In which ways (if any) can the intentional burning of bitcoin be bad for the overall bitcoin ecosystem?
I have an Idea for a system where having a participant burn a few sats might be useful, but I haven't thought it through yet.
The way I understand it, sending bitcoin to an unreachable address (burning it), is deflationary, and a gift to all current holders, and from a technical perspective all you need is to allow increased divisibility and you can never run out of bitcoin.
That said, it feels kind of wrong/bad, but I guess that's just my fiat conditioning talking.
I forget if it was omni or counterparty that required burning bitcoin to issue tokens but back in the day people were pretty upset about the bitcoin burn mechanism
reply
I have zero problem with it, as long as it actually is possible to increase divisibility. Has there been any research into how to increase unit divisibility without hard forking?
reply
I think that change might come along with the change of unsigned int
unsigned int is good until 2106. Surely the network will have to be totally revamped at least once by then.
reply
Every Sat is Sacred
reply
Luckily we know that Satoshi does not "get quite irate" :)
reply
Don't waste time or money.
Burning BTC wastes money.
Asking stupid questions wastes time.
If you want the price of Bitcoin to go up, buy more BTC and get more people to do the same.
reply
как убедить людей? купи биткоин он сейчас стоит 250 000 000 000 $ но скоро халвингн и он будет в 2-3 раза дороже?
ДА)))
reply
...and 0.1% annual tail emission fixes this (and not only this, that's why is inevitable)
Now downvote ;)
reply
The problem with tail emission is there is no way to tell if enough is enough, or if it's too much. Saying "we just need X amount of tail emission" to fix the security model isn't sufficient. Even if X amount just happens to be the right amount for 2040, doesn't mean it's the right amount for 2050 or 2100.
Maybe it's not enough, and the dreaded mining death spiral still happens. Or maybe it's too much, and the value of Bitcoin gets eroded. Is it really worth breaking the iron clad social contract of Bitcoin's monetary policy for what is essentially a guess about the correct inflation level?
reply
There is no this problem above you think there is - just due to Bitcoin beauty.
The moment we will see the first "destructive halving" - i.e. network difficulty was not able to recover during long four years after given halving - is right moment to switch-off halvings completely, and that's best possible method to set level of annual inflation rate. Best - because empirically done, by saturation of Bitcoin system at global scale.
Things destructive to the Bitcoin should be eliminated (no matter from where they are). So destructive halvings as well. I predict we will see it probably in 10 years, just around 0.1% annual inflation rate, reached "naturally".
reply
Unnecessary, the far future of bitcoin mining will be integration at the source of energy production or into every electrical appliance/industrial machine in the world. Look at heatbit as an example of this. The space heater uses no excess electricity but mines bitcoin as part of its operation. It is expensive now compared to other space heaters and likely doesn't mine enough to cover that difference but in 10 years it could probably be made at a similar cost to a regular space heater and even if it only throws off a small amount of bitcoin it is still better than a space heater that doesn't mine. There is also the idea of alturistic mining. I think many bitcoiners, corporate entities, potentially governments with a significant portion of their net worth in bitcoin will mine to preserve the network even if it is at a loss. This is similar to a tail emission but selling the idea of mining as noble and an insurance on your stack is much more palatable than a change in supply.
I am not worried about the security budget 20 plus years from now. The market will sort it out and if it doesn't Bitcoin has likely failed.
reply
I may agree a bit with space heater thread. But "altruistic mining" is quite naive approach, unfortunately.
There is no such thing as Game Theory suspension. Without tail emission we will the have textbook example of "Let Microstrategy Run Antminers" prisoner's dilemma... (while "demurrage solution" - is not the right answer, because we are still before "hyperbitcoinization")
I hope you understand that Bitcoin would miserably fail if funded by Satoshi Nakamoto on altruistic mining, instead of "greedy mining".
Check these links for more:
reply
That's fair.
reply
There is no downvote
Consider tipping me as downvoting ;)
reply
Right, no downvote... - yet another reason to migrate here! Tipping by response ;)
reply
This is SN equivalent of getting ratio'ed.
reply
I agree with you, which is why I am also into Monero and am not a Bitcoin maximalist
reply
But I am the Bitcoin maximalist, sometimes "toxic" as hell... ("Nothing induces a bigger annoyance than the Truth" :)
But fixing broken long-term security model has the higher priority.
btw, Bitcoin maximalist and tail emission proponent - have one common thing: both are driven by "I told you so" at the end of day... ;)
reply
I don't see the reason to burn bitcoin, it already gets burned naturally through negligence and bad practices, as long as the hard cap is enforced and the issuance rate remains with consensus you don't need to try and drive deflation
I can understand burning a bitcoin for something like a drive chain to ensure there will never be a double spend but other than that, I can't see why you would want to get rid on future claims of productivity
This token burning gimmick is exactly that a gimmick for driving short term speculation leave that to the shitcoiners and fiat normies
reply
I'm definitely not interested in burning bitcoin to drive deflation for the sake of it, like you said that happens anyway.
I am interested in the concept of donating bitcoin in the form of burning it in exchange for some network service from a technical perspective.
reply
I agree with the idea of possibly increasing divisibility vs burning since there will never be more than 21m. Rather make a Satoshi 1/1billionth in the future where a Sat is more similar to 1 fiat usd.
reply
пусть даже останется 0.01234567 монет на всей планете... мы разделим 1 сатоши еще на 1000 000 000 частей... но знаешь что ...??? мы научимся хранить информацию. думаю ты понимаешь!
когда останется 0.00000001 на всей планете и этот 1 сатоши поделим еще на 21 000 000 монет и еще раз поделим 1 микросатоши на 100 000 000 то мы вернемся к началу. но что если кто то двинет 1 биткоин?
В целом это очень долгий процесс... на 1000 лет хватит)))
собирай не двигай живи... ДНК хочет жить!
reply
If someone waits that long before moving an entire bitcoin then I would be extremely surprised, it's like sitting on a trillion dollars for a hundred years... doesn't make any difference to the network though, that person/entity would just be extremely rich.
reply
богатства ни что ... опыт,знания , информация. это все. ты не можешь передать весь свой опыт в 12-24 слова. но ты можешь его сохранить в поколении! научи близких .
когда появится новое поколени оно не знает что такое биткоин кто будет учить?
обучение всей планеты ,как это делает биткоин очень круто!
Кто тебя учил пользоваться интернетом???
reply
Burning tokens won't makes the network more valuable. Feel free to burn your tokens, I'll keep mine.
reply
It's bad for whoever is stupid enough to do it. It's good for everyone else, as it increases the scarcity of btc.
reply
build a satoshi wishing well where we can burn sats to make a wish. sats could be tallied and sent to an unreachable address.
reply
No, Space Chains for life 💪
reply
I think burning bitcoin intentionally is just as valid a use as gifting it directly to someone specific... if that's what you want to do with your hard earned says.
If some sort of service could be provided in exchange for burning x number of sats, that's effectively paying all other holders for the service.
Still not sure what the effects of such a service becoming popular would be, but I think increased divisibility should definitely be a long term goal regardless.
reply
Bitcoin doesn't need shitcoin tokenomics.
If you want to do something noble with a few sats here and there, please consider donating to some of the great Bitcoin community projects (Bitcoin Beach, Bitcoin Esaki, Bitcoin Island, Bitcoin Jungle, Bitcoin Lake etc) or a bitcoin crowdfunding project on Geyser.
At 275k sats (or whatever it currently is) per person on earth, and probably already 2M lost coins, with more to be lost due to negligence or holder death, I think supply is restrictive enough. We don't need to try to reward current holders, we need to reward new holders by guiding them to the soundest money in human history.
That's my 2 sats.
Cheers.
reply
All 2 sats are appreciated!
I suspect increased divisibility will be inevitable at some point as loss of coins is also inevitable over time, and if Bitcoin becomes what we want it to be, I don't think 1 sat is going to be small enough of a unit of measure for every day life.
Lightning already uses millisats as a matter of fact.
reply