mister_monster on Nostr: I don't want it higher. I want a tail emission. Which is why I use Monero. It's not ...
I don't want it higher. I want a tail emission. Which is why I use Monero.
It's not an attack. It's an observation I've made from years of delving into and trying to understand this stuff. I don't believe it because I dislike bitcoin or something. I believe it because it's what I've come to understand.
Do you want me to go into this? It's a lot to digest. I can give you a summary: without a tail emissions, the network is secured by users, and hodlers are free riders in the game theoretical sense, treating bitcoin security as a commons. For this reason the incentive is to hold, not spend, pushing the cost of security on actual users, driving it up to the median transaction value per transaction, which of course goes up the less people transact. Ultimately, this means that either nobody can transact, making bitcoin valueless, or security craters, making bitcoin valueless. A capped supply coin cannot be long term viable. I'm pretty sure I've talked to you before about this.
It's not an attack. It's an observation I've made from years of delving into and trying to understand this stuff. I don't believe it because I dislike bitcoin or something. I believe it because it's what I've come to understand.
Do you want me to go into this? It's a lot to digest. I can give you a summary: without a tail emissions, the network is secured by users, and hodlers are free riders in the game theoretical sense, treating bitcoin security as a commons. For this reason the incentive is to hold, not spend, pushing the cost of security on actual users, driving it up to the median transaction value per transaction, which of course goes up the less people transact. Ultimately, this means that either nobody can transact, making bitcoin valueless, or security craters, making bitcoin valueless. A capped supply coin cannot be long term viable. I'm pretty sure I've talked to you before about this.