Bitcoin is immortal. If there's ever anything that makes it less efficient, it will fork and the more efficient version will prevail. The current dramas will pass and we'll all turn our thoughts to the next ones soon enough. Human beings are creatures that tend to focus significantly more on the short term than on the long term. While we also overestimate our own intelligence and try to solve problems that are WAY in the future when they're not even problems yet. People seem to believe that the network needs to make up for the lowering block subsidy with more transaction fees because it appears that the network will require it due to the ever shrinking block subsidy, but blocks supported only by fees are not sustainable as it would suppress usage by people who want to transact cheaply. Why is the importance of low cost nodes causing us to ignore the importance of low cost transactions? We need both to remain usable and low cost by the greatest number of individuals in support of the end goal of decentralization over the long term, and we do not want to ever debase the network to achieve that goal. If transaction fees were all that supported the current block, transaction fees would be over $500. This kills Bitcoin. Pushing for higher transaction fees kills Bitcoin. Thankfully this is not the only option. The Bitcoin of today is quite different from the Bitcoin of yesterday, and the Bitcoin of tomorrow will be quite different from the Bitcoin of today. The block subsidy used to be 50 Bitcoin, it is now 3.125. Block subsidy has fallen 93.75% and yet the transaction fees are still low. Outside of moments of impatience causing temporary demand/fee spikes the fees generally have been a dollar or less, which translates to fewer Satoshis paid in fees over time. Block 450,000 had a median transaction fee of 19985 Sats worth at the time less than $0.20. Block 880,000 had a median transaction fee of 660 Sats, worth at the time roughly $0.66. Transaction fees are going down orders of magnitude in Satoshi terms, not up. Bitcoin will change, sometimes in ways you may not agree. But it will always be here, and it will always be Bitcoin. I forsee the network determining it is in it's best interest to increase division on the base chain, allowing the subsidy to continue the remaining 32 halving cycles beyond 2140 that Satoshi allows in the original code for up to 64 Halving events. Perhaps 64 won't be the limit as that will be updated in the future as needed as well. Bitcoin might very well go up in value against time and energy forever, if you don't support sub dividing Satoshis today then at what price would you? What happens when 1 Sat = 0.01 Oz of gold? 0.1 Oz of gold? 1 Oz?10 Oz? 100 Oz? 1000 Oz? If it really does rise in value forever, it's inevitable. IMO the simplest solution for adding regular network increased division might be to add a 0 to the balance of every wallet every time there's another halving, and to the definition of "1 Bitcoin" in terms of the new ever smaller base unit. Perhaps with a 0 added for every halving since the Genesis block when this change is instituted. This would not be debasement, this is cutting the ever growing pizza into ever smaller slices as it gets bigger. There is still only 1 "Pizza". There will only ever be 21,000,000 divisions of the original network size, which we currently call Bitcoin. IMO 1 Bitcoin should forever be 1/21,000,000 of the total network, and 1 Sat can always be the smallest unit on the network unless we want to give new names to the smaller units as well. We can do anything we want, the network is us. Imagine how appealing to the average person owning Satoshis would be if their balance of Satoshis increased by 10 every 4 years but spending power per Satoshi remained roughly the same? All while their fraction of a Bitcoin never changes. Spending fractions of your personal growth would become intuitive as the network grows because people would be able to see it in terms they can understand. The network needs to be usable by everyone, and easily understood by everyone. Not just people who understand math, history, computers, and the dangers of out of control governments that debase their currencies for destructive ends. The age of FIAT and lies paid for with it are over, the future of freedom/truth/fairness is coming and nothing will stop it. Not even disagreements within the network. 😜😋 That's my thoughts on this matter currently, I'll think about it more and consider new information and perhaps my opinion will change. Who knows what the future holds. ☮️🧡₿ @buzzbot 5000 @buzzbot discuss 5000

Replies (105)

✅ 5000-sats Discussion bounty live for 24 hours! Win in 3 ways: - Comment with the most amount of zaps wins 2000 sats - Comment with the most replies wins 1500 sats - Comment with the most likes wins 1500 sats
Seems only the discussion bounty was triggered, I wanted both the discussion and the regular bounty to be active. Might want to update to allow both or a combined version in the future! 😁
Dune Messias's avatar
Dune Messias 7 months ago
Bitcoin is immortal because it adapts without compromise. Its form may change, its units may divide, but its essence—decentralization, fixed supply, incorruptibility—remains. The network absorbs pressure, evolves through consensus, and always moves forward. It does not fear change, because it is built to survive it.
I agree #bitcoin is only a "tool" and has a good chance to be immortal. But all drama are not useless, because they open debate, and some light can be focus on interesting hidden point for bitcoin immortality. I am less extremist than you on the immortal point because of history. Bitcoin has been created by a human. He was wise and did a great job, as most devs after him. But, nobody is perfect. And you can see that on "altcoin", some bad decisions can break some blockchain too. So, of course, bitcoin will always change and progress to fit usage needs. But it is also important for people who can act on it and care about his survey, to keep having the highest view on it, to make bitcoin the most immortal possible. Thanks for your share.
Bitcoin as a concept of a decentralized time-energy currency is immortal. It's form may change, it's components may change, but it will always be here. It's like the story of the ship of Thesius: If you build a ship and all the original components are replaced over time to keep the ship seaworthy, does it become a different ship or is it still the same ship? Further If all the original components are saved and reassembled, say into a museum piece, while the other one is still around after all it's repairs, which one is the "real" ship of Theseus? Bitcoin will change, and over time all it's code may be replaced with more efficient edits as are needed. In that case, is it still Bitcoin even if it has no original code left? I would say as long as it performs the job of decentralized debasement-free incorruptible time-energy money it will still be Bitcoin even if all the code has gradually changed. In spirit and heart even if not in body any longer.
Dune Messias's avatar
Dune Messias 7 months ago
Both are useful: Millisats for precision, Finneys for familiarity. Depends on context!
Attacking sammer ⚠️🤙 🚨 If we win! Donation of sats all members 🫡✨ Like , ment, reply , ⚡️🔥 #Asknostr
Attacking sammer ⚠️🤙 🚨 If we win! Donation of sats all members 🫡✨ Like, ment, reply, ⚡️🔥 #Asknostr
I actually think "Sats" should always mean the smallest unit on the Bitcoin network. So if we divide everyone's balance by 10 every halving we would have the same fraction of a Bitcoin and the overall network, but have 10x as many sats.