Can Bitcoin survive on fees alone after block subsidy dies?

[suzanne5223]

Personally I think a better phrase would be that the network always has an incentive to keep miners around.

That makes a lot of sense, since the profitability of a business is one of the main reasons why many investors and entrepreneurs participate in it.

Pending till when we get to mine the total supply, I think there might be a drop in miners though.

Yes, there will likely be a huge drop in BTC miners after the block subsidy phase is over. However, BTC was designed to thrive and secure through transaction fees because there will still be the availability of incentives through transaction fees.

[odolvlobo]

Pending till when we get to mine the total supply, I think there might be a drop in miners though.

Yes, there will likely be a huge drop in BTC miners after the block subsidy phase is over. However, BTC was designed to thrive and secure through transaction fees because there will still be the availability of incentives through transaction fees.

There won't be a "huge" drop because the change is gradual.

Also, consider that the block subsidy has already dropped 94% since the start, and yet mining has increased tremendously.

[suzanne5223]

Yes, there will likely be a huge drop in BTC miners after the block subsidy phase is over. However, BTC was designed to thrive and secure through transaction fees because there will still be the availability of incentives through transaction fees.

There won't be a huge drop because the change is gradual.

Also, consider that the block subsidy has already dropped 94% since the start, and yet mining has increased tremendously.

Yes, the gradual can influence the level of the drop, and from my perspective, i believe the reason why there's an increase in the mining is that everyone wants to get their portion of BTC before the 21 million coins are mined.
Having said that, it is hard to predict the future, but we can both agree that there's going to be a drop in the number of miners after the block subsidy phase is out.

[Zaguru12]

Yes, the gradual can influence the level of the drop, and from my perspective, i believe the reason why there's an increase in the mining is that everyone wants to get their portion of BTC before the 21 million coins are mined.
Having said that, it is hard to predict the future, but we can both agree that there's going to be a drop in the number of miners after the block subsidy phase is out.

I would agree with you only based on the fact that the incentives gotten from the transaction fees alone which will be the only primary source of incentive is very low then there will be huge drop of the miners because they mining in this case wouldn’t be profitable that much again. But we cannot say this what will happen without actually ascertaining that the fees wouldn’t be enough.

Just look at the current block reward now it’s just 3.125 bitcoin per block compare to 50, 25bitcoin in the past. If you ask anyone last 10 year maybe 3.125bitcoin per block reward will still drive in this current numbers of miners they will say no that the number of miners will reduce by then. But because of the increasing number of transactions and also primary the increasing price of bitcoin has able to be help keep the reward looking profit, so probably we don’t know how high the transactions will be coming after block reward has ended and how high the price of bitcoin will be then as this eil be what will determine whether there will be drop in the number of miners

[Mia Chloe]

There won't be a "huge" drop because the change is gradual.
Also, consider that the block subsidy has already dropped 94% since the start, and yet mining has increased tremendously.

Yeah I agree it will drop but not exponentially. To an extent of there's some sort of sudden drop then there's a high chance that adoption is also declining fast too and it's obviously because mining itself is a major aspect of adoption. As for the increment I'll say it's relatively because of you compare to a couple years back it's actually lower.

~snip

Well that could be part of it however even if the prices of hard ware is increasing I think the focus now is more on accumulation especially since we are at a very low price point now.

[odolvlobo]

The amount of mining is directly related to the value of the block reward (subsidy + fees) (plus out-of-band payments, such as transaction prioritization).

If you are predicting a drop in mining, you must be basing that on a drop in the value of the block reward over the next 100 years.  Tell me how you can be confident of your 100 year prediction.

[Wind_FURY]

Is the community starting to open up to the debate that removing the supply cap might be a good long-term path for the Economic Sustainability of securing the Bitcoin blockchain? Or is it still "blasphemy"?

This is probably the worst idea.

Practically speaking there is no way to do this without a hard fork. This means that two chains will run in parallel. It is a very bad idea, because of the economic consequences. Nobody wants a bitcoin with no fixed supply, this is pretty much one of the best selling points of hard money. Everyone will stick with the one which is fixed, and therefore most hashrate will naturally stay on the fixed supply one.
 

Practically speaking, you're right. It will be very hard path. BUT let me ask again, AND merely speaking from a context of discussing ideas - Is removing the supply cap something that the people in the community are starting to open up their discussions into, OR is it still an idea that's "blasphemy"?

I'm genuinely and objectively asking.

Plus there's one user in the topic who wants my attention, but he doesn't know he's in my Ignore List.

 

[bitbollo]

my 2 satoshi=
removing competition for mining (in the long term) could be seen as a way to remove risk from hardware/network failure.
mining has been created as 1 cpu 1 vote - get your node if you don't. to make it simple.
Technically a reasonable network that anyone can easily join.

once the growth of the network has been completed it can work "off grid" there is no need for a further incentive from outside = burning FIAT in expensive operation = mining, has been also a race to perform as fast as possible to get the better hardware.

This created the Industry.
But here you cannot have the "standard capitalism standard", it's impossible to have an "endless growth".
Cutting incentive after bitcoin will survive to many bailouts could be the best way

[Satofan44]

The amount of mining is directly related to the value of the block reward (subsidy + fees) (plus out-of-band payments, such as transaction prioritization).

If you are predicting a drop in mining, you must be basing that on a drop in the value of the block reward over the next 100 years.  Tell me how you can be confident of your 100 year prediction.

Nobody knows anything for sure, and anyone who is claiming otherwise in a matter of confident is a scammer or an idiot. We have the difficulty adjustment mechanism for a reason, and all the data from the past indicates that this is not going to be an issue of any kind. Yet somehow people want an infinitely growing security budget or other nonsense that does not make sense. I have said it a few pages ago, even a 50% drop in the security budget would be extremely secure. Once you have people who are unable to think in any concepts except black and white involved into discussions that are beyond their mental capabilities, then you get fearful, anxious-inducing statements and doomsday scenarios.

Practically speaking, you're right. It will be very hard path. BUT let me ask again, AND merely speaking from a context of discussing ideas - Is removing the supply cap something that the people in the community are starting to open up their discussions into, OR is it still an idea that's "blasphemy"?

I'm genuinely and objectively asking.

Stop shitposting with useless content here, the answer has been a clear no. There are no real Bitcoin people that would consider such stupid ideas, there are only weak hands and people who barely hold any that are easily panicked by anxiety-inducing misinformation that would consider such a stupid move. Even if "some people" start opening up to those ideas, they can't do anything about it. They can fork off into their shitcoin Bitcoin Infinite Supply BIS if they want to -- but that is the limit of their powers.  

[LFC_Bitcoin]

This has been asked many times over the years but yes it can, if enough people keep using the network. As the block subsidy shrinks over time, miners will rely more on transaction fees.

If Bitcoin is still widely used for moving and settling value, those fees will likely be enough to keep miners profitable and the network secure. The biggest question is whether demand for block space stays high enough once new coin issuance eventually ends.

[PrivacyG]

Practically speaking, you're right. It will be very hard path. BUT let me ask again, AND merely speaking from a context of discussing ideas - Is removing the supply cap something that the people in the community are starting to open up their discussions into, OR is it still an idea that's "blasphemy"?

I do consider it 'blasphemy' and the opposite of what Bitcoin is supposed to be.  But I do not mind a discussion or a debate, although there is probably no argument in the World that could change my mind.  I am very aware however that for pretty much all of the Bitcoin community the answer is a hard, straight, undebatable NO.

The main idea is that, if the limits of Bitcoin as a Currency are modified in time it makes Bitcoin volatile, uncertain, untrustworthy.  Hell.  It would make ME go away!  And see.  I do not have the same opinion about the Monero tail emissions so it is not a subjective thing about scarcity.  It is simply that it changes the 'quality' of Bitcoin if it makes sense.  Changing the rules in the middle of the game and with unknown consequences.  Consequences could be fatal if panic, distrust and all the rest of the hell breaks loose.  Remember SegWit and how much stress there was in the air at the time?  That was nothing compared to what this would do!

If Bitcoin NEEDS an unlimited supply decades from now then I would not mind if this happened through a 'Bitcoin 2.0' Hard Fork where the 'new version' is supposed to be an upgrade of what Satoshi meant.  I would not mind it for a single reason.  I would keep my old Bitcoin.  The adopters of a 'new Bitcoin' would switch to it.  So everyone ends up happy with what they have.

[Wind_FURY]

Practically speaking, you're right. It will be very hard path. BUT let me ask again, AND merely speaking from a context of discussing ideas - Is removing the supply cap something that the people in the community are starting to open up their discussions into, OR is it still an idea that's "blasphemy"?

I do consider it 'blasphemy' and the opposite of what Bitcoin is supposed to be.  But I do not mind a discussion or a debate, although there is probably no argument in the World that could change my mind.  I am very aware however that for pretty much all of the Bitcoin community the answer is a hard, straight, undebatable NO.

 👍

That's the "default" way of thinking among Bitcoiners, and I respect that. But I'm truly curious if more and more people believe that removing the supply cap would be a good idea as well since Peter Todd mentioned that it's more sustainable  for the network to have some sort of inflation of supply to support miners.

The main idea is that, if the limits of Bitcoin as a Currency are modified in time it makes Bitcoin volatile, uncertain, untrustworthy.  Hell.  It would make ME go away!  And see.  I do not have the same opinion about the Monero tail emissions so it is not a subjective thing about scarcity.  It is simply that it changes the 'quality' of Bitcoin if it makes sense. Changing the rules in the middle of the game and with unknown consequences.  Consequences could be fatal if panic, distrust and all the rest of the hell breaks loose.  Remember SegWit and how much stress there was in the air at the time?  That was nothing compared to what this would do!

We probably then are not ready for that conversation yet.

If Bitcoin NEEDS an unlimited supply decades from now then I would not mind if this happened through a 'Bitcoin 2.0' Hard Fork where the 'new version' is supposed to be an upgrade of what Satoshi meant.  I would not mind it for a single reason.  I would keep my old Bitcoin.  The adopters of a 'new Bitcoin' would switch to it.  So everyone ends up happy with what they have.

I'm not entirely sure what to say to that idea. But the discussion about mining sustainability and block subsidies will keep coming back Halving after Halving.