True, but where does the money we earn come from. In today’s system it comes from other humans who might be closely connected to those who printed it. In bitcoin it comes from either
1. someone who adopted bitcoin before you or
2. from a miner who competed in an open protocol to earn it.
What I’m asking is if the shift from more 2 to more 1 over time is a good thing. 1 feels more like the status quo than 2
Money is not wealth. Bitcoin could be modified to reward miners with 1000 BTC per block, forever. That wouldn’t create any more goods or services that human beings can consume.
Correct… it would just change the relative future distribution of bitcoin.
It the mining reward is effectively a socially agreed upon “tax” that gets redistributed by POW. In the current mechanism that tax is decreasing in absolute terms. In the mechanism you just mentioned it is decreasing in relative % terms, and you could also imagine a mechanism where it remains a constant % and increases in absolute terms.
I’m basically just asking what the trade-offs of these 3 policies really are. Again, fully aware that actually trying to change bitcoin would have its own major negative implications for social consensus.
