4 ms·
I only brought up halvings because it explained the chart. But let's ignore halvings and talk about mining incentive then. Fees are the less important half of t
by TakeBlaster16 4y ago
I only brought up halvings because it explained the chart. But let's ignore halvings and talk about mining incentive then. Fees are the less important half of the story. The main driver is difficulty adjustments. If scarce fees come in, difficulty goes down so profitability increases. If plentiful fees come in, difficulty will go up so profitability decreases. Fees are actually damped by the adjustments so the absolute amount of fees doesn't really matter. So long as fees are above 0.00000000, the network will be fine. I predict that there will always be some baseline level of competition keeping fees above 0.00000000, but if that is wrong, then things would likely fall apart one day.
- winnie_ua 4y agoThe problem is, that when it become inprofitable -- miners would shut down their ASICs and wait for better time -- causing difficulty to drop. And at this point somebody with huge computing power disabled could enable theirs Rig and quickly generating block to perform double-spend, and create soft fork.
- paulgb 4y agoThe security of the network depends on the difficulty. It’s true that in the absence of bad actors the network will run as long as fees are nonzero, but the whole point of bitcoin is that it’s supposed to be resilient to attacks.
- TakeBlaster16 4y agoIf usage is low - fees will be low, and the cost of an attack will be low, but the expected value gained from an attack will also be low. If usage is high - fees will be high, and the cost of an attack will be high. Security scales with usage, as does the incentive to attack. As long as usage trends in the same direction as value, I don't see the problem.