Bitcoin’s Security After the Block Subsidy: Who Will Pay for the Network?

[pooya87]

The majority of people who want to avoid talking about it are the people who FEAR that their viewpoint that fees alone will secure Bitcoin, and they say it like it's already a fact.

Fees alone won't be enough if the capacity remains the same as I've already pointed out in the comment you quoted. But it is still too soon to talk about it because we cannot predict what the situation is going to be by that time. And that time is at least a couple of halvings ahead which is at least a decade from now. Considering we can't even predict what will happen a week from now, we definitely cannot predict what will happen a decade from now.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

Fees alone won't be enough if the capacity remains the same as I've already pointed out in the comment you quoted. But it is still too soon to talk about it because we cannot predict what the situation is going to be by that time. And that time is at least a couple of halvings ahead which is at least a decade from now. Considering we can't even predict what will happen a week from now, we definitely cannot predict what will happen a decade from now.

If price growth won't be able to maintain its efffects on Bitcoin mining revenue for Bitcoin miners, significant halves of Bitcoin block subsidy after future halvings and cycles will considerably decreasen miners' revenue from mining.

Their revenue will be only maintained if Bitcoin price doubles after each halving with another assumption that a second source of miner revenue - transaction fees - won't increase a lot after each of future Bitcoin block subsidy halvings.

People are fearful because of that very possible future while the assumption that Bitcoin transaction fees for Bitcoin miners will increase, and not only increase, but rise considerably in future cycles, is still very uncertain, if not like it's kind of unrealistic.

[Wind_FURY]

The majority of people who want to avoid talking about it are the people who FEAR that their viewpoint that fees alone will secure Bitcoin, and they say it like it's already a fact.

Fees alone won't be enough if the capacity remains the same as I've already pointed out in the comment you quoted. But it is still too soon to talk about it because we cannot predict what the situation is going to be by that time. And that time is at least a couple of halvings ahead which is at least a decade from now. Considering we can't even predict what will happen a week from now, we definitely cannot predict what will happen a decade from now.

Because why? Because it would depend on what price-point Bitcoin will be, or depend on the amount of usage it will have?

It's laughable to think like that instead of thinking about it from an independent, sustainable protocol-incentive viewpoint.

  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's neither too early, nor too late to discuss/debate such matters. But everyone should know that it's merely for informational awareness, and to learn/understand Bitcoin more.

[Gragebox]

The majority of people who want to avoid talking about it are the people who FEAR that their viewpoint that fees alone will secure Bitcoin, and they say it like it's already a fact.

Fees alone won't be enough if the capacity remains the same as I've already pointed out in the comment you quoted. But it is still too soon to talk about it because we cannot predict what the situation is going to be by that time. And that time is at least a couple of halvings ahead which is at least a decade from now. Considering we can't even predict what will happen a week from now, we definitely cannot predict what will happen a decade from now.

However, there's no guarantee that alone will be able to pick up the slack if network capacity and transaction demand don't improve relative to falling block rewards. And really, it's hard to make a solid prediction regarding Bitcoin's fee market this far down the road anyway. We are at least half a decade away until this is even really a concern, and the network might very well be different by then.

Changes to scalability, Layer 2 development, increased adoption, shifting transaction behavior or new technology are all factors which could impact fee markets.

Even today, I am hesitant to predict what Bitcoin will look like in 5 years, let alone 10 a bit too speculative for my taste. Instead, I suspect the best strategy is to observe adoption and development trends.

[BlackBoss_]

However, there's no guarantee that alone will be able to pick up the slack if network capacity and transaction demand don't improve relative to falling block rewards. And really, it's hard to make a solid prediction regarding Bitcoin's fee market this far down the road anyway. We are at least half a decade away until this is even really a concern, and the network might very well be different by then.

Changes to scalability, Layer 2 development, increased adoption, shifting transaction behavior or new technology are all factors which could impact fee markets.

Even today, I am hesitant to predict what Bitcoin will look like in 5 years, let alone 10 a bit too speculative for my taste. Instead, I suspect the best strategy is to observe adoption and development trends.

Layer 1 and Layer 2 are mutually interacting with each other. People only have need of using layer 2, side chains, if transaction fees on layer 1 are expensive. If transaction fees on layer 1 are cheap enough, there will be less need of using layer 2.

Bitcoin is higher quality than Ethereum but I think using Ethereum and ETH layer 2 projects as an example is good enough. Layer 2 projects on Ethereum were very hot some years ago but when ETH layer 1 became cheaper in transaction fees, hypes on Layer 2 disappeared and many layer 2 projects on that chain have faced with very bad future.

They raised $B funds, developed their projects but if layer 1 is too good and cheap enough, layer 2 projects will naturally fail in selection of users.

[2stout]

As with all things consumed or used, typically the cost falls on the consumer or user.  Once the block subsidy is done, none else than the consumer or user will pick up the cost.  Lightning network could reduce fees as a layer 2 but Layer 1 would still need underpinned and supported from a security standpoint.  The fee structuring could get interesting, but hopefully nothing drastic happens like changing from PoW to PoS.

[nelson4lov]

I asked this question last year and based on the responses I got then, I stopped worrying about it because I think when we get to that bridge, we will cross it. We already have miners that are pivoting to AI (which is a burst as they will come back when AI bubble bursts anyway). Imo, when bitcoin gets adopted by banks, government agencies and top financial institutions, they would be the one to provide the infrastructure to keep it going because at that point, solo miners will have nothing to produce block unless the fees/revenue will be enough to cover the cost.

I try not to think about this enough for the same reason why I don't think about quantum computing and how it affects bitcoin right now (it doesn't).

[Gragebox]

I asked this question last year and based on the responses I got then, I stopped worrying about it because I think when we get to that bridge, we will cross it. We already have miners that are pivoting to AI (which is a burst as they will come back when AI bubble bursts anyway). Imo, when bitcoin gets adopted by banks, government agencies and top financial institutions, they would be the one to provide the infrastructure to keep it going because at that point, solo miners will have nothing to produce block unless the fees/revenue will be enough to cover the cost.

I try not to think about this enough for the same reason why I don't think about quantum computing and how it affects bitcoin right now (it doesn't).

It feels to me like this is one of those problems where we don't actually have to solve it for day to day life of Bitcoin. It has its lifecycle. The mining will evolve along with Bitcoin.

Perhaps some miners may turn their attentions to AI and other areas, as Bitcoin mining might become less profitable but that doesn't means Bitcoins will just go away.

Banks and other such large organisations having deeply adopted BITCOIN would have interest in supporting the underlying infrastructure. This will continue so long as the rewards, as well as transaction fees, are enough to sustain it. My takeaway as it has already survived many challenges thus far, there is no need to be bothered with problems perhaps that are still a decade away. When we cross that bridge the ecosystem likely will have figured out ways to cross it.

[Wind_FURY]

I asked this question last year and based on the responses I got then, I stopped worrying about it because I think when we get to that bridge, we will cross it. We already have miners that are pivoting to AI (which is a burst as they will come back when AI bubble bursts anyway). Imo, when bitcoin gets adopted by banks, government agencies and top financial institutions, they would be the one to provide the infrastructure to keep it going because at that point, solo miners will have nothing to produce block unless the fees/revenue will be enough to cover the cost.

I try not to think about this enough for the same reason why I don't think about quantum computing and how it affects bitcoin right now (it doesn't).

My takeaway as it has already survived many challenges thus far, there is no need to be bothered with problems perhaps that are still a decade away. When we cross that bridge the ecosystem likely will have figured out ways to cross it.

THEN YOUR solution on the matter is to ignore the problem and worry about it when it becomes an absolutely BIGGER problem? That's like an Ostrich hiding its head under the ground. You're facing it from the wrong viewpoint in my opinion.

Plus as decentralized network, how could a proposal get community consensus if people don't discuss about all the possibilities in how to "cross that bridge"?

Personally, the debate will become stronger and stronger for a tail-emission as we go through halving after halving.

[SilverCryptoBullet]

It feels to me like this is one of those problems where we don't actually have to solve it for day to day life of Bitcoin. It has its lifecycle. The mining will evolve along with Bitcoin.

It will be evolved to make Bitcoin network bigger, stronger in hash rate and more secured in security, not weaker. Because it will help Bitcoin miners maintain their mining job with time, maintain their income with time, while if any change to make Bitcoin network weaker, blockchain less secure, it will harm Bitcoin value, price and miners will have their income affected seriously negatively.

Banks and other such large organisations having deeply adopted BITCOIN would have interest in supporting the underlying infrastructure. This will continue so long as the rewards, as well as transaction fees, are enough to sustain it. My takeaway as it has already survived many challenges thus far, there is no need to be bothered with problems perhaps that are still a decade away. When we cross that bridge the ecosystem likely will have figured out ways to cross it

Banks and organizations or institutions don't control Bitcoin blockchain, they can not do that. Bitcoin blockchain was not programmed and designed to be controlled and centralized this way. Many years Bitcoin has succeeded to maintain its decentralization and in my belief, Bitcoin community will maintain this success and strong force against centralization with time.

[Gragebox]

THEN YOUR solution on the matter is to ignore the problem and worry about it when it becomes an absolutely BIGGER problem? That's like an Ostrich hiding its head under the ground. You're facing it from the wrong viewpoint in my opinion.

Plus as decentralized network, how could a proposal get community consensus if people don't discuss about all the possibilities in how to "cross that bridge"?

Personally, the debate will become stronger and stronger for a tail-emission as we go through halving after halving.

So then your solution is to push the problem to a more later phase, you won't bother the issue until it's really become a significantly bigger problem? This is similar to a blind ostrich digging a hole to put its head in. I personally think you're looking at this issue from the wrong perspective.

Moreover, we are a decentralized network, when would any proposal get 'consensused' if discussions around possibilities and planning how we will cross that bridge when we reach it never takes place?

Speaking personally, I do predict the debate on tail emission gets deeper and fiercer with each successive halving. Better it takes place early and its consequences examined in these possible situations rather than later.