File talk:Total bitcoins over time graph.png

A new graph based on historical data

Does anyone think we should include a graph of supply that has been observed since 2009, without a future prediction? Taras (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Having recently double-check on the table, then commented on the talk page, of the Controlled Supply page, I did notice a comment about this graph having been deleted. Unfortunately, I can't see what the graph was to consider what was wrong with it. I suppose it mapped the Bitcoin supply over time, rather than over blocks. If that is the case, then I concur with the sibling talk topic, that rather than not having a graph, we could make a better graph, specifically outlining 1. growth over blocks, 2. time over blocks, and 3. estimates for time based on simple values - i.e. network hash rate is steadily 10% fast, or 10% slow, producing two boundaries at the center of which lies the ideal, and then incorporate the actual historical data + projections based thereon. Actually... why don't I just make that now, upload it off-site, and link to it here for further discussion: sample graphs (two images there). TheRealSteve (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Updated the graphs slightly after feedback. TheRealSteve (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, even the FBI was mislead by this graph. As for what to replace it with, I was thinking one like the one the Wikipedians are using right now. It only shows accurate historical data, and for our cases should be quite alright. The main problem with the original was that everyone assumed production stopped in 2033 (see the FBI report). Taras (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The down side to that graph is that it's not very informative except if all you want to show is how many Bitcoins have been mined so far.. which is something that changes rather quickly. That's why I tried to make my graphs include the projections, but with explanations of how these projections work and how they can change over time, with any adjustments only expected every quarter halving period (rather infrequent) TheRealSteve (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for it then, but I have a suggestion; consider putting the subsidy in a second graph on a log scale, so that it's easier to see how it changes over time? It's up to you really, whatever looks nicer. Go ahead and upload it whenever it's done Taras (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have added the graphs and I added a block reward plotted against logarithmic scale graph. Going forward, let's move discussion to either the Talk page of Controlled Supply, or to the individual files' Talk page? TheRealSteve (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing This Stupid Graph

I have removed all links to this file. Please do not put them back. This graph has convinced people that the last mined reward will be in 2033 or so, when that is completely incorrect. Thanks. Midnightmagic (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2014 (GMT)

What I wouldn't delete out of reflex because of the huge amount of PR and fact-correction I've personally been forced to do as a result of this stupid thing, would be a graph which shows a comparison line that describes compression of the release schedule due to hashrate growth so far, as well as reasonably expected growth into the 2100s. Ideally, events such as 'last Satoshi mined' and "if past growth continues, here is where we will be using the entire energy output of the Earth to sustain bitcoin mining" should be notated with an arrow, and the volume line should not abruptly end at any point prior. Midnightmagic (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We should re-add a similar graph. It makes sense that people would think that the reward would stop increasing after 2033 based on that graph, which is incorrect, but that graph also helps people understand the exponential back-off nature of the reward. It is valuable. I believe that it has done more good than harm and I haven't seen it declared anywhere myself that no more bitcoins will be mined after 2033 unless people are just speaking 'practically'. By the way, if over 99% of bitcoins have been mined by 2033 then for many contexts, like economics, *practically* no more bitcoins are being mined. So in the context of economics and other fields, it is correct to say that no more bitcoins will be mined after 2033.

Separately, the lack of a comparison line that describes the compression of the release schedule due to hashrate growth so far is not sufficient reason to get rid of this graph. When educating the public, sometimes details can be ignored for the purposes of explanation. Demanding that the line be a couple pixels to the left is definitely one of those details that can be ignored. This is evidence that, in deleting this graph, you are behaving like a pedant. Please stop. Atheros (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Wrong. It's more like 95%, but if you want to chop of 1/20th of all bitcoins that will eventually get mined, you just helped me prove my point.. Midnightmagic (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)