The Halving - Good or Bad for 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

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.

Yes, I disregarded future demand (should there be any) for the remaining 5 million bitcoins which are still there to mine because this demand exists in the future. I don't know how much it might be and whether it will be at all, that's why I estimated what the price might have been today against only 16M bitcoins which are already mined (the numerator in the 16/21 ratio). If I knew what the price would be in December, 2017, I would tell you what it would have been if we assumed that all bitcoins had been mined till then. You, on the other hand, just chose to ignore the already known demand for the time span since November, 2012, through December, 2016. And claimed that the price today would be the same as in that November (if all coins had been mined by then)...

Namely, several orders of magnitude lower than the Bitcoin price we actually see nowadays (~6 dollars per coin)

[marcoman22]

Halving decreases the supply of bitcoins whereas there is no change in increase of demand for Bitcoins. So, it helps in increase in the price of bitcoins. But, due to decrease in supply, miners would suffer a lot. They will face a decrease in their income got from mining.

[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.

Yes, I disregarded future demand (should there be any) for the remaining 5 million bitcoins which are still there to mine because this demand exists in the future. I don't know how much it might be and whether it will be at all, that's why I estimated what the price might have been today against only 16M bitcoins which are already mined (the numerator in the 16/21 ratio). If I knew what the price would be in December, 2017, I would tell you what it would have been if we assumed that all bitcoins had been mined till then. You, on the other hand, just chose to ignore the already known demand for the time span since November, 2012, through December, 2016. And claimed that the price today would be the same as in that November (if all coins had been mined by then)...

Namely, several orders of magnitude lower than the Bitcoin price we actually see nowadays (~6 dollars per coin)

You disregarded future demand which is already shown as wrong because there is demand that is (much) higher then the supply since you posted your assumption (thus we are now at nearly 1000$ from 940$ or from 350$ at beginning of the year).

And like i said before i did exactly that to show your fallacy.

[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

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.

Yes, I disregarded future demand (should there be any) for the remaining 5 million bitcoins which are still there to mine because this demand exists in the future. I don't know how much it might be and whether it will be at all, that's why I estimated what the price might have been today against only 16M bitcoins which are already mined (the numerator in the 16/21 ratio). If I knew what the price would be in December, 2017, I would tell you what it would have been if we assumed that all bitcoins had been mined till then. You, on the other hand, just chose to ignore the already known demand for the time span since November, 2012, through December, 2016. And claimed that the price today would be the same as in that November (if all coins had been mined by then)...

Namely, several orders of magnitude lower than the Bitcoin price we actually see nowadays (~6 dollars per coin)

You disregarded future demand which is already shown as wrong because there is demand that is even higher then the supply since you posted your assumption (thus we are now at nearly 1000$ from 940$).

And like i said before i did exactly that to show your fallacy

I don't quite see where you are getting at

My calculated price was correct on the date of the estimate, i.e. when the price was 950 dollars per coin, just like your calculation was correct in November, 2012. But unlike you, I never pretended that it would be valid on any date following that day. Moreover, I specifically pointed it out that I can't include future demand since, obviously, I can't know what will happen in the future (tomorrow or in a year) and what this future demand will amount to. Today, I can give you a new price which already takes into account the change in demand which has happened since the last estimate. You, on the contrary, claimed that today, and every day after November, 2012, the price will remain the same. Are you now walking back on your words?

[mastica]

The halving is good for those people which are investing into bitcoin, since they will make profit fast, but as we moove forward it will get harder to achieve 1 bitcoin as it will become more and more expensive. I would like to stand at the 300 dollars range and all coins mined on the next 10 years, but well the thing is the halving is one of the main rules that made bitcoin achieve bigger values, if we remove the halving we will get a coin with demand and supply like the others.

[deadpoolx]

I don't see how this could be a negative thing for Bitcoin. In fact there is a debate about which would be better, an inflationary currency or a deflationary currency. In theory, it may be a bit difficult for some people to analyze, but in practice it is easy to realize that a inflationary currency only brings damage to an economy. On the other hand, Bitcoin is a currency that, in my opinion, has worked much more efficiently over the years.

[richardsNY]

I don't see how this could be a negative thing for Bitcoin. In fact there is a debate about which would be better, an inflationary currency or a deflationary currency. In theory, it may be a bit difficult for some people to analyze, but in practice it is easy to realize that a deflationary currency only brings damage to an economy. On the other hand, Bitcoin is a currency that, in my opinion, has worked much more efficiently over the years.

Pools get less rewards for their work as halvings take place. The negative point lies in the fact that pools will rely on collecting fees to such a dramatic level in the future, that it's basically too expensive to use Bitcoin as a currency for shopping and stuff. If the price keeps going up alongside the constantly increasing difficulty, then it all this won't be so drastic at the beginning. But if the price is not going up nicely, then the fees will need to be upped in order to compensate for the work that pools need to do.

[deadpoolx]

I don't see how this could be a negative thing for Bitcoin. In fact there is a debate about which would be better, an inflationary currency or a deflationary currency. In theory, it may be a bit difficult for some people to analyze, but in practice it is easy to realize that a deflationary currency only brings damage to an economy. On the other hand, Bitcoin is a currency that, in my opinion, has worked much more efficiently over the years.

Pools get less rewards for their work as halvings take place. The negative point lies in the fact that pools will rely on collecting fees to such a dramatic level in the future, that it's basically too expensive to use Bitcoin as a currency for shopping and stuff. If the price keeps going up alongside the constantly increasing difficulty, then it all this won't be so drastic at the beginning. But if the price is not going up nicely, then the fees will need to be upped in order to compensate for the work that pools need to do.

These are interesting points to analyze. But I read somewhere that if large companies, such as amazon, decide to adopt Bitcoin, they would be willing to participate in the mining process, even at the high costs of mining, and even leading to losses in the mining process. The reason is that for such companies, the use of Bitcoin would bring financial benefits that would compensate the expenses with mining. But as you said, it is better that people recognize that the difficulty is increasing, and accept adjustments in the market, that is to say, increase in the price of Bitcoin.
And correcting what I said in my first post, the currency that would bring damage would be the inflationary currency, as is the case of the fiat currency.

[deisik]

I don't see how this could be a negative thing for Bitcoin. In fact there is a debate about which would be better, an inflationary currency or a deflationary currency. In theory, it may be a bit difficult for some people to analyze, but in practice it is easy to realize that a deflationary currency only brings damage to an economy. On the other hand, Bitcoin is a currency that, in my opinion, has worked much more efficiently over the years.

Pools get less rewards for their work as halvings take place. The negative point lies in the fact that pools will rely on collecting fees to such a dramatic level in the future, that it's basically too expensive to use Bitcoin as a currency for shopping and stuff. If the price keeps going up alongside the constantly increasing difficulty, then it all this won't be so drastic at the beginning. But if the price is not going up nicely, then the fees will need to be upped in order to compensate for the work that pools need to do.

If the price won't rise, it just means that adoption has halted, and raising the fees may in fact be counterproductive and lead to an opposite effect, i.e. collecting even less fees since people may make less transactions with higher volume, or just transact less altogether. On the contrary, lowering the fees may actually increase their total due to larger quantity of microtransactions. Anyway, a radical solution would be to increase the block size significantly, so that one block could accommodate more transactions and thus make the fee total higher per every block found...

But this would evidently work only if adoption increases leading to more transactions processed per unit of time

[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.

Yes, I disregarded future demand (should there be any) for the remaining 5 million bitcoins which are still there to mine because this demand exists in the future. I don't know how much it might be and whether it will be at all, that's why I estimated what the price might have been today against only 16M bitcoins which are already mined (the numerator in the 16/21 ratio). If I knew what the price would be in December, 2017, I would tell you what it would have been if we assumed that all bitcoins had been mined till then. You, on the other hand, just chose to ignore the already known demand for the time span since November, 2012, through December, 2016. And claimed that the price today would be the same as in that November (if all coins had been mined by then)...

Namely, several orders of magnitude lower than the Bitcoin price we actually see nowadays (~6 dollars per coin)

You disregarded future demand which is already shown as wrong because there is demand that is even higher then the supply since you posted your assumption (thus we are now at nearly 1000$ from 940$).

And like i said before i did exactly that to show your fallacy

I don't quite see where you are getting at

My calculated price was correct on the date of the estimate, i.e. when the price was 950 dollars per coin, just like your calculation was correct in November, 2012. But unlike you, I never pretended that it would be valid on any date following that day. Moreover, I specifically pointed it out that I can't include future demand since, obviously, I can't know what will happen in the future (tomorrow or in a year) and what this future demand will amount to. Today, I can give you a new price which already takes into account the change in demand which has happened since the last estimate. You, on the contrary, claimed that today, and every day after November, 2012, the price will remain the same. Are you now walking back on your words?

Duh. I never claimed that this is correct because my goal was to show that it is not correct.

And i suceeded with it because i could show that your calculations dont picture reality. It is still wrong (not on several magnitudes - there i agree that i misunderstood you) by a lot.

[deisik]

My calculated price was correct on the date of the estimate, i.e. when the price was 950 dollars per coin, just like your calculation was correct in November, 2012. But unlike you, I never pretended that it would be valid on any date following that day. Moreover, I specifically pointed it out that I can't include future demand since, obviously, I can't know what will happen in the future (tomorrow or in a year) and what this future demand will amount to. Today, I can give you a new price which already takes into account the change in demand which has happened since the last estimate. You, on the contrary, claimed that today, and every day after November, 2012, the price will remain the same. Are you now walking back on your words?

Duh. I never claimed that this is correct because my goal was to show that it is not correct.

And i suceeded with it because i could show that your calculations dont picture reality. It is still wrong (not on several magnitudes - there i agree that i misunderstood you) by a lot

In fact, I don't quite understand what you are arguing against

I think I made it perfectly clear that the estimates of what the Bitcoin price might have been if all bitcoins had been mined by the date to which these estimates referred can't possibly match reality just because not all bitcoins have been mined so far. It was only an assumption, an alternative reality, in a sense, but if you need an explanation for that, you may want to ask someone else. I'm not very interested in explaining to you all these things

[Doamader]

Looks like the halving is making its impact positive along the new bitcoin value, im very curious which will be the new value of bitcoin at 2020 when the other halving should occur at bitcoin. I do see the halving as something good, since it makes the price to double over time, recently it were every 4 years, soo its a 25% interest being achieved all year, no other investment can bring such potencial income.

[shiryu]

Seeing the current price certainly a good half for bitcoin,did you see prices continue to rise after halving occur perhaps next halving bitcoin price may touch $ 2,000.

[katrimans]

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.

As you said, the halving might be good for some but if the price does not go up it will be a big disappointment, it will make mining more difficult which will take out a lot of mining investments, and that will have a big influence on the price, it will make it go down, but who knows, it is something that could make or break bitcoin.

[GreenBits]

Looks like the halving is making its impact positive along the new bitcoin value, im very curious which will be the new value of bitcoin at 2020 when the other halving should occur at bitcoin. I do see the halving as something good, since it makes the price to double over time, recently it were every 4 years, soo its a 25% interest being achieved all year, no other investment can bring such potencial income.

Im sure that Bitcoin is have more demand in that year as result it can affect Bitcoin price.Bitcoin price is now booming is the affect of halving or not? Who knows.

[criptix]

My calculated price was correct on the date of the estimate, i.e. when the price was 950 dollars per coin, just like your calculation was correct in November, 2012. But unlike you, I never pretended that it would be valid on any date following that day. Moreover, I specifically pointed it out that I can't include future demand since, obviously, I can't know what will happen in the future (tomorrow or in a year) and what this future demand will amount to. Today, I can give you a new price which already takes into account the change in demand which has happened since the last estimate. You, on the contrary, claimed that today, and every day after November, 2012, the price will remain the same. Are you now walking back on your words?

Duh. I never claimed that this is correct because my goal was to show that it is not correct.

And i suceeded with it because i could show that your calculations dont picture reality. It is still wrong (not on several magnitudes - there i agree that i misunderstood you) by a lot

In fact, I don't quite understand what you are arguing against

I think I made it perfectly clear that the estimates of what the Bitcoin price might have been if all bitcoins had been mined by the date to which these estimates referred can't possibly match reality just because not all bitcoins have been mined so far. It was only an assumption, an alternative reality, in a sense, but if you need an explanation for that, you may want to ask someone else. I'm not very interested in explaining to you all these things

in another universe you could have bought 1 million bitcoins for a pizza while unicorns are flying through the sky...

you see that alternate reality?

i'm really asking myself too why we are discussing this LoL

[deisik]

My calculated price was correct on the date of the estimate, i.e. when the price was 950 dollars per coin, just like your calculation was correct in November, 2012. But unlike you, I never pretended that it would be valid on any date following that day. Moreover, I specifically pointed it out that I can't include future demand since, obviously, I can't know what will happen in the future (tomorrow or in a year) and what this future demand will amount to. Today, I can give you a new price which already takes into account the change in demand which has happened since the last estimate. You, on the contrary, claimed that today, and every day after November, 2012, the price will remain the same. Are you now walking back on your words?

Duh. I never claimed that this is correct because my goal was to show that it is not correct.

And i suceeded with it because i could show that your calculations dont picture reality. It is still wrong (not on several magnitudes - there i agree that i misunderstood you) by a lot

In fact, I don't quite understand what you are arguing against

I think I made it perfectly clear that the estimates of what the Bitcoin price might have been if all bitcoins had been mined by the date to which these estimates referred can't possibly match reality just because not all bitcoins have been mined so far. It was only an assumption, an alternative reality, in a sense, but if you need an explanation for that, you may want to ask someone else. I'm not very interested in explaining to you all these things

in another universe you could have bought 1 million bitcoins for a pizza while unicorns are flying through the sky...

you see that alternate reality?

i'm really asking myself too why we are discussing this LoL

We? No one forced you to join this discussion in the first place

To tell the truth, I knew it beforehand that you would stick like glue to that phrase about alternative reality. I also noted that you can't cope well with the subjunctive mood (used to explore imaginary or hypothetical situations, just in case), which I used quite a lot in this discussion, so it is no surprise that you can't analyze different possibilities and their long-term consequences. That seems to be the reason why you started to claim that the price today would have been the same as in November, 2012, if all bitcoins had been mined back then

[criptix]

My calculated price was correct on the date of the estimate, i.e. when the price was 950 dollars per coin, just like your calculation was correct in November, 2012. But unlike you, I never pretended that it would be valid on any date following that day. Moreover, I specifically pointed it out that I can't include future demand since, obviously, I can't know what will happen in the future (tomorrow or in a year) and what this future demand will amount to. Today, I can give you a new price which already takes into account the change in demand which has happened since the last estimate. You, on the contrary, claimed that today, and every day after November, 2012, the price will remain the same. Are you now walking back on your words?

Duh. I never claimed that this is correct because my goal was to show that it is not correct.

And i suceeded with it because i could show that your calculations dont picture reality. It is still wrong (not on several magnitudes - there i agree that i misunderstood you) by a lot

In fact, I don't quite understand what you are arguing against

I think I made it perfectly clear that the estimates of what the Bitcoin price might have been if all bitcoins had been mined by the date to which these estimates referred can't possibly match reality just because not all bitcoins have been mined so far. It was only an assumption, an alternative reality, in a sense, but if you need an explanation for that, you may want to ask someone else. I'm not very interested in explaining to you all these things

in another universe you could have bought 1 million bitcoins for a pizza while unicorns are flying through the sky...

you see that alternate reality?

i'm really asking myself too why we are discussing this LoL

We? No one forced you to join this discussion in the first place

To tell the truth, I knew it beforehand that you would stick like glue to that phrase about alternative reality. I also noted that you can't cope well with the subjunctive mood (used to explore imaginary or hypothetical situations, just in case), which I used quite a lot in this discussion, so it is no surprise that you can't analyze different possibilities and their long-term consequences. That seems to be the reason why you started to claim that the price today would have been the same as in November, 2012, if all bitcoins had been mined back then

What consequences when your speculation has no meaning and is based on unicorns?
You still dont realize if we take your method to extrapolate on the 12. november 2012 we would get a price of 6$ which is the exact same thing you did to get your 720$ which is wrong because we know how the price developed.
And that is exactly what i wanted to show and wrote.

[aysha9859]

offff couurse its good. if it is not, bitcoin would be worthless. who will give money for endless source?

[richardsNY]

Looks like the halving is making its impact positive along the new bitcoin value, im very curious which will be the new value of bitcoin at 2020 when the other halving should occur at bitcoin. I do see the halving as something good, since it makes the price to double over time, recently it were every 4 years, soo its a 25% interest being achieved all year, no other investment can bring such potencial income.

Im sure that Bitcoin is have more demand in that year as result it can affect Bitcoin price.Bitcoin price is now booming is the affect of halving or not? Who knows.

Maybe halving has something to do with this rapid price increase and I always looking at halving as a very good way of making the price of bitcoin reach higher amount as it is making the supply lesser. But whatever will be the effect of halving, there is just one thing that I will going to say, I will going to keep on using bitcoin.

I don't really think the recent price increase that lead to us finally reaching the $1000 level again has much to do with the halving. It has more to do with increased demand coming from Chinese investors and other wealthy individuals. Bitcoin is gaining popularity as store of wealth tool alongside gold. Bitcoin is much easier and safer to store as well. With Gold you're required to have a save where you store all your physical gold. Some people even store their gold in bank vaults....