerned about it all that much.

Yeah, really.  At least the 2038 is a real problem.

A real change - not a problem 

[MoonShadow]

Actually, I am more concerned about the 2038 problem. And I'm not concerned about it all that much.

Yeah, really.  At least the 2038 is a real problem.

A real change - not a problem 

I don't know, I'm known for keeping my computer way past it's prime.  I might still have a 32 bit cpu in 2038.

[Nesetalis]

if you honestly thing a deflationary currency is a bad idea... go somewhere else were not going to change your mind with facts after all. So why are you still here, trolling these fine people in to arguing with your brickwall faith in fiat? It can't really be THAT fun can it?

[Zamicol]

Swift,

Here's another aspect:

Lets imagine that there are no transaction fees in 2040.   At that time, there should be strong Bitcoin banks and other financial institutions.  These institution will have every reason to run miner to keep the integrity of their own transactions and to make sure that deposits are safe from attack.  If I'm not mistaken, miners can pick and choose which transactions to include in a block.  I believe Mt Gox runs miners to speed verification of transaction.  Mining helps bitcoin financial institutions even without transaction fees or rewards from new blocks; The incentive already exists. 

Today, banks must pay fees for things like checks (yes, I'm American).  They spend huge bucks on robust, secure equipment, and yet they don't earn "transaction fees" on transactions.  Often times they are the ones paying them.  Why do they do this?  To offer a secure service to their customers, thus making them more appealing.  Would you save money in a bank that had bad coverage after a hacker tampered with accounts?  If these financial instituions suspect that billion of dollars where at risk, wouldn't they invest even more into computers?  Why wouldn't this translate over to a bitcoin economy?

And some adive:
I'm sorry for the harsh responses that you have been receiving, but there is reason for it.  You come across arrogant and condescending in your original post when you say things like, "The stupid part about is.." or "This may not seem like a problem, it IS."  A change of tone will help to build friends on this forum.  Most of the people here are very intelligent and well studied on the topic.  For a newbie to ram an opinion down our throats seems out of place. 

Good luck to you. 

[MoonShadow]

Swift,

Here's another aspect:

Lets imagine that there are no transaction fees in 2040.   At that time, there should be strong Bitcoin banks and other financial institutions.  These institution will have every reason to run miner to keep the integrity of their own transactions and to make sure that deposits are safe from attack.  If I'm not mistaken, miners can pick and choose which transactions to include in a block.  I believe Mt Gox runs miners to speed verification of transaction.  Mining helps bitcoin financial institutions even without transaction fees or rewards from new blocks; The incentive already exists. 

Yes!  Finally someone who gets it!  I've been trying to highlight this for months.  Many of the intelligent forum members don't equate mining to a strong bank vault or other security measures.

[MoonShadow]

I found the offending article...

"According to the Bitcoin FAQ, new coins are generated by a network node which spends its time trying to find solutions to a certain mathematical problem. Each time one of its nodes finds an answer — and can demonstrate proof of work — it creates a new block of the currency. The reward for ‘solving a block’ is automatically adjusted so that in the first four years of the Bitcoin network, 10.5m bitcoins will be created. The amount is then halved every four years, and the total number of bitcoins created is meant to be limited to 21m by 2040. In fact, Bitcoin’s curators seem more concerned about creating a deflationary spiral than inflation. In that sense, it’s kind of the opposite mindset to the Federal Reserve."

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2011/06/06/585756/virtual-money-from-real-central-bank-mistrust/

[dayfall]

I agree there is no problem here, at least not a clear cut one.  But, has anyone considered having Bitcoins increase in number to match GDP of the planet?  This can be roughly estimated, and implemented such that each block is always worth at lest 1BTC.  We have a few decades before we need to consider this, anyway.

Keep on truckin'.

[nathanrees19]

(Mining profit = block reward + fees)
 
(Mining profit = (block reward)/2 + fees) in 1 year

(Mining profit = (block reward)/4 + fees) in 5 years

(Mining profit = (block reward)/8 + fees) in 9 years

It should be obvious that if you remove a source of mining income, miners will profit less.

You are incorrectly treating "fees" as a constant.

The issue with your presentation, and everyone else that has explained this, is that "transaction fees will support mining."  

1) There's no proof of this.

There is strong evidence to suggest that fees will increase significantly over time.

2) It really does not matter.

I think I am finally beginning to understand your misunderstanding. You seem to think that:

• Incentives only work if they are "new" coins
• Therefore, inflation is necessary to provide an incentive
• Therefore, anyone disagreeing you must be afraid of inflation

Your premise (first point) is wrong.

Your second point is wrong due to relying on the first point.

Your obsession with point three is baffling.