1. Energy in aggregate will never be completely free. Nobody will spend billions of dollars for zero return on capital. Energy, if utilized correctly in the optimistic sense, will be a small part of global GDP due to its efficiency. It'll be cheap, but not free. Bitcoin has difficulty adjustments; it doesn't care how expensive or cheap energy is. If fusion becomes commonplace, then miners will be competing with each other in terms of fusion marketshare in regard to mining bitcoin.
  2. They don't produce enough value to maintain their lifestyles, or the lifestyles of their descendants, and thus they become net sellers, passing bitcoin back into circulation. Only someone who produces more than she or he consumes, and thus has an in come, can maintain their current bitcoin stack. Otherwise, they need to start drawing down their assets to pay expenses.
Thank you for the reply.
  1. I understand that if you believe it's an impossibility for fusion power to achieve limitless energy at a cost that is essentially free, but "if" energy was magically free - would miners have a progressively diminishing incentive to operate?
  2. If a very small number of people effectively own all the bitcoin, wouldn't derivative markets emerge where the vast majority of people would essentially own "stock" representative of bitcoin that few hold but not directly own bitcoin itself?
reply
How and why would the derivative example in 2) depend on how many people own all the bitcoin?
You can have derivatives today?
BTC is self-custody friendly, so you could just own this share of BTC directly from those few hands. I don't see the need for "paper bitcoin" in this example
reply