Sorry, but this is bogus.
Trying to describe what will happen to bitcoin with Bayesian probabilities leads to really bad conclusions. This is what Keynesians try to do in fiat economics textbooks.
It doesn't even scratch the surface of reality.
Bitcoin supply should not be be limited to 21 million.
We should follow the footsteps of DOGE and Monero.
Don't be a rabid MAXI.
Read this excellent article by the amazing core dev Peter Todd and educate yourself.
https://petertodd.org/2022/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary
Discussion
Is gold Keynesian? The Austrians who Bitcoiners generally love seemed to think it was great despite it's ongoing small amount of inflation.
Can you show me an Austrian economist who says small inflation is beneficial?
Yes they like gold because it has been the *least* inflationary. Until bitcoin.
Are you saying inflation alone necessarily determine what is more valuable or money? Of course. Not if you understand subjective theory of value.
"A single coin has fixed supply. There is a theory that the fixed supply of Bitcoin is the source of its value. As with Bitcoin, there is a fixed supply of the Mona Lisa, only one is possible. The theory implies that this is the source of value for the famed work of art. However there are countless unique works of art with no demand, and therefore no value. Bitcoin cannot increase in value only because of absolute scarcity. To the contrary, it necessarily becomes more scarce as it becomes more highly valued."
https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Scarcity-Fallacy
Yea. But Peter Todd is an experienced core dev. His opinions matters more.
You are a Rabid maxi who is un educated.
I'm not looking for an authority to form opinions, and I encourage you to do the same.
Explaining how bitcoin incentives will play out using bayesian methods is a fools errand in my book:
- How do we know the rate of lost coins in the future, or the ratio of fees in the reward? Extrapolate from the past? There's no reason to accept that logic
- How do we know that miners need this extra subsidy, when other crypto currencies have never even come close to being adopted as money, and bitcoin is also far from it?
"...academic analysis has found that in this condition [only fees in the reward] block generation is unstable." - So they claim to know how this would work, even though there's absolutely no way to know this.
"The fact is, economic volatility dwarfs the effect of small amounts of inflation. Even a 0.5% inflation rate over 50 years only leads to a 22% drop"
*Only*. Really? Who says that's so low? This line of reasoning looks like taken directly from a Keynesian textbook. And taking bitcoin's current volatility as an example is just a blatant error at least, disingenuous at worst.
I'm all for good explanations, but this is a weak one, because I can substitute these arbitrary numbers and angles with any others that suit my needs. It's statistical cosmetics.
The future of bitcoin and mining is fundamentally unpredictable because humans are. Therefore, I like explanations based on first principles but no amount of statistical trickery will do any good in this matter.
I respect Peter Todd. But this is nothing but a "nice excuse to use some mildly interesting math, in the end it’s totally pedantic."
Austrian economics teaches you a lot on these matters, can recommend those instead.
I was trolling. This is the attitude of the core devs.
They claim that bitcoin will be used as a data storage no matter what.
Their arguments also arises from authority only.
Greg Maxwell says this.
Peter Wuille said this and Adam Poelstra done a detailed analysis (I'm not able to find it, they are also not sharing it) etc.,
Are you aware of the OP_RETURN fiasco?
Good one! :)
Yeah I am aware of the debate, I'm just not too keen to make haphazard speculation on things like this.
And not all core devs are on board with this the proposed change I believe.
It is a good opportunity to learn though
It's now 2 groups. Those who are in line with Luke and rest of them.
Luke got banned from the discussion.
So we can conclude that every core dev believes bitcoin will be used as a data storage no matter what.
Very wise. We would probably have lost a lot fewer bitcoiners in the block size wars if the focus had been on understanding the trade-offs rather than the social aspects of consensus.
I'm learning new things about the Bitcoin network almost every day at the moment. Would love to see the conversation shift from GitHub to nostr..
Peter Todd is an Open attack on bitcoin from the developer front.