Ordinals and other non-monetary "use cases" as miner reward on 2140+

[MeGold666]

As for the fees, they are 4% of the reward, if you expect people to pay 30 million for 400k tx day, well, how can I say it... don't!  

Let's not forget that higher fees (in BTC terms) are a result of higher transaction count, if Bitcoin will be used only for big transactions as some say then of course transaction count will be smaller than what we have today and thus the fees will be smaller.

You can't expect to have more big transactions than small transactions we have today.

How do you expect Bitcoin miners to survive on fees and too small block reward then ? the only way for this to work is the FIAT evaluation doubling after each halving.
That's a big gamble on the network security.

This mining companies are already switching to training AI models as there is more cash to earn, they will not bet hundreds millions of dollars on future Bitcoin growth when they can earn it today from different investments.

Bitcoin mining is quickly becoming thing of the past, current landscape is AI.

Does anyone really believe Bitcoin will be alive 10 years from now if nothing changes in the protocol ?

[Synchronice]

There is also an additional point. Bitcoin mining companies are basically server farms. In periods of low profitability, they can diversify their income sources offering servers for other cloud services. This is already been done by most big mining companies, and it is also one of my reasons why I think that if profitability drops there will not be a "big hashrate crunch", but a very gradual process, because bigger miners will slowly dedicate more percentage of their farms to other cloud services once their hardware becomes unprofitable, instead of going offline completely. And that will re-balance with difficulty growth again and again.

Bitcoin mining companies have farms of ASIC miners which are designed to only do one job, to mine Bitcoin. How can they offer other cloud services? If they had GPU mining farms (which isn't profitable and as far as I know, everyone is on ASICs), then they would be able to rent their GPUs to AI labs and anyone who wants to use it for AI.

IIRC, what you're suggesting is already a reality in Texas. Miners there don't work 24/7/365, but only when the state has a surplus of energy.

Yes, it's beginning, but I think it's still a 95-99%-on model. AFAIK those miners only turn off the gears in periods of extreme demand surplus, when they're "ordered" to turn off operations by the electricity distributor, as a condition to benefit from energy credits (Riot case).

It's basically a fight. The one who surrenders the last, keeps playing. It's really very interesting.

But why would anyone who feels threatened by Bitcoin spend twice the wage of the CEO of JP Morgan on killing it....

No one is going to attack Bitcoin. Simply it doesn't worth and is completely meaningless. In fact, it would be one of the dumbest thing that humans could ever possibly do. What if they attack the Bitcoin network? The code is here, there are countless number of altcoins, if Bitcoin falls, another coin rises and I don't believe someone is going to spend billions of dollars every time a coin is created. Also, too many serious companies are involved in adopting and integration of Bitcoin and too much money is put into it, we talk about trillion.

[MeGold666]

Bitcoin mining companies have farms of ASIC miners which are designed to only do one job, to mine Bitcoin. How can they offer other cloud services? If they had GPU mining farms (which isn't profitable and as far as I know, everyone is on ASICs), then they would be able to rent their GPUs to AI labs and anyone who wants to use it for AI.

This mining companies are already switching to AI, it's worth for them to buy new hardware which they would have to buy anyway for Bitcoin as new generations of ASIC come along and kill old generation profit to the ground.

In recent months, major Bitcoin mining companies have started to swap out some of their mining equipment in favor of rigs used to run and train AI systems. These companies believe that AI training could provide a safer and more consistent source of revenue than the volatile crypto industry. And so far, these pivots have been warmly received by investors, leading to the market cap of 14 major bitcoin mining companies jumping in value by 22%, or $4 billion, since the beginning of June, J.P. Morgan reported on June 24.

Source: https://time.com/6993603/ai-bitcoin-mining-artificial-intelligence-energy-use/

No one is going to attack Bitcoin.

If the security (diff) drops significantly, anyone will be able to attack it with a botnet for 0$ cost.

Also, too many serious companies are involved in adopting and integration of Bitcoin and too much money is put into it, we talk about trillion.

The money will dump faster than it pumped and only very rich will be able to escape this Titanic in time due to temporarily extra large fees, small investors will not have enough for fees when this panic starts and will be able to withdraw only after all the big investors money is gone.

Rich people feel safe knowing they will have priority on rescue boats when shit hits the fan, if you have less than $1m in Bitcoin, you're not on the VIP list.
If you have it, you'll be lucky to get 1/10th of it as it will be a fast fall, people in crypto space believe in 10x up but not in 10x down but it can happen and 10x is basically death for Bitcoin.
Some will still hold it at this low levels and get eaten by market manipulators who will pump and dump it, some will hold it regardless and die on this iceberg.



The problems are already arising but people are like frogs in a slowly heated water and they're not realizing it's already boiling...

[stompix]

No one is going to attack Bitcoin. Simply it doesn't worth and is completely meaningless. In fact, it would be one of the dumbest thing that humans could ever possibly do. What if they attack the Bitcoin network? The code is here, there are countless number of altcoins, if Bitcoin falls, another coin rises and I don't believe someone is going to spend billions of dollars every time a coin is created. Also, too many serious companies are involved in adopting and integration of Bitcoin and too much money is put into it, we talk about trillion.

If Bitcoin falls to a 51% attack POW is dead! So in case of a revival, every PoS coin is at an advantage! And we have an incentive for ir already!
Also, I think you've mistaken the code for open-source projects and the ability of sites like torrent websites to come back with investors losing a few hundred billion on it. It's one thing to see an exchange go down it's a different thing to see the entire ecosystem being fucked up!

Second, you can't have a thing worth a trillion, a new revolutionary idea that threatens the world order or any of that thing, and at the same time have no enemies 

I still don't see this as critical for Bitcoin's wellbeing / security, at least not in the short/mid term.

Of course not, but again, I started from the OP first post, and that has 2140 in it so all my arguments are for that!
If we debate 2030 or 2040 , that's a different thing!

You can't expect to have more big transactions than small transactions we have today.
How do you expect Bitcoin miners to survive on fees and too small block reward then ? the only way for this to work is the FIAT evaluation doubling after each halving.

Same way VISA does, not charging 100$ for each of 1000 transactions but charging 1 cent for a billion!
You know what I mean but let's not go deeper cause we're going to end with the same discussion about nodes not affording a 2tb drive.

[MeGold666]

Bitcoin would be so much more if community and developers wouldn't be so stubborn on keeping protocol at certain version.

There would be no need for altcoins to exist, there would be no need for convulsed Lightning Network.
The price would be way over 100k today because it would actually be used instead of horded by people wishing for it to go up by not using it while praying more big investors would pump their bags, praying for more regulations instead of fighting the machine and become money that everyone needs.

Instead we have "Digital Property" with collapsing roof and idiots who cheer when Bitcoin miners who secure this "property" get their profits cut down every few years by 50%.

Imagine having a company and knowing your revenue will go down by 50% every 4 years and that you have to invest a ton of money in new hardware even sooner and the only thing that can keep your company afloat is new investors buying shares of X company* in hope other investors will do the same and they can sell faster than them.

Does it seems reasonable ?

Ridiculous, I can see why this same miners are so happy that something new came for rescue in form of AI.

*Analogy to Bitcoin, if someone didn't understand or will try to fight using words taken out of context.

[BlackHatCoiner]

There would be no need for altcoins to exist

There is a very apparent reason why altcoins exist: We don't need to come into one agreement, if some of us disagree with each other. Remember: coercion holds no sway in this space. I cannot force you follow my proposal for 100 MB block size. I can only implement it, and invite you to join.

Bitcoin is ingenious technology because it gives you the freedom to define it yourself. If you think Bitcoin has failed, it's because you've overlooked at this feature. But, let me ask you this question: What should the Bitcoin developers do, if not keep it "at certain version", as you claim? What should it change, in your opinion, so that it would make it thrive?

[MeGold666]

There would be no need for altcoins to exist

There is a very apparent reason why altcoins exist: We don't need to come into one agreement, if some of us disagree with each other. Remember: coercion holds no sway in this space. I cannot force you follow my proposal for 100 MB block size. I can only implement it, and invite you to join.

Bitcoin is ingenious technology because it gives you the freedom to define it yourself. If you think Bitcoin has failed, it's because you've overlooked at this feature. But, let me ask you this question: What should the Bitcoin developers do, if not keep it "at certain version", as you claim? What should it change, in your opinion, so that it would make it thrive?

First off, the halving should stop and tail-emission added.
This approach would give more assurance for security, why it's in danger with current scheme I have already explained.

Block size should be dynamic and not static so the fees would not skyrocket and block poor people from using or even withdrawing their money.

If this two things were fixed, Bitcoin would make sense as an alternative to fully obfuscated chains.

PS. I know anyone can fork Bitcoin and make changes but starting a new PoW chain with no premine, no dev-tax etc. would be very hard to secure if not impossible today, maybe with merged mining it could survive.

[d5000]

Let's not forget that higher fees (in BTC terms) are a result of higher transaction count, if Bitcoin will be used only for big transactions as some say then of course transaction count will be smaller than what we have today and thus the fees will be smaller.

No! This logic is flawed.

To get to the point that people "only use Bitcoin for big transactions", fees must be much higher than now.
On-chain transactions are always the safest form of a Bitcoin transaction, compared to Lightning, sidechains and L2s. So people will always prefer on-chain when they can afford it.
In the (unlikely) case that really sidechains and LN become so popular that the blocks become emptier as a consequence, there's still the option to decrease the mainchain blocksize to boost the fee market, like Luke-jr and Paul Sztorc have proposed. (I personally think this is insane from today's point of view, but it may be an emergency strategy if things really go terribly wrong).

This mining companies are already switching to training AI models as there is more cash to earn, they will not bet hundreds millions of dollars on future Bitcoin growth when they can earn it today from different investments.

Yes, but it's a diversification strategy in times where the mining market is saturated and margins are thin, see also my last answer to stompix. Once difficulty falls enough mining becomes profitable again. And I'm sure that will not mean a 50%+ hashrate/attack cost drop. Let's talk about that again in a year.

By the way what you are aiming for (non-premined, tail emission and bigger blocks) already exists. This list probably contains some options. From the larger ones, Dogecoin has tail emission (and community seems to be open for big block ideas), XMR too, and there are a whole armada of non-premined coins where some should have also a big blocker ethos. I think you should simply support Doge and XMR thus instead of being angry about Bitcoin not following your enlightened ideas

Of course not, but again, I started from the OP first post, and that has 2140 in it so all my arguments are for that!

Ok, that's so far away that a lot of variables will be in play and we do not even know if Bitcoin will still be needed in 2140

Bitcoin mining companies have farms of ASIC miners which are designed to only do one job, to mine Bitcoin. How can they offer other cloud services

I already wrote that elsewhere: they simply change the hardware. That's no big deal. For example, if a generation of ASICs is phased out because it's no longer profitable, in the sections of their farms they had these old miners running, they simply install "commodity" servers with strong GPUs.

[MeGold666]

Let's not forget that higher fees (in BTC terms) are a result of higher transaction count, if Bitcoin will be used only for big transactions as some say then of course transaction count will be smaller than what we have today and thus the fees will be smaller.

No! This logic is flawed.

To get to the point that people "only use Bitcoin for big transactions", fees must be much higher than now.
On-chain transactions are always the safest form of a Bitcoin transaction, compared to Lightning, sidechains and L2s. So people will always prefer on-chain when they can afford it.
In the (unlikely) case that really sidechains and LN become so popular that the blocks become emptier as a consequence, there's still the option to decrease the mainchain blocksize to boost the fee market, like Luke-jr and Paul Sztorc have proposed. (I personally think this is insane from today's point of view, but it may be an emergency strategy if things really go terribly wrong).

Yeah let's decrease the block size so it can only fit 1 transaction and make block times longer from 10 min to 1 week...

Instead of scaling up, their "plan" is to scale down  

My logic is not flawed, your logic involves a lot of praying and I rather have a scalable chain than chain that lives on prayers.

On-chain transactions are always the safest form of a Bitcoin transaction, compared to Lightning, sidechains and L2s. So people will always prefer on-chain when they can afford it.

People always prefer the cheaper option.
No one except purists (minority) care what it does in the background.

[BlackHatCoiner]

PS. I know anyone can fork Bitcoin and make changes but starting a new PoW chain with no premine, no dev-tax etc. would be very hard to secure if not impossible today, maybe with merged mining it could survive.

You don't need to start a brand new chain. Hardforking implies that you'll have the exact same chain, until date X, when your rules will start being enforced. Bitcoin Cash is an example.

My logic is not flawed, your logic involves a lot of praying and I rather have a scalable chain than chain that lives on prayers.

A scalable blockchain is one where payments occur in second layers, not in the main layer. If you think that by simply rising the block size, you can solve the scalability problem, then you'll have to explain to me why Bitcoin Cash and numerous of other altcoins were such terrible failures.

[MeGold666]

You don't need to start a brand new chain. Hardforking implies that you'll have the exact same chain, until date X, when your rules will start being enforced. Bitcoin Cash is an example.

I know you can do that but the problem of low hashrate and possible 51% attack still remains in this scenario.

A scalable blockchain is one where payments occur in second layers, not in the main layer. If you think that by simply rising the block size, you can solve the scalability problem, then you'll have to explain to me why Bitcoin Cash and numerous of other altcoins were such terrible failures.

It's about removing bottlenecks from the protocol and pushing scalability problem to the hardware layer.
When Bitcoin network was recently spammed even LN had trouble to work properly.

Bitcoin shouldn't be slow because code says so, it should be as fast as hardware and network infrastructure allows.
Bitcoin is outdated today and you want it to flourish 100 years into the future