In the long run, bitcoin will be worth $0.

[ElectricMucus]

Bitcoin will become obsolete once there is a cryptocurrency which does exhibit the following properties:

• the possibility for split-second confirmed transactions
• logarithmic growth of storage space and network bandwidth for transaction data (Bitcoin is linear to exponential)
• a significant fraction of Network computation consists of useful work

I know the former two can be solved, only the latter one would require some new innovation.

By the time this is even possible bitcoin will be a mainstream currency. At that point there will be no reason to switch over.

too big to fail?
famous last words.

The demand for these innovations will not simply go away. Even in a scenario where Bitcoin were to have absolute majority such a significant innovation will consume it.

The market cap of bitcoin is over a billion dollars and that number will continue to rise. It will be almost impossible for anything to catch up to that unless there is something really special about it. Even then it won't deter most bitcoin users.

That isn't really a coherent chain of arguments.

I would think it more likely that Bitcoin evolves little by little, instead of being entirely replaced by an alt. coin.

Hopefully.
But some important innovations are architecture dependent and can not be done. It is at this point where Bitcoin is going to be replaced.

[mmortal03]

Sure, they'll still be collected as vintage items for their sentimental value the way old NES games are still collected. But mining them will be easy enough that they'll have no real value.

How would that be, given that mining becomes more and more difficult over time by design?

less ppl mining = difficulty drops

Maybe I should have qualified that with "and there is a limited supply by design". At this point in the game, I can't foresee us reaching a point where there would be a significant number of coins left over that would be "easy enough" to mine, regardless of the dip in value. With the impending number of people with ASIC hardware, at a relatively small electricity cost, they will be able to mine the vast majority of the remaining bitcoins by 2033. As improvements happen with ASICs, maybe the price comes down on them, or maybe they maintain a premium cost but with increasing hashrates and lower power requirements.  It just seems more likely that there would be a select set of enthusiasts doing the mining for the long term and it wouldn't ever be "inexpensive" for just anyone to jump in and mine a significant number of coins for themselves.  Of course, I could be wrong.

[Peter Lambert]

Sure, they'll still be collected as vintage items for their sentimental value the way old NES games are still collected. But mining them will be easy enough that they'll have no real value.

How would that be, given that mining becomes more and more difficult over time by design?

less ppl mining = difficulty drops

Maybe I should have qualified that with "and there is a limited supply by design". At this point in the game, I can't foresee us reaching a point where there would be a significant number of coins left over that would be "easy enough" to mine, regardless of the dip in value. With the impending number of people with ASIC hardware, at a relatively small electricity cost, they will be able to mine the vast majority of the remaining bitcoins by 2033. As improvements happen with ASICs, maybe the price comes down on them, or maybe they maintain a premium cost but with increasing hashrates and lower power requirements.  It just seems more likely that there would be a select set of enthusiasts doing the mining for the long term and it wouldn't ever be "inexpensive" for just anyone to jump in and mine a significant number of coins for themselves.  Of course, I could be wrong.

Seeing that we have ASICS up and running, the difficulty is never going to get back down to CPU profitable levels. There are bitcoin enthusiasts who will mine at a loss just to keep the network going. But if bitcoin prices go way down and usage drops, you will be able to pick up a used ASIC for pretty cheap, and so mining could turn out to be cheap after all. The other (IMHO, more probable) extreme is that prices and usage go up, and so mining will continue to be expensive, always trending toward zero profit.

Remember, the miners get to keep the transaction fees, so in the future even after all the bitcoins are minted there will still be some reward for miners. But transaction fees are dependent on usage, so if nobody is using bitcoins then mining will have no reward.

[myrkul]

Betamax was a superior technology than VHS

Really?

Could record your shows longer? No.
Devices were cheaper? No.
Had more shows to watch? No.

Guess the only thing going for it was a few extra lines of resolution... Hmm.

4-6 hour TV recording won that battle with the common user.

Actually, it was porn.

Porn industry standardized on VHS, regular movie industry followed, everybody bought a VHS, nobody wanted two machines, Beta lost.

But, yeah, IIRC, the longer record time was the seller for why porn picked it.

[mmortal03]

Remember, the miners get to keep the transaction fees, so in the future even after all the bitcoins are minted there will still be some reward for miners. But transaction fees are dependent on usage, so if nobody is using bitcoins then mining will have no reward.

Are there any projections out there as far as when transaction fees will make up a greater share of the mining profits than the remaining bitcoins?

[BTC Books]

Remember, the miners get to keep the transaction fees, so in the future even after all the bitcoins are minted there will still be some reward for miners. But transaction fees are dependent on usage, so if nobody is using bitcoins then mining will have no reward.

Are there any projections out there as far as when transaction fees will make up a greater share of the mining profits than the remaining bitcoins?

Nothing accurate.  It depends on any change to how many transactions will fit into a block - which is an ongoing debate.

[myrkul]

Remember, the miners get to keep the transaction fees, so in the future even after all the bitcoins are minted there will still be some reward for miners. But transaction fees are dependent on usage, so if nobody is using bitcoins then mining will have no reward.

Are there any projections out there as far as when transaction fees will make up a greater share of the mining profits than the remaining bitcoins?

Nothing accurate.  It depends on any change to how many transactions will fit into a block - which is an ongoing debate.

Well, we can guess, based on current info. What is the average fee payout right now?

[dave111223]

I would think it more likely that Bitcoin evolves little by little, instead of being entirely replaced by an alt. coin.

Hopefully.
But some important innovations are architecture dependent and can not be done. It is at this point where Bitcoin is going to be replaced.

Please elaborate; I thought anything can be changed through a hard fork and which ever version has majority support wins out.

So I would think we'll start to see minor hard forks and each time it won't seem that big of a deal, but 10 years later you'll look back and think "holy crap bitcoin has changed a lot"

For example if I though that i had a much better idea for an alt. currency.  I'd say that it would be better for me to make a private road map of how to make bitcoin into my new currency, and make small incremental pull requests over a long time period until i'd managed to change bitcoin into the better currency that i had envisioned; as opposed to trying to start my currency from scratch with zero public support.

Of course you might complain "But my pull requests or forks might get rejected"...well maybe that means that other people don't think that your ideas are better than the status quo, and starting your own alt. currency is only a way to postpone that realization.  Unless of course you think the current devs are holding bitcoin back by rejecting your code, in which case you take your case to the message boards, if there is popular support for your modifications I'm sure the  devs would be persuaded to include the code updates.

[GeoRW]

I would think it more likely that Bitcoin evolves little by little, instead of being entirely replaced by an alt. coin.

Or some othr network evolves on top of bitcoin network which will enable faster transactions etc.

[jubalix]

This isn't intended to be another spam thread, this is real analysis.

Eventually the world will adopt a crypto-currency. That's just where technology is headed and where we are evolving. It won't, however, be bitcoin. Bitcoin was a good experiment while it lasted, but through experimenting with it it's shown its weaknesses, weaknesses that other crypto's have already made headway in correcting, just without wide adoption.

Eventually, a new crypto that isn't currently in existence will be developed by a counsel of cryptographers and industry professionals from silicon valley but more importantly will also be directed by the advice of economists, not just computer scientists. This new crypto will be widely endorsed in silicon valley and will take the world by storm, eventually becoming the exclusive currency of most online retailers and will be known as the internet currency (as if the internet were its on country / economy). As surely as I write this, this will happen, and when it does, all other crypto's including bitcoin will become obsolete. Sure, they'll still be collected as vintage items for their sentimental value the way old NES games are still collected. But mining them will be easy enough that they'll have no real value.

one problem with your position is that there is more $$$ and expertise already in BTC development than anywhere else, and it would be hard to buy.organise this at any price.

If any other currency looks too successful, the BTC's will just fork to take that on board. So BTC may evolved to be the best coin, by virtue of its front runner position.

[dave111223]

This isn't intended to be another spam thread, this is real analysis.

Eventually the world will adopt a crypto-currency. That's just where technology is headed and where we are evolving. It won't, however, be bitcoin. Bitcoin was a good experiment while it lasted, but through experimenting with it it's shown its weaknesses, weaknesses that other crypto's have already made headway in correcting, just without wide adoption.

Eventually, a new crypto that isn't currently in existence will be developed by a counsel of cryptographers and industry professionals from silicon valley but more importantly will also be directed by the advice of economists, not just computer scientists. This new crypto will be widely endorsed in silicon valley and will take the world by storm, eventually becoming the exclusive currency of most online retailers and will be known as the internet currency (as if the internet were its on country / economy). As surely as I write this, this will happen, and when it does, all other crypto's including bitcoin will become obsolete. Sure, they'll still be collected as vintage items for their sentimental value the way old NES games are still collected. But mining them will be easy enough that they'll have no real value.

one problem with your position is that there is more $$$ and expertise already in BTC development than anywhere else, and it would be hard to buy.organise this at any price.

If any other currency looks too successful, the BTC's will just fork to take that on board. So BTC may evolved to be the best coin, by virtue of its front runner position.

Exactly...suppose Litcoin is becoming very popular most due to the 2.5minute confirmations....so bitcoin just updates their confirmations to 2.5minute or 1minute (and divides the rewards and blocksize accordingly)...boom..litcoin is pointless overnight.

[ElectricMucus]

I would think it more likely that Bitcoin evolves little by little, instead of being entirely replaced by an alt. coin.

Hopefully.
But some important innovations are architecture dependent and can not be done. It is at this point where Bitcoin is going to be replaced.

Please elaborate; I thought anything can be changed through a hard fork and which ever version has majority support wins out.

So I would think we'll start to see minor hard forks and each time it won't seem that big of a deal, but 10 years later you'll look back and think "holy crap bitcoin has changed a lot"

For example if I though that i had a much better idea for an alt. currency.  I'd say that it would be better for me to make a private road map of how to make bitcoin into my new currency, and make small incremental pull requests over a long time period until i'd managed to change bitcoin into the better currency that i had envisioned; as opposed to trying to start my currency from scratch with zero public support.

Of course you might complain "But my pull requests or forks might get rejected"...well maybe that means that other people don't think that your ideas are better than the status quo, and starting your own alt. currency is only a way to postpone that realization.  Unless of course you think the current devs are holding bitcoin back by rejecting your code, in which case you take your case to the message boards, if there is popular support for your modifications I'm sure the  devs would be persuaded to include the code updates.

Yes very much can be changed with a hard-fork, but only up to a point.

Currently even something very minor from a software architecture standpoint like the block size limit, which is just a variable when it comes down to it generates massive controversy, and as we have seen bugs.
So I don't think that major changes are going to make it through.

The examples I posted above are things which could be much more easily implemented by starting from scratch. It's not entirely impossible to do this with a hard-fork but you also have to see this from the innovators perspective: Why try to convince the Bitcoin core team, and try to work with an old code-base instead of starting a own project, especially since the reward from doing so is so much higher?
In software development it only makes sense to do a new project once the amount of changes exceed a certain amount. This has been done over and over again and I can't see how cryptocurrencies would be any exception.
See Netscape/Firefox/Chrome, Apache/nginx, Gnu/*BSD.
If changes are sufficiently numerous people will create another software and this has nothing to do if it requires a hard-fork or not, it simply makes more sense.

[kwukduck]

a counsel of cryptographers and industry professionals from silicon valley but more importantly will also be directed by the advice of economists

And this is where shit goes horribly wrong, again...

Keep spreading FUD, sell your coins quickly please while you can, bitcoin can be $0 within a day when people have read your post!
I'll take them.

Oh, and don't forget to buy litecoin, they solved all of bitcoins problems and will take over bitcoin soon!

[bitchess]

This is trivial, but in the long run every currency ever to have existed will be worth $0 or infinite dollars, depending on whether USD or the currency in question dies first.

By the way, this is a funny thought but once mankind disappears does money (including BTC) cease to exist?  conversely, do any current or future species outside of humans have the potential to understand the concept of money?

[myrkul]

This is trivial, but in the long run every currency ever to have existed will be worth $0 or infinite dollars, depending on whether USD or the currency in question dies first.

Heh, good point.

By the way, this is a funny thought but once mankind disappears does money (including BTC) cease to exist?  conversely, do any current or future species outside of humans have the potential to understand the concept of money?

Yes, I think any species that develops trade will develop a unit of trade, that is, money.

[bitchess]

This is trivial, but in the long run every currency ever to have existed will be worth $0 or infinite dollars, depending on whether USD or the currency in question dies first.

Heh, good point.

By the way, this is a funny thought but once mankind disappears does money (including BTC) cease to exist?  conversely, do any current or future species outside of humans have the potential to understand the concept of money?

Yes, I think any species that develops trade will develop a unit of trade, that is, money.

I'm sure that there exists some non-human species that can barter right now.  Wonder if any animal experts know if any species outside humans know how to use an arbitrary and agreed upon method of value store today.  probably not, but perhaps some analogies can be made..  Eg. cartoons of squirrels exchanging nuts

[jubalix]

I would think it more likely that Bitcoin evolves little by little, instead of being entirely replaced by an alt. coin.

Hopefully.
But some important innovations are architecture dependent and can not be done. It is at this point where Bitcoin is going to be replaced.

Please elaborate; I thought anything can be changed through a hard fork and which ever version has majority support wins out.

So I would think we'll start to see minor hard forks and each time it won't seem that big of a deal, but 10 years later you'll look back and think "holy crap bitcoin has changed a lot"

For example if I though that i had a much better idea for an alt. currency.  I'd say that it would be better for me to make a private road map of how to make bitcoin into my new currency, and make small incremental pull requests over a long time period until i'd managed to change bitcoin into the better currency that i had envisioned; as opposed to trying to start my currency from scratch with zero public support.

Of course you might complain "But my pull requests or forks might get rejected"...well maybe that means that other people don't think that your ideas are better than the status quo, and starting your own alt. currency is only a way to postpone that realization.  Unless of course you think the current devs are holding bitcoin back by rejecting your code, in which case you take your case to the message boards, if there is popular support for your modifications I'm sure the  devs would be persuaded to include the code updates.

Yes very much can be changed with a hard-fork, but only up to a point.

Currently even something very minor from a software architecture standpoint like the block size limit, which is just a variable when it comes down to it generates massive controversy, and as we have seen bugs.
So I don't think that major changes are going to make it through.

The examples I posted above are things which could be much more easily implemented by starting from scratch. It's not entirely impossible to do this with a hard-fork but you also have to see this from the innovators perspective: Why try to convince the Bitcoin core team, and try to work with an old code-base instead of starting a own project, especially since the reward from doing so is so much higher?
In software development it only makes sense to do a new project once the amount of changes exceed a certain amount. This has been done over and over again and I can't see how cryptocurrencies would be any exception.
See Netscape/Firefox/Chrome, Apache/nginx, Gnu/*BSD.
If changes are sufficiently numerous people will create another software and this has nothing to do if it requires a hard-fork or not, it simply makes more sense.

and you have just identified the other half of why altcoin are popular, apart from the get rich quick motivation is the knowledge that BTC may not be it....!

[oda.krell]

I would think it more likely that Bitcoin evolves little by little, instead of being entirely replaced by an alt. coin.

Hopefully.
But some important innovations are architecture dependent and can not be done. It is at this point where Bitcoin is going to be replaced.

Please elaborate; I thought anything can be changed through a hard fork and which ever version has majority support wins out.

So I would think we'll start to see minor hard forks and each time it won't seem that big of a deal, but 10 years later you'll look back and think "holy crap bitcoin has changed a lot"

For example if I though that i had a much better idea for an alt. currency.  I'd say that it would be better for me to make a private road map of how to make bitcoin into my new currency, and make small incremental pull requests over a long time period until i'd managed to change bitcoin into the better currency that i had envisioned; as opposed to trying to start my currency from scratch with zero public support.

Of course you might complain "But my pull requests or forks might get rejected"...well maybe that means that other people don't think that your ideas are better than the status quo, and starting your own alt. currency is only a way to postpone that realization.  Unless of course you think the current devs are holding bitcoin back by rejecting your code, in which case you take your case to the message boards, if there is popular support for your modifications I'm sure the  devs would be persuaded to include the code updates.

Yes very much can be changed with a hard-fork, but only up to a point.

Currently even something very minor from a software architecture standpoint like the block size limit, which is just a variable when it comes down to it generates massive controversy, and as we have seen bugs.
So I don't think that major changes are going to make it through.

The examples I posted above are things which could be much more easily implemented by starting from scratch. It's not entirely impossible to do this with a hard-fork but you also have to see this from the innovators perspective: Why try to convince the Bitcoin core team, and try to work with an old code-base instead of starting a own project, especially since the reward from doing so is so much higher?
In software development it only makes sense to do a new project once the amount of changes exceed a certain amount. This has been done over and over again and I can't see how cryptocurrencies would be any exception.
See Netscape/Firefox/Chrome, Apache/nginx, Gnu/*BSD.
If changes are sufficiently numerous people will create another software and this has nothing to do if it requires a hard-fork or not, it simply makes more sense.

Here's where your argument breaks down (in my opinion):

You seem to think that the Bitcoin vs. [as of yet unknown altcoin] situation can be compared to the browser history. Major innovations by a newcomer in this field more than once caused the previous market leader to lose its established position (Netscape replaced by IE, IE by Firefox, Firefox by Chrome).

However I hold that the *coin situation is more similar to the history of social networks. A major innovator, with sufficient momentum generated by word of mouth, can sometimes replace the previous market leader -- say, when Facebook destroyed Myspace's entire business model. But innovation and word of mouth do not guarantee success in this field: upon release, Google+ had huge momentum, the whole might of the world's largest Internet company behind them, and was/is arguably a much more pleasant experience than Facebook. Yet, they completely tanked in their effort to even approach the position of Facebook.

The difference is previous investment in the product. Browsers require very little of it (just install a new one), social networks a lot (all your friends are on it, you'd have to convince them to follow you). Now please be honest: in terms of investment, which of the two does a cryptocurrency resemble more?

(caveat: I admit, there's always the possibility to shift your investment from one currency to another, and this is maybe somewhat easier than shifting "investements" in a social network. However, even with the option of trading currencies, this process is not frictionless, and will therefore be a serious barrier for any competitor)

[myrkul]

This is trivial, but in the long run every currency ever to have existed will be worth $0 or infinite dollars, depending on whether USD or the currency in question dies first.

Heh, good point.

By the way, this is a funny thought but once mankind disappears does money (including BTC) cease to exist?  conversely, do any current or future species outside of humans have the potential to understand the concept of money?

Yes, I think any species that develops trade will develop a unit of trade, that is, money.

I'm sure that there exists some non-human species that can barter right now.  Wonder if any animal experts know if any species outside humans know how to use an arbitrary and agreed upon method of value store today.  probably not, but perhaps some analogies can be made..  Eg. cartoons of squirrels exchanging nuts

Chimps trade food for sex. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090407-chimps-meat-sex.html
I don't know if any species actually trades in stored value, though.

[Nightowlace]

Think of it this way.
Budweiser- Highest selling beers of all time in the United States. Highly marketed, accepted by many as "good" beer. One of the first in the states. Is it the best, not by a long shot. Is it even good, no. Is there other beers out there that should have taken its place as "the king of beers" absolutely. Fact is, it was first, it was widely consumed, highly publicized, rose to the top and stayed there because of its wide acceptance, its mass appeal, and its basic "trust" in the brand.

Bitcoin will be a lot like Budweiser. It was first, widely adopted, mass media attention, commonly used. Will their be better, sure. Does that mean they will be worth more, maybe. Does it mean Bitcoin will be worth less, maybe not. Does it mean bitcoin will still be the most commonly used because of peoples perception of the brand, absolutely.

*Yes this is probably one of the most ridiculous analogies ever used to describe the future of Bitcoin, however it is just a speculative and credible as any other analogy on this site because no one will ever no the future of Bitcoin or any form of crypto currency and that is the truth. So speculate away, but I say this; Make whatever fiat currency you need now, but make sure you've got a few BTC coins stashed away so that when/if they become what many hope they will become you're not standing at the top of some building contemplating jumping 50 stories to your death because you had 100 bitcoins at $3, sold them for $100 and now can barely get your hands on a satoshi.*