Bitcoin security in the long term

[brainactive]

When Bitcoin gets to a stage where the mined supply is basically 21m (that is, very little remaining btc left to be mined), will Bitcoin still remain a secure network?  

[ranochigo]

Yes. The compensation for the miners comes in the fees within the blocks. I'm assuming that the volume of transactions by then or the derived fee as a result of off-chain transactions would be sufficient to compensate for it.

It is highly unlikely that Bitcoin would insecure by then. The way the block rewards are reduced gradually pads any impact on the miner's income and we're most likely going to see the impact far sooner than the 2140 timeline.

[brainactive]

Yes. The compensation for the miners comes in the fees within the blocks. I'm assuming that the volume of transactions by then or the derived fee as a result of off-chain transactions would be sufficient to compensate for it.

It is highly unlikely that Bitcoin would insecure by then. The way the block rewards are reduced gradually pads any impact on the miner's income and we're most likely going to see the impact far sooner than the 2140 timeline.

Doesn't this argument assume that bitcoin will be a medium of exchange in the future? If bitcoin remains as nothing more than a store of value, the volume of transactions would be substantially reduced, which would lead to low security? And if bitcoin has low security, then it's basically worthless.

So does that mean bitcoin being a widely adopted medium of exchange is a necessary condition for it to survive (that is, it can't simply be a store of value)?

[ranochigo]

Doesn't this argument assume that bitcoin will be a medium of exchange in the future? If bitcoin remains as nothing more than a store of value, the volume of transactions would be substantially reduced, which would lead to low security? And if bitcoin has low security, then it's basically worthless.

So does that mean whether or not bitcoin survives depends on whether or not it becomes a medium of exchange? In other words, bitcoin being a widely adopted medium of exchange is a necessary condition for it to survive.   

Depends. I don't foresee it being much more desirable to attack Bitcoin, even if the hashrate of the network drops significantly. The profits gained from an attack is far lower than the cost and the complexity of its execution and double spent Bitcoins can potentially just be worthless still. If it remains as a store of value but the value is still fairly high, then there isn't any problems.

There are tons of factors to Bitcoin's survival. If the block rewards were to be reduced exponentially right now, it won't survive. There isn't any time for the market and the miners to adapt to the far lower profits. If we were to stretch out the decrease in the block rewards, there is far lesser shock for the miners to bear. Important to note that the fees are starting to form a more significant part of the miner's income. If no one uses Bitcoin, then I wouldn't think that there is a point to keep Bitcoin afloat anyways.

As of now, blocks has consistently been filled, less some blocks in the recent weeks. Thus, it isn't a stretch to assume that if the capacity were to be somehow increased, then the transactions and subsequently the fees would be greater as well.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

When Bitcoin gets to a stage where the mined supply is basically 21m (that is, very little remaining btc left to be mined), will Bitcoin still remain a secure network?  

Depending on the price of Bitcoin in 2140 and how much bitcoin miners will get from transaction fees in one block.

The newest block https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/block/689370 has 0.255 BTC for miners as transaction fee. If Bitcoin has its price at $1 M, that transaction fees will be $255,000.

If in 2140, miners don't get profit with transaction fees from their mining and confirmation, they will shut down their ASICs and the network might be less secured.

[ranochigo]

If in 2140, miners don't get profit with transaction fees from their mining and confirmation, they will shut down their ASICs and the network might be less secured.

Partially true, actually. The decrease in the block rewards are far more impactful at the start, 50 -> 25 -> 12.5 -> 6.25, etc. As we go through more halvings, the transaction fees becomes the major composition of the revenue for the miners. By the 10th halving, the block rewards will dwindle down to 0.1BTC per block. Miners who can't afford to mine will probably exit by then.

The game theory isn't affected. The same logic applies, if the miners or attackers stand to gain more from contributing honestly to the network, then there is no concern.

[brainactive]

Depends. I don't foresee it being much more desirable to attack Bitcoin, even if the hashrate of the network drops significantly. The profits gained from an attack is far lower than the cost and the complexity of its execution and double spent Bitcoins can potentially just be worthless still.

What if the attack is not due to profit motives? For example, Governments perform an orchestrated attack or some mega rich trillionaire is bored and wants bitcoin gone.

[ranochigo]

What if the attack is not due to profit motives? For example, Governments perform an orchestrated attack or some mega rich trillionaire is bored and wants bitcoin gone.

First of all, let's acknowledge that ASICs gets continually eliminated by the competition naturally as the rewards decreases. The network doesn't suddenly gets substantially insecure after the various halvings.

If the cost of executing such an attack gets low enough, that will probably mean Bitcoin isn't doing so well. Attacking it is pretty meaningless, we'll just fork it into another algorithm and the attackers don't earn anything and life goes on. ASICs are highly specialized and aren't that easy to manufacture and get your hands on. Both the electrical constraints, space constraints, hardware constraints will almost definitely persist in the future. These are legitimate hindrance to a successful attack. Purchasing so much ASICs and expending resources just to attack something that is half dead (if the network gets less secure) isn't very smart.

Try scaling the current stater of Bitcoin to any possible attacks, including the resources required, difficulty of obtaining them and the opportunity costs incurred by a state sponsored adversary or a very rich person. You can also scale it down to estimate what happens if a certain percentage of the miners gets eliminated.

[amishmanish]

Depends. I don't foresee it being much more desirable to attack Bitcoin, even if the hashrate of the network drops significantly. The profits gained from an attack is far lower than the cost and the complexity of its execution and double spent Bitcoins can potentially just be worthless still.

What if the attack is not due to profit motives? For example, Governments perform an orchestrated attack or some mega rich trillionaire is bored and wants bitcoin gone.

It ultimately depends on what you mean by "Bitcoin gone". If you are new and have only known bitcoin to be one of these 8 thousand others claiming to solve the blockchain trilemma, you'd be forgiven to think that bitcoin is just the most expensive coin. For someone with this motivation, a trillionaire (are there any), or a Government can surely reduce the fiat value of bitcoin and for them, bitcoin will be gone.

For those of us who love it for the sake of the network, the community, the legacy, the development and sheer audacity of its pseudonymous founder who embed a message for the world's most powerful lobby of people in its genesis blocks; for those of us, the network will never be gone, Bitcoin will never be gone.

This is what started it all. Just one lone cypherpunk convinced by the code of another one, "Running Bitcoin". This just goes to show that Bitcoin can never be gone till there are even two people who agree that it ought to run. And there are millions of us today. This is something you can never replicate with all the corporation/ foundation coins and their figureheads bamboozling newbies with jargon.

[Dhoe]

bitcoin in the long term may be able to reach a fantastic price, but future security issues are still a question mark, because we don't know what the future will look like, because now mining has begun to be stopped in several countries, bitcoin will definitely decrease, while those holding bitcoin will increase, So what's the best solution going forward?

[cotton ball]

before we jump into any field of work, it is definitely security that we prioritize most, if security is maintained we can be more free to work, as well as bitcoin, which we all know there must be pros and cons, some say bitcoin is not safe, bitcoin can destroy our wealth one day, but there are also those who have succeeded in bitcoin, future security issues I think, the same as now, we must be careful and don't be careless, we must know first before we move on..

[ropyu1978]

china continues to ban bitcoin mining, donald trump hates bitcoin, the tesla company no longer accepts payments in bitcoin, maybe this will be a question mark about bitcoin security going forward, we can't deny that many predict the price of bitcoin in the future will continue to rise, will continue to soar, so how do we secure our bitcoins in the future, is it possible that security in the future will still be the same as now???

[Welsh]

Doesn't this argument assume that bitcoin will be a medium of exchange in the future? If bitcoin remains as nothing more than a store of value, the volume of transactions would be substantially reduced, which would lead to low security? And if bitcoin has low security, then it's basically worthless.

So does that mean bitcoin being a widely adopted medium of exchange is a necessary condition for it to survive (that is, it can't simply be a store of value)?

You are correct theoretically. Bitcoin does become more insecure with less people using it. However, it doesn't mean its insecure. It just means its a little less vulnerable to attacks. However, Bitcoin was vulnerable to attacks during its growth, and before it hit the mainstream news. So, if anything you would probably expect Bitcoin to be attacked during that time. However, nothing substantial ever occurred.

Bitcoin doesn't have low security, and even if Bitcoin is mainly used for a store of value, there will still be a requirement for miners, nodes, and all that good stuff. I would argue that Bitcoin is much safer than any bank that you trust to hold your fiat currency. Banks are vulnerable to physical attacks, going bankrupt, while Bitcoin will remain fairly secure as long as people are using it.

As mentioned, one of the things making Bitcoin secure is the cost, and the damage you could do if you were to attack Bitcoin. There's only a few attack vectors which are practical, and even then it would have to be done by some of the richest people in the world, and the pay off even if they were to launch the attack isn't going to outweigh the investment required to attack Bitcoin in the first place. So, there is no incentive.

[Fundamentals Of]

I think so. In fact, I even think that by that time, the network is already a lot more secure than it is right now. Around the year 2140, when all the Bitcoin has been mined, Bitcoin is already the global currency. There would be more nodes spread across the world. There would be more miners which are also spread all over the world. That means the network is already very robust. It would take an unbelievably huge amount of money in order to cause the dreaded 51% attack on the network. Miners are still sufficiently rewarded though because the fees by that time would be more than enough because of the widespread use and high price.

[kryptqnick]

I think the network will be able to operate successfully, and regarding the medium of exchange vs the store of value topic, I believe that it'll more likely be the store of value because transaction fees will be huge for day-to-day operations. But as more and more people learn and get interested in BTC, the demand is likely to rise, and given how mining won't be an option anymore, the price will keep going up.
A huge risk to Bitcoin security is quantum computing technology, and if there's a breakthrough by the middle of the next century, it would made Bitcoin obsolete.

[cr1776]

china continues to ban bitcoin mining, donald trump hates bitcoin, the tesla company no longer accepts payments in bitcoin, maybe this will be a question mark about bitcoin security going forward, we can't deny that many predict the price of bitcoin in the future will continue to rise, will continue to soar, so how do we secure our bitcoins in the future, is it possible that security in the future will still be the same as now???

What does Donald Trump have to do with this? 

Socialists, fascists and authoritarians in general don't like bitcoin since it interferes with their control over everyone else, so the current administration won't be friendlier to bitcoin over the long term.

[ziennakarishma21]

In my opinion, if BTC is a place to store assets and can be widely paid, it is important that BTC has high security, and if BTC cannot guarantee a source of money to store, its value is only equal to 0.

[The Cryptovator]

Everyone in the world just needs profits, no one willing to lose ever. So Bitcoin isn't different, those all we are in Bitcoin just wonder to make a profit, to be honest. No one actually bothering Bitcoin technology. So if miners can't make a profit once all Bitcoin mined, then no doubt all miners will leave. Why anyone will spend time and funds on mining if they can't make money. So, yes then there is a possibility Bitcoin blockchain would unsecured. But I don't think really it will happen. We can't imagine what will happen in 2140 even we can't imagine the Bitcoin price. It would possible miners would earn more than now. Depends on the price, but I believe somehow it will be balanced by Transaction fees.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Important subject; I had never thought of this. Watching.

When Bitcoin gets to a stage where the mined supply is basically 21m (that is, very little remaining btc left to be mined), will Bitcoin still remain a secure network?

I guess you mean that miners' incentive will become less and less overtime. Yeah, that might be true. If we assume that it will be globally adopted in the future and that its price will be less fluctuating, then each halving will simply make miners' profit halved, which means less computational power offered into the network and hence, less security.

I'm curious why this thread hasn't been filled with anxious replies and counter-arguments yet.

[AakZaki]

Remaining a secure network even as development continues Bitcoin is capable of something different. We know that Bitcoin uses blockchain technology to record everything. Bitcoin security in the long term does not need to be asked again. Some adoptions made on bitcoin will also support the development of bitcoin for the better.