The reason for my post should be seen in context, and philip has frequently repeated his nonsense that bitcoin is likely going to show broken incentives in around 2050/2060 because the mining rewards are going to be so low that miners are not going to want to mine bitcoin and they will be incentivized to mine POW shitcoins such as litecoin and doggie coin.. and saying dumb shit like that.. so I am reinforcing his dumb ideas through my post.
Bitcoin will grow much more in price then. The block reward will be 0.02441406 in 2052. Currently, the miners getting around $187K for a block; who knows what will be the bitcoin price in 2052? Maybe 0.0244 won't be worth $187K. Maybe this is what he is fearing.
That's a fair point.
There does seem to be a bit of an assumption in Phillip's doom and gloom perspective (regarding the lack of bitcoin mining incentives) that the BTC price is not going to rise sufficiently in order to make up for such reduction in the block rewards.... .. (
Edit: subsequently to my drafting this response, I see that Philip had made a response - and I responded to a part of that that below)
And, it is difficult to presume price rises - and even if we might be able to figure out what might be a fair price of BTC today, and then every 4 years, we double the BTC price, then maybe we end up with a similar mining reward in terms of its dollar value, but that still does not really answer the question of what might be a fair price starting point. Maybe going by spot price? or maybe going by the 200-week moving average?
Today the 200-week moving average is right around $27k, so if we double it every 4 years then we would get.
2028 = $54k
2032 = $108k
2036 = $216k
2040 = $432k
2044 = $864k
2048 = $1,728k
2052 = $3,456k
2056 = $6,912k
Is that too much to presume?
In that scenario 0.0244 BTC would be worth around $168,653 ($6,912k * 0.244), so that number would be in the ballpark of $187k but that would not account for the likelihood that $187k would not be worth even close to that amount.. .. Too complicated to resolve all of the accounting presumptions that would be needed to be made?
[edited out]
The last cycle was characterized by many factors that are worth recalling.
1. The Covid panic of March 2020 crashed the price to 4K. A year or so later, it was already 65K. That's 16x growth!
2. The 65K price was not the result of speculation or euphoria, but of increased demand worldwide. It should be noted the price stayed in this range for months, which we did not have before.
3. Elon's tweets did serious damage and the first big drop to 30K was shocking to newbies.
4. However, within a few months due to the news of the futures ETF, the price surpassed the old ATH and reached 69K. Somewhere in there, the Chinese started panicking and spreading FUD news to hammer the price. By tradition, this gave result. Meanwhile, a huge percentage of bought bitcoins turned out to be FTX paper junk, which also had a negative effect. A whole bunch of institutions were dragged down like dominoes and the price hit the bottom of 15600.
The question is, how far could Bitcoin have gone if it weren't for all this bad news. I think there would have been a peak of over 100K, with a cycle bottom in the 25-35K range.
The next question is how far Bitcoin can go in 2025. In the worst case scenario - no ETF, with a ban from the US and China, the old ATH will be easily overtaken. That means a peak above 100K most likely. Basically, there will be potential for 200K, but it's very likely that hypocrites like Gary, Warren and the fat banker will do everything to stop the growth. They are terrified of Bitcoin because it threatens their banking system, which rests solely on false trust. If people knew the truth the feds are hiding, they would immediately withdraw their money and buy bitcoins. But the common people like to be lied to with empty promises. On that note, I suspect puppet Garry's strings are being pulled by Warren and the fat one. So it is very likely that SEC will not give approval for the spot ETF. Whether this will lead to a return of the bear market remains to be seen. Nothing should be excluded. But there is still a long time until 2025, so I hope that the damage from these scavengers will be erased by then and we will enjoy new ATHs.
You seem to put a lot of credit into various outside factors (and even limited number of political ones) having the ability to push the price direction of bitcoin, and I cannot completely disagree with you that there could be BTC price change directions on the margin that thereafter could end up affecting short-term BTC price momentum, but there also may well be some other ongoing UPpity price pressures on bitcoin that cause it to revert back to the mean. Sure maybe the price curve gets shifted down for bad newses and UP for good newses, but still there are other things going on in bitcoin that include factors like 1) stock to flow, 2) four-year fractal and 3) exponential s-curve adoption based on metcalfe principles and network effects. Your discussion seems weak in terms of sufficiently/adequately accounting for what would be these three more important factors.
just one problem.
and if cold fusion works and we have that much power why spend it mining a vanishing coin
when ltc/doge is designed to never vanish.
BTW This is why JJG always attacks me as he knows that long term on paper right now.
LTC/Doge has a better design than BTC.
but beta was said to be better than vhs.
So BTC can still prevail.
I stack more BTC than Doge and LTC.
Your overall explanation is not bad, but still your seemingly ongoing presumption for the need for a tail emission in bitcoin is premature, and I did not even know that LTC had a tail emission...
Your other presumption is not completely wrong in terms of believing that it is likely easier to change bitcoin today rather than waiting for sometime closer to 2056, when it would presumptively be more difficult to get enough consensus to be able to change BTC... yet again, you continue to assume that the various fees will not be enough to provide incentives and/or that the BIGGER bitcoin holders would not want to put money into bitcoin mining in order to protect the security of their holdings.
You seem to be ongoingly trying to inspire some kind of "fix" for bitcoin right now for a problem that may or may not exist, even though such problems exist in the various ways that you are locking into (likely incomplete) presumptions, but still going forward with your ongoingly stubbornly strong nostradamus wannabe proclamations.
Poll
