Within 2 years, effectively 85% of all bitcoins are mined!

[leannemckim46]

Sometimes I wonder what will happen when all the bitcoins will be mined,like the king of coins will be gone from mining.How will it effect the crypto world then?

Miners will be competing for transaction fees...

I think this could potentially negatively affect the security of the network if not enough people are using bitcon by this time. If TX fees are not high enough then miners will likely not make enough to justify continuing to mine

[zimmah]

Sometimes I wonder what will happen when all the bitcoins will be mined,like the king of coins will be gone from mining.How will it effect the crypto world then?

Miners will be competing for transaction fees...

I think this could potentially negatively affect the security of the network if not enough people are using bitcon by this time. If TX fees are not high enough then miners will likely not make enough to justify continuing to mine

seriously, if bitcoin is not massively used (like thousands of transactions per second) by the time block rewards become really small, it can pretty much be considered a failure.

We still have a couple of years to go, even if bitcoin increases in value relatively slowly. Which is pretty unlikely to happen for long periods of time.

[sandykho47]

I'm not sure about 85% mined, have calculate diff. ?
And what will happen if bitcoin 100% mined

Sometimes I wonder what will happen when all the bitcoins will be mined,like the king of coins will be gone from mining.How will it effect the crypto world then?

Miners will be competing for transaction fees...

I think this could potentially negatively affect the security of the network if not enough people are using bitcon by this time. If TX fees are not high enough then miners will likely not make enough to justify continuing to mine

But, if TX fee is high. People will only send his/her bitcoin if it's important 

[bitebits]

seriously, if bitcoin is not massively used (like thousands of transactions per second) by the time block rewards become really small, it can pretty much be considered a failure.

Bitcoin will become more and more a store of value. Why is that considered to be a failure, when this is by design?

[bitebits]

But, if TX fee is high. People will only send his/her bitcoin if it's important 

This will of course level out to an optimum.

Besides, the last satoshi will be mined in 2140. With growing number of competing miners, the price of a bitcoin just has to increase versus the declining amount of freshly mined bitcoins.

[Borisz]

I'm not sure about 85% mined, have calculate diff. ?
And what will happen if bitcoin 100% mined

Sometimes I wonder what will happen when all the bitcoins will be mined,like the king of coins will be gone from mining.How will it effect the crypto world then?

Miners will be competing for transaction fees...

I think this could potentially negatively affect the security of the network if not enough people are using bitcon by this time. If TX fees are not high enough then miners will likely not make enough to justify continuing to mine

But, if TX fee is high. People will only send his/her bitcoin if it's important 

I think transaction fees are getting lower (seen it on my wallet/transactions, correct me if I'm wrong), but don't forget that by becoming more and more popular, more transactions will (could) take place resulting in a net larger transaction fee per block.

As to whether it will be profitable for miners to compete, would miners need to run TH/s ASICS at that time in the future with huge power consumption? Wouldn't it be more economical to run low-consumption miners? Well then again, depends how much one makes from transactions.

[Erdogan]

I would say that deflation would generally be when prices are falling as a whole. It is nearly impossible for overall money supply to fall as a whole as the central bank could simply print more money to prevent this (thus preventing deflation even being an economic concept if it was measured by money supply).

In theory central banks could deflate money supply by reducing the monetary units in circulation. But they don't do it, because it's not their policy. These days, central banks only inflate, they never deflate. Deflation mostly occurs as a singular event when central banks have inflated a lot and currency use becomes impractical. Such events they use to call euphemistically a "currency reform". I guess, we'll all have the questionable honor to experience such an event in our lifetime.

Anything is possible in theory, but I don't think this would happen in practice. Can you provide an example when a central bank engaged in this kind of deflation over a period of at least 6 months (a time period that I would consider to be short to medium term)? I do not know of one, nor do I think one exists.

AFAIK even in times of hyperinflation central banks have not engaged in this kind of deflationary policies.

EDIT: hyperinflation in terms of risking prices

You (or PP, previous poster) have to distingsuish deflation from a renaming of the currency unit. This happened in France with the new franc, which was defined to be equal to 100 old francs, with the option to exchange old for new at that ratio. A real money base deflation on part of the money manager, would have to consist of collecting money in the form of taxes, and then destroy them. This is not going to happen.

[zimmah]

I'm not sure about 85% mined, have calculate diff. ?
And what will happen if bitcoin 100% mined

Sometimes I wonder what will happen when all the bitcoins will be mined,like the king of coins will be gone from mining.How will it effect the crypto world then?

Miners will be competing for transaction fees...

I think this could potentially negatively affect the security of the network if not enough people are using bitcon by this time. If TX fees are not high enough then miners will likely not make enough to justify continuing to mine

But, if TX fee is high. People will only send his/her bitcoin if it's important 

Tx fees can stay low, as long as many transactions are made.

Many low fees quickly add up. Even if fee is only a few satoshi, when there's thousands of transactions per second there will be millions in a block, reward from fees will still be worth it. And fees can still be lower than regular bank transactions.

But only if enough people use bitcoin in their everyday life.

[zimmah]

seriously, if bitcoin is not massively used (like thousands of transactions per second) by the time block rewards become really small, it can pretty much be considered a failure.

Bitcoin will become more and more a store of value. Why is that considered to be a failure, when this is by design?

Because, if there are not enough transactions, the miners will stop mining, and the network becomes less secure, and more likely to be controlled by a single malicious person.

[BeeTeeSea]

Scary thought indeed, better gotta have 1 at least.

[panju1]

Not many people depend on freshly mined bitcoins.

[zorke]

I'm not sure about 85% mined, have calculate diff. ?
And what will happen if bitcoin 100% mined

Sometimes I wonder what will happen when all the bitcoins will be mined,like the king of coins will be gone from mining.How will it effect the crypto world then?

Miners will be competing for transaction fees...

I think this could potentially negatively affect the security of the network if not enough people are using bitcon by this time. If TX fees are not high enough then miners will likely not make enough to justify continuing to mine

But, if TX fee is high. People will only send his/her bitcoin if it's important 

I think transaction fees are getting lower (seen it on my wallet/transactions, correct me if I'm wrong), but don't forget that by becoming more and more popular, more transactions will (could) take place resulting in a net larger transaction fee per block.

As to whether it will be profitable for miners to compete, would miners need to run TH/s ASICS at that time in the future with huge power consumption? Wouldn't it be more economical to run low-consumption miners? Well then again, depends how much one makes from transactions.

It will always be most economical for miners to run the most energy efficient miners possible. The overall amount of energy consumed does not matter as long as it is efficient in terms of watts per Gh/s. As even the most efficient miners are not able to make enough money from TX fees and block subsidies (when applicable) then the overall hashrate will decline.

[leannemckim46]

seriously, if bitcoin is not massively used (like thousands of transactions per second) by the time block rewards become really small, it can pretty much be considered a failure.

Bitcoin will become more and more a store of value. Why is that considered to be a failure, when this is by design?

Because, if there are not enough transactions, the miners will stop mining, and the network becomes less secure, and more likely to be controlled by a single malicious person.

This is a true statement, however it is not looking like things will work out this way. Transaction growth has grown exponentially since the birth of bitcoin, even as the price has stagnated. As a result the miners are getting larger amounts of TX rewards as time progresses.

I also think the network security is greater then it really needs to be now. I would hypothesize that the difficulty could decrease by a large factor and the network would still be sufficiently secure.

[snappa4ever]

seriously, if bitcoin is not massively used (like thousands of transactions per second) by the time block rewards become really small, it can pretty much be considered a failure.

Bitcoin will become more and more a store of value. Why is that considered to be a failure, when this is by design?

Because, if there are not enough transactions, the miners will stop mining, and the network becomes less secure, and more likely to be controlled by a single malicious person.

I would personally consider this to be unlikely, especially considering how many additional merchants are accepting bitcoin and likely how many more consumers are adopting bitcoin.

Also miners would not completely stop mining, they would just have a lot of miners taken offline 

[zimmah]

seriously, if bitcoin is not massively used (like thousands of transactions per second) by the time block rewards become really small, it can pretty much be considered a failure.

Bitcoin will become more and more a store of value. Why is that considered to be a failure, when this is by design?

Because, if there are not enough transactions, the miners will stop mining, and the network becomes less secure, and more likely to be controlled by a single malicious person.

This is a true statement, however it is not looking like things will work out this way. Transaction growth has grown exponentially since the birth of bitcoin, even as the price has stagnated. As a result the miners are getting larger amounts of TX rewards as time progresses.

I also think the network security is greater then it really needs to be now. I would hypothesize that the difficulty could decrease by a large factor and the network would still be sufficiently secure.

well, normally yes. But if a lot of miners go down, just to suddenly reappear, that might be problematic. But only if a single entity holds all of those miners. Which is pretty unlikely to happen anyway. Even if old miners are given away for free, they'd still use a lot of power compared to the newer miners, so it'd still not be profitable to mine. Not sure though if it'd be profitable to use all those miners to attack the network, but probably not worth to even try it. It will cost millions if not billions in power alone, and the chances of failure are high. Even if you DO manage to pull of a 51% attack, chances are you'll just make all bitcoin worthless instantly, thus rendering your whole investment useless.

Also, for the record, someone mentioned energy efficiency in Watt/Ghash/second. That'd be Joule/Hash.

[johnnyrocket]

seriously, if bitcoin is not massively used (like thousands of transactions per second) by the time block rewards become really small, it can pretty much be considered a failure.

Bitcoin will become more and more a store of value. Why is that considered to be a failure, when this is by design?

Because, if there are not enough transactions, the miners will stop mining, and the network becomes less secure, and more likely to be controlled by a single malicious person.

This is a true statement, however it is not looking like things will work out this way. Transaction growth has grown exponentially since the birth of bitcoin, even as the price has stagnated. As a result the miners are getting larger amounts of TX rewards as time progresses.

I also think the network security is greater then it really needs to be now. I would hypothesize that the difficulty could decrease by a large factor and the network would still be sufficiently secure.

"Security of the network" can be boiled down to simple economics: if the potential gain someone could see from attacking the Bitcoin network is less than the cost to attack it, it will happen. If difficulty were to decrease by a large factor, not only would it become easier to attack the network, but that would indicate that there would be large amounts of idle hardware which could then potentially be used to do so.

[ProducerCoin]

Interesting, buying some more btc at these prices 

[IIOII]

Could you give an example of "currency reform" when the peak amount of currency was not exceeded within 6 months? In other words, on January 2015 there is $100 in currency in the economy, then on January 5th, the central banks takes some amount of money out via "currency reform", then there would still be some amount less then $100 in currency through the end of June 2015.

Can you give any real world examples of when central banks wanted to engage in deflation in your terms at all?

Again: I never claimed that central banks *want* to engage in deflation! In fact I said that central banks' policy is almost exclusively inflationary - deflation (abruptly via currency reform) only occurs when the existing currency has been ruined by excessive inflation. So I don't even see a contradiction between our arguments...

So I *don't* claim that central banks stop inflating after a currency reform. An example of a deflationary currency reform is the introduction of the Deutsche Mark after WWII in Germany, when large amounts of  former Reichsmark (previous currency) balances were exchanged at a greatly reduced value ratio  (10:1) for new currency.

[johny08]

Interesting, buying some more btc at these prices 

yeah, but dont invest in total 3% of your investing capital. Buy in 6 steps so you built up a good median price.

[RobertDJ]

Could you give an example of "currency reform" when the peak amount of currency was not exceeded within 6 months? In other words, on January 2015 there is $100 in currency in the economy, then on January 5th, the central banks takes some amount of money out via "currency reform", then there would still be some amount less then $100 in currency through the end of June 2015.

Can you give any real world examples of when central banks wanted to engage in deflation in your terms at all?

Again: I never claimed that central banks *want* to engage in deflation! In fact I said that central banks' policy is almost exclusively inflationary - deflation (abruptly via currency reform) only occurs when the existing currency has been ruined by excessive inflation. So I don't even see a contradiction between our arguments...

So I *don't* claim that central banks stop inflating after a currency reform. An example of a deflationary currency reform is the introduction of the Deutsche Mark after WWII in Germany, when large amounts of  former Reichsmark (previous currency) balances were exchanged at a greatly reduced value ratio  (10:1) for new currency.

I don't think I would consider exchanging one currency for another in this fashion to be a deflation event as per your definition. The total money supply remains constant in this scenario, it is only that smaller numbers are used to measure the amount of money in circulation (similar to a reverse stock split)