hey
it wasnt me who said gold was a stable store of value for thousands of years.
that was you bro 
 

 It WAS stable you semantic cuck 

 lol
that isnt what you said

which of us is being semantic?

also lol
"BUt aSteRoId mIniNG" 

 You are a retard, go back to twitter 👍 

 I wrote up a whole thing about this after I came to understand it, as well as some theoretical stuff about blockchain and preserving historical transaction data, like a year ago or something on nostr (my only publishing outlet now) and I didn't bookmark them lol so I kind of have to just write everything out every time.

I'm not the first to figure this out, there's a reason there are tail emissions in coins like grin and Monero, but since the rationale behind these decisions have been discussed, the focus has drifted to "pay miners" and not the deeper, more fundamental reason that underlies "pay miners", that everyone must cover the cost of what they get from one of these networks in proportion to their benefit or misaligned incentives will destroy the network. 

 I'm guilt of the drifting attention too for sure...

certainly aware of the free rider problem,
but everyone is always talking about mining incentives and the window shifts to what the dominant narrative is 😕

its a great explanation, thanks. 

 >> everyone tries to become one of the people that doesn't pay and then eventually there's not enough people paying for the thing to keep existing to benefit people

*Everyone* tries to avoid spending.
On a capped network everyone will ALWAYS try to avoid spending and hodl for as long as possible.
There is no incentive to spend because everyone assumes that their buying power will increase as time goes on

you Maxis are talking about it all day long.

The only thing pushing up transaction fees for the last two years have been people shitcoining on the network

In the absence of a block reward
only people who use sats for goods and services provide security for the network.
hodlers ride for free.

Since there will be no new supply,
everybody wants to hodl.
nobody wants to exchange for goods and services.

But since it's transactions that provide security,
On a long enough timeline
security goes to zero. 

 It's not about if transaction fees cover the cost of mining, it's about the fact that some people, holders, pay nothing to secure their wealth and that cost is subsidized by transaction fees. This isn't me complaining about some injustice or something, it is about the incentives on the bitcoin network. 

Could they conceivably cover the costs of security?? For a time, yes, as you see now that is exactly what is happening, but ultimately incentives are your outcome. People are incentivized to hodl, because they can offload their security costs to those who spend or move around bitcoin, and it's compounding, it has a positive feedback loop; the more people just hodl, the more transaction fees have to cover the cost, the more incentive someone paying those fees has to just hodl. Ultimately, there's a threshold somewhere where security begins to decline, and with it, value.

Mining becoming cheaper with energy... I tried to look up the name of the phenomenon and I can't find anything (search engines filled with renewable energy blogspam) and I can't remember, but historically it has been empirically observed that, as energy becomes cheaper, people spend *more* on it and increase their energy usage. So far bitcoin has also followed this. Also, co wider increasing efficiency of ASICs does not lead to less mining power on the network, but simply a better edge to whoever can get their hands on it. Ultimately, security of the network is not a function of hash power, since machines get more powerful and cheaper, but is a function of share of total available hash power in the world held by the network, and that very closely correlates with energy expenditure by the network of miners. If the expenditure goes down, security does also. 

 As the block reward decreases, banks will run miners at a loss. This will centralise mining further.  

 Yeah I;m sure lots of Bitcoiners do this.

But my point is that,
if you divide a fiat price
by the fiat price of bitcoin (or monero)
you DONT arrive at hard money
or a different UoA

you're just comparing the fiat prices of two different things. 

 I am pricing my items in Monero and using it as a unit of account. And I think other Monero people are doing the same thing. We don't really care about the fiat price of the item. We care about the price in Monero. By taking the moving average, especially, you find that Monero prices of items are actually very slowly deflating over time. As an example, it is looking very much like I will have to lower all the prices in my store by 1% from when I calculated it in August. When I reset it on December 1st, 

 that isn't what unit of account means.

changing a fiat price into Monero isnt changing that.
UoA is *what prices are denominated in*

that doesnt change until people are pricing things in Monero
without regard for equiv USD ”value" 

 everything has to be compared. i could sell a car for 1XMR but it would not be a good deal. if i were the only car seller i would be forced to use usd to set the price. The second person may be able to find their car sales price compared to mine if they are close but otherwise they would need to use usd to figure it out too. The 3rd car seller may have better luck not using usd because they have multiple cars with which to compare. 

 which is why say that USD is the unit of account 

we can personally convert it to whatever if we want
it just doesn't change the UoA 

 Once there becomes enough sellers, selling a particular item though, for Monero directly, they wouldn't need to use USD as the unit of account because they could just compare their item with similar items being offered by other people to know what they should price their item at. In that case, they would have nothing to do with the USD price. Once you get enough of those items being priced in Monero, people will stop looking at the USD price because they will be able to see that an expensive car costs this many Monero while a cheap car costs this much less Monero, etc. And the USD price won't be a factor. 

 Yes totally 
I think that's how it happens
once small communities become more self-reliant and they don't have to interface with the Fiat world 

 You're naturally going to get that to occur faster with small items such as paper towels, toilet paper, just everyday tiny items like that before you get cars and homes that manage to achieve that level. 

 If UoA change happens it's not gradual over a time span of 15 years like with Bitcoin. It will be abrupt.  

 Why would UoA become Monero? Bitcoin is in the best position to replace the dollar. 

 Lack of privacy and high fees, unless you want to go with custodians, in which case, that's not the point of Bitcoin. 

 Bitcoin has low fees 

 Because most people hold their coins on Coinbase, etc. But if they actually owned their own coins, fees on the main chain would be stupid high. 

 They would still be significantly lower than fiat. Why would self custody make fees higher? 

 Not enough block space for everybody to transact on the main chain. And so fees would go through the stratosphere. And no, lightning is not a solution to this, as most people would just be using custodial lightning. And that's bullshit. 

 Lightning literally is the solution. Most Coinbase txs happen on chain anyway. 

 Lightning is a *workaround*, not a solution. 

 when blocks remain small, lightning can't scale without custodians. even if every single transaction on L1 was dedicated to maintaining lightning channels, it would still top out at a certain number of sovereign users, and to get more converts to the bitcoin religion you would need them to use custodians. why are you okay with that? do you really think it's cool that someone else can just steal your money or rug you? are you really cool with only a small percentage of the wealthiest bitcoiners being able to own their own money, while everyone else has no protection from getting robbed? 

 Nobody is going to spend from a cold storage wallet in regular transactions. It is reasonable to expect people to transfer from cold storage to a more capable hot wallet. 

Block size does not matter. LN can support millions of transactions a second.