Bitcoin mining is not profitable enough!

[BlackHatCoiner]

Just a quick scenario: average Joe will use off-chain transactions and basically only companies will send on-chain transactions

In order for the average Joe to create off-chain transactions, he has to open two on-chain ones except if he's under the control of another party. But then, isn't the whole system ruined? 

That's my assumption.

I don't say that my scenario is more accurate than yours, as I said, in 100 year a lot can happen. But I would not be worried now about such scenarios.

But, the security will decrease a lot sooner than that. Sure, in 100 years each block will reward 32 sats, but what will happen once Bitcoin reaches $10-100 trillion market cap and suddenly the reward of the network cuts in half? Will the security drop by half or will the market cap double?

It's sort of a dead end.

[NeuroticFish]

In order for the average Joe to create off-chain transactions, he has to open two on-chain ones except if he's under the control of another party. But then, isn't the whole system ruined? 

Unfortunately I do expect that the channels will be opened between custodians. Indeed, not a great future for Bitcoin-as-a-currency, I know that too.

But, the security will decrease a lot sooner than that. Sure, in 100 years each block will reward 32 sats, but what will happen once Bitcoin reaches $10-100 trillion market cap and suddenly the reward of the network cuts in half? Will the security drop by half or will the market cap double?

It's sort of a dead end.

He-heh.. I've been thinking on such scenarios in the past and sooner or later all led to dead-ends or things we just cannot foresee. So I've stopped worrying and making scenarios.

[franky1]

there is no need to drop security.
no need to mess with difficulty
no need to pressure users to pay more per tx.

ASICS do not touch/handle/process/compute transactions.
the amount of transactions per block do not affect asics in anyway
more transactions does not require more asics.. nor less asics.

trying to say the mining cost is impacted by transaction amounts is FALSE

anyone can set up a pool and their desktop computer does the transaction computing..
they can then open their bandwidth to hundreds of thousands of asics to mine a hash for them
thats right asics only mine hashes. not transactions.
a pool manager does not have to run asics to make block templates
an asic does not need to make block templates to compute hashes

transactions and block fee's are not relational. they are just statistical after the fact.
so to all those trying to link a transaction as 'costing' $100 due to the block reward/transaction. you are creating a false narrative, as an after the fact statistic

..
now with that said. there are ways to get pools to continue on the same $$ income or increase their $$ income
without messing with security, difficulty, less hashrate. or other stupid idea's mentioned in this topic

a. bitcoin price doubles
    ai. if users pay half sat, pools get same $ income(users pay same $)
    aii. if users pay same sat, pools get double $ income(but users pay double $)
b. double transactions per block
    bi. if users pay half sat with twice amount of transactions, pools get same $ income(users pay less $)
    bii. if users pay same sat with twice amount of transactions, pools get double sat income(users pay same $)
c. make average transaction size less bloaty/more leaner
    ci. if users pay same sat/byte, with less bytes/tx(more tx per block), pools get same income $, users pay less $

we should not mess with network security. nor mess with reward supply. and also not mess with making bitcoin too expensive for people to transact.

promoting other networks is not the solution. as thats just breaking bitcoin, making bitcoin useless just to make a altnet fashionable.

the real solution is to allow more utility ON bitcoin. so that it dilutes the individual cost. ensuring bitcoin stays popular and desired.

[ranochigo]

This sounds like a good plan except that is it not true that the direction of development now is on layer 2 rather than on chain? I think the size is still a problem so they would like to restrict it on chain like that and keep those 100k transactions all on Lightning.

There is simply no way that transactions are done entirely on lightning or on layer 2. That is unrealistic and makes Bitcoin completely useless and which is why I've criticized repeatedly on the fallacy of having a limited on-chain capacity and banking on off-chain TXes to sustain the TX volume. We absolutely need a capacity increase in the future to even think of mass adoption. Again, 7TPS is ridiculously small and lightning network isn't (and should not) be the solution to the problem.

Again, the problem we're looking at right here is not to ensure that we maintain the same level of security. The whole point of PoW is to make it more expensive to attack the chain than be honest. If there is a substantial security decrease but we're still looking at a huge discrepancy between the profits from an attack vs profits from mining, then there is no problem.

[BlackHatCoiner]

He-heh.. I've been thinking on such scenarios in the past and sooner or later all led to dead-ends or things we just cannot foresee. So I've stopped worrying and making scenarios.

I think you've stopped, because you've realized that reasonably, it won't be secure in the far future; thing that you surely dislike, but you can't think of another possible scenario. Did I find it? Because, so do I.  

b. double transactions per block

With the developing of off-chain solutions such as the lightning network, I don't find this a proper way of maintaining the security. Despite the fact that blocks' size has to touch the limit which will double every four years, there will be more off-chain transactions than the on-chain ones. It's not practical to have a dozens of terabytes weighted blockchain, because then we'll have to face other issues. (decentralization)

[franky1]

b. double transactions per block

With the developing of off-chain solutions such as the lightning network, I don't find this a proper way of maintaining the security. Despite the fact that blocks' size has to touch the limit which will double every four years, there will be more off-chain transactions than the on-chain ones. It's not practical to have a dozens of terabytes weighted blockchain, because then we'll have to face other issues. (decentralization)

by off ramping utility away from bitcoin  is going to break bitcoin
because
1. less people using bitcoin daily = less people monitoring bitcoin(fullnode) daily.
    yep i said it people that only use bitcoin once every few months are not going to run a full node everyday

2. less transactions on bitcoin = more fees per user (repeat point 1) which also means less pool income

3.the way you word it. you want less transactions onchain so that there is no reason to protect the security of bitcoin. your wording it as if you want no one to use bitcoin and then say that bitcoin cant be secured because no one is using it enough to secure it

4. you also word it like scaling up bitcoin requires gigabyte blocks by midnight tonight.

(why oh why are the same altnet adoration brigade still promoting the outdated scripts(facepalm))

sorry but 20 years ago floppy disks were a thing. people were using floppy disks easily and thought that a 1tb hard drive was unimaginable.
yep i had a PC in 1998 that had a max hard drive capacity of 4gb. and a floppy drive for portable storage
now i have a 4 terrabyte hard drive and a 512gb usb stick, and i can now think that 1.44mb floppy is unimaginable to be useful in todays life

thats just a difference of 23 years

it has been 12 years since satoshi implemented the first laws of bitcoin. and even then he was estimating 4200tx a block.. yet in those 12 years we have never even achieved a whole day averaging 4200tx

so stop pandering to the altnet promotion of offramping utility to then have even more excuses not to progress bitcoin. and actually discuss bitcoin progress..(ill repeat. discuss bitcoin progress without advertising altnets like LN)

[ranochigo]

With the developing of off-chain solutions such as the lightning network, I don't find this a proper way of maintaining the security. Despite the fact that blocks' size has to touch the limit which will double every four years, there will be more off-chain transactions than the on-chain ones. It's not practical to have a dozens of terabytes weighted blockchain, because then we'll have to face other issues. (decentralization)

There isn't any problems with a sustainable block size increase. It is ridiculous to be relying solely on off-chain transactions for the average person. Just because off-chain transactions are better for smaller transactions, it doesn't mean that there isn't any need for on-chain transactions. The problem with bigger blocks is almost always over-blown. There is no such thing as decentralization when it has always been far better for an average Bitcoin user to be running an SPV client instead of a full node. Storage size is obviously getting far better, either in terms of storage density or costs so that isn't really the issue here.

Just by assuming a doubling of the TX per block, you're easily looking at 0.5BTC or more at peak periods. Bitcoin isn't even suitable for day-to-day transaction right now, so I fail to see why we can't bank on having more TX per block to solve the problem. Bitcoin's current difficulty and required resources is huge, and it is still increasing. So the security issue is really overblown.

[stompix]

It's not profitable because it's converted to USD.
If you convert it to another currency then you will also look at the economy of the country that owns that currency.

It doesn't matter what currency you use the drop would still be from 102% to 2% be it dollars rupees or pesos.

Now, about the 2%, we're talking about an extreme calm situation, when we mine empty blocks when transactions are the lowest in the last 3 years. If we look at the graph over a longer period you will see that it spiked to over 20%

• 2021-03-09 they are  earning $309,525 per block
  All the above values are with 0 fees per block!
  
  Although the price rise is not guaranteed but there is also no reason for the growth to slow down let alone stop. So historically speaking we have no reason to believe hashrate would drop just because profitability of mining bitcoin would decrease.
  

So to keep that income and the same hashrate assuming the same prices per electricity you will have to pay an average of 400sat/b at current prices, less if bitcoin goes up but the same thing in $ terms.
As for the profitability, we have a clear example, the March 2020 crash that triggered an instant drop in difficulty.

2020-03-26 04:51:46   13,912,524,048,945 - 13.91 T   - 15.95 %

Aso at this point we're not counting energy expenses which are going through the roof in all countries, so I wound't expect the same hashrate at same levels, especially not with the cheap coal energy from China out of the picture.

It's not practical to have a dozens of terabytes weighted blockchain, because then we'll have to face other issues. (decentralization)

Half of the network is probably now secured by $10k a piece machines that would blow the circuits in a lot of houses when plugged in yet we're facing a threat of centralization because of the $200 2tb ssd. Really?

[Welsh]

Mining will always be profitable, even if it's quite low profit margins in your view. Bitcoin mining was implemented this way to distribute the amount of Bitcoin going in to circulation, and therefore the profit margins are determined by the amount of miners there are, or more accurately the amount of hash rate. However, in time the hashrate, and the amount of miners will likely fall, and while it might not be the 2 percent that you're predicting, the profit margins as the amount of miners fall will increase.

Although, I can only see the amount of miners falling as the equipment gets more expensive, which with advancement of technology might actually not be the case. Also, we'll probably see less miners once there are no block rewards, and only transaction fees as an incentive, but that's a long way away.

Just by assuming a doubling of the TX per block, you're easily looking at 0.5BTC or more at peak periods. Bitcoin isn't even suitable for day-to-day transaction right now, so I fail to see why we can't bank on having more TX per block to solve the problem. Bitcoin's current difficulty and required resources is huge, and it is still increasing. So the security issue is really overblown.

I think it's just a matter of time that it's increased. The only reason it hasn't been is because of the resistance met. There's still users here that will argue until they're blue in the face that Bitcoin is suited to day to day transactions though, but they usually don't realise they're resorting to off chain solutions rather than Bitcoin itself.

[ranochigo]

I think it's just a matter of time that it's increased. The only reason it hasn't been is because of the resistance met. There's still users here that will argue until they're blue in the face that Bitcoin is suited to day to day transactions though, but they usually don't realise they're resorting to off chain solutions rather than Bitcoin itself.

It has been increased, Segwit.

You're right. There are many users here that have argued that we don't need a block size increase and that any of that is just pure big-blocker bullshit. Well, some of them are but there is a real need for a capacity increase. I have my doubts that many of the Bitcoiners are willing to even use Bitcoin for their day-to-day payments. In a lot of cases, it would be far better to just use fiat than have to deal with the miscellaneous hidden costs incurred by trying to use Bitcoin.

Does seem like many of the misunderstanding on the topic stems from the poor understanding of what LN is actually intended for.

[glascake]

@NeuroticFish Thats a good point. But what @ranochigo says is much more valid. If the block reward is "only" 6000$ per block, and a 1Million dollar transaction could be forged for 100.000$ worth of mining equiptment and electricity the transaction cannot be trusted. But maybe its a good thing, that in the future big transaction cannot be trusted.

Half of the network is probably now secured by $10k a piece machines that would blow the circuits in a lot of houses when plugged in yet we're facing a threat of centralization because of the $200 2tb ssd. Really?

In my understanding its the mining pools that have the control so there are already 5 Pools that control over 50+% of the hashrate. So it doesnt matter that the pool itself is decentralized.

@franky1 your point "a" makes no sense, but "b" and "c" are valid.

[NeuroticFish]

I think you've stopped, because you've realized that reasonably, it won't be secure in the far future; thing that you surely dislike, but you can't think of another possible scenario. Did I find it? Because, so do I.  

Don't make me get into doubt/scenarios cycle, it's not a nice one  
Actually I've stopped because it was either deadlock, either things I cannot reasonably foresee. It can be bad, it can be fine; we don't know; too many things will evolve hugely in that many years...

@NeuroticFish Thats a good point. But what @ranochigo says is much more valid. If the block reward is "only" 6000$ per block, and a 1Million dollar transaction could be forged for 100.000$ worth of mining equiptment and electricity the transaction cannot be trusted. But maybe its a good thing, that in the future big transaction cannot be trusted.

Beware, you get into deadlock. If such a transaction cannot be trusted, big companies will not do them, don't you think? No.
Some miners will get out of business. Some others will enter. I expect that the ones who made their homework and will have their own power for free will not be few and will keep the network safe. If that won't happen, Bitcoin will be dead; with the amount of money in it, I don't think that the big companies will allow that to happen. (loops inside loops inside... it's not easy...) So maybe big companies (banks too?) may start mining, even if at a loss? Possible that too. Or maybe in 100 years all electricity will be for free.

[Welsh]

It has been increased, Segwit.

You're right. There are many users here that have argued that we don't need a block size increase and that any of that is just pure big-blocker bullshit. Well, some of them are but there is a real need for a capacity increase. I have my doubts that many of the Bitcoiners are willing to even use Bitcoin for their day-to-day payments. In a lot of cases, it would be far better to just use fiat than have to deal with the miscellaneous hidden costs incurred by trying to use Bitcoin.

Does seem like many of the misunderstanding on the topic stems from the poor understanding of what LN is actually intended for.

Yeah, I'm obviously well aware of Segwit, but it'll likely be increased further down the line. I also share that viewpoint. I actually believe that a lot of users here like to give the impression they're Bitcoin elitists and use Bitcoin for daily transactions despite it being inefficient in doing so. I'll be honest too; currently I'm mainly using Bitcoin as a way of storing money that I don't want in a bank, other than that I use fiat for daily transactions, which I would assume the majority of users here do, despite giving the impression otherwise.

In my understanding its the mining pools that have the control so there are already 5 Pools that control over 50+% of the hashrate. So it doesnt matter that the pool itself is decentralized.

It's still decentralised due to the fact that there's multiple pools with significant share in hash rate. Okay, it's probably not perfect that there's large shares coming from one pool, but it would only ever be a massive problem if they had over 51%, and retained that. Even if they did manage to do that, users would likely combat it by moving to other pools. Bitcoin might not be perfectly decentralised as in you'll always probably have monopolies or at least companies/organisations which control a large portion of the network, but it is a vast improvement over fiat.

[stompix]

In my understanding its the mining pools that have the control so there are already 5 Pools that control over 50+% of the hashrate. So it doesnt matter that the pool itself is decentralized.

Mining pools are gathering places for the miners, just a few pools have their own hashrate and it's not a case of them owning nowhere near 50%. The danger would be companies that are building their own huge farms and ordering thousands and thousands of miners, there are 3 companies that have over one hundred thousand of s19pro on order and they all do with investors' money, a thing the little guy has no chance of mimicking.

The bright side in this is that those companies have zero intention of harming bitcoin, once you invest millions in these you're not going to kill your golden goose over nothing.

So maybe big companies (banks too?) may start mining, even if at a loss? Possible that too. Or maybe in 100 years all electricity will be for free.

Hihi, we will rely on large companies mining at a loss but God helps us if the blockchain will be more than the average Joe's HDD capacity as we will need people to pay 10$ a day to host a copy on VPS.
I would have preferred the things to go the way futurebit envisions but seems like the 400 million users blogs claim we have are not that keep on helping decentralization, and we could do it with only 5% of that number.

Yeah, I'm obviously well aware of Segwit, but it'll likely be increased further down the line. I also share that viewpoint. I actually believe that a lot of users here like to give the impression they're Bitcoin elitists and use Bitcoin for daily transactions despite it being inefficient in doing so. I'll be honest too; currently I'm mainly using Bitcoin as a way of storing money that I don't want in a bank, other than that I use fiat for daily transactions, which I would assume the majority of users here do, despite giving the impression otherwise.

Honesty time:
- 1 purchase with bitcoin last month (moving coins, mixing them excluded)
- 5 purchases with a crypto card so we can count this as fiat
- 83 entries on my day to day card on the august statement

I doubt that 0.1% of the people claiming to use bitcoin are using it on at least a 1:10 ratio versus traditional payments methods.
And yet I think that there is no week when I'm not bitching about people not using bitcoin enough....

[BlackHatCoiner]

There isn't any problems with a sustainable block size increase.

But, isn't it a temporary solution? What will happen once that increase isn't enough to cover the same security it did before a certain halving in the future? Unless we double the block size each halving and the miners always fill their blocks with others' transactions we retain the same security given that the price remains the same.

But none of the above will ever happen. There will always be empty or emptier blocks; there'll always be fluctuations in the market value.

Answering both:

There is no such thing as decentralization when it has always been far better for an average Bitcoin user to be running an SPV client instead of a full node.

Half of the network is probably now secured by $10k a piece machines that would blow the circuits in a lot of houses when plugged in yet we're facing a threat of centralization because of the $200 2tb ssd. Really?

Aren't we using a system where each user can verify by their own the validity? Sure, few pools control most of the computational power that is offered to the network, but the average person should always have the right to verify what they're receiving. If you make it too expensive, there's discouragement.

[franky1]

It has been increased, Segwit.

You're right. There are many users here that have argued that we don't need a block size increase and that any of that is just pure big-blocker bullshit.

there has never been any campaign or group defined as "bigblocker", yes there has been social drama promoted by conservatives..
but most people actually want more transactions.. its only those wanting their altnets to be popularised that dont want bitcoin to prosper

the group that defined the term 'big blocker' are the social drama queens that dont want more transactions
these conservative types started the scripts and memes of "gigabytes by midnight" just to deflect away from the actual community desire of more transactions

segwit did not actually offer more transactions..
even satoshi in 2010 mentioned that bitcoin as it was then, able to offer upto 4200 tx per block. but due to transaction bloat(weighted scripts and new tx formats being added) it never achieved that.

if bitcoin stayed as a 1 input 2 output lean payment system. we would have more transaction averages. without any blocksize changes
yet by adopting lengthy script stuff to pander to custodians businesses. its hurt individual users ability to transact by bringing the transaction average to under 3000

this years average transaction size is not ~250bytes.. but instead its about 576bytes. thus halving the transaction potential of satoshis estimates 11 years ago

so while devs have pandered to offer "bigger blocksize". they still have put some cludgy code in to stifle the amount of transaction throughput that new weight allowance can actually utilise.
'bigger blocks, but only to fit the lengthy weight of cludgy scripts.. not for more transaction multiplying'

no one has ever advocated for more blocksize just to fill it with useless data at same transaction count average.. and yet.. thats whats resulted from segwit

the 'upto 4mb weight".. but then cludge to avoid upto 4x transaction count. making segwit NOT a scaling solution..
. also everyone knows the real purpose of segwit is a gateway transaction format compatible for the use of offramping users to other networks.

..
anyway.. another excuse conservatives want to ignore progressing bitcoin. is that some think more transactions will result in more spam of mixers bloating up the blockspace.
yet there is actually a solution.. yep code. thats the great thing about computers. you can make rules

the simple solution is to make it super super expensive for idiots to just spam the network re-spending 1confirm utxos, block after block.
adding a fee formulae thats NOT just foolish capitalism of "freemarket" (which is aimed at causing everyone to pay premiums). but base it on multiplying sat/byte by the lack of confirms

EG set it at 100 confirms.
and so if you have 1 confirm. you pay (1/100) = 100x
and so if you have 50 confirms. you pay (50/100) = 2x
and so if you have 100 confirms. you pay (100/100) = 1x

that way if your trying to spam a block every block you pay 50x more then someone that makes a tx every 8 hours 20mins. pays 100x more then someone that does a transaction every 16 hours 40mins.

they pretend that making fee rules is impossible.. yet real hard blockchain data shows that a legacy transaction is more expensive than a segwit transaction. thus proving they can make rules to treat certain transactions different than others

there are many ways you can make fee mechanisms to avoid spam, my example is just a small thought on all the possible measures to create a spam prevention fee structure
there are also ways you can make bitcoin more friendly to users to use regularly without the false narrative crap speach of "gigabytes by midnight" /bigblockers. by which more people will use it regularly to then want to invest and protect bitcoin.

..
oh and one last funny part of the conservative game plan.
they cry soo soo much that they dont want bitcoin used for coffee amounts (0.00005000)($2.50)
yet they want to break the most secred law of bitcoin.. the supply amount
they want to produce 1000x more units, purely to make bitcoin more compatible with an altnet because the altnet is broke unless they can break bitcoin to fit.

these altnetters are absolutely lunatics in all their motives to break, stifle and make bitcoin utility drop purely to offramp people onto their network.. and that stuff needs to stop.
bitcoin needs to progress.

anyway..
back to the topic.
if people are concerned about miner income of the transaction fee's.
offramping utility will kill miner income from transaction fee's
less people transacting=less fee's to consume
if they try to make fees more expensive per tx.. even less people will use btc. heck people will stop close sessioning their own altnet tx back to bitcoin and instead swap to altcoins as their altnet exit just to avoid bitcoin fee's. thus popularising altcoins and making bitcoin look like a crap coin no one wants to use

[ranochigo]

But, isn't it a temporary solution? What will happen once that increase isn't enough to cover the same security it did before a certain halving in the future? Unless we double the block size each halving and the miners always fill their blocks with others' transactions we retain the same security given that the price remains the same.

I don't understand. Why is everyone so particular about *maintaining* security? That is not the point of PoW. The point of it is to make it prohibitively expensive for any adversary to launch an attack against Bitcoin. It is NOT an issue until we reach the levels where it becomes critical and profitable for an adversary to attack Bitcoin. We are very far away from that stage.

I think it is both unrealistic and unreasonable to demand the same level of security at all times. The resources needed to attack Bitcoin is astronomical at it's current stage, to the point where it is ridiculous to be attacking Bitcoin, and we still have block rewards. I don't see the need for block size to be increasing because there is nothing to be compensated for. Bitcoin is secure enough at the current stage, and it would suffice to have a linear increase for the near future.

Aren't we using a system where each user can verify by their own the validity? Sure, few pools control most of the computational power that is offered to the network, but the average person should always have the right to verify what they're receiving. If you make it too expensive, there's discouragement.

We are. I don't think the argument here is to make it prohibitively expensive for normal people to run a full node... I think you misunderstood my "sustainable" block size increase?

Let's be a bit more pragmatic. Would users prefer to run full nodes over an SPV node at it's current stage. Full node offers virtually little to no benefits to most and the security/privacy of it is overblown. There is simply no reason for people to still be running a full node, unless they intend to run a full node without any tangible benefits to themselves. At that point, then it probably wouldn't matter to spare a couple bucks more to get a larger storage.

Having lesser people run full nodes isn't a problem. It only becomes a problem if it becomes centralized to the point that it poses a threat to the network. Full nodes are important, I never denied that. A capacity increase doesn't result in the majority of the users that were previously interested in or otherwise able to run a full node to suddenly not be able to do so.

Technological improvement has made manufacturing cheaper, and in a larger storage density. It simply doesn't make sense for us to not be keeping up with it as well. 1MB as a limit was arbitrarily defined, and it stuck for so long before Segwit got activated. Even the SW block sizes are underestimating the true capacity of the network.

[franky1]

I think it is both unrealistic and unreasonable to demand the same level of security at all times. The resources needed to attack Bitcoin is astronomical at it's current stage, to the point where it is ridiculous to be attacking Bitcoin, and we still have block rewards. I don't see the need for block size to be increasing because there is nothing to be compensated for. Bitcoin is secure enough at the current stage, and it would suffice to have a linear increase for the near future.

miners income is more relational to the bitcoin price
if it cost people $2 you mine gold in their backyard they would happily sell it for $6 and 3x their investment. and gold around the world would average $6 on markets
because it costs over $1000 to mine gold they are selling it for $1600+

same with bitcoin. the PRICE is more of a factor than the sat amount they can grab
even as the reward halves or if the fee's halve the miners would just hoard until the PRICE satisfies the cost.

transaction count has absolutely no relationship to security.
a 500byte block. a 5kb block, a 0.5mb block. a 1.5mb block or even a 4mb block. changes nothing for asics.
they just receive a 256bit hash. and thats what they compute.

the desire to increase transaction count is not about security. its about utility.
actually making bitcoin useful

bitcoin in 2014-15 was doing great, thousands of businesses were accepting bitcoin. but now its at a point where hardly any business wants to adopt bitcoin and instead are adopting other altnets

[hatshepsut93]

Bitcoin fees will be high, $10-20 on average with spikes to even higher levels, purely because the block space will always be very limited while the demand will grow. On chain transactions will not be used for small transactions, they will be used for oening LN channels or making large transfers, in both cases paying today's equivalent of $20 can be justified.

[TheGreatPython]

The current block reward is ~300.000USD
Each block contains ~2800 transactions on average.
So far so good. That means that currently each confirmed transaction
is worth over $100. Later when there will be no block
Reward its expected that miners are paid by transaction fee.
But there is no way people are gonna pay 100$ Worth of btc per transaction.

Let’s be realistic and say people will pay 2$ per transaction. This is only 2% of the
reward of the current mining system.

Yes, for now transaction fees are not enough, and moreover I don’t think there is any payment method where you will have to be something more than for a little transactions, unless for huge amount of transaction. For now the way that miners can be making their profit is through the reward they receive from mining and the transactions fees they are getting can be a bonus.

By the time all the bitcoins are mined, which is going to be a very long time, there will be a solution to how miners are going to profit from the market. And by the way, by then there will be lots of transactions on the blockchain, and maybe the mining wouldn’t be as difficult and energy-wasting as it is now.