$500,000 per Bitcoin, baby. The math behind it.

[Fakhoury]

Thank you BurtW for elaborating this for me, but I've a question if you don't mind.

So, in order to keep our power consumption under about 2% of world wide power production, we cannot/do not want the price to get to $500,000 before era 6, which is about 2033 or so.

1. Why would we keep the power consumption under 2% of world wide power production ?

2. Why we cannot/do not want the price to get to $500,000 before era 6, which is about 2033 or so ?

3. Can we reach $500,000 in era 6, which is about 2033 or so ?

[farting_shot]

The reasoning is flawed, the math is flawed, the whole thing is fooking flawed. No way btc is going to be worth more than $500-$600 at most. Unless the Chinese gov't totally goes bananas and unban it.

[farfiman]

Thank you BurtW for elaborating this for me, but I've a question if you don't mind.

So, in order to keep our power consumption under about 2% of world wide power production, we cannot/do not want the price to get to $500,000 before era 6, which is about 2033 or so.

1. Why would we keep the power consumption under 2% of world wide power production ?

2. Why we cannot/do not want the price to get to $500,000 before era 6, which is about 2033 or so ?

3. Can we reach $500,000 in era 6, which is about 2033 or so ?

1. What do you think will happen if bitcoin mining starts taking more and more power that isn't available? It isn't easy to grow power production that fast . Someone here gave the idea that it isn't a problem- they will just raise the price ( supply and demand). Unless they make a "special" higher price  just for mining (not really possible) , the higher cost of energy will effect the price of practically everything!  The reaction of the public will not let it happen.

2. In era 6 the amount of coins generated every day will be very small (about 112) so at 500K a coin we have $56M total reward a day. Depending on overhead and profit we can assume maybe the maximum use of "only"  $50M worth of energy a day.

3. Who knows

[Wolf Rainer]

We all can dream 

[dothebeats]

Thank you BurtW for elaborating this for me, but I've a question if you don't mind.

So, in order to keep our power consumption under about 2% of world wide power production, we cannot/do not want the price to get to $500,000 before era 6, which is about 2033 or so.

1. Why would we keep the power consumption under 2% of world wide power production ?

2. Why we cannot/do not want the price to get to $500,000 before era 6, which is about 2033 or so ?

3. Can we reach $500,000 in era 6, which is about 2033 or so ?

1. If the whole network consumes more than 2% of the world's power consumption, then you are asking for more demand of resources which is not feasible for the whole world itself. That's why power-efficient yet powerful chips should be invented as difficulty goes up so as to go on par with the current power consumption of the network.

2. Well as to what BurtW already explained on his post way back August 2014, we cannot use that insane amount of power in just a day to mine very few coins.

3. No one knows for certain.

[BurtW]

1. If the whole network consumes more than 2% of the world's power consumption, then you are asking for more demand of resources which is not feasible for the whole world itself. That's why power-efficient yet powerful chips should be invented as difficulty goes up so as to go on par with the current power consumption of the network.

As I have explained many times efficiency does not enter into the equation.  More efficient chips only means that there will be more hashes per second for a given energy consumption.  Energy consumption is proportional to price.  Efficiency does not matter.

[luciann]

Thank you BurtW for elaborating this for me, but I've a question if you don't mind.

So, in order to keep our power consumption under about 2% of world wide power production, we cannot/do not want the price to get to $500,000 before era 6, which is about 2033 or so.

1. Why would we keep the power consumption under 2% of world wide power production ?

2. Why we cannot/do not want the price to get to $500,000 before era 6, which is about 2033 or so ?

3. Can we reach $500,000 in era 6, which is about 2033 or so ?

what satoshi says about 20 years having either no volume or large volume kinda makes me scared lol.

cause what if we dont see the volume we hope for to make this coin go up.. which is possible ya know? where would this volume come from too.. like how many more exchanges do we need to achieve this? or is it something we need more traditional sense that increases the volume?

[Cconvert2G36]

Thank you BurtW for elaborating this for me, but I've a question if you don't mind.

So, in order to keep our power consumption under about 2% of world wide power production, we cannot/do not want the price to get to $500,000 before era 6, which is about 2033 or so.

1. Why would we keep the power consumption under 2% of world wide power production ?

2. Why we cannot/do not want the price to get to $500,000 before era 6, which is about 2033 or so ?

3. Can we reach $500,000 in era 6, which is about 2033 or so ?

what satoshi says about 20 years having either no volume or large volume kinda makes me scared lol.

cause what if we dont see the volume we hope for to make this coin go up.. which is possible ya know? where would this volume come from too.. like how many more exchanges do we need to achieve this? or is it something we need more traditional sense that increases the volume?

In 20 years, bitcoin either needs huge transaction flow to pay miners with fees, or it shrinks down to hobbyist size (wrt miners, users, and price). There's not much in between. Meaning... you should think of long term bitcoin "investment" ending with a distinct possibility of either... a big fat louie ($0) or moon.  

Edit for luciann: It is definitely not lack of exchanges affecting bitcoin adoption. You don't just simply build more dealerships if you want to sell more cars. People have to want the cars first.

[Oscilson]

1. If the whole network consumes more than 2% of the world's power consumption, then you are asking for more demand of resources which is not feasible for the whole world itself. That's why power-efficient yet powerful chips should be invented as difficulty goes up so as to go on par with the current power consumption of the network.

As I have explained many times efficiency does not enter into the equation.  More efficient chips only means that there will be more hashes per second for a given energy consumption.  Energy consumption is proportional to price.  Efficiency does not matter.

That is right. Power consumption is part of the total value of bitcoin. Power efficiency is not in the equation.

[Shiver]

Efficiency isn't a factor if everybody has access to the same tech.  If you have a computer and the rest of the world has a typewriter then you have an advantage, but if everyone has the same tools then it is irrelevant.

What I'm curious about is the stuff like Tesla battery/solar units, and if they're successful (I think even the first gen will be), then power consumption isn't a drain on the planets currently finite electricity.  If it is the case that the price miners need to make to not want to sell is important whilst waiting for fees to replace coin generation, then the Tesla type stuff could change the formula.  Perhaps someone will invent a new capacitor/battery to sink lightning for storage, who knows.  There is a lot we don't know.

Scarcity and adoption would be more important imho.

[Monopoly]

For per transaction there is 10000 satoshi ...... so if BTB price be $500,000 you must pay $50 for per transaction ....
So your calculation is wrong at base ......

[BurtW]

Efficiency isn't a factor if everybody has access to the same tech.  If you have a computer and the rest of the world has a typewriter then you have an advantage, but if everyone has the same tools then it is irrelevant.

Efficiency is a factor for everyone when it comes to profit or loss.   If you have a computer (ASIC miner) and the rest of the world is using typewriters (GPU mining) then you will make a boatload more profit.  On the other hand if everyone else has computers (ASIC miners) and you only have a typewriter (GPU miner) then you will lose money hand over fist and will be forced to shut down your mining operation (unless you like flushing money down the toilet).

What I'm curious about is the stuff like Tesla battery/solar units, and if they're successful (I think even the first gen will be), then power consumption isn't a drain on the planets currently finite electricity.  If it is the case that the price miners need to make to not want to sell is important whilst waiting for fees to replace coin generation, then the Tesla type stuff could change the formula.  Perhaps someone will invent a new capacitor/battery to sink lightning for storage, who knows.  There is a lot we don't know.

How much electricity costs on average for all miners is in the equation for sure [see the equation].  How much a specific miner pays for their electricity will heavily affect their personal profit.  If they pay less for their electricity then they will make more profit if they pay more they will either make less profit or, if their electricity is too expensive, they will lose money.

What miners will naturally do is purchase the cheapest electricity possible.  "Stuff like Tesla battery/solar units" are the most expensive possible electricity so no miner in their right (economic) mind will use that electrical source.

Scarcity and adoption would be more important imho.

Whatever drives the price up will also drive up the energy consumption - that is the point.

For per transaction there is 10000 satoshi ...... so if BTB price be $500,000 you must pay $50 for per transaction ....
So your calculation is wrong at base ......

You do know that the fee gets adjusted periodically right?
If the price of BTC goes up considerably then the fee will get reduced.

[gentlemand]

For per transaction there is 10000 satoshi ...... so if BTB price be $500,000 you must pay $50 for per transaction ....
So your calculation is wrong at base ......

Here's a totally crazy thought - things change.

[Searing]

heh unless the core dev nerds and the bitcoin xt nerds come to some kinda consensus this looks less and less likely.

its all about power over the bitcoin core software direction core devs drag feet on changes bitcoin xt devs want a coup de ta
......the egos could kill btc dead

(hope I'm just being dramatic)

but right now I'd settle for 1k coin in 5 years with the current drama

[neochiny]

wow this is great thing and interesting.. this motivate us bitcoin users.. hope it will be really true in the future.. i will be looking forward to this... even i am old in that  time..

[tonycamp]

march 2016 its the only possible gap for BTC to rise after christmas buyings and thats only to 300$ most now down to 200$

[Monopoly]

For per transaction there is 10000 satoshi ...... so if BTB price be $500,000 you must pay $50 for per transaction ....
So your calculation is wrong at base ......

You do know that the fee gets adjusted periodically right?
If the price of BTC goes up considerably then the fee will get reduced.

No ... i didn't know ... so explain more ......
Who will reduced it ? Is btc network intelligent ? I don't think so .........
I am paying 10000 satoshi fee for years .... when the price was $1115 till today that price is $220

[sgbett]

The reasoning is flawed, the math is flawed, the whole thing is fooking flawed. No way btc is going to be worth more than $500-$600 at most. Unless the Chinese gov't totally goes bananas and unban it.

is it banned?

[BurtW]

For per transaction there is 10000 satoshi ...... so if BTB price be $500,000 you must pay $50 for per transaction ....
So your calculation is wrong at base ......

You do know that the fee gets adjusted periodically right?
If the price of BTC goes up considerably then the fee will get reduced.

No ... i didn't know ... so explain more ......
Who will reduced it ? Is btc network intelligent ? I don't think so .........
I am paying 10000 satoshi fee for years .... when the price was $1115 till today that price is $220

Fees are set by economic and time considerations by the users of the network.

I think this explains everything you would ever want to know about fees, and more:

http://fc15.ifca.ai/preproceedings/bitcoin/paper_8.pdf

Look at the chart on page 9, it shows how the amount of fees paid by the users have changed over time.

This is not a trivial subject as you can see by reading the paper.

[JayJuanGee]

The reasoning is flawed, the math is flawed, the whole thing is fooking flawed. No way btc is going to be worth more than $500-$600 at most. Unless the Chinese gov't totally goes bananas and unban it.

OH REEALLY NOW? 

I started buying bitcoin in late 2013 in small increments (a kind of personally tailored dollar cost averaging), and I kept buying on the way down thinking that I was getting a better and better deal.

In late 2014, when prices were in the upper $300s, I thought that it had pretty much bottom out, and I bought a decent additional stash.

So throughout 2015 when prices stayed in the $200s, I engaged in a considerable debate with more than one "know-it-all" who was convinced that BTC would never again go above upper $200s, and strongly advising that I sell in order to recoupe some of my principle.... at that point, my average price per BTC was a bit over $500, and I said that I did not need to sell, and I think that it would be crazy to sell at a loss (and lock in losses).  I said that I would hold through it and just continue with my practice of buying on the way down.

So yeah, those were tough times, and us HODLers had to stick through a considerable period of depressed prices, but it seems to have paid off quite well.  Currently, my average cost per BTC is a bit over $400, so my portfolio is doing quite well and even measure profits of more than 150% - which is much more than my expectations of good performance of about 6% per year (which was what my stock index funds had returned on average over the previous 15 years).  Anyhow, better than 50% per year (on average) with bitcoin remains a decent place to be (and quite a bit of cushion) and even a bit of an ability to make fun of the naysayers.