Is the BTC security budget a real crisis looming on the horizon that will wreck the network? Or is it overblown seething from ETH trannies who are down 80% in BTC terms since the merge?

>>60588350 (OP)
I think it's a real concern. The problem is bitcoin transactions are too expensive, so transaction volume is low which in turn means network fees hypothetically won't make up for the lack of a block reward after all BTC is mined. Satoshi originally conceived of bitcoin being a global payment network generating revenues for miners in the form of transaction fees, so this assumption not materializing is certainly a risk. Either the network needs to change to allow higher transaction volumes or they need to implement tail emissions like Monero or DOGE. The only counterargument to this I've heard is that the difficulty scaling would adjust the cost to mine a block down as miners drop out from becoming insolvent when the block reward goes away, leaving a cadre of miners remaining who hopefully are subsisting on network fees, but the risk is that network fees are variable whereas a block reward is a certainty, i.e. there could be a period of low transaction volume and fees which decimates miners. It would be less risky in the long run to implement tail emissions so that there is a source of guaranteed income for miners IMO. I'm a wholecoiner btw.

>>60588395
Thanks for the effort response. I’m a wholecoiner maxi and have 99% of my net worth in bitcoin for some time now.
> Either the network needs to change to allow higher transaction volumes
By increasing block size yes? I never really understood the hate against this. Would it really challenge immutability so much?
>tail emissions
I disagree here… the hard cap is good and part of why bitcoin won over alts

In general I don’t understand how or why an attack on the network would happen. You can’t just create a billion asics to 51% attack, and miners are incentivized to be honest. There’s also an element of “let the market figure it out,” because I believe on some level if it was such an existential crisis, the price would have crashed by now no? But the opposite has happened and btc continues to defy detractors and crush altcoins and is legitimately looking like it has a real shot of becoming the new standard, but maybe that’s just maxi hopium.

>>60588350 (OP)
>>60588395
There will be a fee market to support it specially as the time chain becomes used as a time stamping tool or even as a server whitelist to filter out spam. Imagine an email server that only accepts emails from servers that can cryptographically sign a wallet with $100M+ in BTC that would essentially filter out every bad actor in the network. many other use cases that would drive up fees haven't even been thought of including in layers.

Imagine someone in 1994 trying to think of the all the businesses being built on the internet in 2025.

It's just too early for this to be relevant, however even if you assume a very modest 5% growth in the fee market you can see miner revenue eventually explodes and goes way beyond what block rewards can generate.

The future of mining is going to be a mix of public and private sector with the several mixed industries using BTC mining for different purposes such as stabilizing the grid and also yes governments will run miners as a matter of national security too.

If a market for fee does not support a robust mining network that keeps Bitcoin safe then we're probably looking at a fork of the network. In which case however much bitcoin you have gets copied along with your wallets and addresses onto the new network,

The scenario where bitcoin just dies is basically impossible as the network is a living and breathing entity that responds to threats.

>>60588430
Thanks for the insightful response among we I agree with you on pretty much everything and assume we are ideologically aligned. I especially agree that bitcoin won’t die. Do you think in the future that the only people transacting on the base layer will be banks, state actors, and whales paying big fees?
> Imagine someone in 1994 trying to think of the all the businesses being built on the internet in 2025.
I totally agree with this and have similar thoughts. I’ve had epiphanies in the past where I get glimpses of the future of BTC and it scared me enough to go all in. I hold nothing else besides some gold The level of sovereignty we have as bitcoiners is basically unprecedented in human history.
>5% growth in fee market
Does a growth in the fee market in sats terms actually have to happen? What if bitcoin continues to outperform everything else. Isn’t that enough?
> If a market for fee does not support a robust mining network that keeps Bitcoin safe then we're probably looking at a fork of the network
What would the fork look like? Removed hard cap, bigger block size, tail emissions, like the other anon said? Or something else?

I also agree that bitcoin will be used to stabilize the grid, and much energy that is stranded or unusable on the market will be funneled into mining BTC.

Bump

>>60588395
Na dawg, you trippin wit that tail emission talk. Ain’t no way we turnin Bitcoin into some weak-ass inflation coin like Monero or DOGE. That block reward dryin' up? Yeah, that's part of the plan, senpai. Satoshi knew real value come from scarcity. Ain’t ‘posed to feed miners forever off magic coins so they gotta earn they keep when it’s time.

Tx fees gon' rise when demand hit, just like gas on ETH. Bet that. And them low volume days? That's just the calm 'fore the bullstorm. Real G's stack sats and ride it out, not cry for forever money like fiat chumps. You want guaranteed pay? Go punch a clock.

Bitcoin ain’t ‘bout safety nets. It’s survival of the fittest hashpower. adapt bruh or fade out. That’s the hustle. Keep it hard, keep it scarce, keep it real. Tail emissions? Miss me wit that broke mindset.

>>60588430
Holy cope. There are no fees. Blocks are empty as fuck.

>>60588588
so why is bitcoin almost ATH and hashrate continues to go parabolic?

>>60588596
because the spot price of bitcoin isn't value by the technicals, it's valued as a vehicle for deflationary pressure against the USD. The money "invested' in bitcoin is money removed from the economy, thus helped to reduce money velocity.

>>60588651
I think its value comes from scarcity, demand, and perception. If the declining block reward was such an imminent threat why hasnt bitcoin been repriced? and isnt the money velocity only reduced if the cash obtained from acquiring bitcoin isnt spent?

>>60588670
the cash from selling* bitcoin, not acquiring

>>60588670
how many companies and corporations have built crypto "reserves"?

>>60588720
Hundreds https://bitcointreasuries.net/
many state actors are acquiring in secret, like Bhutan was shown to have been doing

>>60588731
now think of what happens when deflation becomes an issue - they will need to combat this and they will do this by selling off their reserves, depleting price, and propping up inflation

>>60588740
why would deflation be an issue for holders? Also dont you think institutions have lower time preference than dopamine fried retail retards?

So are miners just dead? They're all in the gutter compared to BTC

>>60588781
hashrate is so high right now... also weak unprofitable miners dying is by design

>>60588350 (OP)
it stands on the assumption that nobody will attack it for economic reasons, but nothing stops an ideologically motivated adversary state like china from accumulating mining hardware and staging a 51% attack when the time is right - when enough Americans decide to use bitcoin as a safe haven asset

>>60588812
But how would you acquire this much mining hardware? seems very difficult

>>60588350 (OP)
when the block reward runs out they can always switch over to BSV and get the fees off of Terabyte blocks like Satoshi envisioned

>>60588839
sha-256 mining chips are not rocket science, chinese fabs can pump them out in droves and for a state they cost nothing to make as making chips is not a resource-intensive operation - it's only expensive to set up a fab

>>60588670
>If the declining block reward was such an imminent threat why hasnt bitcoin been repriced?
1. It's not an imminent threat, it's a threat decades down the road.
2. The market can be irrational longer than you can remain solvent.

>>60588874
Doubling the hashrate, and building millions of basics, with the intention of 51%ing the network is not exactly a walk in the park
>>60589024
1. Some people say it will happen within two halving if price stagnates
2. True, so what do?

>>60589037
>Some people say it will happen within two halving if price stagnates
It will still cost ~$2-3B/year to attack the network with an upfront cost of multiple billions, assuming the price stays at $100K forever. I don't think that's insecure enough for Bitcoin to get attacked. It is less than 10% of the security of Ethereum though, less than Solana too

>>60589078
Just curious, where are you getting these numbers from? And what do? What to buy?

>>60589150
I'm making the assumption that miners will only mine if they are profitable and that they will compete with each other bringing the profit to near 0. Also assuming the hardware cost is at least one years worth of the mining cost, but idk about that. After two halvings the reward will be about 0.78125 BTC/block or about ~41000BTC/year, which at $100K/BTC is $4.1B/year.

>>60589169
Interesting. So why hasnt this happened yet? BTC is an existential threat to central banks, so if it was going to happen why hasnt it happened yet?

>>60588596
>>60588651
the biggest miners don't care if they operate at a nominal loss. they are using cheap energy that cannot be sold on the open market, so instead they turn it into bitcoin. it's great arbitrage for them, completely destructive to every other miner that actually has to pay bills. so in this sense the network will remain "healthy" as long as these miners have an incentive to keep producing bitcoin at a nominal cost much higher than btc's market value, they will spin up mining new units for as much energy capacity as they can get. but it kills all the other miners, and since miners determine the canonical chain, feel free to speculate what the ultimate result will be

>>60589183
What's the incentive? Attacking the network is obviously illegal, will make an enemy of any government that has large crypto industries (USA, Japan, China unofficially), and the short position you would have to have to profit is so large that it would be quickly noticed and shut down by exchanges. The only way to trustlessly trade something like BTC is through a DEX on ETH, and the total market cap of WBTC (the most liquid BTC stablecoin there) is only ~$14B with the max you can borrow from AAVE being $2.8B. Everything else would just ban you and take your collateral due to the legal risks.

The only scenario I see within the next couple decades, before the security budget gets so low a hostile actor could profit from a DeFi position, where BTC gets successfully attacked is if a major state government essentially goes to war against the USA and attacks it as an act of war. I really don't see that happening, so for the short run BTC will likely remain secure.

>>60589230
>>60589183
to elaborate further on >>60589217, the existing hashpower is mercenary in nature. they will do anything that gives their asics value. ideological mining is essentially dead. so rather than a few decades from now, let's suppose that in about 4 years we see another deliberate fud cycle, this time focused on quantum, security budget, adversarial miners, etc, the public is once again convinced that crypto is a scam and bitcoin will die, there's a big sell off, then mysteriously the market begins to recover, and shortly thereafter we get a release from blackrock, microstrategy et al, that as a matter of national security, to harden the network against future threats, in collaboration with the us gov, there will be a 1 year period of public collaboration with stakeholders to produce bitcoin 2.0, an update to the canonical node software. the aforementioned liquidity providers all buy, pumping the market. what do you think mercenary miners will do, when given the choice between "old bitcoin" and the "bitcoin 2.0" proposed by their paypigs?

>>60588350 (OP)
it is a fake problem made up by assblasted crypto cucks who lost everything against btc

>>60589230
Do you think btc can hit a million USD per coin by 2029?

>be Bitcoin
>mfw block subsidy halves every 4 years and eventually hits zero
>miners sweating over meager fees like NEETs scraping change from couch cushions
>some anons say “just increase block size bro”
>others scream “centralization!!!” louder than /biz/ during an Elon pump
>optimists think Lightning & rollups will create a booming fee market
>pessimists fear empty blocks miners bail 51% attack incoming
>tail emissions? heresy! BTC must stay scarce at all costs
>state actors & hydro-rich nations quietly stacking hashpower for grid flex

prediction: short‑term pump in hashrate, fees still a joke
mid‑term: Lightning sees real adoption, base layer txs flatline, shitposting intensifies
long‑term: either mass on‑chain use‑cases save the day or anon devs reluctantly soft‑fork a tiny perpetual subsidy

tfw Satoshi left this cliffhanger for us to argue over for decades

>>60588596
China makes ant miners for $50 and points their hashrate to USA Foundry (They removed IP adresses) just to fool bitcoin miner's decentralized narrative and go into debt to buy bitcoin miners at x100 markup. POS is the only fair consensus mechanism.

>>60588430
>The scenario where bitcoin just dies is basically impossible
Its most likely outcome.
>Living and breathing
Nah, its still just a wonky dms that is half baked and was born out of a hail marry in 2008 at a currency reform down the road when the post 1974 scheme eventually crashes. It relied on the families that pushed it to keep the control over information production and distribution. They lost that one.

"States", the public facing veils of those families adopting it while their trust levels are in the gutter is delegitimating the entire setup even more.

Crypto and buttcorn failed - you are a minority cultist. Nothing more

>>60588395
So you're saying continue the halvening cycle if you consider the halflife you will never completely run out .5 sat block reward then .25 sat etc etc indefinitely.

>>60588350 (OP)
Miners could earn more than the subsidy if we increase the price of transactions. This would simultaneously eliminate the need to scale the network because nobody would spend onchain. The only problem is exchanges will keep a fraction of the BTC owned by customers, artificially inflating supply wildly beyond 21 million.

>>60588422
>>60588430
>>60588508
>>60589792
While I respect your philosophical position, tail emissions set to the last halving's block reward would practically be nothing compared to the original 21M supply so you would get the benefit of keeping the miners incentivized and with very marginal dilution (practically no dilution considering lost coins, etc.). As far as fees increasing, I'll believe it when I see it. LN is a joke and should just die. They should increase the block size to bring the fee down and increase the volume by allowing bitcoin to be a currency again IMO. But even still I'm not a maxi, I already know DeFi and TradFi will be using Ethereum and adjacent tech, bitcoin will mainly be a store of value and liquidity sponge forever unless the network truly does die. As I said, I'm a wholecoiner so I win also if hyperbitcoinization is real, but things aren't looking good desu. Maxis need to get their heads out of their collected asses and actually think things through. Nice niggerbabble post thoughever I kek'd.

>>60588350 (OP)
>UHM THE LOW REWARD WILL MAKE IT SO MINERS DROP OUT AND THE HASHRATE REDUCES
>THEN BITCOIN WILL BE 51% ATTACKED BY...UH...UHM...THE DROPPED OUT MINERS...WELL WAIT...IF THEY DROPPED OUT THEN THEY CAN'T MINE...BUT...UH...IT JUST WILL OKAY!?