It was designed to be of a finite amount. Currently 16 million bitcoin in circulation (aside from those that have been lost) - although of those 16 million, many 'hodl' (they're keeping them and using them as a store of value). BTC has 8 places of decimal. There's still enough to go around - but with a finite amount (the maximum 21 million will only be realised by 2040), the price must go up.
Everything in bitcoin is done by consensus.
Mining is necessary in order to verify and confirm transactions. The white paper set out 21 million as the threshold figure. I'm not sure of the point that you are making?So why don't they agree to stop mining now. Indeed why not reduce everybody's BTC holding pro-rata. Imagine if there was only 1 BTC, wow what would its price be?
Far, far too much is made of this scarcity aspect.
Now that would be a pure gamble, and only sounds good in hindsight.Since this thread has started you could have bought a bitcoin at 12,000 usd and sold to day for 16300 usd, not a bad return.
So why don't they agree to stop mining now. Indeed why not reduce everybody's BTC holding pro-rata. Imagine if there was only 1 BTC, wow what would its price be?
Far, far too much is made of this scarcity aspect.
If the demand for Bitcoin was driven buy people trying to buy it, to in turn buy other stuff, I would get it. But as far as I can see people are just buying it to sell it on for more money.
Mining stops in c.2040 but presumably transactions will continue to be verified by the community. The point I am making is that if scarcity is so important why not stop now at 16M? Maybe that's because miners are in the majority. But then what's to stop the miners changing the rules to increase the supply to, say, 31M?Mining is necessary in order to verify and confirm transactions. The white paper set out 21 million as the threshold figure. I'm not sure of the point that you are making?
Again, in my unqualified opinion, my understanding is that he wanted to create a currency that couldn't be interfered with - a la quantative easing, etc.
The miners still collect the transaction fees.Mining stops in c.2040 but presumably transactions will continue to be verified by the community. The point I am making is that if scarcity is so important why not stop now at 16M? Maybe that's because miners are in the majority. But then what's to stop the miners changing the rules to increase the supply to, say, 31M?
Actually, I think I know the answer to these questions. If there was such a major change in the rules it would blow the mantra that BTC is tamper proof, unlike fiat. But will that paradigm still hold in 2040?
The miners cannot dictate mining further coins. However, I do accept that the community/project has hit an issue in terms of the needs/wants of various stakeholders. That's what I was referring to with regard to the need for better governance. How that its resolved I personally don't know. However, you can be sure that there are smarter minds than me working on it.The point I am making is that if scarcity is so important why not stop now at 16M? Maybe that's because miners are in the majority. But then what's to stop the miners changing the rules to increase the supply to, say, 31M?
Maybe I am misunderstanding your point, in fact maybe I am misunderstanding everythingOh...and in terms of the issue with cost of transactions and speed of transactions, 'lightening network' is in the works.
Mining stops in c.2040
Exactly, so why not pull up the ladder now at 16M to maximise the scarcity effect? (that's what this line of the thread is about). If its because the miners call the shots (majority consensus) then what's to stop them increasing the 21M when the party looks like ending?The miners still collect the transaction fees.
There will be incentive to mine, even after the block reward dries out.
OoopsMining actually stops in 2140. That's something for our great grand kids to worry about, assuming bitcoin still exists by then.
Okay, this has been a bit of a cul de sac, apologiesThe miners can't change the rules unilateraly, because the rules are also enforced by user wallets, the nodes that exchanges run etc. The block they mined that had the incorrect reward included as a transaction would be rejected by the rest of the network, and they would have wasted money on mining it.
I wonder about the depth of liquidity for bitcoin. Would someone with $200m of bitcoins be able to sell them in a short space of time and realise their current potential, or would they quickly exceed the liquidity available in one or more brokers?
Are there any easy ways to look at the depth of liquidity of bitcoin?
This is the nub of the issue. No one needs Bitcoin to buy other legitimate stuff, they can do so with conventional currencies. So the demand is only for anonymous payment for black market stuff.
Since this thread has started you could have bought a bitcoin at 12,000 usd and sold to day for 16300 usd, not a bad return.
So just as criminals are buying bitcoin to cover their transactions, driving up the price, they would also be selling in order to realise their gains, thus driving down the price.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?