The Halving - Good or Bad for Bitcoin?

[shine1123]

As the title says, is the halving good or bad for the price of bitcoin?

The halving will decrease the supply of bitcoin, whole keeping the demand, so that would make bitcoin worth more.

But the halving will make mining profitibilty worse, meaning less miners, a higher trans. fee, and maybe causing a smaller demand.

What's your verdict?

I think bitcoin will still go up, as the fees might, let's say, double, but that's still a smaller transaction fee than through the banks...

In my opinion, the halving is really good for bitcoin. Because the price of bitcoin become increase so high and continue until now. Well, it's because Christmas too. I think there is no bad for bitcoin, maybe it affect the services that using bitcoin, because their salary will reduce.

[deisik]

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?

What term are you talking about?

And how does that formula compute a price of 600$ for 21 million coins now?!  ("Three fourths of the current price")

Since by July 2016 all coins should have been mined (remember the mining reward would have remained unchanged after November, 2012, i.e. 50 BTC), no new coins would be entering the market. But as we assumed that the demand remains the same, right now we would have the price equal to the current price multiplied by the number of coins mined by now and divided by the total number of coins (which would have been mined but for halving). If we take the current price at ~$950 and the number of coins already mined ~16M, we will get the price equal to 950*16/21=~$723 if all coins had been mined by July, which is roughly three fourths of the current price (950*3/4=712.5). Just in case, you have yet to explain your logic behind claiming that the price would be a few orders of magnitude lower than it is today (i.e. below $10 per coin)...

You should understand that just stating or asserting something will not suffice, no matter how loud you voice your claims

[criptix]

Since by July 2016 all coins should have been mined (remember the reward halving would remain the same after November, 2012), no new coins would be entering the market. But as we assumed that the demand remains the same, right now we would have the price equal to the current price multiplied by the number of coins mined by now and divided by the total number of coins. If we take the current price at ~$950 and the number of coins already mined ~16M, we will get the price equal to 950*16/21=~$723 if all coins had been mined by July, which is roughly three fourths (950*3/4=712.5). Just in case, you have yet to explain what is your logic behind claiming that the price would be a few orders of magnitude lower than it is today...

You should understand that just stating or asserting something will not suffice, no matter how loud you voice your claims

Exactly like i though what you did.
So take nov. 2012 price. Extrapolate to today 12$x10/21 <= 6$

6$/675$= 1/112 = 2 orders of magnitude.

Duhhhh.....

[deisik]

Exactly like i though what you did.
So take nov. 2012 price. Extrapolate to today 12$x10/21 <= 6$

That would be the price in November, 2012 if all coins had been mined by then. But today is December, 2016 (if you have somehow forgotten it). You can't just take and throw away all the demand that has piled up since then, and which we assumed to be the same as it has been through the whole time span of 4 years (and don't forget that the elasticity of price is assumed to be constant too). In other words, we would have been at about the same price of ~$700 today (if all things would have been as they were, apart from the number of coins mined, of course)...

As you can see, your reasoning is not sustainable, while your logic is weak, very weak

[criptix]

Exactly like i though what you did.
So take nov. 2012 price. Extrapolate to today 12$x10/21 <= 6$

That would be the price in November, 2012 if all coins had been mined by then. But today is December, 2016 (if you have somehow forgotten it). You can't just take and throw away all the demand that has piled up since then, and which we assumed to be the same as it has been through the whole time span of 4 years (and don't forget that the elasticity of price is assumed to be constant too)...

As you can see, your reasoning is not sustainable

Why did you write this then:

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

I guess you didnt knew what you wrote.


Allright then lets change to your new narrative.
It doesnt even make sense to talk about it because it has zero value like talking about the weight of bird shit in your garden.
You omit every economic parameter which leads to totaly wrong results.

It makes even less sense now.
Dude you should visit a medical facility. You must have some mental disease for sure.

[deisik]

Exactly like i though what you did.
So take nov. 2012 price. Extrapolate to today 12$x10/21 <= 6$

That would be the price in November, 2012 if all coins had been mined by then. But today is December, 2016 (if you have somehow forgotten it). You can't just take and throw away all the demand that has piled up since then, and which we assumed to be the same as it has been through the whole time span of 4 years (and don't forget that the elasticity of price is assumed to be constant too)...

As you can see, your reasoning is not sustainable

Why did you write this then:

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

That would have been the price at the moment when the last bitcoin had been mined, namely, in July 2016. I guess I know what you are going to say next, i.e. how the price could have grown from 343.5 dollars to over 700 dollars in just half a year (from July through December 2016). The answer is pretty simple, and in fact I have already answered it in one of my previous posts. The price would have been surging because there would be no more bitcoins mined after July, 2016, just like it would have been lagging behind before that date simply because of the reward being twice as high its real value...

If you don't understand something, maybe, it is better to ask, after all?

[criptix]

Exactly like i though what you did.
So take nov. 2012 price. Extrapolate to today 12$x10/21 <= 6$

That would be the price in November, 2012 if all coins had been mined by then. But today is December, 2016 (if you have somehow forgotten it). You can't just take and throw away all the demand that has piled up since then, and which we assumed to be the same as it has been through the whole time span of 4 years (and don't forget that the elasticity of price is assumed to be constant too)...

As you can see, your reasoning is not sustainable

Why did you write this then:

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

That would have been the price at the moment when the last bitcoin had been mined, namely, in July 2016. I guess I know what you are going to say next, i.e. how the price could have grown from 343.5 dollars to over 700 dollars in just half a year (from July through December 2016). The answer is pretty simple, and in fact I have already answered it in one of my previous posts. The price would have been surging because there would be no more bitcoins mined after July, 2016, just like it would have been lagging behind before that date simply because of the reward being twice as high its real value...

If you don't understand something, maybe, it is better to ask, after all?

Remember the 12$ from nov. 2012 and the 675 $ from july 2016.
Does something ring?
Read your post before this one again.

Lol

[deisik]

Exactly like i though what you did.
So take nov. 2012 price. Extrapolate to today 12$x10/21 <= 6$

That would be the price in November, 2012 if all coins had been mined by then. But today is December, 2016 (if you have somehow forgotten it). You can't just take and throw away all the demand that has piled up since then, and which we assumed to be the same as it has been through the whole time span of 4 years (and don't forget that the elasticity of price is assumed to be constant too)...

As you can see, your reasoning is not sustainable

Why did you write this then:

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

That would have been the price at the moment when the last bitcoin had been mined, namely, in July 2016. I guess I know what you are going to say next, i.e. how the price could have grown from 343.5 dollars to over 700 dollars in just half a year (from July through December 2016). The answer is pretty simple, and in fact I have already answered it in one of my previous posts. The price would have been surging because there would be no more bitcoins mined after July, 2016, just like it would have been lagging behind before that date simply because of the reward being twice as high its real value...

If you don't understand something, maybe, it is better to ask, after all?

Remember the 12$ from nov. 2012 and the 675 $ from july 2016.
Does something ring?
Read your post before that one again

I don't get your point

We have a starting price of 12 dollars in November, 2012, when the mining reward had been halved from 50 to 25 BTC. The price in July, 2016, at the next halving, was, according to you, 675 dollars per coin, with the rise being 675-12=663 dollars. We assume that the halving was cancelled in November, 2012, and the reward had been left intact (i.e. the same 50 BTC). Since we also assume that all things remain the same between these two dates (apart from the reward itself), the supply of coins would have been twice as much. Consequently, that allows us to assume that the price change within this time span would be half as much, i.e. 663/2=331.5 dollars. If we add this change to the starting price, we will get 343.5 dollars per coin in July, 2016

[criptix]

Exactly like i though what you did.
So take nov. 2012 price. Extrapolate to today 12$x10/21 <= 6$

That would be the price in November, 2012 if all coins had been mined by then. But today is December, 2016 (if you have somehow forgotten it). You can't just take and throw away all the demand that has piled up since then, and which we assumed to be the same as it has been through the whole time span of 4 years (and don't forget that the elasticity of price is assumed to be constant too)...

As you can see, your reasoning is not sustainable

Why did you write this then:

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

That would have been the price at the moment when the last bitcoin had been mined, namely, in July 2016. I guess I know what you are going to say next, i.e. how the price could have grown from 343.5 dollars to over 700 dollars in just half a year (from July through December 2016). The answer is pretty simple, and in fact I have already answered it in one of my previous posts. The price would have been surging because there would be no more bitcoins mined after July, 2016, just like it would have been lagging behind before that date simply because of the reward being twice as high its real value...

If you don't understand something, maybe, it is better to ask, after all?

Remember the 12$ from nov. 2012 and the 675 $ from july 2016.
Does something ring?
Read your post before that one again

I don't get your point

We have a starting price of 12 dollars in November, 2012, when the mining reward had been halved from 50 to 25 BTC. The price in July, 2016, at the next halving, was, according to you, 675 dollars per coin, with the rise being 675-12=663 dollars. We assume that the halving was cancelled in November, 2012, and the reward had been left intact (i.e. the same 50 BTC). Since we also assume that all things remain the same between these two dates (apart from the reward itself), the supply of coins would have been twice as much. Consequently, that allows us to assume that the price change within this time span would be half as much, i.e. 663/2=331.5 dollars. If we add this change to the starting price, we will get 343.5 dollars per coin in July, 2016

Your initial statement was that if every bitcoin was mined now the price would be three fourths of its current.
This assumption is based on nothing except wishful thinking.

The counter example is easy to understand you just need to take different dates of the bitcoin timeline and extrapolate.
(Indeed you might be less then several orders of magnitude off, but that doesnt really fucking matter)

[deisik]

I don't get your point

We have a starting price of 12 dollars in November, 2012, when the mining reward had been halved from 50 to 25 BTC. The price in July, 2016, at the next halving, was, according to you, 675 dollars per coin, with the rise being 675-12=663 dollars. We assume that the halving was cancelled in November, 2012, and the reward had been left intact (i.e. the same 50 BTC). Since we also assume that all things remain the same between these two dates (apart from the reward itself), the supply of coins would have been twice as much. Consequently, that allows us to assume that the price change within this time span would be half as much, i.e. 663/2=331.5 dollars. If we add this change to the starting price, we will get 343.5 dollars per coin in July, 2016

Your initial statement was that if every bitcoin was mined now the price would be three fourths of its current.

Yes, and I even gave you the rough estimate of the price which would have been today if the reward halving didn't happen and all bitcoins would have been mined by July, 2016. Ironically, it turned out to be pretty close to the exact value of what three fourths of the current price are equal to, namely, 723 versus 712.5 dollars at 950 dollars per coin. Since all bitcoins would have been mined by July, 2016, it was also interesting to estimate the price which might have been by then too. In short, you basically have nothing of substance to challenge my estimates with. Empty verbiage obviously won't count...

Your own approach to extrapolation is laughable if not outright ludicrous

[criptix]

I don't get your point

We have a starting price of 12 dollars in November, 2012, when the mining reward had been halved from 50 to 25 BTC. The price in July, 2016, at the next halving, was, according to you, 675 dollars per coin, with the rise being 675-12=663 dollars. We assume that the halving was cancelled in November, 2012, and the reward had been left intact (i.e. the same 50 BTC). Since we also assume that all things remain the same between these two dates (apart from the reward itself), the supply of coins would have been twice as much. Consequently, that allows us to assume that the price change within this time span would be half as much, i.e. 663/2=331.5 dollars. If we add this change to the starting price, we will get 343.5 dollars per coin in July, 2016

Your initial statement was that if every bitcoin was mined now the price would be three fourths of its current.

Yes, and I even gave you the rough estimate of the price which would have been today if the reward halving didn't happen, and all bitcoins would have been mined by July, 2016. Ironically, it turned out to be pretty close to the exact value of what three fourths of the current price are equal to, namely, 723 versus 712.5 dollars at 950 dollars per coin. Since all bitcoins would have been mined by July, 2016, it was also interesting to estimate the price which might have been by then too. In short, you basically have nothing of substance to challenge my estimates with. Empty verbiage obviously won't count...

Your approach to extrapolation is laughable if not outright ludicrous

Wow so because 16/21 is nearly 3/4 you think you are genius?
Good lord you are delusional the problem is you just dont realize it.

What you do is just extrapolating based on current price and maximum possible supply.
And the results dont mirror reality.

And when you take other price points the results differ even more from reality.

[deisik]

I don't get your point

We have a starting price of 12 dollars in November, 2012, when the mining reward had been halved from 50 to 25 BTC. The price in July, 2016, at the next halving, was, according to you, 675 dollars per coin, with the rise being 675-12=663 dollars. We assume that the halving was cancelled in November, 2012, and the reward had been left intact (i.e. the same 50 BTC). Since we also assume that all things remain the same between these two dates (apart from the reward itself), the supply of coins would have been twice as much. Consequently, that allows us to assume that the price change within this time span would be half as much, i.e. 663/2=331.5 dollars. If we add this change to the starting price, we will get 343.5 dollars per coin in July, 2016

Your initial statement was that if every bitcoin was mined now the price would be three fourths of its current.

Yes, and I even gave you the rough estimate of the price which would have been today if the reward halving didn't happen, and all bitcoins would have been mined by July, 2016. Ironically, it turned out to be pretty close to the exact value of what three fourths of the current price are equal to, namely, 723 versus 712.5 dollars at 950 dollars per coin. Since all bitcoins would have been mined by July, 2016, it was also interesting to estimate the price which might have been by then too. In short, you basically have nothing of substance to challenge my estimates with. Empty verbiage obviously won't count...

Your approach to extrapolation is laughable if not outright ludicrous

Wow so because 16/21 is nearly 3/4 you think you are genius?
Good lord you are delusional the problem is you just dont realize it.

What you do is just extrapolating based on current price and maximum possible supply.
And the results dont mirror reality.

And when you take other price points the results differ even more from reality

Indeed, they can't mirror reality simply because we had two halvings in the past and still have plenty of years ahead till the last bitcoin is mined. And as I specifically emphasized it, there are a lot of ifs that would make the actual price differ from my estimates even if the reward hadn't been halved. But your estimates (6 dollars per coin) are totally off the reel as I already explained it to you. Simple common sense would suffice to understand that if we have already mined over 76% of all bitcoins, and the price is at 950 dollars right now, it can't possibly be in single digits if the remaining 24% had already been mined by now too...

You just can't throw out the window all that demand which has pushed the price so high

[lakisis]

The halving will be good in most predictions but it can also unwraps itself as a real disaster a lot of people will get disappointed if the price will not rise at all.
The possibility is there so it could happen that the price will not rise and it can even collapse because of the bitcoin although I'm thinking its gonna rise of course.
Another thing is that miners will have some hard times for sure because mining is gonna be a lot more difficult.

[mbbtc01]

Well here is what I think
For buyers then the halving was bad to start as increased price making it coist more to buy but then when u serserll it it might be better
For sales then is was good ASD it increased price = profit
Miners well for then it is bad as it still cist the same to make but you only get half but if the price growns then if it will be good for them

[criptix]

I don't get your point

We have a starting price of 12 dollars in November, 2012, when the mining reward had been halved from 50 to 25 BTC. The price in July, 2016, at the next halving, was, according to you, 675 dollars per coin, with the rise being 675-12=663 dollars. We assume that the halving was cancelled in November, 2012, and the reward had been left intact (i.e. the same 50 BTC). Since we also assume that all things remain the same between these two dates (apart from the reward itself), the supply of coins would have been twice as much. Consequently, that allows us to assume that the price change within this time span would be half as much, i.e. 663/2=331.5 dollars. If we add this change to the starting price, we will get 343.5 dollars per coin in July, 2016

Your initial statement was that if every bitcoin was mined now the price would be three fourths of its current.

Yes, and I even gave you the rough estimate of the price which would have been today if the reward halving didn't happen, and all bitcoins would have been mined by July, 2016. Ironically, it turned out to be pretty close to the exact value of what three fourths of the current price are equal to, namely, 723 versus 712.5 dollars at 950 dollars per coin. Since all bitcoins would have been mined by July, 2016, it was also interesting to estimate the price which might have been by then too. In short, you basically have nothing of substance to challenge my estimates with. Empty verbiage obviously won't count...

Your approach to extrapolation is laughable if not outright ludicrous

Wow so because 16/21 is nearly 3/4 you think you are genius?
Good lord you are delusional the problem is you just dont realize it.

What you do is just extrapolating based on current price and maximum possible supply.
And the results dont mirror reality.

And when you take other price points the results differ even more from reality

Indeed, they can't mirror reality simply because we had two halvings in the past and still have plenty of years ahead till the last bitcoin is mined. And as I specifically emphasized it, there are a lot of ifs that would make the actual price differ from my estimates even if the reward hadn't been halved. But your estimates (6 dollars per coin) are totally off the reel as I already explained it to you. Simple common sense would suffice to understand that if we have already mined over 76% of all bitcoins, and the price is at 950 dollars right now, it can't possibly be in single digits if the remaining 24% had already been mined by now too...

You just can't throw out the window all that demand which has pushed the price so high

What you do is just extrapolating based on current price and maximum possible supply.

You did that to get your 720$.
I just exactly did that with the price on nov. 2012 to show you that it doesnt work.

[jaysabi]

Eventually Bitcoin will halve to the point where fees will have to increase dramatically to offset the lost income from new coin fees. I can't see that being a good thing for the currency or adoption. A major advantage now is transaction fees relative to alternative methods of value transfer. If the transaction fees become unwieldy, Bitcoin could collapse.

It seems to me that this is a good process. This eliminates Bitcoin from devaluation and inflation. Yes, for the miners is bad. But do not forget that thanks to Bitcoin becomes more expensive

Halving contributed to price increases of coins (in theory), but it also increases the the transaction fee miners demand to offset new coin generation rewards. The increase in transaction cost decreases bitcoins viability as a payment medium, which over the long run will hurt the price.

[jaysabi]

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.

Yes, people take an overly simplistic economic idea (Bitcoin has far more variables at play than simple supply and demand), and an extremely limited number of available data points that support the assumption, and that equates into indisputable proof that price could never fall after a halving. To be fair, this failure of logic isn't unique to Bitcoin. It permeates every corner of the Internet.

[Hilteron]

The halving is good for bitcoin and bitcoin holder but it's not very good for bitcoin miners.
However, This halving helps miners maintain their money rewards with higher price of bitcoin.

[deisik]

What you do is just extrapolating based on current price and maximum possible supply.

You did that to get your 720$.
I just exactly did that with the price on nov. 2012 to show you that it doesnt work.

In fact, you did a totally different thing

At first, you calculated how much Bitcoin would be worth in November, 2012, if all bitcoins had been mined by that time, using the same approach as I did (that's true), but then you basically started claiming that the price you thus obtained wouldn't change all these years since then till today. In this way, you have discarded all the demand that has accumulated through these years and brought the price to where it is now. As you yourself now confirm, that doesn't and couldn't possibly work. With this point specifically I fully agree

[criptix]

What you do is just extrapolating based on current price and maximum possible supply.

You did that to get your 720$.
I just exactly did that with the price on nov. 2012 to show you that it doesnt work.

In fact, you did a totally different thing

At first, you calculated how much Bitcoin would be worth in November, 2012, if all bitcoins had been mined by that time, using the same approach as I did (that's true), but then you basically started claiming that the price you thus obtained wouldn't change all these years since then till today. In this way, you have discarded all the demand that has accumulated through these years and brought the price to where it is now. As you yourself now confirm, that doesn't and couldn't possibly work. With this point specifically I fully agree

And you didnt disregard it? As far as i know there are still 5 million bitcoins to mine no?
I just did what you did and showed that it is wrong.