Current community forecast
No 86.5%
Forecasters
17
Question type
binary
Methodology
Play-money forecasting platform
Source type
Forecast
Market data
Updated 20 hours ago
StaleDec 18, 22, 9:07 AM UTCMar 3, 36, 4:59 AM UTC
Related Markets
Related questions for context, not a comparison of equivalent contracts.
Rules
The paper "On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward" by Carsten et al, suggests that as the Bitcoin block subsidy decreases relative to the transaction fees, there is a possibility that Bitcoin will experience "Mining gaps".
- This occurs when a substantial fraction of miners turn off their mining equipment for a short period immediately after a block is mined (when the mempool is smaller and when there is accordingly less of a reward for mining blocks), in order to save on electricity costs.
- This question resolves to "YES" if the Bitcoin blockchain shows clear evidence of a at least 10% of the network hashrate using a Mining gap strategy before the first 365-day period where transaction fees make up at least 50% of total block rewards.
- Note that the argument for the presence of mining must consist entirely of analysis of chain data.
- An example of "clear evidence" might be a statistical analysis of inter-block times, showing that these times are not exponentially distributed (as we would expect if hashrate was constant) or showing a difference in inter-block times depending on the state of the mempool as extrapolated from fees in previous blocks.
- Dec 20, 6:29pm: Will Bitcoin experience "mining gaps" before the first 365-day period where transaction fees have >1/2 of total block rewards? → Will Bitcoin experience "mining gaps" before the first 365-day period where transaction fees are >1/2 of total block rewards?