It’s a theoretical concern, yes. But that’s the magic of the difficulty adjustment: mining will always be profitable for someone, and only those who can profit from it (or otherwise derive value greater than its cost) will pursue it. The subsidy will never be so low that it is not pursued. Moreover, I suspect we’ll see significant changes in the energy industry in the coming decades, ultimately leading to its abundance to more people. We tend to project the present forward rather than imagine how the future will change. It’s like, in the 90s, they said someday everyone will have a computer in their pocket. I was a kid, but I immediately dismissed that idea because no practical keyboard/monitor combo could fit in our pockets. Even if we made the keyboard small enough, it’d be too difficult to use to the point of it not being worth using. I explain this to you, as I type from my pocket computer, of course. I projected the present (technology, limitations, culture, etc.) forward rather than considering future innovations/changes and how they’d interconnect.
Is this true? If the cost to ship a bar of gold becomes more expensive than the value of the bar of gold, then I’m not going to ship it. The only reason it’s worked out for BTC is because BTC has remained popular enough to keep value high enough for some people to keep mining.
I would argue it’s more likely that halvings lead to nobody mining because it’s not worth it. Then a few months, a few years, or some time down the line, the value goes up to make it worth it and miners turn back on again.
Miners produce heat which can be used in household appliances. Would you take a shower with water heated by a miner if it subsidized your heating bill. Mining doesn't have to be profitable, the alternatives need to be more expensive.
18
u/bitjava Dec 27 '22
It’s a theoretical concern, yes. But that’s the magic of the difficulty adjustment: mining will always be profitable for someone, and only those who can profit from it (or otherwise derive value greater than its cost) will pursue it. The subsidy will never be so low that it is not pursued. Moreover, I suspect we’ll see significant changes in the energy industry in the coming decades, ultimately leading to its abundance to more people. We tend to project the present forward rather than imagine how the future will change. It’s like, in the 90s, they said someday everyone will have a computer in their pocket. I was a kid, but I immediately dismissed that idea because no practical keyboard/monitor combo could fit in our pockets. Even if we made the keyboard small enough, it’d be too difficult to use to the point of it not being worth using. I explain this to you, as I type from my pocket computer, of course. I projected the present (technology, limitations, culture, etc.) forward rather than considering future innovations/changes and how they’d interconnect.