Subnostr

You don't need to reach to philosophy to reject this. There was a deliberate decision early on to support the network via usage fees, not via holding fees: otherwise some non-zero inflation would have been the cleanest solution.

It does, of course, imply a third stage of Bitcoin's economic journey, which creates uncertainty. But you can't say people weren't warned!

https://rusty-lightning.medium.com/the-three-economic-eras-of-bitcoin-d43bf0cf058a

sachin 1y ago

It is not a rejection based on a philosophical argument but an economic one.

An individual will not want to hold a monetary good that gets confiscated periodically in portions just because they are holding it. I can speak for myself with utmost confidence and say that I certainly will not want to.

It's a rejection based on examining my own incentives and preferences to stick to the current set of rules, after considering the risks and threats of doing so.

If someone else finds such a monetary good desirable, then they are free to run a version of Bitcoin that has those rules. I will not be running that version on my node and will instead stick to the version with the current rules that has no 'holding fees'.

I elaborated further in this note:

nostr:nevent1qqs25jc9zgrjzek6x3f7tkm7c8zrrlf849yl4lvdqq7ex9cefaznv3gppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgsrfud256c4pr0qh2elppkyh4dm676slpveg5wxu69vj40usdhre4srqsqqqqqptwca2h

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Rusty Russell 1y ago

You assertions about what people will do is ungrounded: people do this currently. Notably, Bitcoin currently has inflation, so one could argue that the transition which will occur is the change!

I agree with you, but mainly because I believe changing would be unethical. But the that would also apply if the original design was the other way.

sachin 1y ago

My assertion was related to 'holding fees', not inflation. It was as follows: I don't want what I hold to be confiscated periodically via a 'holding fees'. I am very confident about what I want.

I then made an extrapolation that it could then follow that other people will want what I want. Maybe it is ungrounded because there is no way for me to know other people's preferences. But the fact that there is no *voluntary* system in which people adhere to such rules is telling. If there was real demand for such rules, maybe there would've already been a fork with those rules. I wouldn't mind if there is a fork like that that exists. If people want to create a different version of Bitcoin with those rules and use it, they are free to do so. I will not use it. That much I know.

Even in the case of inflation, its *predictable* supply and issuance is one of the many crucial reasons I hold and use Bitcoin. This policy is disinflationary and has not been changed. It is my preference to want such a system. It has also been the preference of many others, clearly. If there is demand for one that has perpetual inflation (say for example one that doesn't have BIP42), I do not mind people forking off and using that version. I will not use it.