Philosophy is cool and all, but if the hashrate falls to very low values in the future, we're going to have to be pragmatic about the security budget I love the idea of Ark as a 'Channel Factory', allowing billions to have fully sovereign Lightning nodes. However, if Ark is *too* efficient in this case, then a typical block might have only one transaction! (By the way, that's partly why I'm currently against CTV; I want Ark, but I don't want it to be *too* scalable; I want many medium-sized Arks, not one mega-Ark) On balance, I think it'll all be fine and there won't be a problem with the security budget. But there could be a problem, and that problem could eventually be fatal. So I like to think about it The article discusses Runes, but I think it dismisses them too quickly. The Lightning network could be extended to fully support Runes (no soft fork required), and it's possible (but admittedly, very unlikely) that one of the Runes becomes very valuable. As many Runes 'currencies' have tail emissions, it's possible that they could provide the right incentives to miners Anyway, there's always 'demurrage', a soft fork to apply a tax on old UTXOs, which would motivate people to move their coins more often and create. The rule could be that, when spending a UTXO older than X years, at least Y% of the outputs must be anyone-can-spend outputs that are locked to a few years in the future. Such outputs are equivalent to the block subsidy in practice

Yes. I think that you have to accept that Bitcoin is fixed supply, and go down with the ship if it is going to sink. If you think a coin needs tail emission to be viable long term, then switch coins or make a new one.

@npub1vadc...nuu7 does that answer still land when what they actually want is bitcoin's network effect, not new rules? build your own chain only works if the ask is the rules, not the users.

Inflação é um veneno lento, Gmax está correto em rejeitar a ideia de aumentar a emissão de bitcoin.

my take is he is just playing good cop. security budget and tail emission, are immediate red flag bullshit talk. engaging in polite and open discussion regarding something as fundamental as cap, and bringing this idea to the spotlight as if it was up for debate, is what brought us to "we cannot do anything about spam". I wonder what would happen if a todd bad cop agreeing majority forced a tail emission on bitcoin, against this conviction. would he fight against the established majority, along with the other few "ignorant" plebs who oppose it, or adapt his beliefs to the new reality? my guess is he would ask "how long do you need the tail to be?"

That part - the 'well they can just try it in a new coin' - I agree it's not really the convincing part of the argument, because it sort of already assumes the correct conclusion, i.e. that bitcoin's own inflation schedule isn't up for discussion.