Will #Bitcoin die in 2 halvings?
The security of Bitcoin’s transaction finality is ensured by miners’ computing power, called hashrate.
There is a known theoretical attack called the “51% attack”: if an actor controls more than half of the computing power (hashrate), they could manipulate the network by rewriting recent blocks in the blockchain to perform double spends, censor certain transactions, and generally undermine the irreversibility of payments.
Carrying out a sustained attack would require secretly creating an enormous mining capacity, with data centers, power plants, and millions of specialized ASICs. Estimated cost: tens of billions of dollars and several years of preparation.
It would also be possible to try renting mining capacity, acquiring existing mining companies, or taking control of mining pools (which group miners together in cooperatives). In practice, this would also cost a fortune and wouldn’t be discreet. Furthermore, if a pool were corrupted by a malicious actor, miners would immediately leave it.
On paper, everyone agrees that under current conditions, the risk of such an attack is unlikely.
However, the debate lies elsewhere: if miners’ revenues—currently mostly from block rewards—fall too low, many could give up, leading to a drop in hashrate and thus lowering the cost of taking control.
Currently, transaction fees make up less than 1% of miners’ income, and in two halvings’ time, the block reward may become too small to justify mining on its own. If fees don’t rise, the network’s “security budget” could become insufficient to deter an attack.
According to a study by Justin Drake (researcher at the Ethereum Foundation), even with BTC at $10 million, the weakness of transaction fees would make it possible to carry out a continuous 51% attack for about $20 billion—a small amount compared to the $20 trillion total Bitcoin market capitalization at that point.
So, is Bitcoin doomed to die?
It’s not that simple, and here’s why.
First, there is a decoupling between hashrate and Bitcoin’s price. A drop in hashrate doesn’t necessarily mean a drop in price. Today, Bitcoin’s security can be considered “excessive,” and if it falls, nothing necessarily happens. The network is programmed to adapt and rebalance itself to cope with both increases and decreases in hashrate.
If we assume a malicious actor is willing to invest an enormous sum to attack the network (for ideological reasons, with theoretically infinite willingness to lose money), we must also assume that Bitcoin stakeholders won’t just sit idly by.
In practice, an attack would likely involve paying miners more than they could earn over several years of normal operation (with the attack itself destroying their business). This would logically be preceded by a massive sell-off of their Bitcoin holdings—a major red flag that something was being prepared. Perhaps the attacker would also buy up Bitcoins to remain discreet, but there’s likely a limit to how much could be spent.
For context, let’s place ourselves in 2032, with Bitcoin at $10 million and major economic activity based on it. A competitive currency environment (in Hayek’s sense), where players like Strategy and BlackRock wield trillions.
We can already imagine these companies owning or controlling significant mining capacity—a highly strategic activity to protect their business.
It’s also not absurd to think that hundreds of thousands of entities depend on Bitcoin transactions for their operations.
Once the attack is launched, what happens in response?
Users, competing to have their transactions validated and urgently needing confirmations, would rationally increase the fees they offer. Seeing rewards rise sharply, miners could reconnect their infrastructure. Initially corrupted miners might defect to chase these massive rewards.
Full nodes (which enforce the protocol’s rules) could unite in a decentralized way to massively reject malicious blocks.
The generally accepted confirmation threshold could rise from 6 to 12, making the attack even harder to sustain.
Institutions and ecosystem actors could invest significant sums to protect their capital; these amounts could even be set aside in advance to reassure shareholders and strengthen confidence.
The “tragedy of the commons” (recognizing danger but doing nothing, expecting others to act) doesn’t apply here, because each participant needs their transactions confirmed and must therefore act.
The attack would logically cause panic in the markets, driving Bitcoin’s price down and complicating the response. This would test the resilience of major players in the sector and their will to fight for survival, resulting in a fierce battle.
Finally, there is another possible reaction axis—geopolitics. If the attacker were a state (the only actor theoretically capable of unlimited funding), we must consider the reaction of states caught as collateral damage. Perhaps by 2032, the U.S. will derive substantial revenue and stability from the Bitcoin economy. Would they let their technological crown jewels be destroyed without acting? Would they watch their strategic Bitcoin reserves melt away without reacting? The rogue state would probably be quickly identified, and one can imagine what would follow…
We are therefore in full game-theory territory, with considerations beyond mere hashrate.
In conclusion, we cannot deny the risk of such a scenario—it exists, and ignoring it would be counterproductive. However, those who push this narrative (often because they have an agenda) make the gross logical error of assuming the ecosystem would watch Bitcoin go up in flames without doing anything.
A coordinated attack on Bitcoin would be anything but trivial, and in reality, it would have no guarantee of success.
---
Do you want me to also produce a shorter, more concise summary of this translation for quick reading? I can condense it into bullet
We’re not stopping you from having #bitcoin , but from understanding why you should have them.
When the State prints money, don’t believe it’s creating wealth; it’s only diluting yours.
Prices rise, wages follow (a little), but the real value of your savings silently melts away.
Inflation is an invisible tax: it doesn’t go through parliament or appear on any ballot.
Yet, it weighs on the middle and working classes every day.
The worst part? It’s presented as a “natural economic phenomenon”!
When in reality, it’s the direct result of a State unable to manage its budget, a model that spends more than it produces, and an obese public apparatus that keeps growing without ever questioning itself.
And we end up funding public services with debt instead of growth. When that debt becomes unsustainable, it’s melted away… by devaluing the currency.
In the meantime, they ask you to stay calm… To trust, to believe everything is under control.
But by constantly masking reality, by doping the economy with debt-money, we’ve created an illusion of prosperity… that makes us forget the fundamental values of work, effort, and savings.
Inflation is the opium of the people.
#Bitcoin solves this.
It’s not #Bitcoin that’s volatile, but your trust in the system.
Why do some people save while others spend everything?
Why do some go into debt for an iPhone, while others invest in an intangible, hard-to-understand asset?
The answer isn’t about morality.
It’s about a key concept: time preference.
Time preference refers to your ability to delay immediate gratification for a greater future reward.
High time preference = "I want it all, now."
Low time preference = "I’m willing to wait for better."
It’s a quiet but powerful compass. It shapes your financial decisions, but also your health, relationships, and worldview.
The fiat society of infinite money encourages instant gratification.
When money loses value year after year,
When saving is discouraged,
When debt is easy, normalized, subsidized…
…the system rewards impatience.
You’re pushed to consume now, live on credit, and forget tomorrow.
Result: a short-termist society, stressed, with no real capital. In other words, the opposite of capitalism, which is now confused with consumerism.
Building for the long term, capitalizing, requires something else. Saving, investing, constructing means giving up the present for a stronger future.
And for that, you need two things:
✅ A currency that rewards time
✅ A vision beyond next week
Healthy personal finance starts with a healthy time preference. Saving for later is declaring that your future deserves more than your present.
Investing in solid assets is understanding that time is your greatest leverage. Refusing to chase every new thing is choosing substance over distraction.
Bitcoin isn’t just a technological asset.
It’s a tool for temporal realignment. It rewards patience, values saving, and restores scarcity. It’s a currency designed for those who think far ahead.
Your wealth doesn’t just depend on your income. It depends on your relationship with time.
What matters isn’t what you want now, but what you’re willing to give up today to become who you want to be tomorrow.
#Bitcoin
I always throw my trash on the ground.
Why, you ask?
Because there are many unemployed people who cost society a lot.
By simply throwing my used McDonald's bag on the ground instead of using a bin, it creates jobs for street cleaners. Less unemployment!
Then, they’ll use the money they earn to buy consumer goods, which will create more jobs, increase the level of public services through taxes, and put money in the pockets of shareholders and bosses.
The capital thus created will enable the development of new products, taxes will fund research, and with capital and research, we can finance the ecological transition and rockets to reach Saturn’s rings.
(That’s Keynesian economics)
#bitcoin
“One day, Bitcoin will be replaced by a version 2.0—faster, more modern.”
That’s a common idea, and one that seems logical if we apply the usual patterns of technological innovation. But it completely misses the very nature of Bitcoin and the radically different vision it represents.
Explanation:
Most people who, like me, have been interested in it for a long time and have invested part of their wealth in it, are not looking for a “better” Bitcoin.
We don’t want a faster Bitcoin.
Nor a Bitcoin that can handle more transactions per second.
Nor a Bitcoin with extra features like smart contracts.
What we value is precisely its immobility.
And this “we” refers to all those who are truly invested in Bitcoin—financially as well as philosophically. Some do dream of a faster network suited for daily payments, but they hold only a marginal stake, making their opinion barely audible.
Bitcoin is what people want it to be. And above all, it is a resilient network, whose stability and resistance to change are its core value.
It’s often said: “There is no second-best Bitcoin.” And that’s true. Bitcoin serves a unique purpose: 👉 A digital asset resistant to censorship,
👉 With limited and predictable monetary issuance,
👉 That no one can shut down by pressing a button.
Bitcoin is the freedom to own.
And to preserve that freedom, Bitcoin must remain what it is: a decentralized, immutable, and extremely resilient system.
That doesn’t mean it will never evolve. In the face of existential threats—quantum computing, for instance—some adjustments could happen. Bitcoin is not entirely static. But it evolves very slowly, by consensus, and only in ways compatible with its core values.
As long as this cultural stability remains, Bitcoin will not change.
And that’s what makes it a century-long project, still relevant in 100 years.
By contrast, other cryptos—Ethereum, Solana, Cardano…—are, whether they like it or not, caught in a race for innovation, performance, and use cases. They’re competing to become the foundation of future digital infrastructure. It’s an exciting tech race, but it’s also a game of elimination: in 10 years, natural selection will have done its work.
We can talk about an Ethereum 3.0.
But imagining a Bitcoin 2.0 simply makes no sense.
Bitcoin was born in a unique context of widespread indifference and decentralized growth. That alignment can never be replicated.
And that’s what makes Bitcoin a truly irreplaceable asset.
So if you’ve been waiting for a “new” Bitcoin to finally take it seriously—
Don’t wait any longer. It’s already here.
#Bitcoin
Together dawgz strong
Someone told me they wanted to start buying Bitcoin every week, but they were concerned about buying above 100,000 as they believe it is too expensive.
At 20,000$ , I was told it was too expensive.
When it crashed back to 3300$, I was told it was a scam.
When it went to 60,000$, I was told it was unsustainable due to emergency monetary policy by the Fed.
When it crashed to 16,000$, I was told it was a scam again.
The truth is, Bitcoin is not a risk, it is a matter of understanding. I never once looked at Bitcoin and thought to myself “oh wow, that’s expensive, I should try something else.”
I was introduced to it and said “wow, this solves everything”. Some understand concepts quicker than others. To me, Bitcoin was instantly understood.
If you’re constantly questioning the price of it, then with all due respect, it means you don’t understand enough about it.
Seek to understand, and no price will be considered too high.