Mining in 20 years time

[deisik]

There will be no miners in 20 years because subsidy is to small to pay mining and bitcoin developers don't allow enough on chain transactions to maintain enough mining to keep the network safe, so bitcoin will be irrelevant or forked into POS.

They can always cancel halving in the interim (which is a must-do thing if they want Bitcoin to go on)

[Lumada]

There will be no miners in 20 years because subsidy is to small to pay mining and bitcoin developers don't allow enough on chain transactions to maintain enough mining to keep the network safe, so bitcoin will be irrelevant or forked into POS.

They can always cancel halving in the interim (which is a must-do thing if they want Bitcoin to go on)

The transaction fee is quite high now. It is almost 1 bitcoin at some blocks. In the next few years, it will be even higher.

[LoyceV]

99.21875% will be mined in 20 years time. If electricity isn't very cheap by then and/or if bitcoin isn't worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, it's hard to imagine anybody wanting to mine then. How will transactions then be verified?

Why is this hard to imagine? People were mining back at the start of Bitcoin, when it had no value at all. Don't forget you don't need a lot of miners, 1 computer can be enough to confirm all transactions!
The big benefit of having a lot of miners is of course that it's harder to attack the blockchain.

Transaction fees are already a few percent of the block reward. In 20 years, especially if blocks get bigger and allow more transactions, the fees could add up to Bitcoins per block.

Actually, the transaction fees revenue is below 2% of the block reward (1.84% according to the blockchain.info stats).

I just clicked the last 4 blocks (420278-420281). These are the fees: 1.01175876 + 0.49726408 + 0.3535004 + 0.4455881 = 2.30811134 BTC. That is 4.616% of the 50 BTC block rewards (for 4 blocks). Either way, it's a few percent, like I said. And it doesn't matter really, fees will only go up relative to block reward.

Not very far from a statistical error

Absolute data has nothing to do with statistical errors.

[pearnapple]

There will be no miners in 20 years because subsidy is to small to pay mining and bitcoin developers don't allow enough on chain transactions to maintain enough mining to keep the network safe, so bitcoin will be irrelevant or forked into POS.

They can always cancel halving in the interim (which is a must-do thing if they want Bitcoin to go on)

The transaction fee is quite high now. It is almost 1 bitcoin at some blocks. In the next few years, it will be even higher.

well i guess there will be a bitcoin block size increase in the future so we dont have to worry about it as it will definitely be fixed in the future, at least i hope for that right now

[deisik]

Not very far from a statistical error

Absolute data has nothing to do with statistical errors.

And how long ago percentages have become "absolute data"? Further, I didn't claim them to be a statistical error (margin of error, to be precise). I just said that it was quite close (in %%) to what is considered a statistical error. By the way, right now (as I write this post) the percentage is at 2.49, i.e. almost half as much

I just clicked the last 4 blocks (420278-420281). These are the fees: 1.01175876 + 0.49726408 + 0.3535004 + 0.4455881 = 2.30811134 BTC. That is 4.616% of the 50 BTC block rewards (for 4 blocks). Either way, it's a few percent, like I said. And it doesn't matter really, fees will only go up relative to block reward

The moral is that the fees revenue is pretty inconsistent so far (e.g. 1.01175876 BTC vs 0.3535004 BTC, i.e. ~3x difference). Wanna challenge that point?

[CroSany]

I  think that always bitcoin will be alive because always will mining field gst some bdginner miner and if he see that earnings are amost nothing new miner will come and that in circle.

[panju1]

There will be no miners in 20 years because subsidy is to small to pay mining and bitcoin developers don't allow enough on chain transactions to maintain enough mining to keep the network safe, so bitcoin will be irrelevant or forked into POS.

They can always cancel halving in the interim (which is a must-do thing if they want Bitcoin to go on)

The transaction fee is quite high now. It is almost 1 bitcoin at some blocks. In the next few years, it will be even higher.

That is related to block size.
If there is consensus to increase block size, there will be less competition and less transaction fees.

[deisik]

There will be no miners in 20 years because subsidy is to small to pay mining and bitcoin developers don't allow enough on chain transactions to maintain enough mining to keep the network safe, so bitcoin will be irrelevant or forked into POS.

They can always cancel halving in the interim (which is a must-do thing if they want Bitcoin to go on)

The transaction fee is quite high now. It is almost 1 bitcoin at some blocks. In the next few years, it will be even higher.

That is related to block size.
If there is consensus to increase block size, there will be less competition and less transaction fees.

If I get it right, this means that miners are not particularly interested in increasing the block size? In other words, that's the reason (one of) why it hasn't been increased so far?

[deisik]

There will be no miners in 20 years because subsidy is to small to pay mining and bitcoin developers don't allow enough on chain transactions to maintain enough mining to keep the network safe, so bitcoin will be irrelevant or forked into POS.

They can always cancel halving in the interim (which is a must-do thing if they want Bitcoin to go on)

The transaction fee is quite high now. It is almost 1 bitcoin at some blocks. In the next few years, it will be even higher.

I've heard that the fees are a "buyer's market", that is, their value depends on Bitcoin users willing to pay more for processing the transactions. Given that no one wants to pay more, it is safe to assume that people will transact less with higher amounts (aggregating their payments) in case fees start to rise, thereby essentially leveling off the miners' efforts to increase the fees...

What did I miss and did I miss anything at all?

[yayayo]

99.21875% will be mined in 20 years time. If electricity isn't very cheap by then and/or if bitcoin isn't worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, it's hard to imagine anybody wanting to mine then. How will transactions then be verified?

You're ignoring at least three important factors:

1) The total amount of transaction fees: In 20 years - provided that Bitcoin is successful - a lot more transactions will be processed by the network. The average blocksize will most likely be bigger than today. That means, miners will obtain much more fees than today if they successfully solve a block. This gradual transition from a block reward to a fee reward operating mode is part of the original conception of Bitcoin.

2) The valuation of Bitcoin: If Bitcoin is successful, a single coin will most certainly have a much higher buying power than today. Hence it might be still very profitable to mine given electricity prices are not appreciating at the same rate.

3) The efficiency of mining: Bitcoin mining is under constant optimization to lower costs and improving profits by increasing its efficiency. 20 years from now, Bitcoin miners will not only mine faster and with less electricity than today, it is also thinkable that "by-products" of mining - especially heat - are utilized for other purposes and monetized to increase profitability further.

So I don't think that there is any reason to worry that mining might end in 20 years.

ya.ya.yo!

[hermanhs09]

99.21875% will be mined in 20 years time. If electricity isn't very cheap by then and/or if bitcoin isn't worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, it's hard to imagine anybody wanting to mine then. How will transactions then be verified?

Yeah i was also thinking about it.
How transaction will be verified,if there will be no one to mine btc? because the pool will be almost mined right?
Any idea guys? i want to know the answer too

[MaritiJames3]

At the moment it is useless to mine for coins right now because the halving is coming and it only gets harder to earn them.
In the past mining was very useful but times have changes and the best option right now is to just buy them.

[LoyceV]

There will be no miners in 20 years because subsidy is to small to pay mining and bitcoin developers don't allow enough on chain transactions to maintain enough mining to keep the network safe, so bitcoin will be irrelevant or forked into POS.

They can always cancel halving in the interim (which is a must-do thing if they want Bitcoin to go on)

The transaction fee is quite high now. It is almost 1 bitcoin at some blocks. In the next few years, it will be even higher.

That is related to block size.
If there is consensus to increase block size, there will be less competition and less transaction fees.

If I get it right, this means that miners are not particularly interested in increasing the block size? In other words, that's the reason (one of) why it hasn't been increased so far?

This is my interpretation too. Miners don't benefit directly from larger blocks. But larger blocks are needed to allow more people to use Bitcoin, and more users will ultimately lead to a higher price, which benefits miners.

[deisik]

There will be no miners in 20 years because subsidy is to small to pay mining and bitcoin developers don't allow enough on chain transactions to maintain enough mining to keep the network safe, so bitcoin will be irrelevant or forked into POS.

They can always cancel halving in the interim (which is a must-do thing if they want Bitcoin to go on)

The transaction fee is quite high now. It is almost 1 bitcoin at some blocks. In the next few years, it will be even higher.

That is related to block size.
If there is consensus to increase block size, there will be less competition and less transaction fees.

If I get it right, this means that miners are not particularly interested in increasing the block size? In other words, that's the reason (one of) why it hasn't been increased so far?

This is my interpretation too. Miners don't benefit directly from larger blocks. But larger blocks are needed to allow more people to use Bitcoin, and more users will ultimately lead to a higher price, which benefits miners.

I don't think that miners collectively really care so much for future income, especially if it means sacrificing current revenue. In other words, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush

[socks435]

There will be no miners in 20 years because subsidy is to small to pay mining and bitcoin developers don't allow enough on chain transactions to maintain enough mining to keep the network safe, so bitcoin will be irrelevant or forked into POS.

Do you think it can be happen in bitcoin instead of staying at pow it will convert into POS.. i think if they do that the price of bitcoin will decrease instead..
Better to increase the fee for miner so that miners can be still make a profit with their miner..

[Yadstiker]

There will be no miners in 20 years because subsidy is to small to pay mining and bitcoin developers don't allow enough on chain transactions to maintain enough mining to keep the network safe, so bitcoin will be irrelevant or forked into POS.

Do you think it can be happen in bitcoin instead of staying at pow it will convert into POS.. i think if they do that the price of bitcoin will decrease instead..
Better to increase the fee for miner so that miners can be still make a profit with their miner..

I do not think it will convert into PoS. PoW is very secure and can underpin the value of the bitcoin securely.

[Zadicar]

Mining in 20 years would be difficult compared today's mining. As the time goes by Bitcoin lowers it supply so it means the harder it to mine. I think there would be Miners on that time coz they'll think that the price of the coin would be 20x higher as of today.

[outatime1]

Hopefully in 20 years, the value of bitcoin will be so high that it will be profitable to still mine with the right equipment. Also, fees may need to be higher to pay miners.

[Valzador]

In 20 years time, the advancements in technology would help lessen the cost of mining bitcoins. Maybe our everyday laptops will be as fast as the servers google have right now idk.

But 1 - Bitcoin should be adapted more so more transactions are sent = transaction fees go toward miners
and 2 - Advancements in technology should help in the ROI of bitcoin mining and other fees (e.g. electricity)

[Daisy14]

Me thinks miners would get most of their income from transaction fees...

The price of bitcoins would be so high that most people will trade in satoshis instead...