On September 21, former Bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen published a potential blog post [Bitcoin] The future. The blog post describes a theoretical scenario for the Bitcoin network in 2061, where most [bitcoin] The transaction is not [Bitcoin] Internet.
A theoretical look at য়ে 6 million dollars per bitcoin and $ 2061
After Satsuhi Nakamoto left Bitcoin in 2010, for several years, Gavin Andresen Nakamoto was considered the chief maintainer of the software after he left the keys. In 2011, Bitcoin developer Mike Horn also claimed that he had received an email from Satoshi stating that the blockchain inventor had “moved on to something else” but added, “It’s in good hands with Gavin and everyone.” However, Andresen is no longer the main maintainer, and has not been an active Bitcoin core developer for several years.
Reddit R / Bitcoin is censored (I think, but maybe I’m not looking in the right place)
– Gavin Andresen (av Gavinandresen) September 22, 2021
In the past, Bitcoin.com News has generally covered Andersen’s views on Ethereum’s tornado mix protocol and wallet privacy. Andresen also discussed the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) network in January 2018, in a proposal entitled “Saving UTXO as a BT-Vector”. Recently, after a tornado mixed blog post, Andresen shared his opinion in a blog post: “It’s not about technology (yet?)” Then, on September 21, 2021, Andresen has something to say again to the Bitcoin (BTC) network.
The former Bitcoin core developer said people should “take it as a small part of science fiction”, but he added, “I think in all possible future I think it’s likely to happen anyway.”
“Imagine: it’s 2061,” Andresen wrote in his latest blog post. “The value of BTC is US ছয় 6 million – about 20 20 million due to inflation. Miners are being rewarded with 0.006103515625 BTC per block and about 5 BTC transaction fees ($ 7,500 per transaction) for 4,000 or more transactions. But most BTC laws Most BTCs are stuck on secure multifunctional outputs using multifunctional calculations and are reflected as ‘wrapping’ tokens in other chains, ”Anderson added. The blog post further emphasizes:
People have moved their BTC because they want faster transactions, lower fees, more privacy, or want to invest their BTC in decentralized financial content. Or maybe all of the above. Transactions on the main BTC network are high-value, mostly among super-whale-sized holders (centralized exchanges, central banks, and decentralized multiparty counting addresses that all contain printed currency).
Andresen: ‘Bitcoin network likely to have zero bitcoin’
Andresen’s theory could very well happen and other blockchains are currently using a lot of wrapping or synthetic bitcoin (BTC). Dunn Analytics shows that the number of BTCs leveraged through Ethereum is 269,642 BTCs in seven different projects. The Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC) project indicates a total of 205,921 of these coins at the time of writing. Andersen continues his theoretical position that super whales hold the network forever.
“These whales maintain the BTC network forever,” Andresen wrote. “They’re the creators of mining and transactions; they don’t care how much the transaction fees go, because the more money they pay, the more they get. And there are fewer transactions. So they decided to close it and make money easier and save, “added the former Bitcoin developer. Andresen’s blog post continues:
One by one, they shut down the ‘bridge’ that took BTC into the chain. They then burn any BTC 0x000… address locked in the BTC chain, so that one can ensure that it will never be spent on the BTC network. Finally, zero new BTC is being produced on the BTC network, and zero BTC is being promoted on the BTC network. There is nothing left to secure, and the chain stops.
Sidechain competitors or will they help on the bitcoin scale?
Andresen concludes that roughly “20-or-a-million BTC” will spread to other blockchain networks. “Valuable because they have a limited number and BTC was the first scarce digital asset,” Andresen said at the end of his blog post. Interestingly, this topic has been discussed in recent times, but not necessarily arising from Andresen’s blog post.
Without actually settling something in an individual way.
I’m not attacking bitcoin, I’m attacking the misconception of bitcoin.
Don’t get upset, learn.
– John Carvalho (it Bitcoin Errorlog) September 24, 2021
For example, on September 24, Bitcoin pundit John Carvalho, otherwise known as “Bitcoinnerlog” Said: “Good morning, the sidechain competes with Bitcoin, it doesn’t scale. (They don’t either.)” Carvalho followed his tweet. The following opinion:
- The original concept and design of a two-way peg was never achieved
- They should say anchorchain or something
- These are like shitcoins that compete for transactions instead of money.
- They do not reduce the use of sh ** currency
- They ‘don’t’ in Bitcoin
However, not everyone agrees with Carvalho’s views on the sidechain. Bitcoin (BTC) spokesman John Light shared Carvalho’s comments:
“Good morning, sidechain. Those who use BTC as a domestic asset and pay Bitcoin miners for security do not compete with Bitcoin.” Tweeted In the north. “Even if the sidechain used by BTC as a domestic resource does not pay for the security of bitcoin miners, they will not be less competitive with bitcoin, say, electricity that keeps siphon fees away from mines to LN routing nodes,” Alo said. Added In his Twitter thread. Light also shared and concluded a paper entitled “Bitcoin Scaling with Sidelines”:
The sidechain also helps to scale Bitcoin.
What do you think of Gavin Andresen’s recent theoretical blog post about the future bitcoin network? What do you think of the conversation between Bitcoin proponent John Carvalho and John Light? Let us know what you think about this in the comments section below.
Image credit: Shutterstock, Pixabay, WikiCommons, Twitter,
Denial: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or request for a purchase or sale offer, nor is it a recommendation or approval of a product, service or company. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. The Company or the Author is not directly or indirectly responsible for any loss or damage caused by or in connection with the use or reliance on any content, product or service referred to in this article.