pull down to refresh

what's your best argument against tail emission? (monero etc)
221 sats \ 6 comments \ @joda 25 Jul bitcoin
zaps forwarded to @OpenSats (100%)
I know there's something "magical" about a fixed supply, but is the only point to have as much scarcity as possible? Or is there a technical or game theory reason?
I think the argument for tail emission is something like "we have to incentivize miners but don't want to have high fees". My argument against this is somewhat vague, but I assume no matter what the miners receive in terms of block reward, demand for limited block space will always result in user fees.
write
preview
related posts
28 sats \ 1 reply \ @newnym 25 Jul
It's just such a low effort attempt to fix something that isn't broken (at least not on the bitcoin front). I mean look at the name. Sounds like a fart euphemism.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @joda OP 26 Jul
lol even calling it "fart euphemism" sounds better than "supply inflation"
reply
26 sats \ 1 reply \ @BallLightning 25 Jul
My only concern is that tail end emission will represent change in what is essentially bitcoin monetary policy. If bitcoin was created from the start with constant non-decreasing block subsidy, i would not have had any problem with this. But changing that now - no. It will undermine the trust... If it's changed now, how can you be certain that it it won't be changed in the future?
And btw this doesn't solve the miner incentive problem. If there is a constant emission, the amount emitted will gradually become debased enough due to inflation that it will have effectively zero value, given enough time, bringing us again to the same situation.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @joda OP 26 Jul
I agree 100% on the first part-- Bitcoin can't do it.
But I don't see a problem with it in Monero, for example. I did a little math that might be wrong but it looks like approx 153,000 new XMR per year from block subsidy, out of about 19M XMR. That's less than 1% annual inflation. It would take a long time to debase the currency at that rate, and it just slightly incentivizes spending (though if demand for it is high enough, the value will more than justify HODLing).
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @CruncherDefi 25 Jul
Tail emission does not solve the problem of high fees. If you want to have decentralized POW chain you need to have high fees eventually, regardless of having or not tail emission.
In order to have decentralized network:
  1. It must be feasible to run a node by individuals, in order to do that:
  2. Blockspace must be sparse, so blockchain doesn't grow too fast, but:
  3. If blockspace is sparse, the competition for it will drive txs fees up.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 25 Jul
I guess its that it was not what we signed up for.
reply