Bitcoin's consensus mechanism is not viable in the long term. Over a long enough timeline, it will inevitably become vulnerable to 51% attacks as halvings reduce miner incentives to keep contributing hashpower towards its security. In 10-20 years the Bitcoin network will not have enough resources to offer to the miners in exchange for security, which will lead to its downfall.
PoW is not sustainable
Jason Fisher
Parker Edwards
proof of work is self balancing and natural
only crypto with PoW is worth holding and dealing in
Isaiah Gray
Finally, an user who gets it. Bitcoin won’t always be #1. Majority of people are too short sighted to see this. You’re going to make it.
Carson Thompson
True, Proof of Stake coins are the future
Eli Foster
Either exorbitant fees will compensate for the mining reward depletion or a hardfork will increase the emission rate.
Nathaniel Bailey
All in on Fantom
Easton Perry
Then the funds will transfer to other coins. Thus freeing up space and expanding currency holds. It's a scalable system, but based on market exchange.
Elijah Fisher
Buying any crypto at this point is basically trying the roulette, user.
Wealthy people had their fortunes tied to lands, industry and businesses for millenia and will continue to do so - only fools have hoarding currency as their long-term financial goals, and that is what crypto is trying to be, just currency.
I applaud those that made good money and already cashed out enough for a comfortable retirement, though, and am considering gambling a bit with BTC if it returns to $3K.
Jaxson Thomas
How will it balance itself when the block rewards are 3.125 BTC? I understand that you mean unprofitable miners will leave until a profit equilibrium is reached, but that equilibrium is likely to leave the chain open to attack once the block rewards get low enough.
Based.
Not only PoS coins, but PoS platforms and cryptos that are built upon them. PoW as a consensus mechanism can only work for the absolute biggest chains, and even then only for so long if the asset is deflationary.
Yeah, super high fees are basically the only way out, but I doubt that this will be popular among anyone who would like to actually use the chain for tx's. Increasing the emission rate would inevitably split the community and completely erode any trust in BTC.
They most likely will, I can't wait to see what Jow Forums looks like on the day that BTC is not #1 anymore, especially considering that day might be closer than we think.
Andrew Bennett
* transaction fees block your path *
Adrian James
Just imagine how high the tx fees would have to be with a 1 MB blocksize to keep the chain secure. It would be completely unusable.
Caleb Evans
The price has keep following the log chart and rising exponentially to keep the network running
Benjamin Johnson
Pretty much this, and while the price has been doing it so far, then at one point the amount of money needed to pump it an additional 10x or 100x will be so massive that it won't be possible. That's the point where Bitcoin ends.
Owen Sanchez
t. clueless retards that probably bought crypto for the first time in 2018
William Johnson
Probably because those people didnt have computers, you know the invention that created an entirely new paradigm in humanity allowing our labor value to grow a hundredfold and changing the face of warfare forever. Computer money is totally just a fad though your right, boy am I glad I didnt buy any bitcoin in 2013 because based boomers redpilled me on how technology they dont even understand was clearly a scam and I should save for a mortgage.
Easton Garcia
what are your arguments?
Owen Hernandez
That's why you should all switch to Bitcoin Green (BITG) the only bitcoin that is Proof of Stake.
Ian Reed
>Wealthy people had their fortunes tied to lands, industry and businesses for millenia and will continue to do so - only fools have hoarding currency as their long-term financial goals, and that is what crypto is trying to be, just currency.
Ethereum is aiming to be a platform and stakers earn fees paid by the users.
Eth is a share in a decentralized company.
Jaxon Cruz
that anyone that says "PoW old, PoW bad" is a late adopter, probably down from his initial investment, that does not understand how any of this actually works
Colton Hughes
Your post contains zero arguments. How will any of this work when the block reward is down to 1.5625 BTC?
Elijah Brooks
There is a literal PoS bitcoin, it's called XBC
Dylan Murphy
Literal shitcoins, there's no way anyone would trust any meaningful amount of money to a PoS chain that started out with an ICO. No way to know how much control the deployer has over the chain.
Jaxson Sanchez
1) we aren't selling
2) they said the same thing when the block reward went from 50 btc to 25 btc
3) it's called the fee market
4) kill yourself pajeet
Josiah Gomez
Naah, even the XBC top wallet only has 30k
Jonathan Ortiz
there's anti 51% tech now you know. have a look at dash.
Lincoln Watson
If you increase the block size you add centralization points and the chain becomes permissioned which is pretty much what everybody wants to avoid.
It’s not an easy problem and there are no easy solutions
Josiah Torres
This is perfectly true, proof of work is not sustainable and this claim is scientifically backed. Do your own research.
Levi Jackson
I'm not saying that it'll necessarily happen the next halvening, but you have to admit that over a long enough timeline the rewards will approach zero, while the hashrate needed to effectively secure the chain is growing. There is no model where this is sustainable.
And how many other wallets does the deployer control? After all, he started out with all of the coins.
I'm not even necessarily arguing for larger blocks, but could you explain how having 10 MB blocks in 2019 is less decentralized than having 1 MB blocks in 2009? The cost of storage has gotten way lower, while internet is much more accessible and a lot cheaper than it was 10 years ago.
Henry Cook
>MUH I DON'T LIKE CRYPTO
OP without PoW you don't have crypto, all you have are unregistered securities!
Real crypto i.e PoW is controled by the CFTC (ruled in '15 a commodity). The rest is all under the SEC.
KYS NEWFAG
Carter Anderson
>rewards will approach zero, while the hashrate needed to effectively secure the chain is growing.
that essentially means that bitcoin has to be at ludicrously high price levels in order to provide miners with fiscal incenitive and security to continue to run their networks of computers. like if im a miner and rewards are now 0 but i hold 10000 btc and btc is over 1 million $ per btc. i have all the financial incentive to keep the network running.
Noah Turner
even peter todd knows bitcoin is a failure. the 21M limit will be raised.
trustnodes.com
Nathaniel Rodriguez
>How will it balance itself when the block rewards are 3.125 BTC?
when the reward is that size, you wont be comparing the price of bitcoin to the USD just like you don't compare it to worthless piles of shit today.
Jayden Powell
>laws dictate what is and what isn't crypto
>calling others newfags
That's a good point that I hadn't actually thought about. The people who already have a lot of bitcoin would be incentivized to mine at a loss to keep the chain secure, but such a scenario is unlikely to remain stable for long. Rather than keep on holding those 10000 BTC and eating up massive losses spent on mining, it would be much more reasonable to dump the coins ASAP and then stop mining so I wouldn't be hemorrhaging money every day.
Henry Myers
FYI PoS, that your newfags love also comes under the jurisdiction of the SEC, before you ask a brianlet question.
Lincoln Carter
lower rewards = losses for miners = miner's turning off their rigs = less miners = lower mining difficulty = less costs = new balance.
if you wanna FUD then ask "what about when all 21 million are in circulation" and the answer is transaction fees
Matthew Morgan
So, if the miners facilitate the network’s transactions, how will transactions take place after the last coin is mined in a hundred years? Who processes everything?
Josiah Garcia
So you're saying that it will have replaced the dollar by then? That doesn't change the essence of the problem though, the dollar is simply a convenient way to measure the worth of a resource on the free market. Whether you measure energy in dollars or bitcoins, it's still a quantifiable resource that requires costs to produce. If those costs are higher than the free market value of the bitcoins you get in return, then no one will want to keep on mining.
Levi Mitchell
Given crypto is the future and multi-currency environments will exist, where the only difference between them will lie in consensus mechanisms, is it viable to study the subject academically.
A sort of economic algorithmics? How would such a major be called?
Dylan Taylor
I already addressed this, if enough miners turn off their rigs, then you would achieve economic equilibrium, but the chain wouldn't be secure any more. And how high will the tx fees have to be in order to provide enough incentives to secure the chain all by their own?
Just some food for though: each block provides a 12.5 x $8,800 = $110,000 reward for the miners at the moment. In order to provide the same reward purely off of fees, each tx would have to cost $110,000/4200 = $26.19. And that's assuming the network is constantly at maximum tps. Do you think that this would be
Ethan Campbell
It’s called game theory you fucking brainlet. It’s just math
Brandon Baker
>How will it balance itself when the block rewards are 3.125 BTC?
btc will not be $10k by then nigger it will be around $100k
Samuel Clark
Which is why we need to move to 2nd layers...
Xavier Sullivan
>forgot to finish the last sentence
Do you think that such a high fee would be acceptable? Plus the fee has to get higher and higher as more and more hashpower is required to secure the ever-growing network.
Gabriel Roberts
So you're literally saying that the price has to go up forever in order for the chain to remain secure? And this seems sustainable to you?
Tyler Nguyen
THE ONLY AND ORIGINAL PROOF OF STAKE COIN IS NAMED
USD, $$$, american dollars
Joseph Myers
>laws dictate what is and what isn't crypto
Yea, they do! Its called Jurisdiction. I will spell it out for you, what is a law? Is it not, Juris-Law, Diction - words. So yea of course it it dictates crypto.
Let me go deeper, for the uninitiated, torture is unlawful right? Isn't water boarding torture? NO, they changed the 'law'! Water boarding is 'enhanced interrogation'. Those in GitMo aren't tortured! 'Law' is a big thing to them.
>calling others newfags
If you weren't so new you would never have started the /thread. If 'crypto' is a unregistered security, Business in the states can't use it. i.e no adoption. Not sayin the US is king or anything, but they do have the world reserve currency & by default an interest in a lot of matters.
Come up with another solution that isn't a security, if you don't like PoW...Oh whats that your to dumb to know what a security is, surprise. I'll give you a hint...it a 'law'.
KYS ZOOMER
Parker Rogers
yes, its an unsustainable scenario but its the most plausible scenario where BTC is at a million dollars per BTC. it'll actually probably be way more than that. the BTC network will die without the miners so there has to always be some kind of financial incentive to continue to support the network security as a miner. this is why coins like btc/ltc/xmr are all going to be so much more valuable than our wildest dreams. these price fluctuations now will mean nothing in the next 20 years
it will reach a price equlibrium but it wont be until its well into the millions.
Levi Torres
>If you increase the block size you add centralization points
How is this true?
Grayson Sanchez
In this thread there are
Some retards who never read
Bitcoin white paper
Nicholas Hernandez
so many brainlets
bitcoin is sustainable
David Anderson
doesnt seem fair of you to say pow doesnt work when you dont even understand it
Luke Williams
Care to explain more on SegWit economics?