The Halving - Good or Bad for Bitcoin?

[zikel]

Of course its good, We all know that bitcoin has a limited supply so if there is no halving all coins will be mined fastly so its like slowing it moreover it will decrease the supply that can lead to price increase . It will be good to investors but for miners the deal doesn't sound very good cause there is no guarantee that it will increase after the halving so miners should also be investors or keepers at the same time .

Yes, you are right - in general, is very good, but mine Bitcoin is becoming heavier and heavier. Now the equipment is very expensive and very few people can engage in mining

[sportis]

Generally speaking halving is good for all bitcoin community. Firstly for bitcoin users or holders in order to use it as commodity because it is not inflationary as fiat money. In addition people usually compare bitcoin with gold because of main gold characteristics, that is scarcity and difficulty in mining. From my point of view without halving we would not have the sky rocket price of bitcoin these days

[erwin45hacked]

Halving is always good for bitcoin. The bitcoin holder like this very much.
If there are many bitcoins to be born everyday, it will make big inflation so the price will be down.

Yes you are correct, halving make difference of bitcoin and fiat. Bitcoin price is rise up every halving, I think halving bring positive impact for bitcoin, so I don't have problem with it.

For most of the bitcoin investors or holders it is good.
But for the miner halving is their enemy because halving always halves the block reward and the mining difficulty increases so it will be harder for our miners to continue their service and it will take more time to mine bitcoin so it is one of the factor why bitcoin halving is not always good in overall

The relationship is not that straightforward

If we consider only the miners' reward in isolation, then halving is certainly not something that they might be quite fond of. But if we look at real data, it turns out that the price is very elastic to the supply side. It basically means that when the supply goes down two times (as is roughly the case with halving in the long run), the price may rise more than two times. The price changes that we saw during the last year perfectly confirm that. In this way, halving may also come as a positive event for miners over time since the drop in their direct revenues for mining Bitcoin due to halving is well compensated by the rise in Bitcoin price

The current price is probably result of halving as I recalled that alot of people buy bitcoin when we were approaching halving and now those person could be well enjoying the current price. Price rise is probably the most significant positive effect for bitcoin that everyone could feel unlike the other positive effect

[GreenBits]

Of course its good, We all know that bitcoin has a limited supply so if there is no halving all coins will be mined fastly so its like slowing it moreover it will decrease the supply that can lead to price increase . It will be good to investors but for miners the deal doesn't sound very good cause there is no guarantee that it will increase after the halving so miners should also be investors or keepers at the same time .

I agree with you its good for the holders of Bitcoins but its not good for the miners because they need more powerfull hashing power asic miner so they invest again to mine Bitcoin the higher the difficulty the higher the hashing power you need.

[FaucetRank.com]

Halving is good for Bitcoin because as soon as price go down there are many buyers who waits for low price than they sell their bought Bitcoins at higher price thus each having Bitcoin pushes up.

[Amph]

Of course its good, We all know that bitcoin has a limited supply so if there is no halving all coins will be mined fastly so its like slowing it moreover it will decrease the supply that can lead to price increase . It will be good to investors but for miners the deal doesn't sound very good cause there is no guarantee that it will increase after the halving so miners should also be investors or keepers at the same time .

let's suppose that there was no halving, with the initial 50 block reward at this point the supply would be emptied, but this by any mean would not equate to a crash in the price, i bet the price would be the same

miners aren't stupid they would just hold, i guess right now they are paying only what they need to cover their electricity

[mastica]

Without the halving at bitcoin, and allowing all people to get the same reward of 50 bitcoin block, we would be with all coins mined and the possible value of bitcoin would be around 100-300 dollars, i doubt we would see bitcoin achieving bigger values, soo yes the halving does have a huge influence over bitcoin value.

[deisik]

Without the halving at bitcoin, and allowing all people to get the same reward of 50 bitcoin block, we would be with all coins mined and the possible value of bitcoin would be around 100-300 dollars, i doubt we would see bitcoin achieving bigger values, soo yes the halving does have a huge influence over bitcoin value.

We simply can't know that for certain

Just like we can't know if the price would be exactly the same since it can be either way or somewhere in between. We can only speculate on this matter, but I'm still inclined to think that the price most likely wouldn't be the same. Is there any viable reason to think that the price could be even higher than it is now? This is also possible, for example, thanks to, say, the Winklevoss twins or people like them buying up plenty of bitcoins when the price was in lower hundreds

[criptix]

Without the halving at bitcoin, and allowing all people to get the same reward of 50 bitcoin block, we would be with all coins mined and the possible value of bitcoin would be around 100-300 dollars, i doubt we would see bitcoin achieving bigger values, soo yes the halving does have a huge influence over bitcoin value.

We simply can't know that for certain

Just like we can't know if the price would be exactly the same since it can be either way or somewhere in between. We can only speculate on this matter, but I'm still inclined to think that the price most likely wouldn't be the same. Is there any viable reason to think that the price could be even higher than it is now? This is also possible, for example, thanks to, say, the Winklevoss twins or people like them buying up plenty of bitcoins when the price was in lower hundreds

Right that is why doge is valued so high.
That must be the case for sure.

 

[deisik]

Without the halving at bitcoin, and allowing all people to get the same reward of 50 bitcoin block, we would be with all coins mined and the possible value of bitcoin would be around 100-300 dollars, i doubt we would see bitcoin achieving bigger values, soo yes the halving does have a huge influence over bitcoin value.

We simply can't know that for certain

Just like we can't know if the price would be exactly the same since it can be either way or somewhere in between. We can only speculate on this matter, but I'm still inclined to think that the price most likely wouldn't be the same. Is there any viable reason to think that the price could be even higher than it is now? This is also possible, for example, thanks to, say, the Winklevoss twins or people like them buying up plenty of bitcoins when the price was in lower hundreds

Right that is why doge is valued so high.
That must be the case for sure

It looks like you have posted in the wrong thread

This thread is not about cancellation of halving and allowing limitless supply of new coins (as is the case with Dogecoin, given some reservations), which is what you seem to erroneously imply. There are only 21M bitcoins to be mined, and three fourths of them have already been mined. If all of them had been mined by now (i.e. all 21 millions), we could well expect the Bitcoin price to be the same three fourths of its current price (if we assume that all coins are supplied to the market). Anything beyond that would be pure speculation bordering on wishful thinking

[SHAWN-MIDWAYS]

Am not really a technical person when it comes to this but the block halving process seems to have helped in bitcoin gaining value as there are less miners now who can easily dump their mined coins for fiat which is a good thing, as a high market price is preserved.

[criptix]

Without the halving at bitcoin, and allowing all people to get the same reward of 50 bitcoin block, we would be with all coins mined and the possible value of bitcoin would be around 100-300 dollars, i doubt we would see bitcoin achieving bigger values, soo yes the halving does have a huge influence over bitcoin value.

We simply can't know that for certain

Just like we can't know if the price would be exactly the same since it can be either way or somewhere in between. We can only speculate on this matter, but I'm still inclined to think that the price most likely wouldn't be the same. Is there any viable reason to think that the price could be even higher than it is now? This is also possible, for example, thanks to, say, the Winklevoss twins or people like them buying up plenty of bitcoins when the price was in lower hundreds

Right that is why doge is valued so high.
That must be the case for sure

It looks like you have posted in the wrong thread

This thread is not about cancellation of halving and allowing limitless supply of new coins (as is the case with Dogecoin, with some reservations), which is what you seem to erroneously imply. There are only 21M bitcoins to be mined, and three fourths of them have already been mined. If all of them had been mined by now (i.e. all 21 millions), we could well expect the Bitcoin price to be the same three fourths of its current price (if we assume that all coins are supplied to the market). Anything beyond that would be pure speculation bordering on wishful thinking

That makes no sense.
Take a random date in 2012 and then extrapolate - we should have a price several magnitudes lower then now.

[deisik]

That makes no sense.
Take a random date in 2012 and then extrapolate - we should have a price several magnitudes lower then now

If we take 2012 as a starting point (namely, when the halving occurred, I don't know the exact date), we would have had 50 bitcoins as a mining reward instead of 25. If we assume that the only supply of coins to the market is through mining, it would basically mean (given constant elasticity of price) that by July, 2016, we would have had Bitcoin price at half as much of what it was in reality at the time. But in July all coins would have been mined if I'm not mistaken (i.e. all 21M). Since then there would no supply of new coins to the market altogether, and the price would most likely be where I estimated, i.e. at three fourths of its current value...

And where did you see magnitudes lower here?

[Pursuer]

Without the halving at bitcoin, and allowing all people to get the same reward of 50 bitcoin block, we would be with all coins mined and the possible value of bitcoin would be around 100-300 dollars, i doubt we would see bitcoin achieving bigger values, soo yes the halving does have a huge influence over bitcoin value.

this doesn't make any sense because it is not just about mining all the coins as fast as possible, it is more about reducing the speed of the inflation and let the miners be able to earn a nice reward as the adoption grows. if we mine it all and then want to rely on fees for mining reward miners will end up with nothing and bitcoin is not yet adopted so price is still low. but with this way (with halving) the process is slowed down and miners are still gaining good reward.

[deisik]

Without the halving at bitcoin, and allowing all people to get the same reward of 50 bitcoin block, we would be with all coins mined and the possible value of bitcoin would be around 100-300 dollars, i doubt we would see bitcoin achieving bigger values, soo yes the halving does have a huge influence over bitcoin value.

this doesn't make any sense because it is not just about mining all the coins as fast as possible, it is more about reducing the speed of the inflation and let the miners be able to earn a nice reward as the adoption grows. if we mine it all and then want to rely on fees for mining reward miners will end up with nothing and bitcoin is not yet adopted so price is still low. but with this way (with halving) the process is slowed down and miners are still gaining good reward.

That will never happen

Indeed, after the last bitcoin would be mined in that case, mining Bitcoin would be no more profitable for the majority of miners. But after they leave eventually, the difficultly will readjust at a lower level (after about two weeks), and mining will be profitable again, at least for most efficient miners with the cheapest electricity rates, since a less number of miners will collect all the fees. It is sort of natural selection where only the most efficient survive

[criptix]

That makes no sense.
Take a random date in 2012 and then extrapolate - we should have a price several magnitudes lower then now

If we take 2012 as a starting point (namely, when the halving occurred, I don't know the exact date), we would have had 50 bitcoins as a mining reward instead of 25. If we assume that the only supply of coins to the market is through mining, it would basically mean (given constant elasticity of price) that by July, 2016, we would have had Bitcoin price at half as much of what it was in reality at the time. But in July all coins would have been mined if I'm not mistaken (i.e. all 21M). Since then there would no supply of new coins to the market altogether, and the price would most likely be where I estimated, i.e. at three fourths of its current value...

And where did you see magnitudes lower here?

Ok just take the halving date. 28.11.2012
~10 million btc mined
~price was less then 15$ (like around 12 but w/e)

Fast forward to july 2016.

~15,75 million coins mined
~price 675$

December 2016

~16,1 million btc mined
~price 950$


Explain me your maths.

(Extrapolate to 15 million coins makes it less then 10$ see the order of magnitude?
Extrapolate to 20 million makes it less then 7.5$)

[ngocbkcse]

Without the halving at bitcoin, and allowing all people to get the same reward of 50 bitcoin block, we would be with all coins mined and the possible value of bitcoin would be around 100-300 dollars, i doubt we would see bitcoin achieving bigger values, soo yes the halving does have a huge influence over bitcoin value.

this doesn't make any sense because it is not just about mining all the coins as fast as possible, it is more about reducing the speed of the inflation and let the miners be able to earn a nice reward as the adoption grows. if we mine it all and then want to rely on fees for mining reward miners will end up with nothing and bitcoin is not yet adopted so price is still low. but with this way (with halving) the process is slowed down and miners are still gaining good reward.

It's weird how excited people get over halvings as though it is an automatic guarantee of it being valuable profit wise.

[deisik]

That makes no sense.
Take a random date in 2012 and then extrapolate - we should have a price several magnitudes lower then now

If we take 2012 as a starting point (namely, when the halving occurred, I don't know the exact date), we would have had 50 bitcoins as a mining reward instead of 25. If we assume that the only supply of coins to the market is through mining, it would basically mean (given constant elasticity of price) that by July, 2016, we would have had Bitcoin price at half as much of what it was in reality at the time. But in July all coins would have been mined if I'm not mistaken (i.e. all 21M). Since then there would no supply of new coins to the market altogether, and the price would most likely be where I estimated, i.e. at three fourths of its current value...

And where did you see magnitudes lower here?

Ok just take the halving date. 28.11.2012
~10 million btc mined
~price was less then 15$ (like around 12 but w/e)

Fast forward to july 2016.

~15,75 million coins mined
~price 675$

December 2016

~16,1 million btc mined
~price 950$

Okay, in November 2012 the price was $12 with 10M coins mined. Mining reward was 50 BTC back then, it got halved and equaled 25 BTC from then on till July 2016. If we assume that only the supply of mined coins determines the price (demand and other things remain the same as they were at any moment within this time span) as well as price elasticity is constant (i.e. it doesn't change with the price), and this supply now equals 50 coins (instead of 25), we can also assume that the price will grow only half of what it grew in reality. Therefore, it would equal 12+(675-12)/2=~343.5 dollars per coin...

There are many ifs in this reasoning, but it has at least some ground

Explain me your maths

Explain you? Have you consulted your linguist as I asked?

[bitcoluck]

The halving actually is a great thing, the price will rise then and more people will get interested in bitcoins.

[criptix]

Ok just take the halving date. 28.11.2012
~10 million btc mined
~price was less then 15$ (like around 12 but w/e)

Fast forward to july 2016.

~15,75 million coins mined
~price 675$

December 2016

~16,1 million btc mined
~price 950$

[...] Therefore, it would equal 12+(675-12)/2=~343.5 dollars per coin...

Explain me your maths

What?
Where the hell did you derive that term from?
You just took the price from the final date and halved it??? Are you trolling me?
And how does that formula compute a price of 600$ for 21 million coins now?!  ("Three fourths of the current price")
Nothing what you say makes sense.


Dont tell me about grammar when i just quoted your money token post full of your verbal diarrhea.
It is a wonder you are able to string a sentence together.