Oddbean new post about login | logout I was agreeing with you. Blocks too small have the same effect as blocks too big. If they are too big, people can't afford the hardware to run a node. If they are too big, people can't afford a utxo, so there is no point running a node. In this case people are forced to use custodians. Custodians centralise to large entities due to economies of scale, particularly at high fees. Since the custodians are the ones paying the fees, they are incentivised to run miners. This gives them control of the network for the same cost as paying the fees. They can run a slight loss on mining to force out miners who can't subsidies costs with fees they charge for being custodians. They are then incentivised to spam the network with additional data to price out all but the largest custodians. This is revenue neutral as the mining rigs pick up the revenue from the fees paid. This seems to be the Microstrategy play book.
The current yearly supply inflation rate for monero is 0.47%, this will always decrease as a percentage as the tail emissions are fixed. Compare that with inbound liquidity fees for lightning, and it's insignificant if you use is for regular transactions. https://image.nostr.build/e6f6a357e9bd6bcdec94a64873140653db8e69d075f8f0f13c7661b6a596aec1.jpg nostr:nevent1qqswqvaah3u8pwzat5hqp3vlep4z30eer5arq5w0ax3vqwud02n0ecqpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygrnzlu38s77ww0g82edm3nsp284et69ltz6qtr23p44tmum0c6dgypsgqqqqqqsqn2ldp
Rational people prefer its body without cancer instead of a little cancer.
Tail emissions is the least of it. They enable variable block size so you can do bank runs on custodians. Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to shill monero. I'm saying that what Bitcoin needs is going to change as it gains adoption to ensure it continues to freedom money. Maybe being vulnerable to takeover of custodians is the carrot that banks and nation states need to adopt Bitcoin and win the NGU race. Once it absorbs a significant amount of the global capital gains will diminish. It then needs to compete with cheaper, faster, more private coins that have growth potential to take market share off Bitcoin. This is when it will be important that Bitcoin has smart people making improvements to remain dominant and resist capture from banks who can offer economy of scale services but not really offering the real freedom of Bitcoin.
Thanks for clarification. But bitcoin is scaling in both custodial and not custodial ways with ecash, mints, federations, side chains, multisigs and so on. I don't understand the alleged necessity to change anything in layer 1 nor I see the reason of promoting inflation.
ecash/federations don't scale Bitcoin. They scale IOUs. And ironically their inflation is arbitrary and centralized. A mint can print as many tokens as it wants that aren't backed by Bitcoin.
Ohh my. Have Fun Playing with shitcoins. Godspeed.
Your criticisms are that shitcoins are bad because inflation, then say we don't need them because we have these custodial IOUs we can use that mints can arbitrarily and covertly inflate. Makes no sense.
You would think incentivizing miners to secure your blockchain would be critical...guess some Bitcoin maxis are more high time preference than they let on
You would think that Bitcoin network exists and works.
Because it still has a significant enough block reward. I don't know if you noticed but even with all-time highs going on no one is using it. Look at the mempool. All economic activity is taking place on exchanges not on Bitcoin. No one is going to mine Bitcoin for free.
Rational people prefer its body without cancer instead of a little cancer.
Tail emissions is the least of it. They enable variable block size so you can do bank runs on custodians. Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to shill monero. I'm saying that what Bitcoin needs is going to change as it gains adoption to ensure it continues to freedom money. Maybe being vulnerable to takeover of custodians is the carrot that banks and nation states need to adopt Bitcoin and win the NGU race. Once it absorbs a significant amount of the global capital gains will diminish. It then needs to compete with cheaper, faster, more private coins that have growth potential to take market share off Bitcoin. This is when it will be important that Bitcoin has smart people making improvements to remain dominant and resist capture from banks who can offer economy of scale services but not really offering the real freedom of Bitcoin.
Thanks for clarification. But bitcoin is scaling in both custodial and not custodial ways with ecash, mints, federations, side chains, multisigs and so on. I don't understand the alleged necessity to change anything in layer 1 nor I see the reason of promoting inflation.
ecash/federations don't scale Bitcoin. They scale IOUs. And ironically their inflation is arbitrary and centralized. A mint can print as many tokens as it wants that aren't backed by Bitcoin.
Ohh my. Have Fun Playing with shitcoins. Godspeed.
Your criticisms are that shitcoins are bad because inflation, then say we don't need them because we have these custodial IOUs we can use that mints can arbitrarily and covertly inflate. Makes no sense.
You would think incentivizing miners to secure your blockchain would be critical...guess some Bitcoin maxis are more high time preference than they let on
You would think that Bitcoin network exists and works.
Because it still has a significant enough block reward. I don't know if you noticed but even with all-time highs going on no one is using it. Look at the mempool. All economic activity is taking place on exchanges not on Bitcoin. No one is going to mine Bitcoin for free.
