46 sats \ 2 replies \ @softsimon OP 22 Jul 2022 \ parent \ on: I'm Simon, creator of Mempool.Space. AMA. bitcoin
It's just my general understanding that the majority of the Bitcoin maximalists that I see on twitter and meet IRL all agree that the 21M hard cap is holy and should not be touched. That of course fees with cover the security in the future if Bitcoin is successful.. And just like I stated in my first reply.. if security is lowered, we just increase the number of confirmations before calling it final settlement... So what is the issue exactly?
I understand the "21 million forever" concept but that's not my question or the original question (I think)
What do you specifically think about the idea of a fixed reward that Peter Todd recently opted for discussion on the bitcoin-dev mailing list?
In short: organically coins/sats are lost and therefore a small inflationary reward for miners might not absolutely impact the 21 million cap.
reply
It's an interesting argument for sure. But there is no way of measuring or proving how much that organically gets lost. I still prefer the 21M hard cap meme. All money that existed before Bitcoin was "leaking", even Gold with its yearly 2%(?) inflation. So Bitcoin is the perfected money with a actual hard cap first time in the history of humanity. So introducing a small leak would mean that there could in theory be something "better" than Bitcoin still. I want Bitcoin to continue being the perfected money in this aspect, and if 0.001% of coins gets lost every year it just slowly increases the value of everyone's coins in a deflationary way.... just my 2 sats. Especially without any inflation required to secure the network due to the arguments I stated above.
reply