Nostr Web Client

Thanks for the video, Matthew.

This might be a hot take, but I wouldn’t be too opposed to a tail emission if that’s what it takes to keep incentivizing miners to secure the network.

I would imagine that plenty of people will want to use the base layer, so there would be enough transaction fees that this wouldn’t be necessary. But if everyone transitions to lightning or bitcoin banks, we might need to stop halving the reward.

A 0.01 BTC block reward would be .0025% increase in the supply every year. Bitcoin would easily maintain its status as the hardest money. It would be a small price to pay in my opinion.

This is a problem that we will face decades from now, and there are good arguments for both sides. Maybe solo miners will be willing to take a loss to secure the network or maybe energy will be so cheap that everyone will be mining bitcoin.

I’m curious what everyone thinks.

Ferris Bueller 10mo ago

I'll never run it. you can't make me

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Nostrostr 10mo ago

It seems unlikely as of right now. I’m just pointing out that it’s a possibility.

I understand that I may not be able to make you and the government may not be able to force you, but the market can effectively force you. If there aren’t enough miners on the chain without a tail emission, it is vulnerable to a 51% attack. If all the miners migrate to the new chain for the slightly higher block reward, it would be more secure. The more secure chain would naturally have more users and a higher value per coin.

Ferris Bueller 10mo ago

What you're describing literally already happened in 2017. Its called BCH. check the chart against BTC haha. And they weren't even trying to dilute people haha