Oddbean new post about login | logout Not everyone. Holders don't pay, but they benefit, and those that spend subsidize the security on behalf of those that don't spend. It's a big problem that will increasingly become obvious as it rears it's head in the coming decades. I wrote up some detail on it in the linked note and more in the thread it is in nostr:nevent1qqs84fr56hq6wzjcdmg6pu5s65v9a05duxejjytgj7jgk0jdf6zgheqpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygxaypt42mug5ex2e5r46qrlr0jgp72fey0ad5xy6kfm4nxm924augpsgqqqqqqstyf93r
The holders paid to secure their wealth when they initially moved their funds to their wallet. It’s just that there isn’t an ongoing cost to holding it. But wealth that never moves is not beneficial. At some point they have to move it and pay a cost. I think that energy will become cheaper over time but also that bitcoin will become more valuable over time as well. The subsidy continues to shrink but Bitcoin’s value continues trending up while hash continues to rise along with it. Time will tell.
There is an ongoing cost to holding it. Your wealth is secured by the network, without that security, your wealth is worthless. That security you get is subsidized by spenders, and this has incentive/game-theoretical implications for the bitcoin network that are not good. You can have the rarest of assets and if it can disappear while you sleep it's not worth anything. Energy becoming cheaper... As energy becomes cheaper, people spend more on it by raising their energy usage. This is commonly observed everywhere in the world, and so far, empirically, this has held true for the bitcoin network as well. I explained all of this stuff the other day in more detail in the following note, as well as another note in the same thread, if you want to give it a read to get a good idea of my thoughts on the matter. nostr:nevent1qqs84fr56hq6wzjcdmg6pu5s65v9a05duxejjytgj7jgk0jdf6zgheqpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygxaypt42mug5ex2e5r46qrlr0jgp72fey0ad5xy6kfm4nxm924augpsgqqqqqqstyf93r