pull down to refresh
273 sats \ 1 reply \ @ursuscamp 14 Dec 2022 \ parent \ on: Is burning bitcoin bad? bitcoin
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?
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