pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @grayruby 23 Sep 2023 \ parent \ on: Tail Emissions Are A Terrible Idea bitcoin
This is fair but I go back to the insurance example. I buy insurance on my house and buying that insurance also insures others houses, as does their purchase of insurance help to insure mine. It's hard for me to believe that people will have large portions of their wealth tied into bitcoin because of it's scarcity and fixed supply and will a) accept tail emissions b) not be willing to insure their wealth.
Sorry, how does your insurance insure others' houses? My insurance only insures mine.
Even if yours covers others' houses, it insures yours more than others. And you're not insuring the entire world.
reply
When I pay into an insurance product I am paying into a pool of capital that pays out when the 1/10000th house burns down. My capital is insuring that if that house is mine I am covered but if it's yours, you are covered as well even if mine didn't burn down. If I had to pay to insure only my own home, even if a catastrophic outcome is unlikely the premiums and deductibles would be 10x what I currently pay.
reply
I am not suggesting this is a perfect analogy but I think looking at a framework that is similar to an insurance product is more palatable than tail emissions. No one knows what the revenue profile of miners looks like far into the future, are they getting paid to balance grids, capture methane, what are fees, what has happened with integration into appliances and industrial machinery where no excess energy needs to be used to mine etc.
I am not speculating on any of this just on the idea if what comes out of all of that is insufficient at securing the network then paying to mine like you pay to insure your house is more palatable than tail emissions even if they are effectively the same.
reply