Why doesn't Bitcoin Stop Mining and Shorten Block times?

[ModelT]

Currently, BTC is adding ~328,500 new coins a year and spending tremendous amounts of energy to do so. If you cut new supply, wouldn't the price go up faster? I know that people are going to say that it is the miners who provide security to the network, but why can't the post 2140 plan be implemented sooner (given how quickly bitcoin has been able to grow)?

For most, BTC is not used as an everyday transactional currency and has a low number of TPS (7?) because of the 10 minute block intervals. Wouldn't BTC's usefulness as a transactional currency increase if transactions could be confirmed quicker?

[ranochigo]

If you want to stop mining, then you have to eliminate Bitcoin's PoW first by changing it into something like a PoS. Mining will never stop in Bitcoin's case. The primary aim of Bitcoin is not to make everyone rich by artificially cutting the supply or otherwise manipulating it. It is designed to be a currency with a pre-determined coin cap.

Yes, Bitcoin's utility would be better if it could be confirmed quicker. Completely possible and feasible, the question is if everyone would agree on it. If not, then it'll become another altcoin.

[BrewMaster]

If you cut new supply, wouldn't the price go up faster?

why should the price go up at all whether fast or slow?
you do realize that bitcoin is designed to be a payment system not something people invest in to make a profit in the shortest amount of time!

[hatshepsut93]

To change Bitcoin's emission rate, you would need to have all the participants agree on this change, which is pretty hard to do. Bitcoin is valuable because of that, and because it's emission is so predictable, if everyone decided tomorrow to cut supply, new investors would be very cautious of Bitcoin, because if rules can be changed so easily, anything can happen.

As for block times, 10 minute block time helps keep the orphaned blocks low. 1 confirmation with 1 minute average block time is far less secure than 1 confirmation with average 10 minute block time. And if block size is not adjusted, it's equal to increasing the block size, which is very bad for decentralization.

[ModelT]

If you cut new supply, wouldn't the price go up faster?

why should the price go up at all whether fast or slow?
you do realize that bitcoin is designed to be a payment system not something people invest in to make a profit in the shortest amount of time!

If you cut new supply, wouldn't the price go up faster?

why should the price go up at all whether fast or slow?
you do realize that bitcoin is designed to be a payment system not something people invest in to make a profit in the shortest amount of time!

Yes, I've read the Whitepaper. But, I see a few issues with it as a peer to peer payments system that cuts out 3rd parties:

1. If you don't own bitcoin how do you get it without going to a 3rd party financial intermediary? (Yes, I realize that some mined it in the early days and some have even gotten paid in BTC, but that is a pretty small % of the population)
2. What if you want to make a quick transaction with a peer? Wouldn't shorter block times make it more useful?
3. What if you want to make a small transaction with a peer? Aren't the transaction fees high?

As a payment system, I see BTC best suited for larger transactions where anonymity is more important than speed.

[Vishnu.Reang]

Bitcoin was never intended for instant payments, where the confirmation is needed in a few seconds, or at the most a couple of minutes. That is why the average interval between the blocks was kept at 10 minutes by Satoshi in 2009. He could have kept the interval at 1 minute or 30 seconds, but there may be a solid logic behind selecting larger period. Anyway, those who want to use BTC for instant payments do have the option of using third party service providers such as BitPay.

[fiulpro]

How do you intend to do that without changing the whole internal code that is written by Mr. Satoshi for Bitcoins? People did try to think about such things and thus they created Altcoins, which are not only used sparingly but most of them are also forgotten by the community itself after initial coin offering. I do think we have to understand that the instant payments were not in the blockchain for a reason :
1. It is very important for security , all of the transactions are like solving a very different puzzle , not this might take some miners 10 min or might take them even hours if it's too hard.
2. The whose system is getting too compact for sure , which is also responsible for the slow transactions , this should for sure be looked after in more detail.
3. The average time would for sure be same, varying on your priority in the network, depending on the fee that you see going to spend but the instant payments will always be problematic before they solve their issues.

I don't know much technical details but I do believe the system is secure the way it is .. we don't need to create more changes here.

[DooMAD]

Yes, I've read the Whitepaper. But, I see a few issues with it as a peer to peer payments system that cuts out 3rd parties:

1. If you don't own bitcoin how do you get it without going to a 3rd party financial intermediary? (Yes, I realize that some mined it in the early days and some have even gotten paid in BTC, but that is a pretty small % of the population)

Lots of people sell stuff on social media.  There are probably thousands of buy/sell/swap groups on Facebook alone.  Then you've got ebay and all the apps people can get on their phones.  At the moment, all those people are choosing to sell items in exchange for their national currency.  Instead, they could choose to accept payments in BTC.  Why do people always assume you need to buy BTC with fiat?  Goods and services are equally viable mediums of exchange.

[Theb]

Wouldn't BTC's usefulness as a transactional currency increase if transactions could be confirmed quicker?

In theory you are correct but the truth is the "usefulness" of Bitcoin was never an issue as proven by the Lightning Network and SegWit for scaling. Bitcoin has developed several ways on solving the problems in transaction speeds yet Bitcoin as a currency was never adopted by the masses which I could only think of 2 reasons, the first one is people who have Bitcoin are holding it not as a use for money but as an investment, the second one is businesses aren't really trying to accept Bitcoin as a payment but a lot of them also think Bitcoin as an investment. So really transaction speed was never an issue when it comes to Bitcoin's acceptance as a mode of payment but it's generally how the users of it see Bitcoin as a way to grow their money.

[seoincorporation]

The mining process isn't only to get the mining reward, is important to mention that mining is the only way to avoid the double-spend, and is a indispensable process of blockchain. This means the miners will never stop mining, even if the block reward it's zero they will keep mining to get the transaction fees.

This is how blockchain works, the blocks need to be validated to confirm the transactions. You can't cut off the miners, maybe you can change from PoW to PoS, but that only change the validation process but that validation is always necessary for the current blockchain structure.

[khaled0111]

18.5M bitcoins have been mined already. This is ~90% of the total supply and we need more than 100 years to mine what've been left. So, no, removing the mining reward won't have any noticable effect on the price.
Also, we don't need miners just to secure the network but, and most importantly, we need them to confirm transactions. Without them we can't transfer our coins.

[OgNasty]

Currently, BTC is adding ~328,500 new coins a year and spending tremendous amounts of energy to do so. If you cut new supply, wouldn't the price go up faster? I know that people are going to say that it is the miners who provide security to the network, but why can't the post 2140 plan be implemented sooner (given how quickly bitcoin has been able to grow)?

For most, BTC is not used as an everyday transactional currency and has a low number of TPS (7?) because of the 10 minute block intervals. Wouldn't BTC's usefulness as a transactional currency increase if transactions could be confirmed quicker?

First, you make the assumption that the goal is for the price to rise. It isn’t. The goal is for the network to be secure.

Faster block times would not matter from a security standpoint. What you’re essentially proposing is a block size increase to increase the TPS limit. That was quite a debate around here 5-6 years ago. There is much to be read on the subject.

[ranochigo]

1. If you don't own bitcoin how do you get it without going to a 3rd party financial intermediary? (Yes, I realize that some mined it in the early days and some have even gotten paid in BTC, but that is a pretty small % of the population)

The purpose of Bitcoin is to provide an environment that eliminates any third party interference. It does not mean that you cannot exchange it for another store of value that involves a third party; there is simply no way to stop that.

2. What if you want to make a quick transaction with a peer? Wouldn't shorter block times make it more useful?
3. What if you want to make a small transaction with a peer? Aren't the transaction fees high?

It will. There are however technical concerns and political oppositions within the Bitcoin community. Some altcoins like Ethereum has block intervals that are a couple of seconds. In its current state, it is not always desirable or convenient for day to day transactions. Which is where Lightning network attempts to solve, albeit with limited effects.

You can see the block size debate and take the position for yourself.

As a payment system, I see BTC best suited for larger transactions where anonymity is more important than speed.

I agree.

[roosbit]

I would like to think mining is pretty much at the core of how bitcoin works, when we sending our btc those coins have to be mined and verified to be authentic so if this process of mining is to be stopped, it's as good as hitting the off switch of btc !

Currently, BTC is adding ~328,500 new coins a year

This is not a fixed figure by the way, we have the halving

spending tremendous amounts of energy to do so

One of the qualities of money is scarcity and bitcoin being a form of money has to be difficult to find/mine and this difficulty can be seen by the energy consumption.

If you cut new supply, wouldn't the price go up faster?

Technically it would but miners wouldn't be motivated to run their rigs without the  reward that comes from treasure hunting of new btc coins.

[ModelT]

To clarify, when I said stop mining, I meant stop offering new BTC as a mining reward and only give the nodes/validators transaction fees (which is how I assume it will work after 2140).  Assuming that the system will stay secure as mining rewards are halved every 4 years and eliminated entirely after 2140, why can't the mining rewards be eliminated sooner?

I would like to think mining is pretty much at the core of how bitcoin works, when we sending our btc those coins have to be mined and verified to be authentic so if this process of mining is to be stopped, it's as good as hitting the off switch of btc !

Currently, BTC is adding ~328,500 new coins a year

This is not a fixed figure by the way, we have the halving

spending tremendous amounts of energy to do so

One of the qualities of money is scarcity and bitcoin being a form of money has to be difficult to find/mine and this difficulty can be seen by the energy consumption.

If you cut new supply, wouldn't the price go up faster?

Technically it would but miners wouldn't be motivated to run their rigs without the  reward that comes from treasure hunting of new btc coins.

In terms of scarcity of money, wouldn't BTC be more scarce if no new BTC were being issued? And isn't it the code that determines how much new BTC is issued and not the actual amount of electricity consumed? Back in the early days, hardly any electricity was being used and miners were getting 50 BTC. Now, a ton of electricity is being used and they are getting 6.25, right? (I do get that high price equals more miners, which, per the code, equals harder puzzles to solve). 

Assuming you are correct about miners not running their rigs without new BTC, what will happen to bitcoin after 2140 when there are only transaction fees? It seems to me that some miners will indeed shut their rigs down (or simply not replace them as they stop working). This will result in a downward adjustment to the difficulty and/or an increase in total fees until it reaches some sort of balance where it becomes profitable enough to run a node just on the transaction fees received. BUT, if bitcoin is relying on the amount of electricity used as its primary line of defense from a 51% attack, won't this attack be easier and more profitable to pull off if the number of miners drops and/or the difficulty adjustment goes down leading into and after 2140 assuming that the price goes up from here?