So, here's the thing. Everyone's going on about quantum computers that might not even show up for another century. But what about the real issues? Bitcoin is at risk from actual computers right now. Miners defend the network, but their rewards get halved every four years. If Bitcoin price doesn't double, how do we keep mining viable?
If the next generations find bitcoin useful, they'll use it, right? More transactions mean higher volume. But currently, block revenue from fees is super low. Like, 0.015 BTC for recent blocks. At $10 million per bitcoin, that's $150k, which is cool but will it stay that way in 2050?
Fees are key for security. Bitcoin makes more from fees than many other blockchains do combined. Even without inflation, Bitcoin's still a strong option compared to those other systems. Just saying, we might need to wait longer for confirmations in the future.
It’s not set in stone. Miners might stick around or leave. The number of miners affects the hashrate and thus the difficulty of mining. Their costs can change over time, so it's not a definite rule.
The cost of securing an asset should match its value. Like bike locks, you wouldn't use a cheap lock on an expensive bike. Your comparison to other blockchains isn't really fair since their total transaction values are way lower than Bitcoin’s.
From what I've seen, people are hoping for higher Bitcoin prices to balance out lower mining rewards. But increasing transaction volume needs bigger block sizes, and that's not too popular in the Bitcoin community. And yeah, some mining pools won't even process transactions below 1 sat/vB.
So if fees stay low, we might need Bitcoin to hit around $800k to $1 million for miners to earn enough. That’s not impossible given Bitcoin's past performance. Also, with limited block size, users might shift to layer 2 solutions like Lightning Network.
Honestly, when Bitcoin hits $1 million, I doubt transaction fees will stay the same. Just look back a decade; people were paying 100 sat/b, and now it’s way lower. People don’t wanna pay $10 for a transaction, right?
Thanks for sharing those stats! They really help in understanding that the system is holding up for now. Bitcoin was meant to be a payment system, not just digital gold. Gold is a hassle to deal with, and Bitcoin offers a better digital solution.
Totally agree. Price is the key factor. Ten years ago, 100 sat/vbyte was worth way more than it is now. Your data shows that even with lower sat/vbyte rates, average block revenue hasn’t dropped much. I think Bitcoin prices will adjust with sat/vbyte drops.
The core issue with Bitcoin is its supply model. Gold has a steady production rate that aligns with demand, while Bitcoin's reward halves no matter what. For Bitcoin to work as a medium of exchange, it needs a more flexible system.
Why reduce the minimum fee by tenfold? Seems illogical. I’ve never used that option and won’t pay less than 1 sat/vB. It saves a few cents but could hurt us in the long run.
That's not really the problem. The system is designed to self-destruct as it is. Other coins like Doge are set up to last longer with a more gradual inflation rate.
I don’t see how this is a big issue. The supply was distributed fairly. Satoshi didn’t pre-mine Bitcoin. Sure, the halving is abrupt, but a gradual decline would take ages to become less inflationary than gold.
There are many scenarios to consider, but predictions are based on assumptions. Security is relative; if miners leave, the network adjusts for profitability. Yes, it might sacrifice some hash power, but Bitcoin is all or nothing. If it’s still running well in 2050, I think it’ll be fine.
I appreciate your interest in the tech, even if you’re not technical! Your concerns are valid but figuring out this “flaw” in Bitcoin needs serious analysis that rarely happens.
As long as no one can control half the hashrate, security should hold. Historically, 51% attacks happened when attackers rented hashrate or used malware. It’s never been about owning the infrastructure.