It's 2140. All the Bitcoin is now mined, only mining transactions make $

[tread93]

Now what?

I think this is good to know. For our heirs. We won't be here. Assuming somehow our coins make it that far into future generations. Man this is some crazy stuff to be thinking of. LOL

Can't wait to see the responses. 

Cheers,

TREAD

[adaseb]

Yes this was the point from the beginning. Miners won’t need the block reward because their revenue will be the transaction fees due to usage by many people around the globe.

In the past there were times when transaction fees were higher than the block reward. With ETH it was more apparent since they always had congestion.

So no block rewards are not a problem as long as people use the network.

[NeuroticFish]

This was asked and answered before and I'm not sure what you expect to see here. We can write any science fiction essay we want and I would be surprised if reality will not beat at least some of them.

I like to think that bitcoin will be used as reserve by central banks, only large transactions will go on-chain and the bulk will happen on alternative channels (LN and similar), also that even states or banks will mine (for a good hash rate and also for including their own transactions into the mined blocks).

[DapanasFruit]

I understand that Bitcoin mining is still considered to be a lucrative enterprise so by the time that there can no more BTC to be mined then remaining miners has to do with transaction fees as their main source of revenue. I am sure there can be other opportunities available to them into the future. This is not something we should be worrying a lot...let those in Bitcoin in the year 2140 get burdened with the issue.

[stompix]

I think this is good to know. For our heirs.

I think the heirs will be laughing their asses out in 2140 looking back at the 101 million topics about the reward and the same answers being posted again and again. I bet their first impression would be:
"These idiots invented Bitcoin"?

TREAD

lol...

[dzungmobile]

Now what?

Now, really?

It is always a big question since 2009 but after many years, two past halvings in 2013 and 2017 as well as some past market cycles, we can see that halvings decrease block rewards for Bitcoin miners but in a correlation of Bitcoin price which increases after each halving.

Yearly candles
If you look at Bitcoin Yearly Lowest (Min) price, you will have a better view.

Bitcoin lost its $30,000 hours ago but its price today is far better than 2020 min price that is $4107.

Yearly low price of bitcoin:

• Data source: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/historical-data/
• Observed period: 29/4/2013 - 06/10/2020.
• min_l: Min of daily low price for each specific year.
• percent_change: % of changes in min_l between 2 consecutive years

• During the period of almost 8 years, the lowest yearly price of BTC has 7 years with increase (positive in percent_change), only has 1 year with a fall (negative in percent_change, at -40.7 % in 2015).
• Min and max percent of increase is 6.3% (2019) and 341.5% (2014).
• Also, see median_l, p25l and p75l (in statistics and in chart) to see the continuous growth (yearly low price) of bitcoin
• Make double check with another dataset from 2010 to 2020 that I made in WO
  

Raw results:

Code:

     +---------------------------------+
     | year     min_l   percent_change |
     |---------------------------------|
  1. | 2013     65.53                . |
  2. | 2014     289.3           341.48 |
  3. | 2015    171.51           -40.72 |
  4. | 2016    354.91           106.93 |
  5. | 2017    755.76           112.94 |
     |---------------------------------|
  6. | 2018    3191.3           322.26 |
  7. | 2019   3391.02             6.26 |
  8. | 2020   4106.98            21.11 |
     +---------------------------------+

[Fivestar4everMVP]

Well, I don't think there is much to about this to discuss, and besides, has anyone mentioned that this topic has been discussed here before? , on several occasions, anyways, when every bitcoins are mined, making money from bitcoin mining will become only based on transactions fees collected from from those using the bitcoin network, at least, mining bitcoin could become easier and will no longer consume electricity as it does now I believe..

And another thing worthy enough to note is that by 2140, most of us are no longer here must have joined our creator, so whatever be the outcome of this development by then will be solely based on decisions made by that generation by then, so personally do not see a need to be discussing this as we can not develop bitcoin alone, the future generations has a part to play in the future of bitcoin, even when all bitcoin have been mined.

[Kakmakr]

This is going to be one of the biggest tests for Bitcoin, but I think it will show it's success or failure ...long before the last coin are mined. We hope that the "Miners fees" will be enough to motivate the miners to continue mining, because the Block reward would have been almost zero, by the time that the last token are mined.

I think the Bitcoin we see now, will be mined in some museum as a show piece and that it will be replaced by something a lot more sophisticated and it will be running on 1000s of Quantum computers all over the world.  

It will also be inter planetary, with tokens for every planet that would be colonized. (MarsCoin / VenusCoin ...etc...)

[franky1]

This was asked and answered before and I'm not sure what you expect to see here. We can write any science fiction essay we want and I would be surprised if reality will not beat at least some of them.

I like to think that bitcoin will be used as reserve by central banks, only large transactions will go on-chain and the bulk will happen on alternative channels (LN and similar), also that even states or banks will mine (for a good hash rate and also for including their own transactions into the mined blocks).

so.. you want bitcoin to become a government network.. and users thrown over to silly subnetworks that have flaws and no security.. um no.. but ill just say: goodbye, so long and thanks for the fish.. if thats your guide to the crypto galaxy

id rather us normal folk get to use the secure bitcoin network and its the banks that do stupid stuff charging people middle men fees on their silly corporate designed subnetworks that require middle-men to route payments.

..
for anyone that thinks that bitcoin should be limited to say 6000tx a block with a $30 fee per tx to give pools $180k. a block are thinking rather narrow mindedly.. but in a narrowminded mindset of what benefits central banks/corporate banks.. not users/customers.
so lets use FIAT wire and a corporate payment system as an example..
if it costs users $30 to make a wire transfer no one will want to use it. even if its just to lock-in to another subnetwork. people wont even want to pay $60 a month to unlock-relock value into different payment system offering cheap fees once locked in..

imagine it like paypal saying they operate faster than bank wire transfer and only charge 1cent. but there is a $60 monthly fee to get in-out of paypal to audit/settle account. people would avoid paypal and bank wire transfers and find a different currency altogether

the solution is not to make wire transfers expensive and hope paypal win customers whilst keeping people semi linked to 'dollar'. becasue people would end up just avoiding the dollar and instead convert to pound or lira.. the solution is to make dollar wire transfers better. and then have the silly niche sub services for thinks like starbucks loyalty cards and apple giftcards for payments within them systems

...

by having more transactions per block means each user pays less
EG the (if lean) possibility of 4200tx a block in 2014-2016(1mb allotment)... means (if lean) we could have had 16800 tx in 2017-2023 without breaking the 4mb accepted allotment.. and by 2140 knowing storage space for terrabytes would be like 1mb floppy disk prices of 1999.. we could have more then 16k tx per block. meaning users pay pennies not dozens of dollars

we are no longer in the pre-millenium era where 1mb cost $1
and in 2140 gigabytes wont be more then pennies

[NeuroticFish]

so.. you want bitcoin to become a government network.. and users thrown over to silly subnetworks that have flaws and no security.. um no.. but ill just say: goodbye, so long and thanks for the fish.. if thats your guide to the crypto galaxy

id rather us normal folk get to use the secure bitcoin network and its the banks that do stupid stuff charging people middle men fees on their silly corporate designed subnetworks that require middle-men to route payments.

I don't realistically expect people pay the equivalent of 100s of $ for sending "small" amounts on chain.
And for the fees to drop to bearable amounts... something big (and possibly bad) would have to happen (to get miners think it over)

Maybe something better and safer than LN will get invented...



Sadly some of the infinite supply altcoins may be the only ones that could be used in the way you say... if they survive until 2140...

[NotATether]

This is going to be one of the biggest tests for Bitcoin, but I think it will show it's success or failure ...long before the last coin are mined. We hope that the "Miners fees" will be enough to motivate the miners to continue mining, because the Block reward would have been almost zero, by the time that the last token are mined.

No, contingencies for this should be in place long before this happens. As in, having a constant stream of transactions with a steady fee. Ordinals and BRC20 were that a few months ago, but now nobody even talks about them (for good reason though).

It might annoy the users of Layer 1, but increased transaction fees, up to a point, will be how the miners survive without the block subsidy.

[franky1]

so.. you want bitcoin to become a government network.. and users thrown over to silly subnetworks that have flaws and no security.. um no.. but ill just say: goodbye, so long and thanks for the fish.. if thats your guide to the crypto galaxy

id rather us normal folk get to use the secure bitcoin network and its the banks that do stupid stuff charging people middle men fees on their silly corporate designed subnetworks that require middle-men to route payments.

I don't realistically expect people pay the equivalent of 100s of $ for sending "small" amounts on chain.
And for the fees to drop to bearable amounts... something big (and possibly bad) would have to happen (to get miners think it over)

Maybe something better and safer than LN will get invented...

Sadly some of the infinite supply altcoins may be the only ones that could be used in the way you say... if they survive until 2140...

its not about infinite supply altcoins either.. its simply about more transactions per block=less cost per transaction.. whilst the combined total fees of all transactions per block pay the pools.

the silly narrowminded idea of incentivizing miners by charging everyone more. makes people transact less..
the real solution is to make it cheap to transact and allow more transactions to fill the total fee per block.. via lots of little fees

but i do laugh that your latest idea is to avoid the flawed subnetwork and instead throw users to crapcoins.... seems you really do not want/like users wanting to just stay using the bitcoin network. all your options is to push users to other networks.. hmm strange

[franky1]

This is going to be one of the biggest tests for Bitcoin, but I think it will show it's success or failure ...long before the last coin are mined. We hope that the "Miners fees" will be enough to motivate the miners to continue mining, because the Block reward would have been almost zero, by the time that the last token are mined.

No, contingencies for this should be in place long before this happens. As in, having a constant stream of transactions with a steady fee. Ordinals and BRC20 were that a few months ago, but now nobody even talks about them (for good reason though).

It might annoy the users of Layer 1, but increased transaction fees, up to a point, will be how the miners survive without the block subsidy.

ordinals bloated up the blockspace but paid less than the average fee per byte.. so not a test of the future expectation.. its actually the opposite..

increasing fees per user is not the solution either. the real solution is actually increasing the users. to give a better total block fee.. that the difference

[sesterceshop]

As the focus shifts from solving puzzles to transaction validation, more efficient and specialized equipment might be developed to optimize transaction processing and energy consumption.

It could also lead to increased decentralization since the motivation will be transaction fees rather than the creation of new coins. It could enhance the overall security of the network even more, as miners continue to compete to validate transactions honestly.

Overall, the future is exciting, and I think the shift will still be a positive development for Bitcoin.

[Die_empty]

And another thing worthy enough to note is that by 2140, most of us are no longer here must have joined our creator, so whatever be the outcome of this development by then will be solely based on decisions made by that generation by then, so personally do not see a need to be discussing this as we can not develop bitcoin alone, the future generations has a part to play in the future of bitcoin, even when all bitcoin have been mined.

Sometimes we want to shape the future by our actions today. But the future is unpredictable because it comes with new threats and opportunities. Technological the future generation will be better, I am sure they can handle bitcoin.

It might annoy the users of Layer 1, but increased transaction fees, up to a point, will be how the miners survive without the block subsidy.

High transaction fees will discourage people from using bitcoin. It will end up becoming a currency for only people that can afford the transaction fees. I was thinking that cheap transaction fees will increase adoption and when many people use the network miners will make more money from the transaction fees.

[Zaguru12]

It is always a big question since 2009 but after many years, two past halvings in 2013 and 2017 as well as some past market cycles, we can see that halvings decrease block rewards for Bitcoin miners but in a correlation of Bitcoin price which increases after each halving.

Firstly you might have missed up some dates, I think you started counting bitcoin halving from 2009 with every four years interval which gave you the 2013, but the first bitcoin halving actually occurred In November 2012, where the block rewards was reduced 50btc per block to 25btc. Then the subsequent block reward halving occurred in 2016, and 2020 been the last time it occurred. The 2013 and 2017 year would have actually be the years that bull run occurred base on past trends that bull run happens a year after the halving period

High transaction fees will discourage people from using bitcoin. It will end up becoming a currency for only people that can afford the transaction fees. I was thinking that cheap transaction fees will increase adoption and when many people use the network miners will make more money from the transaction fees.

Exactly should the transaction fee become high many people will be discourage to use the network for daily payments which is the sole purpose of bitcoin in the first place. But if read through you will know where NotATether is driving at. The miners spends lots in buying the mining equipment and maintaining it should the reward for block mining stops they would certainly be after just the transaction fee which will definitely not be enough. Except if there is another innovation integrated before then but I fear many of these miners will leave mining and that brings me to the worry that; should there be few miners, wouldn’t that cause centralization by these few?

[Husires]

If the youngest person here is 10 years old, in the year 2140 he will not be able to comprehend what he is saying, and therefore we all do not care what happens because we will not be present.
Science is developing rapidly, and it has become impossible to predict 20 years ahead. more than 100 years is an open possibility for science fiction and thrillers, not for facts and logic. Look how our lives have changed since the year 2000, and how it could be after 100 years.

[Sim_card]

Same old questions, same old answers. As we can see bitcoin can't survive without the upcoming generations. Nobody can predict what will be the fate of bitcoin by 2140 because everyone will be dead by then,when the last bitcoin would be mined. As long as the network is still on,miners will make profit from transaction fee and who knows how much will be the transaction fee by then,I believe it will be an encouraging amount. Worthless about 2140 and let nature to take its place.

[ranochigo]

It is always a big question since 2009 but after many years, two past halvings in 2013 and 2017 as well as some past market cycles, we can see that halvings decrease block rewards for Bitcoin miners but in a correlation of Bitcoin price which increases after each halving.

Unfortunately not a causation. The increase always coincides with a rise in the popularity of Bitcoin and the effects of the halving are often either negligible or difficult to measure. I have my doubts that the halving would actually cause a significant rise in the value of Bitcoin, if any.

As the focus shifts from solving puzzles to transaction validation, more efficient and specialized equipment might be developed to optimize transaction processing and energy consumption.

It could also lead to increased decentralization since the motivation will be transaction fees rather than the creation of new coins. It could enhance the overall security of the network even more, as miners continue to compete to validate transactions honestly.

Overall, the future is exciting, and I think the shift will still be a positive development for Bitcoin.

Everyone validates transaction, and there is no actual puzzles being solved. The issue is when the cost for an adversary to execute an attack becomes too low.

[Latviand]

I like to think that bitcoin will be used as reserve by central banks, only large transactions will go on-chain and the bulk will happen on alternative channels (LN and similar), also that even states or banks will mine (for a good hash rate and also for including their own transactions into the mined blocks).

1 century is a pretty long time, and I'd like to believe the same thing as you do but the external factors that might affect that future is pretty scary to just ignore. If we don't nuke ourselves towards a slow death nuclear winter with the current war with Ukraine and Russia threatening going nuclear, the dread of even just thinking that is scary enough to not care what happens when all bitcoins are finally mined.