Lightning nodes will pay the miners

also "demand" mean transactions

Miners are getting paid

Despite the coinbase halving miners always get paid more over time.

But what about Paper Bitcoin Summer!!

Hey, trust me, bro you ain't gotta worry. Bitcoin ain't feeling nothing. It's the future. It goes right along with AI. Trump knows that Elon knows it and I know it everybody else y'all y'all learn it.

What lightning nodes? If it’s all custodial we only need 10.

What if every Lightning node was a custodian? Could be plenty of on-chain transactions there

Custodians require trust. Trust doesn’t scale to many entities, it drives centralization.

I think it’s funny that some responses here seem to be an attempt to teach Matt Corallo about bitcoin.

Maybe? Both miners and routing nodes move money on your behalf and no one's complaining

That doesn't really answer the question though: do we think miners will get paid if everything happens in Lightning, but there are a million channels?

I could see a time when most/many are using bitcoin as primarily a SOV with few onchain transactions. Lighting for low fee transactions is the primary MOE. Hash rate could fall considerably as miners unplug. Transaction finality can still be secure with a responsively resistant fee market - hash comes back on-line when demand spikes, which causes fees to spike. When fees are low and hash is low, one could always wait longer than six blocks for transaction finality. Censoring high fee transactions has opportunity cost. Spamming/scamming in the setting of high fees is costly overtime - they eventually run dry.

The block subsidy is the runway. Plenty of runway left.

Ah, there's the Matt bear! Was missing you 😉

Ig you so bearish, sell your bitcoin 🫡 View quoted note →

Stop it. No one has to pay the miners.

No one has to pay the miners. People start thinking miner must be paid(How much and for how many miners BTW?) otherwise Bitcoin fails then they start thinking well maybe we should remove the 21M fixed supply or we must introduce some kind of hodl tax. Stop it. Bitcoin would not be resistant and decentralized if it required miners to be actively supported. Hashrate follows Price, ie: Bitcoin security is adjusted according to MC, not the other way around, so buying and hodling is contributing to Price increase and hashrate as consequence. Having said that spending and creating circular economies is absolutely necessary, but its not related to hashrate, miners or security.

Eh I think you’ve got it backwards. The people who don’t value censorship-money will fail.

fact: this is one of the “crossing of the rubicon” moments for bitcoin’s success. not always linearly, but this is one of the continued surprises of bitcoin’s resilience and applied societal value

I wasn’t trying to claim a timeline, only stating an overall fact.

#Monero proves there’s a demand for censorship resistant money. The cliff #Bitcoin is heading towards is that it’s incredibly slow, expensive to actually use (only cheap during a paper Bitcoin summer when its main use case is speculation), and not censorship resistant.

How does the block subsidy protect against censorship??

Tail emission will pay the miners. Monero has a long term plan where Bitcoin was designed to get us going.

Well, I'm not the only one to be worried about it.

CBDCs fix this

We don't know how much of a security budget will be enough, so maybe block subsidy will be enough another halfing or two but maybe it's not enough already. Regardless, when it shows that it's not enough, will we be ready to ramp up fees?

A timeline is plottable. I'm working on a math model to describe the hashrate dynamic in a diminishing rate of return for miners.

imagine having concern for miners, and not the nodes and users. what the fuck is wrong with you devs?

It’s a 2 trillion dollar asset. It’s not failing. Printer isn’t turning off either. Time has shown it gravitates towards this safe haven, you have it backwards.

What if: eventually everyone that wants to transact with the blockchain has to have an up and running miner, and also a node. There could be something in the transaction that points to the existence of those that would not allow the transaction to process unless those were in place. It would certainly decentralize the mining community.

"when it shows that it's not enough" what is it? how does it show? I think we dramatically overspend on security today because the dollar price has outpaced the subsidy. This creates distortions in the market and is why mining pools are at systemic risk levels of centralization. The fix is better pool software (working on it ✅) and reduced block subsidy (working on it ✅). It's kind of annoying to me how many people fret about the security budget when actually the pendulum is extended too far in the opposite direction.

Argument from authority. No man has a monopoly on truth.

FWIW I think we need goldiblocks to solve the security budget problem for the long term. But bitcoiners aren't ready for that discussion yet...

It pays miners

It pays censoring miners exactly the same as it pays non-censoring miners. This, it is censorship neutral. What does provide censorship resistance is a fee premium by the censored transactions. That's the demand @Matt Corallo referred to.

Today, public pressure is what keeps miners from censoring. See Marathon's launch for an example. The block subsidy keeps miners in business, otherwise the industry would collapse and censorship resistance would be a moot point. Ergo the block subsidy is our runway to get enough people using on-chain bitcoin to sustain the mining industry. I believe demand response and heat reuse will replace the subsidy with economical business models. Great news! Demand for these services is distributed across the Earth according to population density and energy generation capacity. This is how we achieve decentralization. (What's really gonna bake your noodle is how population density will change to match available energy resources after the mining industry stabilizes.) Modern centralized mining farms are unsustainable. It's a bubble. We will have to deflate it if bitcoin is going to survive. Great news! Satoshi already thought of this and implemented the decay function of the subsidy to do exactly this. Our challenge is to grow the use of on-chain bitcoin before the bubble fully deflates. This will take a long time, multiple generations. We have a lot of time thanks to the decay function.

I agree that the subsidy provides a first runway for hashpower. Therefore, an attacker cannot simply spin up some hashpower themselves for the attack. OK. However, I don't agree that this runway provides censorship resistance. Public pressure might be helpful for now, but I doubt it will be enough long-term. Even with spacially distributed energy availability and mining: What makes you so sure that nation states will not collaborate and push for censorship? (e.g. "sanctions") I am pretty sure they will some day. They will legally bind the miners to their will. Mining companies will comply, or they go out of business. In the end, someone has to pay for the resistance. Either by directly mining the illegal/censored transactions or by paying a fee premium. In any case it's only possible with a sustained demand.

This is the issue with PoW

I never said the subsidy provides censorship resistance. It clearly doesn't. My thesis is that small scale private and privacy preserving mining is the only way to resist nation state control in the long term. Mining companies are a bootstrapping phase. They won't ever go away completely but if we don't transition to majority pleb mining then I don't see how bitcoin can achieve mass adoption. It will just be gold 2.0 and suffer the same fate as gold 1.0: state capture.

I respectfully disagree with your opening statement. It contradicts itself. If there's not enough demand for fiat/currency which is censorship money - BTC should WIN. Not fail. Either fiat fails/BTC wins or fiat wins/BTC fails. When I see Blackrock moving into BTC, and the pet rock guru offering BTC custody and USD debasing - those are signals to DCA BTC/ stack sats. BTC and crypto is still a fraction, compared to global fiat currencies - and you are right - there is not enough BTC adoption yet. 1. People have to undergo a huge mindset. They are dependent on banks. They trust the banks. They believe they own their money in the banks. Until they get debanked. Like the Canadian Convoy. Nigel Farage. There's a lot more of that yet to come. People need to feel the pain, before they realize there is an alternative . 2. The media shuts down anything that threatens fiat currency. They explain the merits of BTC as funny money and its only used for illegal activities. 3. The laws have changed fast, to slow down adoption, to create gatekeeping mechanisms, to attack BTC -like the Elizabeth Warrender chokepoint operation. 4. Then the government electronic hardware/software/database backdoor exploits, the hackers and scammers designed to steal BTC from exchanges, crypto wallets and any electronic devices holding BTC. 5. Under Gary Gensler previous SEC Chairman, - BTC, crypto, exchanges, wallet developers etc were getting pummeled left, right and centre, designed to slow down or stop BTC adoption. 6. There are many more examples of why BTC has suffered from slow adoption - but it continues to march up and to the right. It grows. Slowly.......and then all of a sudden.... The 5 stages of grief are still being played out. Have patience.

I see. In the end both aspects are needed. Demand for censorship resistant transactions and private (or privacy preserving) mining.

Yeah if you think about it gold was decentralized because anyone could go and take it out of the ground without permission. We need the same for bitcoin. This requires miner privacy. Unlike gold, once we reach a steady state (no subsidy) new bitcoin will only come from people transacting with it. So that's an added requirement that gold doesn't have.

Don’t be obtuse. I didn’t say he has ultimate authority. I said some responses attempt to be teaching him. Based on what they are saying, it’s painfully obvious that they do not know who Matt is. They just want to give an opinion, even if it isn’t well thought out or relevant or accurate. And here you are, slipping in some pity logic heuristic like it’s a mic drop.

🤣 this fuckin' guy

we only have 100 yrs to figure it out… cry harder!