Kaminsky: Bitcoin is here to stay

I only linked it because he is well-respected, and he seems to have an honest, impartial take on bitcoin. But yeah, the title was fishy

Title paints a pessimistic view of bitcoin, but the article doesn't

Yeah, I took the liberty of rewriting it

quote:

---

I thought the article was pretty neutral.

---

it was

but the headline was sensational. probably written by an editor and not the author

quote:

---

or Poodles

---

According to the search function, I have started exactly 2 threads about Bitcoins. The one poining out Bitcoins are trading for less than $100 that is still on page 1, and one about how Bitcoins would establish a new aristocracy since Bitcoin users would have to go to Bitcoin mining operators to get permission to conduct a transaction using Bitcoins. So I think any asccusations of sensationalism should be reserved for the promoters of Bitcoin who tend to ignore the potential shortcomings that critics have from linked articles.

Just out of curiousity, once the last Bitcoin has been mined, who is going to provide the computing power to validate ownership of Bitcoins? The financial incentive to provide computing power will be gone. Who is going to prop up the "currency"?

quote:

---

once the last Bitcoin has been mined, who is going to provide the computing power to validate ownership of Bitcoins? The financial incentive to provide computing power will be gone. Who is going to prop up the "currency"?

---

they will still collect transaction fees

an equilibrium will establish.

because, if everyone stops mining, then CPU mining will once again be possible (because difficulty would lower) which means that mining will be very cheap and easy, which would lead to more people doing it.

eventually, the amount of miners will increase, causing the mining difficulty to rise again. as the mining difficulty rises, it gets more expensive, so some people will stop mining.

then mining difficulty will lower, meaning some people will start mining again....

and eventually, a nice happy medium will develop.


so, to put it simply, this is a non-issue

:insertwikiiraqdenialpic:

quote:

---

We'll all be dead by then.

---

while technically true, practically speaking, after the year 2033 or so, the bitcoin block reward (and thus the inflation rate) will be so small as to be insignificant

quote:

---

An unaccountable consortium

---

No. They are accountable to the market. If, hypothetically, all mining pools and individual miners collude to set a high transaction fee, then people won't use the bitcoin network, which will make mining for them worthless.

Not only that, but what happens if some upstart comes in and undercuts their colluded fee?

Beyond that, most bitcoin transactions likely won't even take place on the blockchain in the future. Actual blockchain transactions will likely consist of large group transactions on a set schedule.

Not only that, but what is it about a free market that you don't grasp? The market is completely free, which means it WILL FIND EQUILIBRIUM.

I'm not worried about the future of mining at all. Not one bit. It is literally one of the items of absolute least concern when it comes to bitcoin. But you can keep making a mountain out of a molehill if you choose.

BTW, you know how I know y'all don't do really do your research?

You keep bringing up non-issues.


If you really did your research you'd bring up real concerns like the block size which currently limits the amount of transactions that can be processed.