4 ms·

~95% of bitcoins have already been mined, market cap is $2T, so you'd expect another $100B to go (assuming no price change).

wslh 1y ago
Mined bitcoins are distinct from the mining process itself: even after all bitcoins have been mined, miners will continue to operate and earn transaction fees for validating and securing the network.
- virgilp 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - immibis 1y ago
    ChatGPT is correct in this case. IMO it's all unsustainable. Users will not pay enough transaction fees to match the current block reward, and while mining will continue, if more than 50% of mining power becomes unused, a bad actor can buy it up and anyone with more than 50% of mining power has the ability to completely destroy the network. Tail emission is a better model.
    - virgilp 1y ago
      Thank you. While admittedly lazy, I wasn't trying to make a point with "here's what ChatGPT says" - I looked up the economics of BTC for the first time and I was shocked that its demise is built into the protocol (I didn't use ChatGPT to prove a point, I was more trying to find out where it is wrong). Seems that if nothing changes, mining may become uneconomical as soon as 2028. If that's the case I'm kinda' shocked that there's no panic among BTC holders.
  - meindnoch 1y ago
    Here's what ChatGPT says about pasting comments copied from ChatGPT: It signals that instead of contributing your own thoughts, you’ve outsourced your opinion to an AI. In serious discussions, it can undermine your credibility, especially if the topic requires critical thinking, personal insight, or expertise. People might dismiss it outright with a “So what? That’s just what an AI generated.” It can also feel like a cop-out, especially in academic, professional, or nuanced debates where showing your reasoning matters. Relying on ChatGPT as a crutch might make you seem disengaged or unwilling to do the work of forming your own view. In short: pasting “Here’s what ChatGPT says…” can make your comment look generic, weak, and uninspired—and in some circles, it’s almost a conversation killer.
    - semitones 1y ago
      Yeah I dislike it when people just paste chatgpt outputs. If you use ChatGPT, you should (imo) use it to _help_ you write your own response - it's output is similar to a Google search, and you use that info to edit your own response
      - virgilp 1y ago
        I wasn't using it to prove a point, I was shocked at what it said and trying to find out where it is wrong. But yeah, point taken, my comment's formulation was unfortunate and a bit lazy.
        aspenmayer 1y ago
        Here’s what dang says about generated comments on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%22generated%20comments%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... I’ll save you a click: generated comments are against HN guidelines.
        virgilp 1y ago
        From my perspective it wasn't a generated comment - the meat of it (though not the most characters typed) was about my realization that BTC has maybe/probably one decade of trading left in it. Kinda' how meindnoch's reply to my message, despite being mostly a ChatGPT comment, was actually not about what ChatGPT said. But, got it, ycombinator doesn't like any form of LLM quoting, and it would've been better if I just skipped the GPT quote. (I do believe this stance is a bit too strict since LLMs *do* provide useful information sometimes, and I wasn't just mindlessly posting a ChatGPT hallucination, but a text fragment that I vetted beforehand/ that made complete sense to me and led me to what proved to be an ultimately true insight; that said, I respect that this is the ycombinator stance and I won't do it again - you will see it's the only time I did that, if you look in my comment history)
        1y ago
- bee_rider 1y ago
  I guess we’ll see… I mean, bitcoin transactions will have to be valuable enough that we’re willing to pay extra (vs credit or debit card transactions) to maintain that network, right?
  - phkahler 1y ago
    >> bitcoin transactions will have to be valuable enough that we’re willing to pay extra (vs credit or debit card transactions) to maintain that network, right? Does handing transactions require similar amounts of power to mining? Edit: also, if transactions are ultimately handled by just one or two entities, there will be no point to bitcoin any more.
    - kragen 1y ago
      Mining is the way transactions are handled.
      - ted_dunning 1y ago
        You didn't answer the question. The real answer hinges on the leverage of mining one hash to certify multiple transactions.
        bee_rider 1y ago
        I’m not sure what the real question is or what the real answer is. I’m under the impression that “handling transactions” in bitcoin and mining are the same thing. (Although I don’t work in cryptocurrency so maybe the misunderstanding is on my part…)
        Sohcahtoa82 1y ago
        Handling a Bitcoin transaction is two things: - Broadcasting the transaction throughout the network so that all nodes (including miners) are aware of it - Miners confirming transactions by solving a block When a miner solves a block, they earn both the block reward (Which will eventually become zero) and the fees paid by the sender. Theoretically, as time goes on an the value of Bitcoin goes up, the value of the fees will be high enough that it will make up for the lack of the block reward. So the original question of "Does handing transactions require similar amounts of power to mining?" The answer is basically yes. Mining is what confirms transactions. A new block is added to the chain, with each block containing several transactions.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

wslh 1y ago

Mined bitcoins are distinct from the mining process itself: even after all bitcoins have been mined, miners will continue to operate and earn transaction fees for validating and securing the network.

virgilp 1y ago
[flagged]
- immibis 1y ago
  ChatGPT is correct in this case. IMO it's all unsustainable. Users will not pay enough transaction fees to match the current block reward, and while mining will continue, if more than 50% of mining power becomes unused, a bad actor can buy it up and anyone with more than 50% of mining power has the ability to completely destroy the network. Tail emission is a better model.
  - virgilp 1y ago
    Thank you. While admittedly lazy, I wasn't trying to make a point with "here's what ChatGPT says" - I looked up the economics of BTC for the first time and I was shocked that its demise is built into the protocol (I didn't use ChatGPT to prove a point, I was more trying to find out where it is wrong). Seems that if nothing changes, mining may become uneconomical as soon as 2028. If that's the case I'm kinda' shocked that there's no panic among BTC holders.
- meindnoch 1y ago
  Here's what ChatGPT says about pasting comments copied from ChatGPT: It signals that instead of contributing your own thoughts, you’ve outsourced your opinion to an AI. In serious discussions, it can undermine your credibility, especially if the topic requires critical thinking, personal insight, or expertise. People might dismiss it outright with a “So what? That’s just what an AI generated.” It can also feel like a cop-out, especially in academic, professional, or nuanced debates where showing your reasoning matters. Relying on ChatGPT as a crutch might make you seem disengaged or unwilling to do the work of forming your own view. In short: pasting “Here’s what ChatGPT says…” can make your comment look generic, weak, and uninspired—and in some circles, it’s almost a conversation killer.
  - semitones 1y ago
    Yeah I dislike it when people just paste chatgpt outputs. If you use ChatGPT, you should (imo) use it to _help_ you write your own response - it's output is similar to a Google search, and you use that info to edit your own response
    - virgilp 1y ago
      I wasn't using it to prove a point, I was shocked at what it said and trying to find out where it is wrong. But yeah, point taken, my comment's formulation was unfortunate and a bit lazy.
      - aspenmayer 1y ago
        Here’s what dang says about generated comments on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%22generated%20comments%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... I’ll save you a click: generated comments are against HN guidelines.
        virgilp 1y ago
        From my perspective it wasn't a generated comment - the meat of it (though not the most characters typed) was about my realization that BTC has maybe/probably one decade of trading left in it. Kinda' how meindnoch's reply to my message, despite being mostly a ChatGPT comment, was actually not about what ChatGPT said. But, got it, ycombinator doesn't like any form of LLM quoting, and it would've been better if I just skipped the GPT quote. (I do believe this stance is a bit too strict since LLMs *do* provide useful information sometimes, and I wasn't just mindlessly posting a ChatGPT hallucination, but a text fragment that I vetted beforehand/ that made complete sense to me and led me to what proved to be an ultimately true insight; that said, I respect that this is the ycombinator stance and I won't do it again - you will see it's the only time I did that, if you look in my comment history)
        1y ago
bee_rider 1y ago
I guess we’ll see… I mean, bitcoin transactions will have to be valuable enough that we’re willing to pay extra (vs credit or debit card transactions) to maintain that network, right?
- phkahler 1y ago
  >> bitcoin transactions will have to be valuable enough that we’re willing to pay extra (vs credit or debit card transactions) to maintain that network, right? Does handing transactions require similar amounts of power to mining? Edit: also, if transactions are ultimately handled by just one or two entities, there will be no point to bitcoin any more.
  - kragen 1y ago
    Mining is the way transactions are handled.
    - ted_dunning 1y ago
      You didn't answer the question. The real answer hinges on the leverage of mining one hash to certify multiple transactions.
      - bee_rider 1y ago
        I’m not sure what the real question is or what the real answer is. I’m under the impression that “handling transactions” in bitcoin and mining are the same thing. (Although I don’t work in cryptocurrency so maybe the misunderstanding is on my part…)
        Sohcahtoa82 1y ago
        Handling a Bitcoin transaction is two things: - Broadcasting the transaction throughout the network so that all nodes (including miners) are aware of it - Miners confirming transactions by solving a block When a miner solves a block, they earn both the block reward (Which will eventually become zero) and the fees paid by the sender. Theoretically, as time goes on an the value of Bitcoin goes up, the value of the fees will be high enough that it will make up for the lack of the block reward. So the original question of "Does handing transactions require similar amounts of power to mining?" The answer is basically yes. Mining is what confirms transactions. A new block is added to the chain, with each block containing several transactions.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]