Predictions : Mining of new bitcoins stops tommorow

[arxwn]

I believe you misunderstood. I mean bitcoin mining finished , 21 millions are created. Only transaction fees for miners.

Ohhhhhh, you're hypothesizing about distant future scenarios and for some reason using the word "tomorrow".

Still just as absurd. But to answer your question, imagine what would happen to the price of gold if tomorrow they announced the very last ounce of gold had been mined, and there was no more left to be found in the entire universe.

Think back to economics 101 when you learned about supply and demand. What happens when demand remains the same, but supply drops to zero?

That was my first thought, however since bitcoin is one of now thousands cryptos and services could just hop to better return on investment value whereas gold can only be made in the heart of supernovas. Again this is not an argument for gold, this is playn hypothesis on the condition of the bitcoin ecosystem, whether is is selfsustaining or not.

[arxwn]

If your at all curious what happens to a currency when it has been completely mined, I recall a few months ago someone in the community making a coin called "preminecoin"

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=427519.0

This coin when released was entirely mined out, I am not sure how the coins were distributed to users but the only way to earn PMC right now is collecting the TX fees you get when users send the coins around.

I really like these experiements.

[arxwn]

If your at all curious what happens to a currency when it has been completely mined, I recall a few months ago someone in the community making a coin called "preminecoin"

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=427519.0

This coin when released was entirely mined out, I am not sure how the coins were distributed to users but the only way to earn PMC right now is collecting the TX fees you get when users send the coins around.

I really like these experiements.

Can you fill me up on what happened to PMC ? I checked the thread which is huge and understood that it was replaced by something else.

[master-P]

If you all did that... I would become the mining king with my Commodore 64. Greed is what keeps this from happening.

The difficulty of the network would still be the same. Any miner that you have would still produce the same amount of bitcoin regardless if other miners are mining or not until the difficulty resets.

[arxwn]

As tool for transferring value it is fiiting that most business in btc isfinancial based.
However I would like to see more productive capacity being funded with btc.

[Brangdon]

What would happen if no new bitcoins are created ?

Miners revenue would be fees only. That wouldn't be enough to pay the electricity bills at the current hash rate. Either the fees would increase, or the hash rate would drop, or both.

Either effect could destroy Bitcoin, in my view. Lower hash rate reduces the coin's security; if it gets too low, the coin can't be trusted. High fees discourage users; if they get to high, users will switch to PoS coins or even back to credit cards.

If mining stopped "tomorrow", it would be an existential crisis for Bitcoin. However, it won't. Mining is set to gradually decrease over decades. If the value of Bitcoin doubles, on average, every 4 years, then that will offset the block reward halving.

[polunna]

My guess is that we have an S-shaped growth with an overshoot for hash rate. Miners will leave as we reach the peak of the overshoot, but at some point it will still be profitable to mine due to fees.

[lovegood]

Miners fees make up .3% of the money miners make, meaning that if the fees raised by 100x then miners would still only make a third of what they make now. Which in fantasy land means that miners just gracefully exit and cease to exist, but really means you now have a drop of hash rate and also a group of people with machines that make hashrate that got fucked over by bitcoin and have no wish for it to succeed.

[master-P]

Miners fees make up .3% of the money miners make, meaning that if the fees raised by 100x then miners would still only make a third of what they make now. Which in fantasy land means that miners just gracefully exit and cease to exist, but really means you now have a drop of hash rate and also a group of people with machines that make hashrate that got fucked over by bitcoin and have no wish for it to succeed.

You fail to understand the fact that the overall transaction volume is low now. When TX volume increases the overall amount of TX fees will also increase. Also when transaction volume increases the price of bitcoin is likely to increase as more commerce will generally mean higher demand for bitcoin.

There is a long time before the block subsidy will go away completely so bitcoin has a long time to see it's transaction volume increase enough to make TX fees enough to support the miners.

Another point is that miners will likely see increases in efficiency over time, so when the block subsidy is reduced it will have little effect on the ongoing profitability of the miners as they will be able to use this added efficiency to have lower electric costs. 

[arxwn]

Miners fees make up .3% of the money miners make, meaning that if the fees raised by 100x then miners would still only make a third of what they make now. Which in fantasy land means that miners just gracefully exit and cease to exist, but really means you now have a drop of hash rate and also a group of people with machines that make hashrate that got fucked over by bitcoin and have no wish for it to succeed.

You fail to understand the fact that the overall transaction volume is low now. When TX volume increases the overall amount of TX fees will also increase. Also when transaction volume increases the price of bitcoin is likely to increase as more commerce will generally mean higher demand for bitcoin.

There is a long time before the block subsidy will go away completely so bitcoin has a long time to see it's transaction volume increase enough to make TX fees enough to support the miners.

Another point is that miners will likely see increases in efficiency over time, so when the block subsidy is reduced it will have little effect on the ongoing profitability of the miners as they will be able to use this added efficiency to have lower electric costs. 

So miners and future miners would most likely survive with just the fees.

[Beliathon]

That was my first thought, however since bitcoin is one of now thousands cryptos and services could just hop to better return on investment value (...).

All the others are irrelevant, in the end there can only be one. And Bitcoin is it.

Sorry, all you altcoin supporters, but it's true. None of the others matter one lick, and in the not-too-distant future, none of the current altcoins will even exist, as far as the world is concerned.

[arxwn]

That was my first thought, however since bitcoin is one of now thousands cryptos and services could just hop to better return on investment value (...).

All the others are irrelevant, in the end there can only be one. And Bitcoin is it.

Sorry, all you altcoin supporters, but it's true. None of the others matter one lick, and in the not-too-distant future, none of the current altcoins will even exist, as far as the world is concerned.

I don't see why there should be only one, competition is good even for the leading competitor.

[Beliathon]

That was my first thought, however since bitcoin is one of now thousands cryptos and services could just hop to better return on investment value (...).

All the others are irrelevant, in the end there can only be one. And Bitcoin is it.

Sorry, all you altcoin supporters, but it's true. None of the others matter one lick, and in the not-too-distant future, none of the current altcoins will even exist, as far as the world is concerned.

I don't see why there should be only one, competition is good even for the leading competitor.

"So for the benefit of all the derps derping about “cryptocurrencies” : there is no such thing. There’s Bitcoin and that’s it, because there can only be one. All the rest of the crap exists only inasmuch as a) it stays theoretical or b) it stays small enough nobody cares. Where a) and b) are only distinct in the derp point of view, otherwise they’re the same thing. But good luck with all the community-of-retards driven, super-duper-innovative, ultra-mega-creative, asic-resistant, future-of-revolution-and-everything altcoins."
-Mircea Popescu

http://trilema.com/2014/the-woes-of-altcoin-or-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-cryptocurrencies/

This man, Mircea Popescu, is ostensibly more intelligent than me. Which means, dear reader, he is ipso facto almost certainly far more intelligent than you. You should therefore heed his wisdom with great care.

[arxwn]

That was my first thought, however since bitcoin is one of now thousands cryptos and services could just hop to better return on investment value (...).

All the others are irrelevant, in the end there can only be one. And Bitcoin is it.

Sorry, all you altcoin supporters, but it's true. None of the others matter one lick, and in the not-too-distant future, none of the current altcoins will even exist, as far as the world is concerned.

I don't see why there should be only one, competition is good even for the leading competitor.

"So for the benefit of all the derps derping about “cryptocurrencies” : there is no such thing. There’s Bitcoin and that’s it, because there can only be one. All the rest of the crap exists only inasmuch as a) it stays theoretical or b) it stays small enough nobody cares. Where a) and b) are only distinct in the derp point of view, otherwise they’re the same thing. But good luck with all the community-of-retards driven, super-duper-innovative, ultra-mega-creative, asic-resistant, future-of-revolution-and-everything altcoins."
-Mircea Popescu

http://trilema.com/2014/the-woes-of-altcoin-or-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-cryptocurrencies/

This man, Mircea Popescu, is ostensibly more intelligent than me. Which means, dear reader, he is ipso facto almost certainly far more intelligent than you. You should therefore heed his wisdom with great care.

Tickling my ego there, but the argument from authority is not valid. Why there should be only one ?
Or to put it more mathematically : does a path of action moves exist that would destroy bitcoin.
My non intelligent answer is yes. Bitcoin protocol is the law but its power rests on the people using it and people can take wrong actions.
If there is no such path that would destroy bitcoin why is so many people here worried about it ? Why even the inventor was worried about it ?
There CAN BE ONLY ONE. Is this some kind of Highlander fantasy ?

[itsAj]

That was my first thought, however since bitcoin is one of now thousands cryptos and services could just hop to better return on investment value (...).

All the others are irrelevant, in the end there can only be one. And Bitcoin is it.

Sorry, all you altcoin supporters, but it's true. None of the others matter one lick, and in the not-too-distant future, none of the current altcoins will even exist, as far as the world is concerned.

I agree. All altcoins do not provide any additional value above what bitcoin can provide. They are all much less secure and vulnerable then bitcoin and are vulnerable to attacks that bitcoin is not subject to. Even if you were to use an altcoin as a way to do commerce you would be taking on great risks.  

[Meuh6879]

What would happen if no new bitcoins are created ?

farm miner closed.
free miner (like me ?) win.

bitcoin is a network with more than industrial miner inside.
like the stable backup bitcoin and the 10min (or real time) confirmation of a transactions.

[littlewizard]

If bitcoin mining stops tomorrow, miners will not likely support it anymore, so the blockchain will be susceptible, and then maybe price will go down.

[Brangdon]

Miners fees make up .3% of the money miners make, meaning that if the fees raised by 100x then miners would still only make a third of what they make now. Which in fantasy land means that miners just gracefully exit and cease to exist, but really means you now have a drop of hash rate and also a group of people with machines that make hashrate that got fucked over by bitcoin and have no wish for it to succeed.

You fail to understand the fact that the overall transaction volume is low now. When TX volume increases the overall amount of TX fees will also increase. Also when transaction volume increases the price of bitcoin is likely to increase as more commerce will generally mean higher demand for bitcoin.

The point remains, though. To retain the status quo, the product of transaction volume, fee per transaction, and value of BTC, needs to increase 300-fold. That's a big increase to be depending on.

Another point is that miners will likely see increases in efficiency over time, so when the block subsidy is reduced it will have little effect on the ongoing profitability of the miners as they will be able to use this added efficiency to have lower electric costs. 

That would decrease security, though. Efficiency benefits miners and attackers equally, so if miners take advantage of it to reduce their costs, attackers can mount a given attack more cheaply.

Sorry, all you altcoin supporters, but it's true. None of the others matter one lick, and in the not-too-distant future, none of the current altcoins will even exist, as far as the world is concerned.

Certainly all the Proof-of-Work altcoins have the same problem. The "work" part costs money, and that ultimately must come from either high inflation or high fees. (That is, either savers or spenders.)

In the long run, Proof-of-Work can't compete with Proof-of-Stake.

[xcapator]

If bitcoin mining stops tomorrow, miners will not likely support it anymore, so the blockchain will be susceptible, and then maybe price will go down.

That is definitely part of any plan to destroy crypto, stop the mining of bitcoin, well... I think it's not gonna happen, but it's a nice fairy tale for thought.

[faince222]

If mining of new bitcoin will stop tomorrow there will be an apocalyptic scene to the bitcoin protocol, there will be only unconfirmed transaction