129 sats \ 3 replies \ @orthzar 26 Dec 2022 \ on: Pseudocode for robust tail emission bitcoin
If tail emission is a good idea, then the hard-fork should be done ASAP. The longer you wait, the more miners, nodes, and users there will be who will resist the not-insignificant change.
Is the delay simply a matter of "we're not quite sure how to implement tail emission"? Why not adopt an existing shitcoin tail emission algorithm?
Or, are tail-emission advocates trying to come up with an algorithm that will convince the largest number of miners/nodes/users to choose the tail-emission-side of a future hard-fork?
It's not that simple that it is good or bad: it's just necessary
And just the opposite, the waiting for 90% share to understand it well - is long-term process:
"Bitcoin should have had a 0.1% or 1% monetary inflation tax to pay for security" (Peter Todd, 2019)
Monero annual tail emission is set artificially at 0.9%, what is not optimal approach. Bitcoin can set it organically, thus on lowest possible level to preserve already reached level of network security. The proposal above is such kind.
reply
So why don't you try to change monero? It may not be perfect but it already has a tail emission so that should be much easier than changing the sacred bitcoin 21M cap.
reply
Monero was/is on the first line of governments' focus and attack (not to mention: lack of L2)
Utilising this time and "unawareness" - Lightning Network has the chance to improve its privacy and grow as big as de facto unstopable (see, I'm Bitcoin Maxi :)
reply