Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 07:01:39 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Less reward per block next year?  (Read 1493 times)
Foxpup
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694



View Profile
May 07, 2012, 03:35:18 AM
 #21

The constant creation of coins lowers the value of all existing coins.

Again, that depends on the votes of the miners and whether or not a slight decrease in value is worth the security a larger network would provide.
Miners don't vote on the value of bitcoin, the market does. If the supply of bitcoins increases beyond the demand for bitcoins, the value will go down, regardless of what the miners do.

I'm 99% certain the rules will be changed to keep miners and therefore the securers of the network online. Possibly in the form of an increased Total Coin ceiling.
The rules cannot and will not change. The total number of coins cannot be increased.

Not sure if you're trolling, or just ignorant.
Any block which doesn't follow the rules will be rejected by nodes that do. Any attempt to change to the rules will fail for this reason. Explain how it is otherwise.

I just don't see 50% of the network sticking around for the "fees".
I do. Right now, fees are about 0.1% of the block reward (at least they were last time I checked). If the fee per transaction stays the same and transaction volume increases by 1000 times, the resulting total fees will be equivalent to the current block reward. There's no problem here unless transaction volume doesn't increase enough, in which case Bitcoin is doomed anyway.

By the time the transaction volume increases by 1000x, the number of miners will also have increased by a significant amount, reducing everyone's share of the fee.
They number of miners will not increase beyond the point where mining is no longer profitable. Unless incentives change radically (and I've explained why I don't think they will), the total hashpower of the network will increase in accordance with Moore's law (and so does the hashpower of any attackers, so if security is good enough now, it'll be good enough for the future). Whether this means the same number of miners with more powerful rigs, or more miners with less powerful rigs, I don't know, and I don't care either - the effect is the same as far as the security of the network is concerned.

Will pretend to do unverifiable things (while actually eating an enchilada-style burrito) for bitcoins: 1K6d1EviQKX3SVKjPYmJGyWBb1avbmCFM4
1480748499
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480748499

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480748499
Reply with quote  #2

1480748499
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480748499
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480748499

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480748499
Reply with quote  #2

1480748499
Report to moderator
Fuzzy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560



View Profile
May 07, 2012, 03:48:02 AM
 #22

Miners don't vote on the value of bitcoin, the market does.

You seem to have missed my point on the "Miners Vote" issue. No, they do not decide the value of a Bitcoin. They can decide what they sell it at, but ultimately it's the buyer that decides what they are willing to pay.

The Miners can decide on what rules they mine by. And yes, if one rogue node changes the rules it gets rejected. But if enough nodes "vote" on changing the rules, that is, they mine with a different set of rules, then the majority rules.

This is how miners "vote".

if security is good enough now, it'll be good enough for the future

This is a very shortsighted statement.

I don't get what all the denial is about here. Wishing and arguing that it's impossible doesn't help, it's a possibility, and a threat to the whole network.

Unless I'm wrong, in which case the whole 51% attack fiasco is a non-issue.
Fuzzy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560



View Profile
May 07, 2012, 03:58:34 AM
 #23

is there any way to remove the 21 million limit? it would be cooler if the limit was somehow tied with the ammount of users using bitcoin, or ammount of transactions there were in past few blocks, or something like that

Only if over 50% of the network agrees on it. The implications of that however would be staggering.
Foxpup
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694



View Profile
May 07, 2012, 04:33:44 AM
 #24

The Miners can decide on what rules they mine by. And yes, if one rogue node changes the rules it gets rejected. But if enough nodes "vote" on changing the rules, that is, they mine with a different set of rules, then the majority rules.

This is how miners "vote".
is there any way to remove the 21 million limit? it would be cooler if the limit was somehow tied with the ammount of users using bitcoin, or ammount of transactions there were in past few blocks, or something like that

Only if over 50% of the network agrees on it. The implications of that however would be staggering.
Wrong. You can't change the rules with over 50% of the miners, you need the support of virtually 100% of the nodes, including non-miners. Nodes that don't follow the new rules will reject blocks mined under the new rules. At best this will result in the blockchain being forked; more likely, the blocks following the new rule just won't propagate through the network, and all the effort mining them will be wasted. While there are a lot of things you can do if you have the support of more than 50% of the miners, changing the core rules isn't one of them.

if security is good enough now, it'll be good enough for the future

This is a very shortsighted statement.
No it isn't. Because the attacker's hashing power increases at exactly the same rate as the network hashing power, the security threat in the future is exactly the same as it is now. I never said that there was no threat, just that whatever threat there is will be no greater in the future than it is now.

Will pretend to do unverifiable things (while actually eating an enchilada-style burrito) for bitcoins: 1K6d1EviQKX3SVKjPYmJGyWBb1avbmCFM4
Unacceptable
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932



View Profile
May 07, 2012, 05:29:01 AM
 #25

Don't know about fees but the price of BTC should rise soon after the reduction,by how much ? Who knows Huh

Maybe to $10  Huh

Care to explain your reasoning?  Huh

Supply & demand..........miners will create less BTC,so if future demand stays close to what is now,there will be less BTC so your gonna pay more per.

I'm just guessing so...............................

"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day long, you are the asshole."  -Raylan Givens
Got GOXXED ?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KiqRpPiJAU&feature=youtu.be
"An ASIC being late is perfectly normal, predictable, and legal..."Hashfast & BFL slogan Smiley
Fuzzy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560



View Profile
May 07, 2012, 05:31:24 AM
 #26

oops, Didn't see this was the noob section. Should know better than to argue the ignorance here.

EDIT: Actually, out of curiosity, I'm gonna post this question elsewhere. I'd like to see if this is actually viable or not.
mem
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644


Herp Derp PTY LTD


View Profile
May 07, 2012, 02:36:36 PM
 #27


I asked my buddy George, He said expect $8 usd to be the new stable price in 1st quarter 2013.

Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!