0 sats \ 3 replies \ @03393ec3a3 6 Sep 2023 \ parent \ on: Tail Emissions Are A Terrible Idea bitcoin
I respectfully disagree on this point. The hard cap is only one facet of a broad set of differentiation versus fiat. Digital scarcity exists even in the presence of tail emissions (supply is still perfectly inelastic), and “rules not rulers” is the key feature that makes Bitcoin desirable versus any alternative. If I’m not mistaken, the hard cap was not an original design choice, nor was the 21M number.
If the monetary policy changes, the bitcoin experiment fails.
reply
I respectfully disagree on both points. The point of Bitcoin is a disintermediated system of rules without rulers where users cannot be debanked - a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, as it is called in the whitepaper. This remains intact as long as we can reliably advance the chain and include transactions with credible neutrality.
The tweet and discussion about "security budget" is a concern regarding exogenous attacks - non-interested players looking to sell proceeds. Instead a fee-heavy operating paradigm results in internal threats from miners squabbling over the highest transaction fees - vested players looking to accumulate BTC. I'm not sure what the answer is, but MEV is a very real threat we need to think about and consider mitigations for. Within a few halvings, it will likely be rather problematic.
reply
MEV is a very real threat we need to think about and consider mitigations for. Within a few halvings, it will likely be rather problematic.
Lack of free market in Bitcoin is most problematic.
As a side note - noone here was able to deny to this obvious statement:
There is no free market between active users (wanting stakeholders to pay for the network security) and passive users (wanting transacting users to pay for the network security)
But MEV is cancer too, if would only appear in Bitcoin, like it already has appeared as _ pure pathology _ in Ethereum.
reply