pull down to refresh
5 sats \ 33 replies \ @TheBTCManual 6 Sep 2023 \ on: Tail Emissions Are A Terrible Idea bitcoin
I don't know why miners are so butt hurt, they first were pushing ordinals, now drivechains and now again the return of tail immissions debate? If you need extra revenue why not merge mine some shitcoin, RSK or pick up some of the other POW coins and stop making your profitably issues our problem?
Miners need to get rekt regularly if they sink too much capital into opps upfront or they have a high costing energy source, thats what they signed up for, and what if they are public miners thats the risk the equity holders took (FYI they could have raised capital through equity too) so even more reason why I couldn't care about big miners going tits up, you had advantages over smaller miners and you mis calculated its okay
Those ASICS will just move to people who can afford to run it profitably and distribute the hash rate
The network might have some rough patches here and there but it will find an equilibrium and adding keynsean policies isn't going to help. Mining is meant to be hard otherwise everyone would do it and not spend time focusing on value added goods and services we actually need.
You already see that in the fiat system with infiniate tail emissions
Their financial problems are our problems. Bitcoin relies on miners providing enough hashrate to make attacks (via reorgs and empty blocks) infeasible by those who'd like to see Bitcoin fail. If there's a way to maintain hashrate without compromising too much of Bitcoin's monetary policy, that would be good for all of us and should be encouraged.
To your point, miners mining at an unsustainable loss by depending on a potential future change is also bad since it provides a false sense of security and artificially inflates the hashrate, to a point that discourages potential profitable miners from jumping in.
reply
Bitcoin is designed to handle fluctuations in hash rate. If the hash rate falls due to some miners going out of business the difficulty adjustment will kick in and it will become more profitable for the other miners. As the fiat price goes up, more miners will re-enter the market. We don't need to change a system that's already working.
reply
System is working only because of NGU in the "early" phase.
Overtaxed active users will not pay endlessly for the whole network security, i.e. for "free lunches" for passive parasites :)
reply
I totally disagree, saving incompetent miners is not everyone's task, if miners can't make money, they should quit mining and let more efficient ones mine.
According to my guess, this is actually a problem with BCH. After the next round of halving, BCH may enter a mining death spiral.
So they hope that Bitcoin will be tail emission first, so that BCH can follow.
reply
There's external risks to miners quitting. ASICS are a limiting factor in terms of entering the mining arena, and if a significant amount of miners failed around the same time, it could be scooped up by a state-actor to gain a temporary majority of the hashrate. I believe Bitcoin wouldn't die from this, assuming new miners would spin up to challenge this eventually, but I think it could definitely hurt Bitcoin in the short-term and slow adoption.
reply
Thats definately a possibe scenario but everyone can paint one look at the comments, and none of us can acount for the variables, like lets say an entity picks up all these miners, doesn't mean the energy is available at a reasonable cost to go out and attack the network
reply
I don't subscribe to the mining doom loop that takes down the miners in a systematic way, I think that like fiat miners theres always a price that brings in participants that have free cash flows and access to resources.
The Bitcoin network has to adjust from time to time, if it gets to a point where it makes sense for me to mine, you know im going to do it, we all want cheap sats
reply
Disagree
reply
How do you see it? Keen to hear the full take! Come on don't leave me on a cliff hanger
reply
We don’t share financial problems
reply
Their financial problems are our problems.
No they are not,
there is hundreds or thousands of shitcoins making less fee than bitcoin fee alone.
I don't see many hacks or 51% attack on them.
Go and check hashrates of BCH, BSV, LTC, DOGE, etc.
The miners will addapt, the ones who cannot operate with the margins of each epoch, will left the network allowing the ones who stay to make more money.
reply
yeah, and this number of "who stay" will gradually decrease, like it or not :)
reply
Yep, the rules are the rules…
reply
and where is the Store-of-Value then?
(on the floor)
reply
On the rules.
If you change them, what’s the point ?
reply
Free market is above all the rules for me.
Unfortunately, Satoshi forgot to implement free market between active and passive users,
and this mistake was not danger in early phase when "number goes up"
but it will be extremely danger in the deep post-subsidy era.
Then, I will say: I told you so (and Peter maybe even: I todd you so :)
reply
Ok dude, not sure where you want to go.
So good luck with whatever your plan is :)
Miners want guarantees in this probabilistic system where nothing is 100% guaranteed. Even PoW is probabilistic though the probability is as close to 100% as you can get. They want to be able to make money at everyone else's expense because tail emission = perpetual inflation = global universal taxation. Miners want to be another branch of government that gets paid no matter the circumstances, just because it exists, even if their services aren't needed.
reply
Exactly, i thought this is a commodity, there is no assurances just because issuance is known and the ledger is open, doesn't make it any less of a gamble, sinking resources into an operation.
Gold miners don't sit around complaining, they go bust and others come in find new deposits or smaller ones come in and mine with lower capex in the same spot. If you can't cash flow, piss off find another job
reply
so, the solution is:
let's overtax active users by taxation in case of being active participant
and let passive parasites will be free of taxation
cool AF, and honest :)
reply
There's no "overtax", you pay for the service. Need your tx to get into a block? Pay for it. Don't need it? Don't pay. It's that simple.
reply
as a passive stakeholder you also pay for the service, then
and the service name is:
providing robust security to the Bitcoin network
Don't need it, my passive parasite in post-subsidy era?
So, you will pay it anyway, in decreasing price of Bitcoin, clear as crystal... :)
reply
I will pay it anyway because I'd need to use bitcoin to pay for goods and services. But I will do it voluntarily and in a way that I prefer. The difference is consent and actual need. If I only need one tx in a month I will pay once a month, if someone needs it more often they will pay accordingly. Rather worry about the insufficient block space to accommodate all of humanity, I'm sure you'll be arguing for increasing the block size next.
reply
I'm sure you'll be arguing for increasing the block size next.
I dumped all my brand new b-cash almost instantly and in a hurry.
that's just your prediction "quality" in its finest, lol
reply
What stops you from returning to it? Prediction is about the future, not the past that already happened. I'm not sure you understand what "prediction" is, probably mistaking it for "postdiction" or something.
reply
I'm sure you'll be
LOL
How is RSK a shitcoin? The base token is just BTC. It's a federated sidechain with HSMs, just like Liquid.
reply
Lol is that really what you took from that comment?
reply
Just responding to one part of it. Are you not open to criticism?
reply
Of course I am, always happy to learn I'm not! My view of RSK is that if you're going EVM the idea is to have 3rd party assets on your rail, I know they do some Money on chain stablecoins and other defi stuff which is shitcoiny and as for miners they can enjoy the merge mining returns and the possible MEV ops no?
reply
Yeah, you can implement shitcoins on it. That's mostly not what's happening, though. Same with Liquid. My objection was just referring to RSK itself as a "shitcoin".
reply