You are right about the early years. It’s a good point. I kind of like your idea and maybe you even start at every 100,000 blocks then add 50k blocks each time. 

So first halving would have been block 100k, then next block 250k, then 450k, then 700k then 1M and so on. So there would have been more halvings in the first 15 years but they would be more spread out beyond that. 

grayruby

bitcoin

Is 21 million Bitcoin the ideal amount of Bitcoin that should ever exist?

Taft

> I think the halvings should have been spread out a bit more.

I can imagine how that would be attractive...however would a more spread out halving schedule worked in the early years?

Imagine an 12 yr halving schedule...that might have resulted in Bitcoin never gaining traction because those supply shocks weren't available often enough. Perhaps 4 years now feels "too short" only because Bitcoin has been a success more or less.

Maybe a halving schedule that grows by 20% each cycle. 4 years, 4.8, 5.8, 6.9, 8.3, etc...