The mempool should represent what's being mined.

Not updating is the same thing.

Feels like people are virtue signalling with this knots vs core stuff. Couldn't you just not update if the PR is completed?

That would make Bitcoin less scarce and cause inflation. I would be careful with ideas like these.

Bitcoin and Monero can be used for vastly different purposes.

Good one! :)

Yeah I am aware of the debate, I'm just not too keen to make haphazard speculation on things like this.

And not all core devs are on board with this the proposed change I believe.

It is a good opportunity to learn though

I'm not looking for an authority to form opinions, and I encourage you to do the same.

Explaining how bitcoin incentives will play out using bayesian methods is a fools errand in my book:

- How do we know the rate of lost coins in the future, or the ratio of fees in the reward? Extrapolate from the past? There's no reason to accept that logic

- How do we know that miners need this extra subsidy, when other crypto currencies have never even come close to being adopted as money, and bitcoin is also far from it?

"...academic analysis has found that in this condition [only fees in the reward] block generation is unstable." - So they claim to know how this would work, even though there's absolutely no way to know this.

"The fact is, economic volatility dwarfs the effect of small amounts of inflation. Even a 0.5% inflation rate over 50 years only leads to a 22% drop"

*Only*. Really? Who says that's so low? This line of reasoning looks like taken directly from a Keynesian textbook. And taking bitcoin's current volatility as an example is just a blatant error at least, disingenuous at worst.

I'm all for good explanations, but this is a weak one, because I can substitute these arbitrary numbers and angles with any others that suit my needs. It's statistical cosmetics.

The future of bitcoin and mining is fundamentally unpredictable because humans are. Therefore, I like explanations based on first principles but no amount of statistical trickery will do any good in this matter.

I respect Peter Todd. But this is nothing but a "nice excuse to use some mildly interesting math, in the end it’s totally pedantic."

Austrian economics teaches you a lot on these matters, can recommend those instead.

I'm not looking for an authority to form opinions, and I encourage you to do the same.

Explaining how bitcoin incentives will play out using bayesian methods is a fools errand in my book:

- How do we know the rate of lost coins in the future, or the ratio of fees in the reward? Extrapolate from the past? There's no reason to accept that logic

- How do we know that miners need this extra subsidy, when other crypto currencies have never even come close to being adopted as money, and bitcoin is also far from it?

"...academic analysis has found that in this condition [only fees in the reward] block generation is unstable." - So they claim to know how this would work, even though there's absolutely no way to know this.

"The fact is, economic volatility dwarfs the effect of small amounts of inflation. Even a 0.5% inflation rate over 50 years only leads to a 22% drop"

*Only*. Really? Who says that's so low? This line of reasoning looks like taken directly from a Keynesian textbook. And taking bitcoin's current volatility as an example is just a blatant error at least, disingenuous at worst.

I'm all for good explanations, but this is a weak one, because I can substitute these arbitrary numbers and angles with any others that suit my needs. It's statistical cosmetics.

The future of bitcoin and mining is fundamentally unpredictable because humans are. Therefore, I like explanations based on first principles but no amount of statistical trickery will do any good in this matter.

I respect Peter Todd. But this is nothing but a "nice excuse to use some mildly interesting math, in the end it’s totally pedantic."

Austrian economics teaches you a lot on these matters, can recommend those instead.

Of course the max supply doesn't need to be 21 million. You just need to fork the code and change the supply. This way the new network will follow the footsteps of DOGE and Monero.

Sorry, but this is bogus.

Trying to describe what will happen to bitcoin with Bayesian probabilities leads to really bad conclusions. This is what Keynesians try to do in fiat economics textbooks.

It doesn't even scratch the surface of reality.

FWIW I did suggest that to them. They said they didn't want to rely on just MARA and F2Pool to mine the transactions, so they'd prefer to stick to creating unpeunable outputs.

Their system has time constraints so there is a deadline to get the transaction published or theft can happen.

I'm happy that we are on the same page.

Angered a lot of people today 😁

Knots

Removing OP_RETURN constraints should go along with undoing the segwit witness discount.

This would force anyone who wants to use blockspace as data anchor to put them in OP_RETURN as it would be simpler and will also increase the fee of inscriptions which is considered as an exploit by the group of people who are opposing this.

This has to be a soft fork.

Random 100 men from today's world vs 1 gorilla.

oh thats far from over.

jews will never live in peace again lol

thank you for clarifying that Adolf Hitler is your hero!

lol looks like you learned history from the propaganda of the LOSERS.

You forget, the losers started WW2, because they lost WW1 which they also started. Lots of losing!

Cockroaches.