The block size cap? That's not the attack I would've chosen... You want it higher?
Discussion
I don't want it higher. I want a tail emission. Which is why I use Monero.
It's not an attack. It's an observation I've made from years of delving into and trying to understand this stuff. I don't believe it because I dislike bitcoin or something. I believe it because it's what I've come to understand.
Do you want me to go into this? It's a lot to digest. I can give you a summary: without a tail emissions, the network is secured by users, and hodlers are free riders in the game theoretical sense, treating bitcoin security as a commons. For this reason the incentive is to hold, not spend, pushing the cost of security on actual users, driving it up to the median transaction value per transaction, which of course goes up the less people transact. Ultimately, this means that either nobody can transact, making bitcoin valueless, or security craters, making bitcoin valueless. A capped supply coin cannot be long term viable. I'm pretty sure I've talked to you before about this.
Yup
Go Signum network….. 🙏💎👀
Maybe, and maybe I didn't understand. I'm not really following. It seems like absolutes and assumptions. I like the cypherpunk future where my toaster produces both toast and sats and increases network security. I like imagining a homestead with a heat budget for showers and heating, and a flexible system of sterling engines to run variable input miners when I'm using more heat than usual - and producing sats and hash as a byproduct. Fuck yes, sign me up.
That's all Jetsons dreams. It's cool, but that's not what bitcoin is about. Could be cool side effects, that's nice. But ultimately we have to have viable peer to peer electronic cash. For that you need a blockchain that consists of only the UTXO set, complete privacy, and a linear tail emission. We don't have that yet, we will get there. It would be nice it bitcoin adopted it when we do. Monero will.