Is it more accurate to say that “only 21 M BTC will ever exist, i.e. after the 21 millionth bitcoin no additional coins can be created” or that “only 21 M BTC exist, I.e. after the already existing 21 millionth bitcoin is mined, no additional coins can be mined”? The distinction that I’m trying to understand here is whether new bitcoin are created up to a certain point or if existing bitcoin are mined up to a certain point. The implication I think this line of questioning has for SAFE, is whether
It might make sense to think of/have all coins existing from launch, but only farmable over time. In this way, once the network launches no new coins can be created, removing the possibility of generating fraudulent coins.
Recycling rather than burning of coins is a more optimal solution. The Network releases coins at a given rate via farming, and then receives coins as payment for services rendered. To reward farmers, the Network issues pre-existing coins as well as recycled coins that were previously used to purchase Network services. In this way no coin is ever destroyed and thus no new coins need ever be made, removing a potential vulnerability that could be exploited to create fraudulent coins.
I’m not sure if the above is technically feasible, but it seems an approach that might mitigate some of the risks around fraudulent coin generation and potential double-spending.
When the bitcoin miner finds a block, he gives himself the right to print new bitcoins and announces it on the Bitcoin network, the other miners only confirm whether his right is valid.
Bitcoin is centralized, the miners are the people in power, they decide what software to use. This is just code and if centralized enough they can decide to continue printing new coins.
That’s why decentralization is important, otherwise we’ll end up with the same crappy fiat system with which a small group of people steal value from a large group of people.
I remember that they promised to increase the blocks in 2017. Where is the increase in blocks? Are computers slower? Are the hard drives smaller? Is the internet speed slower? They are already imposing their centralization to keep the fees high…
Bitcoin is going bad, the only thing for which it is good is resistance to censorship and little by little this disappears…
Including exchanges and some companies holding your crypto where you do not own private key.
It looks like better distribution than $ holders, even though there is no metrics to count addresses, but only entities.
That’s right, bitcoin was created to eliminate middlemen, but people just can’t wait to give their new money to the new middlemen. OkEx has not withdrawn money for 1 month because the owner has been detained by the authorities… They have the biggest bitcoin wallet… It’s madness!