110 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 6 Sep 2023 \ on: Tail Emissions Are A Terrible Idea bitcoin
If you don't like the security budget idea, I think there might be a psychological one where people will fork because they feel a lack of emission favors early adopters. I'm not saying that's a valid pov, but money requires social consensus.
That sort of argument would open an ugly can of worms. I hope to never see it.
Money is most definitely a social construct, but what makes Bitcoin special I think is the degree to which it takes "social" out of money. If we allow Bitcoin's monetary policy to be changed by social consensus, who's to say it won't be changed again?
Any type of uncertainty reduces the value of Bitcoin in the present. Besides, who benefits from tail emissions? It's the whales who would otherwise need to give away bitcoin in subsequent blocks to guarantee finality, whenever they do decide to spend their bitcoin. Small transactions will be protected from the risk of double spends by the base fee load.
In short, tail emissions subsidize whales at the expense of smaller holders. Not the other way around.
reply
i'm not sure i agree that bitcoin takes "social" out of money. the whole point is that monetary policy can only be changed with social consensus, that's what makes it decentralized.
i personally agree that tail emissions are a bad idea. i'm also not a fan of drivechains. but if a majority of nodes say that's a valid block, then that's a valid block, full stop. if that's not the definition of monetary policy controlled by social consensus, then i don't know what is.
reply