> > In november 2008 bitcoin was a much younger ecosystem, > > Or very old, indeed, if you are using unsigned arithmetic. [...] > :-) I meant 2012, of course, but loved your wit
> > and the halving happened during a quite stable positive price trend > > Hardly, > > > http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg60zczsg2012-10-01zeg2012-12-01ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv indeed! http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg60zczsg2012-08-01zeg2013-02-01ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv > There is a lot more complexity to the system than the subsidy schedule. > who said the contrary? This thread is, in my opinion, a waste of time. > it might be, I have some free time right now... many people have performed planning around the current > behaviour. The current behaviour has also not shown itself to be > problematic (and we've actually experienced its largest effect already > without incident), and there are arguable benefits like encouraging > investment in mining infrastructure. > I would love a proper rebuttal of a basic economic argument. If increased competition will push mining revenues below 200% of operational costs, then the halving will suddenly switch off many non profitable mining resources. As of now the cost per block is probably already about 100USD, probably in the 50-150USD. Dismissed mining resources might even become cheaply available for malevolent agents considering a 51% attack. Moreover the timing would be perfect for the burst of any existing cloud hashing Ponzi scheme. >From a strict economic point of view allowing the halving jump is looking for trouble. To each his own.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
