pull down to refresh
26 sats \ 1 reply \ @BallLightning 25 Jul \ on: what's your best argument against tail emission? (monero etc) bitcoin
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.
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