19M Bitcoins are mined but did you know about the last Bitcoin mined?

[yazher]

Miners don't really care about the scarcity of the supply in the next year to come rather they only concentrated to mine bitcoins these days no matter how much they can get. assuming they are getting some profit from today's mining, this news won't scare them or worry them about the bitcoin unmined supplies because there getting some profit from transactions too which is another source of profit for miners. They already planned their next move and as long as they know they're getting something, we won't see any changes.

[1715144065]

1715144065

[1715144065]

1715144065

[1715144065]

1715144065

[1715144065]

1715144065

[slackovic]

We are entering a very interesting phase of our Bitcoin experiment, where we will soon see if "Miners fees" will be sufficicient for miners to continue mining. We all know that the Lightning Network is way better for people to use, because the fees are much lower and the transactions are much faster.

Now, what will happen if the Lightning Network adoption increase so much, that we hardly get any transactions on-chain? Will the few transactions being done on-chain be enough to reward miners? (We hope that the price will go up, so that the few Satoshi's are worth the hashing power used to get it)  

I was just thinking about the time when all BTC will be mined. I know we all won't live at that time but I'm wondering... If the fees should cover the cost of mining, won't they be too high? I'm not sure how many transactions fit in one block, but if today a block reward (6.25 BTC) is around $270.000 in fiat, won't fees cost too much once all BTC is mined? I mean, that means fees of all transactions in one block should cost around $270.000.

Sorry if what I wrote is bunch of nonsense. I'm just trying to figure it out...

[1miau]

...

...

ETH is better than btc because exchange is handled on ledger via dex

...

Can you please stop shitposting in my topic? 

...
The time would take to mine bitcoin in the 2026-2030 4 year gap is 500,000 BTC. Why? Because every 4 years, Bitcoin mining rewards would be halved. In 2028, there would be another bitcoin mining reward decrease for the 6th time. By 2030, Bitcoin's circulating supply is projected to be 20.5 million bitcoin. Then 2 years later, there would be another mining reward decrease. The year would be 2032. In 2036, my projection of bitcoin's circulating supply would be around 20.75 million bitcoin. That would be at least like 250,000 BTC mined in 4 years.

Exactly, it's like OGNasty said:

I'm reminded of the saying that if you travel halfway to your destination each day, you will never arrive there.  That's sort of how Bitcoin block rewards are issued.  They keep getting cut in half, which makes it sound a little "fantastic" when you look at only the final date. 

I think the idea of travelling is a great way to get an understanding how the halvings works in regards of Block reward issuance. 

I was just thinking about the time when all BTC will be mined. I know we all won't live at that time but I'm wondering... If the fees should cover the cost of mining, won't they be too high? I'm not sure how many transactions fit in one block, but if today a block reward (6.25 BTC) is around $270.000 in fiat, won't fees cost too much once all BTC is mined? I mean, that means fees of all transactions in one block should cost around $270.000.

It's still a long time, even if we would say it could be critical 25 years from now, when Block rewards will start to get very low compared to now. But we had already phases, where fees made up 20-25% of block rewards. Yes, maybe on-chain fees will be a bit higher than today and for very cheap fees, lightning will be used. It's possible.

I expect, it'll be a constant process, where Bitcoin gets more valuable but even on-chain fees won't explode.
Remember SegWit, where Bitcoin's TPS was increased and more TX were fitted into a block without downside. TX costs and network congestion went down because of SegWit.
Maybe we will see some more similar updates to improve Bitcoin and maintain the affordability of on-chain transactions.

[Western_Boris]

I was just thinking about the time when all BTC will be mined. I know we all won't live at that time but I'm wondering... If the fees should cover the cost of mining, won't they be too high?

Too high for buying cup of coffee? Maybe. But you need to think also how worthless everything will be in 2140 in fiat money. 120 years of more endless inflation IF the fiat even survives that long.

But to answer your question: Smaller purchases will be made in Layer 2 tech like Lightning network and those payments will be "saved" in the Layer 1 blockchain only at the end of a day or a week. So it is not a problem.

[Danydee]

Bitcoin is dead

 Yeah, like the other would say: Bitcoin is dead, long live Bitcoin !

 Wow, 19M already !  Do the reward shouldn't be smaller ?  !!!!

[franky1]

It's still a long time, even if we would say it could be critical 25 years from now, when Block rewards will start to get very low compared to now. But we had already phases, where fees made up 20-25% of block rewards. Yes, maybe on-chain fees will be a bit higher than today and for very cheap fees, lightning will be used. It's possible.

I expect, it'll be a constant process, where Bitcoin gets more valuable but even on-chain fees won't explode.
Remember SegWit, where Bitcoin's TPS was increased and more TX were fitted into a block without downside. TX costs and network congestion went down because of SegWit.
Maybe we will see some more similar updates to improve Bitcoin and maintain the affordability of on-chain transactions.

high fee's means people wont want to use bitcoin to even enter LN. they will instead exchange their fiat for a cheaper altcoin like litecoin. and then use that to enter LN to then play with millisats.

same with exiting. those that did lock up btc to enter LN prior. wont wont to exit LN back to BTC. instead they will 'atomic swap' to an altcoin like litecoin and then use litecoin to exchange to fiat.
.. think about that

yep LN is not a bitcoin layer.. LN is a branch/bridge between many coins.. it is its-own network that does things differently than bitcoin.
bitcoin logo is orange(like the fruit) but LN is not the orange zesty skin that only fits around the orange fruit. .. LN is a hybrid tree branch that connects between many fruit. without being the fruit itself.. its a branch, not a layer

bitcoin had to be manipulated to fit LN


if paypal started charging $1-3 for every deposit/withdrawal/payment or charged a monthly membership fee to use paypal+, would you still use paypal. or would you move over to something like venmo..

its the age-old game of the gold system. lock up gold in bank vaults and play with paper money. then not see the benefit of exchange paper money for gold. and instead swap papermoney for nickel and copper coins..

...
segwit increased TPS... WHEN?
moving upto 2017 bitcoin had the capacity of upto 4200 tx, and was in reality moving upto ~2500 average.. then segwit came in. and.............. 5 years later.. hmm.. flatline

see the exponential curve going up to 2017(presegwit). see the peak.. and then .... sideways and downwards


please try not to read into the cultish propaganda narrative of how certain people say LN is "the solution".. its an altnet..
its not a bitcoin solution. its a bitcoin(network/ecosystem) exit.
a solution to using the bitcoin network is not to make people stop using the bitcoin network

 pure and simple. it doesnt even have a blockchain or network wide audit or any of the benefits and security of bitcoin
.. its not bitcoin(network), even its unit of measure(millisats) are not understood by the bitcoin network

 devs pretended to make bitcoin(the actual network) better when all they actually done was stifle bitcoin to try getting people to move over to another network. yep they want bitcoin fee's to be high, yep they want limited transaction capacity on-chain. yep they dont want the 2 billion 'unbanked' population to use bitcoin AT-ALL

 all so they can sell people into the old gold era game of: 'lock up the asset and let people play with unsettled(unconfirmed) value in silly promissory notes(contracts) that wont settle because its too costly to actually settle them.
..think about that
(not with your altnet favouritism hat on, but with a critical thinking of a bitcoiner hat)

[slackovic]

I was just thinking about the time when all BTC will be mined. I know we all won't live at that time but I'm wondering... If the fees should cover the cost of mining, won't they be too high? I'm not sure how many transactions fit in one block, but if today a block reward (6.25 BTC) is around $270.000 in fiat, won't fees cost too much once all BTC is mined? I mean, that means fees of all transactions in one block should cost around $270.000.

It's still a long time, even if we would say it could be critical 25 years from now, when Block rewards will start to get very low compared to now. But we had already phases, where fees made up 20-25% of block rewards. Yes, maybe on-chain fees will be a bit higher than today and for very cheap fees, lightning will be used. It's possible.

I expect, it'll be a constant process, where Bitcoin gets more valuable but even on-chain fees won't explode.
Remember SegWit, where Bitcoin's TPS was increased and more TX were fitted into a block without downside. TX costs and network congestion went down because of SegWit.
Maybe we will see some more similar updates to improve Bitcoin and maintain the affordability of on-chain transactions.

Yeah, I remember how SegWit dropped the transaction prices and I guess something similar will have to be created so that more transactions fits into one block. Then maybe the block reward payed only by a transaction fee will be enough.

I was just thinking about the time when all BTC will be mined. I know we all won't live at that time but I'm wondering... If the fees should cover the cost of mining, won't they be too high?

Too high for buying cup of coffee? Maybe. But you need to think also how worthless everything will be in 2140 in fiat money. 120 years of more endless inflation IF the fiat even survives that long.

But to answer your question: Smaller purchases will be made in Layer 2 tech like Lightning network and those payments will be "saved" in the Layer 1 blockchain only at the end of a day or a week. So it is not a problem.

I didn't think that fiat will be worth anything in 120 years. I just made an example how would that look today in fiat value. But I guess one of the solutions is layer2 for small transactions. I'd write "we will see" but I guess we won't. Maybe our kids will see

[franky1]

Yeah, I remember how SegWit dropped the transaction prices and I guess something similar will have to be created so that more transactions fits into one block. Then maybe the block reward payed only by a transaction fee will be enough.

I didn't think that fiat will be worth anything in 120 years. I just made an example how would that look today in fiat value. But I guess one of the solutions is layer2 for small transactions. I'd write "we will see" but I guess we won't. Maybe our kids will see

1. they didnt drop the fee..
they instead made old transaction formats 4X more expensive. here its in the code. its a 4X increase of legacy
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/consensus/consensus.h#L21
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/623745ca74cf3f54b474dac106f5802b7929503f/src/consensus/validation.h#L143
see it says *4

imagine paypal had a 20cent fee per payment. and promised a 4x fee discount if people use paypal+.. then you find out what they actually done was make regular paypal initially 80cents to say that paypal+ is 4x cheaper (20cents).. and then weeks later they removed the fee formula that made prices 20cents and made it so paypal+ was $1-$3 average. meaning regular paypal(legacy) was $4-$16



also fee's in 2009-17 were sub 1cent-10cents.. fee's are now $1-$3

note the flatline upto 2017.. and then the large ups and downs after segwit

[slackovic]

1. they didnt drop the fee..
they instead made old transaction formats 4X more expensive. here its in the code. its a 4X increase of legacy
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/consensus/consensus.h#L21
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/623745ca74cf3f54b474dac106f5802b7929503f/src/consensus/validation.h#L143
see it says *4

also fee's in 2009-17 were sub 1cent-10cents.. fee's are now $1-$3

note the flatline upto 2017.. and then the large ups and downs after segwit

Hm... Didn't see it like that. But one of the benefits of SegWit was to make it possible to fit more transactions into one block. Shouldn't that cause transaction fees to be lower? Maybe now there's simply more transactions that before and that's the reason for the transaction fee increase you are mentioning.

[Danydee]

Yeah, I remember how SegWit dropped the transaction prices and I guess something similar will have to be created so that more transactions fits into one block. Then maybe the block reward payed only by a transaction fee will be enough.

There is yet the very first solution of increasing the blocks size !  The block size was limited at first time because of technical and networking difficulties (largely surpassed now), and the increasing was always part of the Bitcoin conception. It is what was implemented for Bitcoin-Cash, then majority of miners refused the migration so it is what have land to the fork from which BCH resulted.
 Miners then just won't abandon the income constituted from the tx fees !!

[1miau]

It's still a long time, even if we would say it could be critical 25 years from now, when Block rewards will start to get very low compared to now. But we had already phases, where fees made up 20-25% of block rewards. Yes, maybe on-chain fees will be a bit higher than today and for very cheap fees, lightning will be used. It's possible.

I expect, it'll be a constant process, where Bitcoin gets more valuable but even on-chain fees won't explode.
Remember SegWit, where Bitcoin's TPS was increased and more TX were fitted into a block without downside. TX costs and network congestion went down because of SegWit.
Maybe we will see some more similar updates to improve Bitcoin and maintain the affordability of on-chain transactions.

high fee's means people wont want to use bitcoin to even enter LN. they will instead exchange their fiat for a cheaper altcoin like litecoin. and then use that to enter LN to then play with millisats.
...

While I appreciate your dedicated time to reply here, I need to say that things are a bit more complex than outlined in your post. We just don't know yet how fees will work out and people have already said in the past (around 2017/2018) that Bitcoin will be impossible to use because of high fees.
Well...
What happened?
Nothing like that. Fees are cheaper than ever most of the last 5 years.

segwit increased TPS... WHEN?
moving upto 2017 bitcoin had the capacity of upto 4200 tx, and was in reality moving upto ~2500 average.. then segwit came in. and.............. 5 years later.. hmm.. flatline

The number of transactions that have happened is not a proof that the capacity didn't increase.
In fact, SegWit reduced network congestion and that's also a reason why we still have low fees of 0.10 cent today. There *could* be more transactions while tx fees will remain low due to SegWit / Lightning.

Yeah, I remember how SegWit dropped the transaction prices and I guess something similar will have to be created so that more transactions fits into one block. Then maybe the block reward payed only by a transaction fee will be enough.

I didn't think that fiat will be worth anything in 120 years. I just made an example how would that look today in fiat value. But I guess one of the solutions is layer2 for small transactions. I'd write "we will see" but I guess we won't. Maybe our kids will see

1. they didnt drop the fee..
they instead made old transaction formats 4X more expensive. here its in the code. its a 4X increase of legacy
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/consensus/consensus.h#L21
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/623745ca74cf3f54b474dac106f5802b7929503f/src/consensus/validation.h#L143
see it says *4

imagine paypal had a 20cent fee per payment. and promised a 4x fee discount if people use paypal+.. then you find out what they actually done was make regular paypal initially 80cents to say that paypal+ is 4x cheaper (20cents).. and then weeks later they removed the fee formula that made prices 20cents and made it so paypal+ was $1-$3 average. meaning regular paypal(legacy) was $4-$16

What?  
Legacy transactions didn't become 4x more expensive because SegWit was introduced?
Legacy transactions are just more expensive compared to SegWit transactions because SegWit transactions are cheaper because SegWit transaction have less block weight than legacy transactions.

Spinning this around that legacy transactions are now 4x more expensive does not make any sense...
In general, even legacy Transactions are benefiting from SegWit because it's much more unlikely to have a congested network.

also fee's in 2009-17 were sub 1cent-10cents.. fee's are now $1-$3

You can still get transactions of around 0.10$, I don't see a problem...  
Even by using a legacy address, you can get close to 0.10$ fees...

But one of the benefits of SegWit was to make it possible to fit more transactions into one block. Shouldn't that cause transaction fees to be lower?

Exactly, SegWit reduces network congestion because more tx can be fitted into one block. Less network congestion = periods of high fees are less likely

[franky1]

1. they didnt drop the fee..
they instead made old transaction formats 4X more expensive. here its in the code. its a 4X increase of legacy
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/consensus/consensus.h#L21
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/623745ca74cf3f54b474dac106f5802b7929503f/src/consensus/validation.h#L143
see it says *4

also fee's in 2009-17 were sub 1cent-10cents.. fee's are now $1-$3

note the flatline upto 2017.. and then the large ups and downs after segwit

Hm... Didn't see it like that. But one of the benefits of SegWit was to make it possible to fit more transactions into one block. Shouldn't that cause transaction fees to be lower? Maybe now there's simply more transactions that before and that's the reason for the transaction fee increase you are mentioning.

there are not more transactions though

the promises of the devs adding segwit were false promises trying to get people not to grow bitcoin but to be lulled into activating a new TX feature, which sole purpose was to make locking up transactions possible so people can then be off-ramped to other networks under the new regime of telling people that bittcoin should not be used more often but less often and people should stop using bitcoin and instead shift value over to other networks

While I appreciate your dedicated time to reply here, I need to say that things are a bit more complex than outlined in your post. We just don't know yet how fees will work out and people have already said in the past (around 2017/2018) that Bitcoin will be impossible to use because of high fees.
Well...
What happened?
Nothing like that. Fees are cheaper than ever most of the last 5 years.

segwit increased TPS... WHEN?
moving upto 2017 bitcoin had the capacity of upto 4200 tx, and was in reality moving upto ~2500 average.. then segwit came in. and.............. 5 years later.. hmm.. flatline

The number of transactions that have happened is not a proof that the capacity didn't increase.
In fact, SegWit reduced network congestion and that's also a reason why we still have low fees of 0.10 cent today. There *could* be more transactions while tx fees will remain low due to SegWit / Lightning.

Yeah, I remember how SegWit dropped the transaction prices and I guess something similar will have to be created so that more transactions fits into one block. Then maybe the block reward payed only by a transaction fee will be enough.

I didn't think that fiat will be worth anything in 120 years. I just made an example how would that look today in fiat value. But I guess one of the solutions is layer2 for small transactions. I'd write "we will see" but I guess we won't. Maybe our kids will see

1. they didnt drop the fee..
they instead made old transaction formats 4X more expensive. here its in the code. its a 4X increase of legacy
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/consensus/consensus.h#L21
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/623745ca74cf3f54b474dac106f5802b7929503f/src/consensus/validation.h#L143
see it says *4

imagine paypal had a 20cent fee per payment. and promised a 4x fee discount if people use paypal+.. then you find out what they actually done was make regular paypal initially 80cents to say that paypal+ is 4x cheaper (20cents).. and then weeks later they removed the fee formula that made prices 20cents and made it so paypal+ was $1-$3 average. meaning regular paypal(legacy) was $4-$16

What?  
Legacy transactions didn't become 4x more expensive because SegWit was introduced?
Legacy transactions are just more expensive compared to SegWit transactions because SegWit transactions are cheaper because SegWit transaction have less block weight than legacy transactions.

Spinning this around that legacy transactions are now 4x more expensive does not make any sense...
In general, even legacy Transactions are benefiting from SegWit because it's much more unlikely to have a congested network.

also fee's in 2009-17 were sub 1cent-10cents.. fee's are now $1-$3

You can still get transactions of around 0.10$, I don't see a problem...  
Even by using a legacy address, you can get close to 0.10$ fees...

But one of the benefits of SegWit was to make it possible to fit more transactions into one block. Shouldn't that cause transaction fees to be lower?

Exactly, SegWit reduces network congestion because more tx can be fitted into one block. Less network congestion = periods of high fees are less likely

THERE ARE NOT MORE TRANSACTIONS.. FEES ARE NOT CHEAPER

please step away from listening to the propaganda idiots that fame up segwit and their altnet solutions they want people to move over to. and instead look at the actual numbers of actual charts. actual code

i showed you both the charts of fees and transactions per block.. and both are not what you think.. both actually show that fees are higher and that transactions have stopped growing and stagnated at about ~2,500tx per lock

..
read the code,
~
it does not say that serialised(legacy) / 4= stripped(segwit) fee value
it instead says stripped * 4 = serialised weight(legacy)

please read the code read the charts heck even read the hard data on your bitcoin node independently if you dont trust the charts. it will show you what you need to know.
anyway. read the charts and the code. and stop reading the fangirl twitter propagandists adverts of how they pretend they are doing things..
hard data and code does not lie. but social media of people that want others to off-ramp away freom bitcoin will lie. they want you to hate bitcoin, they want to promote their other networks as solutions to problems.. problems they put in place and pretended are technically impossible to fix. yet are technically possible to fix, just politically prevented from choosing to fix

..
as for you saying you can still get transactions for 10cents.
well yes if you are going to compare the transactions that take 12-24hours to confirm.. but using that .. compare that to the fee of transactions 7 years ago that also took the 12-24 hours to confirm. and you will see that the fee's are still more expensive now

dont play game comparing a 24 hour wait fee(today) with a 10minute wait fee(x years ago)
compare the 10min wait fee of now and in the past...

separately
compare the the 24hour wait fee of now and in the past.

EG
fee for 10min wait is ~$1.50 now, and was $0.15 in 2015
fee for 12hour wait is ~$0.15 now, and was $0.0015 in 2015
..
yep in 2015 people were saying that fees were increasing when 'sub penny' prices started becoming 10cents or more.. these days those say timings are more like $1+