0 sats \ 11 replies \ @iguano 6 Sep 2023 \ parent \ on: Tail Emissions Are A Terrible Idea bitcoin
Define significant. how much?
enough to compensate miners
reply
I don't know, but I could amend that sentence to:
Personally I think if Bitcoin is operating unreliably due to a lack of on-chain demand a decade from now, then...
Where "unreliably" is taken to mean frequent double spends / very long confirmation times.
Whatever level the tail emission proponents are afraid of, I suppose.
reply
Personally I think if Bitcoin is operating unreliably due to a lack of on-chain demand a decade from now
Why do you think it will be a lack of onchain demand?
reply
I think the point you are driving at based on other comments is that altcoins such as BCH manage to stay operational despite much lower miner revenue.
While true, this is missing two key points: a) Confirmation times are required to be way higher for these chains for final settlement, and b) They are seldom worth attacking because nobody uses them for very large transactions.
I doubt one would risk settling a $1B transaction on Bitcoin if the block reward amounted to $1k.
I'm not quite sure the onus is on me to answer this questions regardless; I'm not the one advocating for tail emission.
reply
I doubt one would risk settling a $1B transaction on Bitcoin if the block reward amounted to $1k.
Why not? You just wait longer. There is no such thing as final settlement in Bitcoin anyway.
reply
altcoins such as BCH manage to stay operational despite much lower miner revenue.
I used the altcoin example to show how the miners adapt to the environment, no need of protocol change to maintain security.
I believe the BCH example is bad as is a minority hash chain (SHA256). making it more insecure of what bitcoin will be in the future when we do not have the subsidy. I used this example to make a point of how the miners will behave.
In the future, Miners will use the best technology increasing their efficiency and increase the hashrate even more of what we have today.
I doubt one would risk settling a $1B transaction on Bitcoin if the block reward amounted to $1k.
Today (09-06-2023) the last block reward was 8600$
I don't understand why you think is going to be less in the future.
reply
I dont think the question is whether fees will be more, the question is whether fees will be enough
reply
Enough to provide enough mining security to be robust to attack from a state-level actor.
reply
How much is that?
Go and check hashrates of BCH, BSV, LTC, DOGE, etc.
The game theory on bitcoin is that the miners will adapt, 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
Nobody knows how much it is. That's the point. And if you're drawing your comps for btc's desired security budget from a bunch of shitcoins, I don't know what to tell you.
Game theory isn't magic -- all of these parameters are bound together to produce the complex system that emerges. You can't solve it in closed form and predict what will happen.
reply
Nobody knows how much it is. That's the point. And if you're drawing your comps for btc's desired security budget from a bunch of shitcoins, I don't know what to tell you.
If nobody knows why you think is needed? who will impose this variable?
I gave you an example of shitcoins to make you think.
reply