4J·

Bitcoin will fall in a few years

ordinemo · 2025-06-04T20:26:49.578057Z

$BTC s security model is unsustainable in the long term unsustainable. Without extremely high transaction fees or inflation security will collapse. Consequently, the 21 million supply will be canceled "Bank run" is foreseeable - transaction congestion leads to hopelessness for users. Only 3-7 transactions per second → mass exit leads to weeks/months of transaction congestion Governance is centralized & blocks any meaningful change. A final crash within a few cycles is inevitableif no drastic reforms are made.

$BTC (+0,85 %) s security model is unsustainable in the long term unsustainable.
Without extremely high transaction fees or inflation security will collapse. Consequently, the 21 million supply will be canceled
"Bank run" is foreseeable - transaction congestion leads to hopelessness for users. Only 3-7 transactions per second → mass exit leads to weeks/months of transaction congestion
Governance is centralized & blocks any meaningful change.
A final crash within a few cycles is inevitableif no drastic reforms are made.

31 Commentaires

Yüksel T.@yuekseltoprak

@ordinemo Your analysis has some major flaws.

"Security will collapse without high fees" - This misses how Bitcoin actually works. We're already seeing the fee market develop naturally. During busy periods, fees hit $50+ per transaction and miners stayed profitable. Plus Lightning Network handles millions of small transactions with just one on-chain settlement.

"3-7 TPS means inevitable congestion" - You're looking at this wrong. Bitcoin's base layer is for final settlement, not buying coffee. It's like criticizing gold for being slow to transact - that's not the point. Lightning does instant payments, base layer does security.

"Bank run scenario" - Been there, done that. 2017 saw massive congestion and guess what? Network kept working. Fees went up, but urgent transactions got through. Users adapted. No collapse.

"Governance is centralized" - Come on, did you miss the whole SegWit2x drama? Miners, exchanges, and major companies tried to force changes and got completely shut down by users running nodes. That's the opposite of centralized.

Final crash inevitable" - People have been saying this for 15 years. Meanwhile hash rate keeps hitting new highs, institutions keep buying, and countries are making it legal tender.

Look, every halving people predict miner capitulation and security collapse. Every time, Bitcoin price adjusts to maintain security economics. Why? Because a $1.8 trillion network creates enough value to pay for its own security.

Your timeline might be off by about a decade... or three.

•

ordinemo@ordinemo

@yuekseltoprak

Point 1: Mining is profitable because of the system generated rewards, not because of the fees. If the system rewards disappear, 80–90% of Bitcoin’s security disappears with them. This is how Bitcoin works — maybe you missed that one.

Point 2: No one was talking about buying coffee. If Core proposes lifting the 21 million limit as a solution to the security budget issue, it will trigger a run and a death spiral. If your argument here is "buying coffee blabla" you’ve completely missed the point.

Point 3: 2017 wasn’t anything even remotely close to a “bank run.” sure that you were there?

Point 4: The SegWit debate was, compared to the problems Bitcoin is facing in the future, nothing more than a small preview. And I’m not saying these problems are unsolvable. But what I am saying is that, as things currently stand, neither I nor many others see any solution—except raising the 21 million cap. And to me, that’s a solution that leads straight into a death spiral from which, in my opinion, Bitcoin won’t recover.

What really bothers me are maxis like you, who try to mislead the crowd with lots of empty talk. If you actually understand what I’m talking about, then why can’t we focus on the issue itself and potential solutions?

Point 5: Again, you completely missed the point. Price predictions are one thing, technical bottlenecks are another. Bitcoin will perform well in the coming cycles, also for the reasons you mentioned. But that doesn’t make the problem go away. And I’m pretty sure a lot of these institutions — just like youself — don’t or don't want even understand what the problem is.

Point 6: Surprise—once again, the same tired talking points. Let me put it really simply: Bitcoin’s current security budget is around $1 billion per month, with 80–90% paid out through the system, 10% naturally through fees. If that 80–90% disappears, either someone steps up to fill that hole, or you end up with 80–90% less security. Until you understand that, you should probably stop throwing around the usual maxi clichés — because to anyone who understands the problem, you sound detached from reality.

Final Thoughts:
If centralized L2s like Lightning and ETFs handle Bitcoin transactions cheaply and quickly in the future, what do you think — will the rewards for securing the network increase or decrease?

I don’t believe we’ll only reach the critical phase in 20–50 years — I think the ETFs themselves will become a major problem much sooner.

They take transactions — and the resulting fees — away from the Bitcoin network. The masses will move their Bitcoin instantly, without fees, and 'safely' from the danger of bank run queues, via BlackRock, Coinbase, and similar platforms.

Fewer and fewer people will use the actual Bitcoin network, because fees will need to stay around $500 per transaction just to maintain the current level of security. If fanboys were more interested in finding solutions than sugarcoating problems, we'd all be fanboys in the end. ;)

•

Yüksel T.@yuekseltoprak

@ordinemo Alright, you're getting into the actual technical details now. Let me address your security budget argument directly.

You're right about the 80-90% subsidy vs fees split today. But you're making a critical error assuming this ratio stays static as subsidies decline.

The security budget math: Currently ~$1B/month total mining revenue. Yes, mostly subsidies. But here's what you're missing - the fee market responds dynamically to security needs.

When subsidies drop, three things happen:
1. Less efficient miners drop out (hash rate initially falls)
2. Difficulty adjusts down (remaining miners become more profitable)
3. Fee market develops as users compete for limited block space

Your $500/transaction claim assumes current transaction volume with future security needs. That's backwards logic. If fees need to be $500, they will be - or people use Lightning/L2s for smaller amounts and only settle large amounts on-chain.

The L2/ETF concern is actually interesting - and you're partially right. If most activity moves off-chain, base layer fees could stagnate. But this creates its own solution: scarce block space becomes more valuable, driving up fees for those who do need main chain settlement.

Real world example: Corporate treasuries, nation-states, and major institutions will always need main chain settlement for large amounts. They'll pay $1000+ per transaction without blinking if that's what network security costs.

The ETF argument cuts both ways - yes, they reduce on-chain activity, but they also bring massive capital that supports Bitcoin's price. Higher Bitcoin price = higher fee revenue even with fewer transactions.

Look, I'm not saying there's no problem. The transition from subsidy to fee-driven security is Bitcoin's biggest challenge. But "raise the 21M cap" isn't a solution - it's just kicking the can down the road while destroying Bitcoin's core value proposition.

Better solutions:
- Let the fee market develop naturally
- L2s for small transactions, main chain for final settlement
- Mining efficiency improvements continue
- Price appreciation supports security economics

You call me a maxi, but I'm just following the economic incentives. High-value final settlement can support network security. The question isn't whether fees can replace subsidies - it's whether Bitcoin provides enough value to justify the cost.

15 years of operation suggests it does.

•

ordinemo@ordinemo

@yuekseltoprak Now this is more the kind of discussion I like.

I’ll leave most of what you said as-is

I would only reframe the key question slightly:
Are people or institutions actually willing to pay $500 per transaction?

And I’m inclined to agree with you: yes, they are.
 But at the same time, there’s zero reason for a state or institution — unless they’re literally at war with their trading partner — to not just settle through BlackRock. They get full security, no risk of input errors, custody issues, or operational mistakes plus they save the $500 fee (which, as you rightly said, probably doesn’t matter for large players anyway). But still — they’ll choose BlackRock.

And that is the real problem!
 In the future, we simply won’t generate the kind of fees needed to sustain the current security budget — not only because people aren’t willing to pay $500 per transaction, but because they’ll be effectively forced not to. Thats where I disagree, the fee market always has its limits for the majority of users. A $5 fee is one thing, $50 is quite different, and $500 is a whole different level altogether. And beyond a certain point, the majority simply won’t bid any higher, and security will suffer as a result.

I’m not looking for clickbait or hype. I know people who are moving large BTC holdings into BTC ETFs. At first, I also thought: “So what? It’s basically the same thing.” But after thinking more deeply about it, I find it alarming.

To be clear, I’m not talking about tomorrow or next year. I’m talking 10+ years down the line — but still sooner than many people expect.

•

ElShib@ElShib

Chatgtp puts it best:
This post blends real technical concerns with exaggerated or sensationalist language. While it's based on kernels of truth (security model, TPS limits, slow governance), it overstates the likelihood of collapse and misrepresents how Bitcoin functions socially and economically.

Confidence level in post being mostly false or misleading: ~75-85%.
Critical concerns: Valid but not necessarily fatal.

https://chatgpt.com/share/684163b5-5118-800b-be01-411e38693d52

•

ordinemo@ordinemo

@ElShib I'll extract a specific section from your ChatGPT link as well: "Conclusion:

Bitcoin’s future does include real technical and political challenges. The security budget problem and governance ossification are the most serious."

•

ElShib@ElShib

@ordinemo serious, not fatal, you forgot the following statements right after that, lovely when taken out of context:
" However, the post severely overstates their short-term impact and misrepresents Bitcoin’s architecture and community dynamics."

Full conclusion for that segment:
«Conclusion:

Bitcoin’s future does include real technical and political challenges. The security budget problem and governance ossification are the most serious. However, the post severely overstates their short-term impact and misrepresents Bitcoin’s architecture and community dynamics.

Bitcoin is unlikely to “collapse” but may evolve into a high-value, low-throughput settlement network (like digital gold with Lightning rails). Adoption, infrastructure, and institutional trust are rising, not falling.

Collapse? Unlikely. Stagnation risk? Real. Dominant SoV L1 with layered scaling? Most likely.»

••

ordinemo@ordinemo

@ElShib I was referring to your original message, where you also took parts out of context. Meanwhile, ChatGPT can’t at all follow why I think this way, since—as you can see—my original post was only a summary meant to initiate a discussion.

For Context follow the discussion for example with @yuekseltoprak

••

Marcel@Mcl1991

BUT 1 BTC = 1 BTC !!!!!!!!!!!

•

Ikey@Ikigai

@stefan_21 :)

•

Mo@BigMo

Markets are far from perfect, but they are very sensitive to systemic risks.
If fundamental structural weaknesses were already obvious and unsolvable today, this would have been reflected in the price/hash rate long ago.

The data and developments in 2025 show a clear increase in institutional adoption of Bitcoin.
Bitcoin has grown up as the 6th largest asset in the world and is no longer driven by a few "When Lambo" spinners who are blindly heading for its "inevitable" demise.

•

ordinemo@ordinemo

@BigMo As things stand today, they are neither unsolvable nor solvable.

••

Nom@user28461

They're all going to moan so much, I'm already ordering 🍿

•

Harald@Madhatter5566

I once read that the underlying legend lameness and transaction congestion would also affect the Lightning system, as normal transfers are still partly necessary for this. Is that true?

••

ordinemo@ordinemo

In the scenario described above: Yes, absolutely. Closing a Lightning Channel also requires an on-chain transaction. If the mempool is overloaded, this will also be delayed accordingly.

•

Thomas Hauck@tomtom38

Is this really confirmed?

••

Harald@Madhatter5566

@tomtom38 As far as I have read, lightning is only secure because you can/may/must fall back to a layer 1 transaction. This also sounds logical, because otherwise lightning would not be connected to the Bitcoin database and would be its own system.

And yes, what that means if bitcoin were the general worldwide payment system...see above. Then you wait forever until a transaction is really secure. I mean it's great for the consumer. You know the payment at the checkout, then withdraw it when you've loaded it. As long as it's not in the blockchain, you can do that. And since you're a pseudonym... Taataaaaaaa

••

Thomas Hauck@tomtom38

Ok, so if bitcoin is used more as a means of payment then. at some point it won't work satisfactorily. Where can you get reliable information on whether there is a solution for this? Many people also invest via etf. Perhaps it will then become more like gold or fall in price. Do you know a time frame? So that you can still go short? I will also read something about this

••

ordinemo@ordinemo

@tomtom38 It's not about whether Bitcoin is used more or not. The real problem lies in the regular halving of block rewards. This means that the decline of Bitcoin is to a certain extent pre-programmed in the code.

Without a fundamental change to the code and the way Bitcoin works - for example by introducing inflation instead of the fixed limit of 21 million - the system will inevitably fall apart. And it will do so through an increasingly vulnerable security structure and an eventual attack.

Estimated time frame, 2-3 cycles

••

Harald@Madhatter5566

@ordinemo Well, the time it takes for a transaction to go through depends on how it is used. The goal of a global currency is thus already buried, even with Lightning. Too many transactions.

Bitcoin therefore has a fundamental problem, which is being solved by saying that it is now a store of value to be hodled, which could one day be XYZ. That could then remains in the realm of fantasy. Stefan just wants to find his debtors.

I don't see the halving of the reward as long as it is hyped, as the converted reward increases with the market value of Bitchcoin.

••

ordinemo@ordinemo

@Madhatter5566 Not quite true. At the moment, the "system" more or less pays the rewards. In 10 years, it should slowly start to pay for itself. If you can send your BTC via Coinbase for free, or pay a $500 transaction fee for a Tx, which will you choose? 99% will choose the former. Which in turn will cause the security budget to drop drastically, and with it nodes and consequently security.

••

Harald@Madhatter5566

@ordinemo The reward for mining still comes, right? Or rather, the transaction fees are not the same as the Bitcoin reward for solving the pointless math problem!
I thought that was extra.

••

Peter G.@Peter69

Hi @ordinemo, thanks for your post. Do I understand correctly that the bank run thesis is only based on the extension of the 21M BTC limit? I think the extremely high transaction fees are the more likely scenario. And I don't see it as problematic either, as the transaction fees are spread over a large number of transactions thanks to Lightning and are therefore affordable again. Furthermore, the necessity of closing a Lightning channel is not clear to me. Can't it theoretically remain open? As I said, thank you for your food for thought and the resulting discussion (Y) : )

••

ordinemo@ordinemo

@Peter69 No, bypassing the 21M limit is the consequence. As it currently stands, the BTC price will have to double every four years for a century - or extremely high transaction fees (I don't mean $100, but much higher) will have to be maintained permanently. And that's just to maintain the current level of security ...

The reason for this is that every halving reduces the security budget exponentially until it is practically non-existent. If you have a basic understanding of economics and exponential functions, you know that's completely impossible - because it would exceed global GDP within a few decades. Therefore, the security of BTC is doomed to fail!

•

Alpalaka@Alpalaka

Mimimi

Until then, at least you can still profit from the performance :)

••

ordinemo@ordinemo

@Alpalaka Of course you can, but don't be the one who ends up paying for the "performance" of others ;)

••

Alpalaka@Alpalaka

@ordinemo man man man what nonsense. I don't even want to go into it any more.

•

ordinemo@ordinemo

@Alpalaka You "can't" go into it any further. There is a difference.

•

Marcel@Mcl1991

@ordinemo Why do you think the BTC security model is not sustainable in the long term?

••

ordinemo@ordinemo

@Mcl1991 take a look at the discussion below with @yuekseltoprak in English

••

Echsenkönig Atokarn@Bezehgombjuderstimme

What are a few cycles in your eyes? Personally, I'm holding some Bitcoins and stocking up to 3-5%. I think things will continue to go well for the foreseeable future.

••