Monero’s approach to miner incentives, using tail emission, prioritizes predictable, ongoing rewards to maintain chain security, which is a pragmatic solution but comes at the cost of permanent, protocol-level dilution for all holders. It’s a valid technical path, especially for a privacy-focused coin, but shouldn’t be portrayed as “more mature” simply because it avoids relying on demand for blockspace and organically emergent fee markets.
Bitcoin’s model, while demanding more from its users and market dynamics, anchors security in a combination of finite supply and the willingness of participants to pay for settlement, not in endless inflation. This challenges the ecosystem to innovate around transaction batching, scaling, and efficiency, ensuring that miners are still incentivized as the block subsidy declines.
It’s not a question of maturity versus immaturity, but of different tradeoffs: Monero chooses steady dilution for predictable security, Bitcoin chooses absolute scarcity and tests whether transparent fees and technological ingenuity can secure the chain. Downplaying the technical rigor of one approach or the economic principles of the other misses the point; both are serious experiments in decentralized security, and each deserves honest discourse, not cheap shots.
Monero’s tail emission isn’t “endless inflation”, it’s a fixed, known emission rate that ensures long-term miner incentives and preserves network security when fees alone may not suffice. This isn't dilution in the fiat sense; it's a capped, predictable tradeoff for sustainability. Bitcoin’s fee market model is still unproven at scale especially during low activity periods. The prayer is that fees rise enough to secure the chain without pricing users out, but this is just, in my opinion, unwarranted speculation. Both models reflect different assumptions about future network dynamics. But Monero’s approach is deliberately conservative, prioritizing privacy and longevity over ideological purity. That’s not a cheap shot. That’s sound engineering.
Predictable dilution is still dilution, it just comes with a calendar invite. Calling it “not inflation” because it’s steady is like claiming rain doesn’t get you wet if it’s in the forecast.
Monero’s fixed emission shields against fee uncertainty, but every new coin still chips away at existing holders’ share. That’s a tradeoff, not a free lunch, and dressing it up as “sustainable” doesn’t change the arithmetic.
Both models make bets: one on trust in economic incentives, the other on perpetual issuance. Let’s just call dilution what it is, even if it arrives right on schedule.
Your ideological purity is showing under your slip bro. Btc bets that fees alone will secure the network. Xmr ensures it. If Btc banks on greed as a motivating factor in all this to work out in theory, why assume users will pay the onchain fees when other options are available? Greed cuts both ways, and I'm afraid maxis haven't thought that far ahead.
Free-market bidding for scarce resources isn’t ideology, it’s how every healthy market, from housing to bandwidth, has always allocated value efficiently; Bitcoin simply applies this proven principle to digital settlement.
Free-market bidding WORKS when there’s consistent demand. You ASSUME this demand for on-chain settlement in a world that is increasingly moving off-chain to AVOID those fees! Greed finds a way.
Housing and bandwidth are necessities. Blockspace is optional while competing/preferable alternatives exist. Also, BTCs transparent ledger exposes every settlement to surveillance. Why TF, in a post Samurai world, would you really expect or encourage people to pay for a public record of their finances in a surveillance state? Lemme guess, freedom.
> Free-market bidding WORKS when there’s consistent demand. You ASSUME this demand for on-chain settlement in a world that is increasingly moving off-chain to AVOID those fees! Greed finds a way.
Monero’s fixed tail emission slows the decline in miner rewards, but as total supply grows, 0.6 XMR per block inevitably buys less over time. Like Bitcoin, long-term security depends on price and fee market demand, not protocol emissions alone. Tail emission isn’t a magic solution; over time, the security challenge is fundamentally the same: economic incentives drive network safety, not just predictable issuance.
You're sidestepping the point: why would anyone pay for transparent, surveillable settlement in a post-Samourai world? That’s not a fee market, it’s a self-doxing market.
As for your claim: Monero's tail emission guarantees a non-zero reward — Bitcoin hopes rising fees will fill the gap. That’s not “the same challenge.” That's a false equivalence. One has a floor. The other has a "...?"
And no one called it magic..just honest, predictable, and sustainable, unlike banking literally everything on user generosity and government-friendly transparency.
Bitcoin’s blocks secure more real economic value and attract more honest hashpower than Monero ever has, even with “transparent” settlement and no tail emission. Monero’s floor is just a slower glide down; as both chains age, reward purchasing power shrinks and security depends on price and demand, not just protocol promises. Privacy matters, but physics and incentives aren’t fooled by emission schedules — eventually, every chain answers to the same economic test, floor or not.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
