3 ms·
While it's true that the vanishing block subsidy will cause security issues within several decades, solutions cannot involve breaking the 21M limit that is the
by tromp 4y ago
While it's true that the vanishing block subsidy will cause security issues within several decades, solutions cannot involve breaking the 21M limit that is the core essence of Bitcoin.
- galeos 4y agoWhy not?
- New_California 4y agoBecause the 21m hard cap and change resistance are the definition of Bitcoin. If these are taken away for any reason, the result would be indistinguishable from shitcoins.
- galeos 4y agoI suppose that might be true, but we can imagine a situation where there is no choice in the matter: If network security cannot be maintained without sufficient inflation, then it surely it doesn't matter how philosophically wedded some users are to the 21m cap. It would lead to a hard fork, with two resulting coins: 1. An unchanged 'Capped-supply Bitcoin' 2. A new 'Permanent-subsidy Bitcoin' Given a total breakdown in network security of the 'Capped-supply Bitcoin' (and its associated collapse in value), we would expect users to deem the, still secure and therefore higher value, 'Permanent-subsidy Bitcoin' to be the 'true' Bitcoin going forward, no?
- ashwagary 4y agoFor the unaware, a protocol hard fork would result in participants owning bitcoin on two chains. A fork is possible if fees become an issue, participants will then vote with hash power, nodes, and value.