Philosofical question

[lyhueBR]

If we accept nowadays that we will still be using BTC after all mining be done (21 M coins), as the miners will continue the blockchain by earning the transaction's fees, why dont we accept that we in fact dont need to mine theses coins at all?

We could stop at this present moment  (@ ~12 M coins) and prevent spending all this energy and resources to mine virtual coins. Instead, miners could use the money of buying ASICs and stuff to invest in Bitcoins startups that solves real problems like security and education of use.

A "great" consequence of this would be that the BTCUSD price would go up since there would be far less offer of coins (~ theoretical double, 12M/21M).

I would like more experienced btcoiners to explain to me why this isnt good.

Regs
Lyhue

[ning]

Mining needs to continue because it guarantees future transactions get included into the Blockchain. The huge hashing power of the Bitcoin network also guarantees the transactions already included in the Blockchain cannot be easily reversed. Even with fiat currencies, millions if not billions of dollars are being spent every year just to keep the currencies circulating (printing, recycling, transferring by armed trucks).

Depending on a person's position in the Bitcoin economy, BTCUSD price going wildly up might not necessarily be a "great" consequence. A gradual increase in dollar value might be more desirable.

[FenixRD]

If we accept nowadays that we will still be using BTC after all mining be done (21 M coins), as the miners will continue the blockchain by earning the transaction's fees, why dont we accept that we in fact dont need to mine theses coins at all?

We could stop at this present moment  (@ ~12 M coins) and prevent spending all this energy and resources to mine virtual coins. Instead, miners could use the money of buying ASICs and stuff to invest in Bitcoins startups that solves real problems like security and education of use.

A "great" consequence of this would be that the BTCUSD price would go up since there would be far less offer of coins (~ theoretical double, 12M/21M).

I would like more experienced btcoiners to explain to me why this isnt good.

Regs
Lyhue

Because this is impossible, because the community wouldn't accept it. The same reason Bitcoin is secure from future debasement — no central planners to decide to print more, or arbitrarily change things to suit their purposes — is the same reason this wouldn't happen. 21M and 128 years or whatever isn't "perfect" but it was a good guess at a set of parameters that should work, as a jumping off point. If someone could change that (without creating an "alt" chain, which certainly is permissible, so go nuts) then Bitcoin would be a broken concept.

[Unacceptable]

Simple,no mining= NO TRANSACTIONS are confirmed 

[gsupp]

Simple,no mining= NO TRANSACTIONS are confirmed 

Exactly. Mining is required for the Bitcoin network to function. There is of course the question of will people continue to mine when all they'll get are the transaction fees. We have a while to go until this happens though, so it won't be a problem in any of our lifetimes.

[Perseus353]

Simple,no mining= NO TRANSACTIONS are confirmed 

Exactly. Mining is required for the Bitcoin network to function. There is of course the question of will people continue to mine when all they'll get are the transaction fees. We have a while to go until this happens though, so it won't be a problem in any of our lifetimes.

Mining will gradually transition to "harvesting" over the next century -- it will never end.

[crazyates]

I have another question: If someone spells it "Philosofical", do I take them seriously?

[pjviitas]

Stopping mining once all the bitcoins have been mined would be kind of like the bank posting all their books on the the internet for people to FUD up any way they wish.

[FenixRD]

I have another question: If someone spells it "Philosofical", do I take them seriously?

You do not.

I however choose to assume the "foreigner" explanation and give benefit of doubt. English is tricky for a non-native, even those with assess to google.

[Unacceptable]

I have another question: If someone spells it "Philosofical", do I take them seriously?

You do not.

I however choose to assume the "foreigner" explanation and give benefit of doubt. English is tricky for a non-native, even those with assess to google.

I see what you mean  

Maybe he was taught Phonics    I was,at least he's not using "Ebonics"  

[dex1]

I have another question: If someone spells it "Philosofical", do I take them seriously?

You do not.

I however choose to assume the "foreigner" explanation and give benefit of doubt. English is tricky for a non-native, even those with assess to google.

No doubt English is tricky as you most likely meant "access".

[FenixRD]

I have another question: If someone spells it "Philosofical", do I take them seriously?

You do not.

I however choose to assume the "foreigner" explanation and give benefit of doubt. English is tricky for a non-native, even those with assess to google.

No doubt English is tricky as you most likely meant "access".

Hahaha... Shit. Well, iPhones are to blame in this instance, fwiw... 

[krampus]

I do get that everyone is a beginner at some point and doesn't necessarily have a complete grasp of the entirety of Bitcoin. Heck, there's much I don't know about it, and I'm a software engineer with years of experience.

That said, the OP's question smacks of an agenda. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the OP registered for the sole purpose of stirring the shit on the topic of Bitcoin's alleged carbon footprint.

[pjviitas]

I do get that everyone is a beginner at some point and doesn't necessarily have a complete grasp of the entirety of Bitcoin. Heck, there's much I don't know about it, and I'm a software engineer with years of experience.

That said, the OP's question smacks of an agenda. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the OP registered for the sole purpose of stirring the shit on the topic of Bitcoin's alleged carbon footprint.

That's possible however something that's distributed has advantages over something that's centralized from an energy point of view.

Many power utilities are acknowledging that distributed generation may be the future...solar and wind on everyone's home to supply at least part of their energy needs...it reduces the requirement for large power plants and the power losses associated with transporting power for large distances.

Not to mention that mining actually heats my apartment during the winter all my thermostats are turned off right now.

[freebit13]

We could stop at this present moment  (@ ~12 M coins) and ....
A "great" consequence of this would be that the BTCUSD price would go up...

Nope, you'd lose one of the most important factors in any form of value exchange... CONFIDENCE!

[marko9812]

because everybody follows their economic incentives /thread

[SirBitsalot]

On paper, it sounds ideal, but once it gets thrown into practice so many variables that you didn't think could effect it come into play.

[Evil-Knievel]

This message was too old and has been purged

[CatCoin]

I have another question: If someone spells it "Philosofical", do I take them seriously?

I was wondering the same thing.

At first I figured it was intentional... and then I remembered I'm on the internet.

[zimmah]

If we accept nowadays that we will still be using BTC after all mining be done (21 M coins), as the miners will continue the blockchain by earning the transaction's fees, why dont we accept that we in fact dont need to mine theses coins at all?

We could stop at this present moment  (@ ~12 M coins) and prevent spending all this energy and resources to mine virtual coins. Instead, miners could use the money of buying ASICs and stuff to invest in Bitcoins startups that solves real problems like security and education of use.

A "great" consequence of this would be that the BTCUSD price would go up since there would be far less offer of coins (~ theoretical double, 12M/21M).

I would like more experienced btcoiners to explain to me why this isnt good.

Regs
Lyhue

Sure, let's close all banks too, we don't need them anymore since we have bitcoin, and for those who still use money, they can just send their dollars by mail. If all the banks would invest their money in water for the third world, no one would have to be thirsty.

Oh, while we are at it, why don't all criminals behave, so the police can quit their jobs as well and do something useful for society.

You can't just stop mining bitcoin, bitcoin mining is the process of protecting the network and making sure the transactions are made.