"Does it really make you poorer if both variables increase at same rate?"
It only makes you poorer if you are actually using Bitcoin often as a MoE vs better alternatives.
We can see that during times of high use Bitcoin transaction fees sharply increase (And are increasing on average over time). And that makes sense. There is limited blockspace and a growing number of users. For the sake of argument say you are correct about both variables increasing at the same rate. In absolute terms, it would still be more expensive to use Bitcoin onchain for transacting vs something like Monero.
https://monero-bitcoin-fees.vercel.app/
If your retort is that you use LN for transacting - fair enough. But imo LN is not Bitcoin. It is a very different beast with many problems. And on top of that has tiny fraction of adoption vs onchain or even vs Monero. I could expand on this if you want.
--------
Maybe you are right. This is all uncharted ground. Who knows what will turn out to work? Maybe they both will? Or both will fail (hopefully not)? Or a third path like demurrage is better?
Tail emission was introduced so that there would always be incentive to mine and produce blocks. A lower bound. It also helps keep fees low.
Monero's tail emission is not the only thing that keeps transaction fees down on Monero though. Dynamic blocksize also plays a big role. Blocksize is elastic and changes to demand (unlike Bitcoin). I could also see a similar argument as yours and say 0.6 XMR will slowly grow in value over time (although not as well as BTC). I guess we will have to see how it plays out.
-------
Nothing is technically stopping the economic policy of Monero from changing aside from strong community consensus.
But nothing is stopping those who disagree with changes to Monero from selling, swapping, or forking Monero either. If there was an unpopular enough update users would refuse to update, fork the code, or split the userbase and no one could stop them. That hasn't happened yet though and hopefully won't. But transparency and the ability to opt out is what is most important imo - not necessarily backwards compatibility.
You have to understand Monero is not trying to be "p2p digital gold" or SoV like Bitcoin. It is trying to be p2p digital cash. A MoE - priority is transferring value cheaply, easily, and privately. No promises are made about saving or storing value in it.
-------
PS: Your pfp always makes me laugh lmao
Thanks for the lengthy response. I don’t see how blocksize could be a scaling solution, usage always balances with fee, lower fee always equals to more garbage transactions. Besides, the “low fee” argument is in fiat term - another system which both bitcoin and monero are trying to replace, if fiat is none existing what dictates what is high fee and what is low fee? Mastercard takes 1%-3% transactions fee is that high or low?
If fee system is the only way to adjust demand then layer 2 is unavoidable for any blockchains.
The only thing I am worrying about tailemission is possibility of future changes I don’t care it’s existence though. Hardfork is a nice way to rectify mistakes for cryptos however I see it do more damage than good. A mature system as it grows shall have as few hardford as possible.
I am a serious doggo lol.
Somehow some people think renting is cheaper because you don’t have to worry about house maintenance. Excuse me? You literally paid someone else to take care of it which you can do the same thing as a homeowner. And if you are handy you can do a lot of it labor free. What made you think hiring someone else would ever be cheaper than doing it yourself?
Bitcoin shouldn’t be your excuse to not progress. Learning is a lifelong mission.
“Bitcoin transactions fee grows” in terms of value yes but did you forget that people’s bag also grows in term of value? Does it really make you poorer if both variables increase at same rate?
“The % inflation would be constantly shrinking” so the value of this tail emission contributes to a miner shrinks the same way. It shrinks as secondary compensation to secure the network which means if fee couldn’t sustain the system alone then in future there must be “another way”, thus, further abuse.
“How would devs be abusing tail emissions?” Correct me if I am wrong but I have assumed that tail emission was introduced because fee couldn’t sustain the system. As said above if the value of tail emission shrinks then it is not sustainable for miners, who in turn cannot maintain low transaction fee. Future abuse is inevitable if change is needed.
So who exactly decided 0.6? What about the people who disagreed? If XMR increases or decreases in value will this number need to change? Will that same person have to make decision again? How to prevent abuse here?
“Bitcoin transactions fee grows” in terms of value yes but did you forget that people’s bag also grows in term of value? Does it really make you poorer if both variables increase at same rate?
“The % inflation would be constantly shrinking” so the value of this tail emission contributes to a miner shrinks the same way. It shrinks as secondary compensation to secure the network which means if fee couldn’t sustain the system alone then in future there must be “another way”, thus, further abuse.
“How would devs be abusing tail emissions?” Correct me if I am wrong but I have assumed that tail emission was introduced because fee couldn’t sustain the system. As said above if the value of tail emission shrinks then it is not sustainable for miners, who in turn cannot maintain low transaction fee. Future abuse is inevitable if change is needed.
So who exactly decided 0.6? What about the people who disagreed? If XMR increases or decreases in value will this number need to change? Will that same person have to make decision again? How to prevent abuse here?
The price doesn’t make sense for a lot of miners. There must be a second market.
Some questions for #XMR bros: how do you justify the “tailemission”? Who decided 0.6? Is it just an arbitrary number? What prevents abuse in future? Why your fee structure failed to sustain the system?
A fixed #tailemission doesn’t make sense to me as the reward in terms of percentage-of-total-supply decreases over time (value decreases) might better just keep it at zero.
Because once abused everyone abuses it. Like #FED.
What did China do?
If there will ever be a company paying in it
I still hold this opinion: you have to verify open source yourself to say #opensource is better. I can’t say it, can you?
What is #Massadoption in your mind?
Since you are on it change the toilet as well
I like snow but I hate road salt ☃️
Need Germany for sure
Not expected but OK