What to expect from Bitcoin after the last BTC gets mined?

[aoluain]

Ok, on the nining issue and miners deciding to suspend operations, would this
encourage small timers to start mining?
If i was going to go mining i wouldnt be looking at the cost of mining now but
at the potential future value.
That future value would more than compensate for todays mining cost, have
I got it wrong?

[1714569959]

1714569959

[1714569959]

1714569959

[1714569959]

1714569959

[1714569959]

1714569959

[KingZee]

The "OG" might be a developer, a miner, or a whale-cumulator like Barry Silbert.

By 2024 on the halving to 3.125 rewards per block, and on the condition that Bitcoin's price has not increased high enough to support the miners' operating costs, someone will campaign for a fork to increase inflation, but without increasing the monetary supply to "save Bitcoin".

It will be another big drama same as the scalability debate.

I hope you understood my point this time.

I'm intrigued on the "how" part of "increasing inflation without increasing the monetary supply". But I'm not going to argue that future is going to bring a lot of surprises for bitcoin, it's not unlikely for drama to happen and I've even written a paragraph about this in my last post.

[Findingnemo]

As far as I know the last bitcoin will be mined at 2140 so at that time we already have the clear knowledge about the crypto currency payment,if we still have bitcoins in use then miners won't stop because they will still get their rewards through the fees at that time the rewards will be lot higher when compared to the expenses.

[cabron]

I'd like the first option to rule though, if miners push for higher fees then its assume the price will also rise up but if PCs or GPUS can once again mine btc then price will eventually collapse. All will be moving to another crypto but don't you think you are going ahead among the rest here? Its years and years away.

[Argoo]

What is the point of discussing this if it happens around 2140 and none of us will live to that time? Most likely, nothing significant will happen. However, most likely, the situation will change dramatically in 120 years and the last bitcoin will be extracted much earlier, or the need for this will disappear for various reasons, including due to changes in cryptocurrency technology and technical capabilities.

[Wind_FURY]

The "OG" might be a developer, a miner, or a whale-cumulator like Barry Silbert.

By 2024 on the halving to 3.125 rewards per block, and on the condition that Bitcoin's price has not increased high enough to support the miners' operating costs, someone will campaign for a fork to increase inflation, but without increasing the monetary supply to "save Bitcoin".

It will be another big drama same as the scalability debate.

I hope you understood my point this time.

I'm intrigued on the "how" part of "increasing inflation without increasing the monetary supply". But I'm not going to argue that future is going to bring a lot of surprises for bitcoin, it's not unlikely for drama to happen and I've even written a paragraph about this in my last post.

By calling out the developers to make a controversial hard fork, and change the rules to maintain the block rewards to the amount of 6.25 instead halving to 3.125 on 2024.

I believe that "drama" will be as big as the scalability debate.

[Stedsm]

The "OG" might be a developer, a miner, or a whale-cumulator like Barry Silbert.

By 2024 on the halving to 3.125 rewards per block, and on the condition that Bitcoin's price has not increased high enough to support the miners' operating costs, someone will campaign for a fork to increase inflation, but without increasing the monetary supply to "save Bitcoin".

It will be another big drama same as the scalability debate.

I hope you understood my point this time.

I'm intrigued on the "how" part of "increasing inflation without increasing the monetary supply". But I'm not going to argue that future is going to bring a lot of surprises for bitcoin, it's not unlikely for drama to happen and I've even written a paragraph about this in my last post.

By calling out the developers to make a controversial hard fork, and change the rules to maintain the block rewards to the amount of 6.25 instead halving to 3.125 on 2024.

I believe that "drama" will be as big as the scalability debate.

The number of Bitcoin supply is limited and we are restricted to go on with it and such fork will eventually give born to another "Bitcoin-TRash" and even if they don't change the supply but come up with a code that applies over miners to get double rewards, it'll be unfair to those who've mined till date with the current ongoing rules.

To those of you who think we can't live till 2140, think twice before saying that. It's our destiny and we may even live up to a 100 years if our will power is strong enough, so discussing about value of BTC after final BTC getting mined will not really harm anybody's emotions.

[Wind_FURY]

The "OG" might be a developer, a miner, or a whale-cumulator like Barry Silbert.

By 2024 on the halving to 3.125 rewards per block, and on the condition that Bitcoin's price has not increased high enough to support the miners' operating costs, someone will campaign for a fork to increase inflation, but without increasing the monetary supply to "save Bitcoin".

It will be another big drama same as the scalability debate.

I hope you understood my point this time.

I'm intrigued on the "how" part of "increasing inflation without increasing the monetary supply". But I'm not going to argue that future is going to bring a lot of surprises for bitcoin, it's not unlikely for drama to happen and I've even written a paragraph about this in my last post.

By calling out the developers to make a controversial hard fork, and change the rules to maintain the block rewards to the amount of 6.25 instead halving to 3.125 on 2024.

I believe that "drama" will be as big as the scalability debate.

The number of Bitcoin supply is limited and we are restricted to go on with it and such fork will eventually give born to another "Bitcoin-TRash" and even if they don't change the supply but come up with a code that applies over miners to get double rewards, it'll be unfair to those who've mined till date with the current ongoing rules.

We cannot debate on the finer details of the theory. But the point is that there is going to be a Bitcoin "OG", or a miner that might call for a hard fork to maintain the block reward to 6.25 on the halving of 2024, if the value of Bitcoin can't support the costs of mining anymore.

[exstasie]

What is the point of discussing this if it happens around 2140 and none of us will live to that time?

For the fun of it. But also, the effects should be felt much sooner than that. For supply inflation, the differences between 50-->25-->12.5-->6.25-->3.125 reward is drastically larger than 0.0488-->0.0244-->0.0122-->0.0061 and so on.

Nearly 83% of the supply has already been mined, so the question is becoming increasingly relevant.

[BitHodler]

To those of you who think we can't live till 2140, think twice before saying that. It's our destiny and we may even live up to a 100 years if our will power is strong enough, so discussing about value of BTC after final BTC getting mined will not really harm anybody's emotions.

I'm sure that most of the people here are so stressed out about the bear market and their paper losses, and will continue to be during the next cycles, that they lost and will continue to lose a couple of years worth of their life.

In all fairness, most of the price growth that Bitcoin is going through is well beyond what it is actually worth, so no doubt the price will continue to follow what it has been doing since the very beginning.

The past is all we have, and as time goes by, it turns out that the past is the best indicator of what will be happening in the future. It doesn't have to be a 1:1 movement, the fact that the movements rhyme tells me enough.

[Febo]

OP, this is a very touchy topic for the Maximalists, and to suggest something like a hard fork to inflate the monetary supply is blasphemy.

But my theory is someone, a "Bitcoin OG", will campaign for a hard fork to increase inflation without increasing the monetary supply, if the price remains low and the block rewards halve to 3.125 on 2024.

It starts there, and it will not be the end of it.

Anyone can do that. All we need is a donation address where to send Bitcoins we gather to pay miners. YAY. We only need to collect like 12 BTC per 10 minutes.

[Stedsm]

OP, this is a very touchy topic for the Maximalists, and to suggest something like a hard fork to inflate the monetary supply is blasphemy.

But my theory is someone, a "Bitcoin OG", will campaign for a hard fork to increase inflation without increasing the monetary supply, if the price remains low and the block rewards halve to 3.125 on 2024.

It starts there, and it will not be the end of it.

Anyone can do that. All we need is a donation address where to send Bitcoins we gather to pay miners. YAY. We only need to collect like 12 BTC per 10 minutes.

Or else, they might come up with the same BTC concept like many different Bitcoin clones did, but the only difference would be the price and block reward size. I don't know what will be the meaning of that to happen because the change in the reward size will only make it more closer to the last BTC as the reward size will remain the same and if it gets applied to the original (current) BTC that we use, then I don't think it'll take 2140 to reach there but much sooner than that. I guess the breach of rules already set by Satoshi won't really work for BTC as the pattern and protocol should go hand in hand as they've been going since last decade (though, if the community feels and decides based on mutual consent of everyone that this should happen for miners to carry on mining, I guess nobody could stop it from happening).

[Wind_FURY]

OP, this is a very touchy topic for the Maximalists, and to suggest something like a hard fork to inflate the monetary supply is blasphemy.

But my theory is someone, a "Bitcoin OG", will campaign for a hard fork to increase inflation without increasing the monetary supply, if the price remains low and the block rewards halve to 3.125 on 2024.

It starts there, and it will not be the end of it.

Anyone can do that. All we need is a donation address where to send Bitcoins we gather to pay miners. YAY. We only need to collect like 12 BTC per 10 minutes.

Why do it as a "donation"? Everyone can do it by sending Bitcoins and pay $50 per transaction. Haha.

Which also makes me believe that the network spammer will be back to flood the mempool again, increasing the fees, and create more "drama".

[KingZee]

To those of you who think we can't live till 2140, think twice before saying that. It's our destiny and we may even live up to a 100 years if our will power is strong enough, so discussing about value of BTC after final BTC getting mined will not really harm anybody's emotions.

I'm sure that most of the people here are so stressed out about the bear market and their paper losses, and will continue to be during the next cycles, that they lost and will continue to lose a couple of years worth of their life.

In all fairness, most of the price growth that Bitcoin is going through is well beyond what it is actually worth, so no doubt the price will continue to follow what it has been doing since the very beginning.

The past is all we have, and as time goes by, it turns out that the past is the best indicator of what will be happening in the future. It doesn't have to be a 1:1 movement, the fact that the movements rhyme tells me enough.

That is a pretty dark bombshell to throw in just like that. I could agree that technologically, bitcoin could be behind newer coins that offer more features. But if that were the cause of its devaluation, it should have happened way before it hit 20k, so why do you think that bitcoin is over-valuated while we're at 3k, even though we've actually hit 20?

[Vit83]

IMHO BTC must raise popularity to increase the number of transactions and this will raise the sum of fees and this will be enough for miners.

[Stedsm]

IMHO BTC must raise popularity to increase the number of transactions and this will raise the sum of fees and this will be enough for miners.

Increase in the number of transactions will only bring scalability issues back due to clogs in mempool, I think that's something which will automatically rise once BTC gains mass adoption from at least a 100 countries fully in favor of BTC. And there's one more thing, people are here because they are getting lesser fees compared to any services online which charge us anywhere between $10 - $100 and even more in order to send money anywhere without the heed of boundaries. BTC gives everyone the opportunity to transact freely and almost for free, so keeping fees high will also be harmful for BTC's value as most people here are interested in making the best of their money - either trading and making money or saving over fees while sending money anywhere in the world.

[keyscore44]

It seems to me, that no one currently living will see the last mined Bitcoin ..
From the economic side, whenever the supply of an item ends, its price increases incredible (Stradiwarius violin).
On the technical side - technology is moving forward so fast that before the last Bitcoin is mined, i'm sure that will be created Bitcoin 2, or even Bitcoin 3. Miners will move to mine new "BTCs" and there will be not enough power to mine the last Bitcoin.

[Stedsm]

It seems to me, that no one currently living will see the last mined Bitcoin ..
From the economic side, whenever the supply of an item ends, its price increases incredible (Stradiwarius violin).
On the technical side - technology is moving forward so fast that before the last Bitcoin is mined, i'm sure that will be created Bitcoin 2, or even Bitcoin 3. Miners will move to mine new "BTCs" and there will be not enough power to mine the last Bitcoin.

Lolz, so haven't you seen the already up BTC 2.0 or 3.0? Bitcoin TRash, Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin Gold, etc. and many other forks off Bitcoin are not to be considered as other type of BTC with some upgraded/enhanced coding according to their devs? Aren't you aware of the fact that those who were mining BTC (giants), publicly warned and wanted everyone to drive their hash towards BCH? I guess nothing in this world would be able to snatch the power of BTC in terms of mining, and even if it does, it won't remain profitable for longer time (at least not for a decade in its own genre of SHA256 category).

[KingZee]

Lolz, so haven't you seen the already up BTC 2.0 or 3.0? Bitcoin TRash, Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin Gold, etc. and many other forks off Bitcoin are not to be considered as other type of BTC with some upgraded/enhanced coding according to their devs? Aren't you aware of the fact that those who were mining BTC (giants), publicly warned and wanted everyone to drive their hash towards BCH? I guess nothing in this world would be able to snatch the power of BTC in terms of mining, and even if it does, it won't remain profitable for longer time (at least not for a decade in its own genre of SHA256 category).

Honestly the bitcoin has reached a level of adoption so massive it's really hard to dethrone it anymore. A lot of people mine bitcoin just because it's the most used coin in the market with a lot of options to exchange into "real" money. And it helps that miners couldn't give half an ass about whatever drama is going on.

So regardless of whatever drama occurs, there can only be two scenarios :

1. A hard fork occurs with massive consensus to completely DROP chains that don't commit to the fork. The "consensus" part can only happen if there's some major security risk involved with old bitcoin, or if there is some huge improvement in the new chain.

2. Another "BCH drama". Any kind of issue that doesn't have consensual feedback from the vast majority of nodes (51% isn't even close), will always end up with 2 coins, the forked one, and bitcoin.