0 sats \ 6 replies \ @jk_14 OP 26 Dec 2022 \ parent \ on: Pseudocode for robust tail emission bitcoin
A lot. Gresham's law in layman's words:
The better money is - the more people will do their best to hoard it. Hoarding means: avoiding of spending. Avoiding of spending will harm transaction volume and liquidity. Clear as crystal.
And bitcoin is better and better money with every halving.
Yes, the idea is to tune inferiority - to keep network security intact. The network security first. From big network security goes Bitcoin value.
Anyway, all the critics scream that transaction fees will be enough to support the big security of Bitcoin. If they would really believe in it - this safety measure even if implemented - will never be triggered, then...
So why they are screaming about fork? Even if this idea is implemented - there won't be any fork, according to their claims :)
The principal of bitcoin is freedom. Tax is theft. Why would the free market chose to be taxed? Your assertion is that there 'might' be a problem in the future. I've seen an attempt at a mathematical model that backs up this assertion, but I'm afraid fancy symbols aren't enough to confuse me. As an engineer, I too can read fancy mathematical symbols and can surmise the model makes further assertions that can't be proven. Adding a tax to bitcoin by way of posterior emissions is just shitcoiner trolling.
reply
because tax is theft, as engineer to engineer:
keeping Bitcoin in the middle of obvious edge case, with pathological Friedman's free lunches for stakeholders (i.e. free riders), due to this overtaxing (punish) people which simply want to use Bitcoin, additionally with pure form of prisoner's dilemma here, and with trust to "large" stakeholders, while probably every of them will convince himself he is not really a large one and "let Microstrategy run Antminers" at loss (and burn money) - is pure madness from technical point of view.
Why do you want overtax one type of users (active) and benefit another type of users (passive) - and keep such unhealthy imbalance for the taxation in the system? It's irrational, especially for engineer.
reply
You are thinking like a political scientist with a pop-psychology hobby, not an engineer. Society is not something to be engineered, this thinking is how we came to be where we are now; endless cycles of fiat induced destruction.
Forcing "balance" by awarding one group an enlightened status for not saving their money over another that wants to accumulate wealth is simply demagoguery. If one person wants to spend their money, and another doesn't, that's called a free market. Punishing one group for saving (or hoarding) because you find it distasteful is a totalitarian edict.
You say words like 'let' and 'madness', this is the mark of an armchair dictator. Many of my past friends spoke at length like this, their endless 'they aught to' and 'pass a law' for this and that. I've had quite enough of it.
Bitcoin is doing fine without your pull requests. Fork your own version, its simple enough to do, and convince everyone your posterior emissions are for their own good.
reply
Don't expect a bigger security in the system where only a part of users participate in keeping it secure
than
in the system where all users participate in keeping it secure and all is balanced just by free market.
Current long-term security model is simply sh*t - and not the base for such a healthy, well balanced and free market.
reply
You clearly learned about Gresham’s law on your own, without a professor or someone knowledgeable enough to give you examples where it applies.
reply
.
reply