âWe should change Bitcoin now in a contentious way to fix the security budgetâ is basically the same tinkering mentality that central bankers have.
It begins with an overconfident assumption that they know fees wonât be sufficient in the future and that a certain âfixâ is going to generate more fees. But some âfixesâ could even backfire and create less fees, or introduce bugs, or damage the incentive structure.
The Bitcoin fee market a couple decades out will primarily be a function of adoption or lack thereof. In a world of eight billion people, only a couple hundred million can do an on chain transaction per year, or a bit more with maximal batching. The number of people who could do a monthly transaction is 1/12th of that number. In order to be concerned that bitcoin fees will be too low to prevent censorship in the future, we have to start with the assumption that not many people use bitcoin decades out.
Fedwire has about 100x the gross volume that Bitcoin currently does, with a similar number of transactions. What will Bitcoinâs fee market be if volumes go up 5x or 10x, let alone 50x or 100x? Who wants to raise their hand with a confident model of what bitcoin volumes will be in 2040?
What will someone pay to send a ten million dollar equivalent on chain settlement internationally? $100 in fees per million dollar settlement transaction would be .01%. $300 to get it in a quicker block would be 0.03%. That type of environment can generate tens of billions of dollars of fees annually. The fees that people pay to ship millions of dollars of gold long distances, or to perform a real estate transaction worth millions of dollars, are extremely high. Even if bitcoin is a fraction of that, it would be high by todayâs standards. And in a world of billions of people, if nobody wants to pay $100 to send a million dollar settlement bearer asset transaction, then thatâs a world where not many people use bitcoin period.
In some months the âsecurity budgetâ concern trends. In other months, the âfees will be so high that only rich people can transact on chainâ concern trends. These are so wildly contradictory and the fact that both are common concerns shows how little we know about the long term future.
I donât think the fee market can be fixed by gimmicks. Either the network is desirable to use in a couple decades or itâs not. If 3 or 4 decades into bitcoinâs life it canât generate significant settlement volumes, and gets easily censored due to low fees, then itâs just not a very desirable network at that point for one reason or another.
Some soft forks like covenants can be thoughtfully considered for scaling and fee density, and itâs good for smart developers to always be thinking about low risk improvements to the network that the node network and miners might have a high consensus positive view toward over time. But trying to rush VC-backed softforks, and using security budget FUD to push them, is pretty disingenuous imo.
Anyway, good morning.