3 ms·
As I understand the article, it argues that relying on transaction fees to reward miners is not viable, as there are too few transactions happening thus making
by imafish 4y ago
As I understand the article, it argues that relying on transaction fees to reward miners is not viable, as there are too few transactions happening thus making the transaction fees extremely high.
> "$7.125B / 91,250,000 tx = $78 per transaction."
> "But we just proved the store-of-value narrative breaks down because of the $7.125B/year leak and the fact that mining is unsustainable long-term unless it is subsidized by transaction fees, which will not exist because transacting on Bitcoin is slow and expensive."
- betwixthewires 4y agoThat is not the point of the article. The point is that, as long as miners have to liquidate bitcoin to pay for power, capital will continue to flow out of bitcoin. As a result, either the price will go down or it requires capital inflow, both scenarios mean it is not a store of value. Additionally it talks about the implications on the security of the network as a result of this dynamic.