116 sats \ 4 replies \ @petertodd OP 21 Oct 2022 \ parent \ on: I'm Peter Todd, cryptochronomancer/web-π dev, AMA bitcoin
My impression is that miners are hired security guards who get to order the transactions. Nodes are ultimately what secure the network.
Nah, you need both. One or the other isn't enough by itself, especially when you're talking about external attackers.
Anyway, if you think changing the 21 million limit is so radioactive, what do you think about demurrage? We can do essentially the exact same thing, economically speaking, with a soft-fork that keeps the 21 million limit.
write
preview
111 sats \ 3 replies \ @BITC0IN 21 Oct 2022
Having just read it and got the jist: oh wow that's some creative thinking.
ie locking up rewards to get them to mine for them again lol. hmmm.
lots of issues with getting miners to accept that one as a softfork. (UASF it lol)
I mean, I prefer it to the 21 million supply modification, but I'm not entirely certain it's aim is accurate either for incentives/outcomes.
It's interesting though, gonna have to chew on it.
reply
1 sat \ 2 replies \ @petertodd OP 21 Oct 2022
lots of issues with getting miners to accept that one as a softfork.
Rather the opposite: I think miners are the ones most likely to push this, a it provides them with a reliable income stream. And it can be implemented gradually, in a way that is compatible with existing wallets.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @nerd2ninja 21 Oct 2022
I think you'll find much less resistance with this method at the very least. I think tail emissions is too controversial. Probably best to drop the push for tail emissions and make this your primary push.
reply
16 sats \ 0 replies \ @petertodd OP 21 Oct 2022
On my todo list is to write up a proper description of demmurage and how I think it could be added to bitcoin.
reply