Next scheduled rescrape ... in 6 days
Version 1
Last scraped
Scraped on 11/09/2025, 15:08:18 UTC
So I didn't take into account the 500% growth, in fact, it was just developing then and was some kind of anomaly with super profits,
It wasn't really an "anomaly". We could also take the bull markets' amplitude alone to compare, although that would be a bit less precise.

The 2017/18 bull was, albeit very strong, already weaker than the 2013 bull (from $2 to $1000 -> ~50.000% growth). Then the 2021 bull ($3000 - $70000 -> 2200%) was weaker than the 2017 bull, and the 2025 bull (until now: $15,500 - $124,000 -> 700%) probably will not reach the amplitude of the 2021 bubble either. We don't know if the price has reached its peak, but to match the 2021 bull amplitude we would need to reach $350000 at least (a 2200% increase from the 15500 low from 2022). I would be surprised if we reached more than $200,000.

I don't understand, but if the price is not always 100% once every 4 years, then the ASICs will be turned off and the blockchain will stop, if that happens, then Bitcoin will not grow at all,
That is for sure a challenge, but if Bitcoin really depends on a 100% growth every 4 years, then it is indeed doomed. It is simply impossible, eventually there would need to be more BTC value than atoms in the universe Wink

But there are transaction fees, which albeit currently are very low, in the future they would make up a ever-growing part of the miners' income and eventually the block rewards would not matter anymore that much. It is possible however that the security budget could get lower. There is also the possibility of merged mining, but that depends on a strong sidechain/altcoin market.

As a last resort there could be either a tail emission (like Monero's, proposed I think by Peter Todd some time ago) or a switch to Proof of stake at least for a part of the security, but that are very controversial methods. It is perhaps possible to create a tail emission without changing the 21 million limit, as proposed here.
Original archived Re: How Long Should You Hold Bitcoin for a Passive Income
Scraped on 11/09/2025, 15:02:50 UTC
So I didn't take into account the 500% growth, in fact, it was just developing then and was some kind of anomaly with super profits,
It wasn't really an "anomaly". We could also take the bull markets' amplitude alone to compare, although that would be a bit less precise.

The 2017/18 bull was, albeit very strong, already weaker than the 2013 bull (from $2 to $1000 -> ~50.000% growth). Then the 2021 bull ($3000 - $70000 -> 2200%) was weaker than the 2017 bull, and the 2025 bull (until now: $15,500 - $124,000) probably will not reach the amplitude of the 2021 bubble either. We don't know if the price has reached its peak, but to match the 2021 bull amplitude we would need to reach $350000 at least (a 2200% increase from the 15500 low from 2022). I would be surprised if we reached more than $200,000.

I don't understand, but if the price is not always 100% once every 4 years, then the ASICs will be turned off and the blockchain will stop, if that happens, then Bitcoin will not grow at all,
That is for sure a challenge, but if Bitcoin really depends on a 100% growth every 4 years, then it is indeed doomed. It is simply impossible, eventually there would need to be more BTC value than atoms in the universe Wink

But there are transaction fees, which albeit currently are very low, in the future they would make up a ever-growing part of the miners' income and eventually the block rewards would not matter anymore that much. It is possible however that the security budget could get lower. There is also the possibility of merged mining, but that depends on a strong sidechain/altcoin market.

As a last resort there could be either a tail emission (like Monero's, proposed I think by Peter Todd some time ago) or a switch to Proof of stake at least for a part of the security, but that are very controversial methods. It is perhaps possible to create a tail emission without changing the 21 million limit, as proposed here.