The deflationary problem

[Sweft]

Where do these lunatics come from?

Are you really that fucking stupid?  Seriously?  You don't see the problem?  If you're that stupid i feel sorry for you.  Is it an ego thing?  I hope so.

[1713431915]

1713431915

[1713431915]

1713431915

[Sweft]

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

The reward wasn't reduced.

The hash went up, security of the network went up, price went up.  Effective reward remained the same or increased.

If hash ever falls, the network becomes prone to attack.  A strong network is one with growing hash to keep ahead of potential attackers.

Removing block generation reward may reduce the number of miners.  If that happens, bitcoins will lose value.  Not gain.

[Coma]

Where do these lunatics come from?

Are you really that fucking stupid?  Seriously?  You don't see the problem?  If you're that stupid i feel sorry for you.  Is it an ego thing?  I hope so.

You started your topic stating:

In 2040 new block generation will stop

Which is plain wrong. If you think you have a valid point and would like to be trated seriously I'd suggest you correct that, and double-check the rest of your original post for errors.

And try to have some fun too.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

[da2ce7]

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.

Other than you being retarded and not being able to use the 'forum search' function... (hint: it comes under the name 'search')

You make the assumption that because the hash-rate MAY be slower... the network differently is less secure.

What you fail to take into account is that the 'security environment' e.g. the total ammount of capital needed to 'attack' the network might make an attack prohibitively expensive...  even if the 'normal' hash rate is extremely low.

For example the hash rate might normally be 1/1000 the rate it is now.... (maybe)... but there is 1 000 000x the current hash rate available on demand if an attack is detected...

Therefore an adversary MUST gather 1 000 000x the current hash-rate to attack the network... even tho the normal hash-rate is 1 000 000 000 times lower.  (and the network is still secure).

[Vladimir]

yep it will require not world's top 10000000 most powerfull computers to attack some bitcoin transactions but world's top 999900 most powerful computers. Yapity yap, that must be a disaster....

[Sweft]

Where do these lunatics come from?

Are you really that fucking stupid?  Seriously?  You don't see the problem?  If you're that stupid i feel sorry for you.  Is it an ego thing?  I hope so.

You started your topic stating:

In 2040 new block generation will stop

Which is plain wrong. If you think you have a valid point and would like to be trated seriously I'd suggest you correct that, and double-check the rest of your original post for errors.

And try to have some fun too.

Listen, this is a serious problem.

People think it's beneficial to stop the reward for generating new blocks.  They're wrong.  They're also idiots.  Maybe they're misinformed, but it's not a good position.

NO ONE should believe this.  It's stupid.  I don't know how people came to the conclusion.

Hash secures the network and miners don't make as much money, they'll stop mining.  Once hash goes down, value of bitcoins goes down.  Bitcoins are only worth the hash of the network.  Not their supply.  It's irrelevant.  You can fix supply, but if the network is insecure, they're not worth anything.

INFLATION IS GOOD for bitcoin.  It supports the hashing network.

[da2ce7]

INFLATION IS GOOD for bitcoin.  It supports the hashing network.

You mum is GOOD for bitcoin... providing she doesn't charge to high.

[Sweft]

This is not acceptable language.  This is your final warning.  Check yourself or I will.

-creighto

[MoonShadow]

Listen, this is a serious problem.

People think it's beneficial to stop the reward for generating new blocks.  They're wrong.  They're also idiots.  Maybe they're misinformed, but it's not a good position.

NO ONE should believe this.  It's stupid.  I don't know how people came to the conclusion.

You need to check your premises. 

[Sweft]

yep it will require not world's top 10000000 most powerfull computers to attack some bitcoin transactions but world's top 999900 most powerful computers. Yapity yap, that must be a disaster....

Vladimir i'm discussing the future.

Right now the ecosystem is healthy.  An unhealthy one would be where reward stops for block generation.

[Sweft]

Listen, this is a serious problem.

People think it's beneficial to stop the reward for generating new blocks.  They're wrong.  They're also idiots.  Maybe they're misinformed, but it's not a good position.

NO ONE should believe this.  It's stupid.  I don't know how people came to the conclusion.

You need to check your premises. 

I have to go too.  Later, no time for this.

[mewantsbitcoins]

[Vladimir]

I am discussing the future too.. and I gave you best guess estimation of effect of the block reward being reduced from 0.1 to 0 BTC.

Suggestion: check how block reward is reduced so that it asymptotically approach 0 over time. Than maybe post something along the lines of  "Before thinking that I am smarter than 10 000 smartest people on the planet I will do more research next time".

[k]

also on the point of tx fees. if the nethash decreases when the block reward is reduced that implies that it will take longer then the intended average of 10 minutes between blocks being discovered. transactions will take longer, and there will be a build up of unconfirmed transactions. people who desire a speedy processing of their transactions will be incentivised to pay a tx fee which will help make up for the reduction in the block reward.

this has been discussed before. there was a good thread on why it may have been better to have a continually decreasing block reward rather than a halving every 210000 blocks.

[nazgulnarsil]

This is not acceptable language.  This is your final warning.  Check yourself or I will.

-creighto

go [censored] yourself.

There, I fixed it.

-creighto

[da2ce7]

nazgulnarsil and Sweft,  you create to-many lulz

lulzzz of making yourselves look like complete retards on the internet.

Edit:  tl;dr
nazgulnarsil, Sweft -1 reputation

[grdryn]

This entire thread is completely irrelevant. Harold Camping says the world is going to end in october.

[mewantsbitcoins]

This entire thread is completely irrelevant. Harold Camping says the world is going to end in october.

Not again

[MoonShadow]

nazgulnarsil and Sweft,  you create to-many lulz

lulzzz of making yourselves look like complete retards on the internet.

nazgulnarsil was just trolling me.  Sweft was getting upset and using strings of letters in conjunction that some would find offensive, although the majority here would likely have just found his attitude hilarious.