The year is 2148... [The Poll]

[pawel7777]

Scenario:

The year is 2148 (we're all dead, but ignore that), the block subsidy has dropped to zero, miners are forced to survive only on tx fees. But the fees are not quite sufficient to keep the security on the current level and are often mining at a loss. Any attempts of 'fee market' or slightly higher, fixed fees failed badly (reducing number of txs made).

You are in charge of making a decision how to go around that. What do you do?:

1 - Switch to PoS (or something similar, hopefully with 'nothing-at-stake' problem resolved).

2 - Remove 21m cap and implement constant, small block reward.

3 - Do nothing, hoping the things will balance on their own. That could mean (some) mining farms going bankrupt, drastically reducing hashing power (security) + centralisation risk. Or maybe the largest BTC-related businesses will take the mining operation on themselves (mining at loss, but securing their long-term interests).

4 - Other option - specify


Purpose: To get the basic idea, whether bitcoin users are more attached to fixed 21m cap, PoW system, or equally to both.

Changing votes allowed.

[pawel7777]

Not a single reply? Where are those sig spammers when you need them the most.

I think it's an interesting topic.

So far option 3 in the lead (85.7%), only 7 total votes though.

[unamis76]

I voted do nothing because I seriously have no clue and cannot see so far in the future... One thing cannot happen for sure: the second option. If we change the cap it won't be Bitcoin anymore, it will become another coin, because the basis of Bitcoin was broken (not saying it is an impossible option in the future, but it seem highly unlikely and not suitable).

Switch to PoS might happen, but I don't see how bitcoin can incorporate PoS safely in the future...

[futureofbitcoin]

What would i do :
1. Miners keep get 100 satoshi or less as block mining reward, if bitcoin is global currency.
2. Ask wallet creator to raise default tx fee slightly.
3. Hope ASIC company create more efficient ASIC miners & electricity company to reduce their electricity price.

It's really difficult, but the best way is to give the responsibility to someone else

1. why 100 satoshi? It's a completely arbitrary number, and unlikely to be a good amount.

What should happen, is that the tail emission should roughly model the amount of bitcoins lost per year. So if we find that approximately 3% of bitcoins are lost every year do to accidents, deaths, etc, then approximately 3% tail emissions would work best. This would be like having people who lost their bitcoins "donating" their bitcoins to the security of the network.

2. Doesn't do anything, people don't have to follow those wallet creators.

3. Doesn't do anything. How much energy miners use is based on the amount of rewards they get from mining. Efficiency of the ASICs has absolutely no affect on the total electricity output.

[Kprawn]

The more miners or mining farms stop mining, the lower the difficulty. The lower the difficulty the bigger the opportunity for the small fish to get back

on board. There will always be people invested in Bitcoin, and these people would subsidize the mining side, to sustain their other businesses. If a

exchange or a big merchant are making millions from Bitcoin, and the mining side collapse... they will be forced to contribute in some way to save their

core business. {Even investing in a few ASIC's and doing the mining on their own}

[pawel7777]

...
2. Doesn't do anything, people don't have to follow those wallet creators.

3. Doesn't do anything. How much energy miners use is based on the amount of rewards they get from mining. Efficiency of the ASICs has absolutely no affect on the total electricity output.

2 - Depends, if fees are still affordable, no one will be tweaking with wallet or be looking for alternative one. If wallet prompts you to pay 8 cents worth instead of 6 cents, most will likely accept the increase.

3- you mean input? Of course it does, the whole idea of improving efficiency is to reduce cost/income ratio, which could mean same result with less electricity usage.

[JosNekoKopa]

Probably some kind of new pos hybrid..
More interesting question would be how internet gonna look like..
Censored? Centralized we heading to NWO? Network supported through people devices like android phones but more powerful..

4 - Other option > Maybe we will return to stone age *more likely ? All blocks will be those stones all around..All knowledge forgotten not only bitcoin.

[sirdevil]

3 - Do nothing, hoping the things will balance on their own. That could mean (some) mining farms going bankrupt, drastically reducing hashing power (security) + centralisation risk. Or maybe the largest BTC-related businesses will take the mining operation on themselves (mining at loss, but securing their long-term interests).

When I voted i was sure this would be the most voted option.

That is the spirit of bitcoin, and I'm glad to see most people support this idea since now!

I love this community!

[LiteCoinGuy]

Not a single reply? Where are those sig spammers when you need them the most.

I think it's an interesting topic.

So far option 3 in the lead (85.7%), only 7 total votes though.

  true...

-----------------------

i would never change the 21cap because you can have that with every fiat currency atm 

[helloeverybody]

I dont think its a good idea to ever remove the 21million bitcoin cap.  We can add more 0s rather than increasing supply. I would assume that if bitcoin is still around by that time then its doing fine anyway and there would be no need for any changes.

[Greenenergy]

Now it's clear that is is the third option that won the match . Personally that's what I support because the two otehr solutions are bad and would basically kill the day-to-day usage and Bitcoin's value.

[Meuh6879]

2148 is StarTRek century.
Money is useless since humanity travel over space and distances.



but, cats always exist ... so perhaps, Bitcoin, too.

[BTCBinary]

I personally think that once mining is done the network will maintain the same rules and the market will correct itself. that is... if we ever get there...

[fair_player]

 Doing nothing. Let it self-regulate

I knew it!

just let the natural market laws, offer and demand, regulate it!

That's the smooth way to freedom.

[Yakamoto]

I personally think that once mining is done the network will maintain the same rules and the market will correct itself. that is... if we ever get there...

Exactly, I think that a lot of Blockchain technology progression will occur over the next decade, and then it will primarily be self-regulated from there. We will always have to improve security to maintain an edge over faster and newer computer systems and software, but there will be fewer major changes such as the classic vs core debate going on right now.

[thejaytiesto]

It's not going to be a problem. The mining can remain relatively centralized with big parties competing against each other AS LONG AS we have decentralized nodes and the main devs are talented and pro privacy (Core devs and not other like the Classic ones which would make the project look like a joke). Let's just hope sanity prevails.

[lostintranslation]

I personally think that once mining is done the network will maintain the same rules and the market will correct itself. that is... if we ever get there...

Exactly, I think that a lot of Blockchain technology progression will occur over the next decade, and then it will primarily be self-regulated from there. We will always have to improve security to maintain an edge over faster and newer computer systems and software, but there will be fewer major changes such as the classic vs core debate going on right now.

I also think that it will self regulate to become a stable financial network. Once more hardware is put to support transactions, instead of pure mining, we'll have a powerfull grid supporting the flow of values!

[BTCBinary]

I personally think that once mining is done the network will maintain the same rules and the market will correct itself. that is... if we ever get there...

Exactly, I think that a lot of Blockchain technology progression will occur over the next decade, and then it will primarily be self-regulated from there. We will always have to improve security to maintain an edge over faster and newer computer systems and software, but there will be fewer major changes such as the classic vs core debate going on right now.

I also think that it will self regulate to become a stable financial network. Once more hardware is put to support transactions, instead of pure mining, we'll have a powerfull grid supporting the flow of values!

In fact, that's a real problem. The number of Nodes in the network are decreasing year by year, which has a direct connection with the mining difficulty. Thus, runing a node has no monetary incentive while mining has.

[virtualdn]

TBH I have no clue. I still hope we will feel the joy of Bitcoin in our lifetimes.

[Yakamoto]

I personally think that once mining is done the network will maintain the same rules and the market will correct itself. that is... if we ever get there...

Exactly, I think that a lot of Blockchain technology progression will occur over the next decade, and then it will primarily be self-regulated from there. We will always have to improve security to maintain an edge over faster and newer computer systems and software, but there will be fewer major changes such as the classic vs core debate going on right now.

I also think that it will self regulate to become a stable financial network. Once more hardware is put to support transactions, instead of pure mining, we'll have a powerfull grid supporting the flow of values!

In fact, that's a real problem. The number of Nodes in the network are decreasing year by year, which has a direct connection with the mining difficulty. Thus, runing a node has no monetary incentive while mining has.

This ties into my theory that most of the technological advancements with blockchain technology will occur in the next decade; if the decrease in nodes is noticeable and becomes a burden on the network, there will likely be a fork which will allow for some monetary benefit for those who run the nodes, either through combining nodes and mining, or through some other means.