pull down to refresh
290 sats \ 17 replies \ @netstatic 6 Sep 2023 \ parent \ on: Tail Emissions Are A Terrible Idea bitcoin
Their financial problems are our problems. Bitcoin relies on miners providing enough hashrate to make attacks (via reorgs and empty blocks) infeasible by those who'd like to see Bitcoin fail. If there's a way to maintain hashrate without compromising too much of Bitcoin's monetary policy, that would be good for all of us and should be encouraged.
To your point, miners mining at an unsustainable loss by depending on a potential future change is also bad since it provides a false sense of security and artificially inflates the hashrate, to a point that discourages potential profitable miners from jumping in.
Bitcoin is designed to handle fluctuations in hash rate. If the hash rate falls due to some miners going out of business the difficulty adjustment will kick in and it will become more profitable for the other miners. As the fiat price goes up, more miners will re-enter the market. We don't need to change a system that's already working.
reply
System is working only because of NGU in the "early" phase.
Overtaxed active users will not pay endlessly for the whole network security, i.e. for "free lunches" for passive parasites :)
reply
I totally disagree, saving incompetent miners is not everyone's task, if miners can't make money, they should quit mining and let more efficient ones mine.
According to my guess, this is actually a problem with BCH. After the next round of halving, BCH may enter a mining death spiral.
So they hope that Bitcoin will be tail emission first, so that BCH can follow.
reply
There's external risks to miners quitting. ASICS are a limiting factor in terms of entering the mining arena, and if a significant amount of miners failed around the same time, it could be scooped up by a state-actor to gain a temporary majority of the hashrate. I believe Bitcoin wouldn't die from this, assuming new miners would spin up to challenge this eventually, but I think it could definitely hurt Bitcoin in the short-term and slow adoption.
reply
Thats definately a possibe scenario but everyone can paint one look at the comments, and none of us can acount for the variables, like lets say an entity picks up all these miners, doesn't mean the energy is available at a reasonable cost to go out and attack the network
reply
I don't subscribe to the mining doom loop that takes down the miners in a systematic way, I think that like fiat miners theres always a price that brings in participants that have free cash flows and access to resources.
The Bitcoin network has to adjust from time to time, if it gets to a point where it makes sense for me to mine, you know im going to do it, we all want cheap sats
reply
Disagree
reply
How do you see it? Keen to hear the full take! Come on don't leave me on a cliff hanger
reply
We don’t share financial problems
reply
Their financial problems are our problems.
No they are not,
there is hundreds or thousands of shitcoins making less fee than bitcoin fee alone.
I don't see many hacks or 51% attack on them.
Go and check hashrates of BCH, BSV, LTC, DOGE, etc.
The miners will addapt, the ones who cannot operate with the margins of each epoch, will left the network allowing the ones who stay to make more money.
reply
yeah, and this number of "who stay" will gradually decrease, like it or not :)
reply
Yep, the rules are the rules…
reply
and where is the Store-of-Value then?
(on the floor)
reply
On the rules.
If you change them, what’s the point ?
reply
Free market is above all the rules for me.
Unfortunately, Satoshi forgot to implement free market between active and passive users,
and this mistake was not danger in early phase when "number goes up"
but it will be extremely danger in the deep post-subsidy era.
Then, I will say: I told you so (and Peter maybe even: I todd you so :)
reply
Ok dude, not sure where you want to go.
So good luck with whatever your plan is :)
reply
my plan is simple,
as I'm an old cynic - I will dump 80% of my BTC stash for gold when I will see network difficulty regression still four years after some halving in the future
to rebuy order(s) of magnitude more just before an emergency patch will be released
:)