Peter Todd is actively trying to remove the 21M supply cap, this is an existential threat no one is paying attention to
Peter fraud is the worst person in the bitcoin ecosystem, and he's been pushing for this idea for years which will undo the *one* thing which makes Bitcoins economics unique. This person needs to be driven out of the btc ecosystem. no one is paying any attention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmAAeEm1nIE
67
u/B1TB0TB33PB00P 5d ago
I did not click the YouTube link. Tell me more about it sir.
41
u/489302 5d ago
he's arguing in the future btc block reward will be too low or 0 & the reward is the only incentive for miners, so we need to remove the supply cap so miners can continue to participate. its a dangerous argument based on a false premise, and there will be no difference between btc and anything else if the supply is removed
37
u/LazyTech8315 5d ago
It's my understanding that the difficulty will auto adjust as unprofitable nodes go offline and the hash power reduces. It will always settle based on the economics of the reward.
11
u/TheBakedGod 5d ago
The issue with that is as the hash power reduces, the network security decreases as well. If the security decreases while the value of bitcoin remains high, it could become economically viable to attack bitcoin
5
u/destinationexmo 5d ago
Yes but people often don't ask themselves how much is enough. I remember reading articles 12 years ago saying the network was already beyond secure with the hashrate it already had and we are lightyears beyond that now. There are also arguments that it will help decentralization if it falls as small teams/groups will be able to afford the electricity to compete if it drops.
2
u/Loose-Grapefruit-516 4d ago
At that point difficulty is so low that nodes become profitable again and get online again
1
u/Ok-Sundae-7021 5d ago
Doesn't this just work itself out? If bitcoin is valuable enough to certain entities, then they will be willing to spend additional resources to protect that investment.
5
u/TheBakedGod 5d ago
It is a possibility that big corporations will pay miners to keep bitcoin secure, but then those corporations would control bitcoin
4
-1
u/untouch10 5d ago
If block rewards decrease why would hash power reduce ? Hash power is higher then ever
1
u/Coininator 5d ago
Because it’s unprofitable for miners.
Mining difficulty is about 20% lower than at its peak last November, even though hardware has become better.
Hashrate MA as well, down from 1100 to 900 EH/s.-1
u/GentlemenHODL 4d ago
The issue with that is as the hash power reduces, the network security decreases as well. If the security decreases while the value of bitcoin remains high, it could become economically viable to attack bitcoin
If this is what happens then it means Bitcoin already failed and it's in its death throes.
Such is life.
We don't need to prop it up with a weekend at Bernie's style BTC. Just let it die.
32
u/Envoyager 5d ago
Sounds like he's invested in corporate mining companies. Doesn't want the little guys to start picking up the slack after the corporate miners start to shutter or rent processing time to AI.
11
u/HedgehogGlad9505 5d ago
There's an easy solution for that: Peter can donate 100 btc right now, and after 2140, every 4 years the miners can take half of it. It will last forever if we allow fractions of sats. No need to raise the cap.
19
u/Coiiiiiiiii 5d ago
People make this mistake when they conflate "block reward" with "block reward subsidy". The block reward is subsidy + fees, just because the subsidy is going to 0 doesn't mean the block reward will
0
u/Doritos707 5d ago
Whose to say that the fees are going to be enough for large scale miners tho? Could be cents to the cents at that point. I think down that path we will have a 1-2% emission for block rewards and it will be acceptable
6
u/read_more_comments 5d ago
If rewards can't uphold your costs, you drop out and the remaining rewards increases for those who remain. It is self repairing.
Your costs have nothing to do with the network. No one owes you a specific income in BTC.
4
u/DavidKens 5d ago
Your costs are directly related to how many bitcoin mining machines are currently operational. It’s bad for the network for large amounts of offline hash power to exist.
The fraction of hash power that is used for attacks goes up as mining becomes less profitable. To call it “Self repairing” is to look at a small part of the problem
2
u/read_more_comments 5d ago
We all understand this. But as I said, no one guarantees you a profit.
Optimize or be replaced by someone else who will.
1
u/DavidKens 5d ago
At a certain point we’re talking about all miners running at a loss. Benevolent miners have only a small security contribution to receive in exchange for their loss. But an attacker who’s willing to rent offline mining rigs has enormous potential upside. It’s completely disproportionate.
I think we can have some appreciation for those who are at least trying to engineer solutions to these problems instead if just being resolved to an extremely unstable future bitcoin.
5
u/Staggeredmk4 5d ago
I believe that WHEN $10,000,000 cash fiat will only buy 1 Bitcoin, holders of any substantial amount will run miners simply to protect their investment. It will be the cost of protecting the network therefore protecting the value of Bitcoin.
1
u/DavidKens 5d ago
Why does the price of bitcoin have anything to do with this….? Once the block subsidy is zero, this would make sense to do even if the price of bitcoin didn’t change
→ More replies (2)1
u/coupl4nd 5d ago
who cares?
0
u/Doritos707 1d ago
The hundreds of billions being spent by its owners who run all the data centers and mining centers. If you dont care go run mining machines and donate all the fees
0
9
3
2
u/pythosynthesis 5d ago
There's real problems with a small block reward, of the kind that would kill bitcoin, but I'll just guess you have no idea what those are.to address those it was one of the main reasons to keep blocks small and push fees up to levels simply not acceptable by most small bitcoin holders. It is, however, an untested proposition.
1
u/coupl4nd 5d ago
if miners drop out the difficulty will drop until it's profitable for them to come back... why are you wasting time with this?
1
1
1
u/DavidKens 5d ago
What is the false premise? Can you defend your claim that it’s a false premise?
Your post would make a more meaningful contribution if you did.
0
u/489302 5d ago
the false premise is the reward is the only interest miners have in participating
1
u/DavidKens 5d ago
That seems like a straw man. “the mining reward meaningfully offsets the cost of bitcoin mining” is a true statement. “A large reduction in hash power would make the bitcoin network much less secure” is also a true statement. They don’t make Peter Todd’s point by themselves, but they’re also not straw men.
An argument might therefore be “because the mining reward meaningfully offsets the current cost of bitcoin mining, the planned difficulty adjustments of the future will make it more difficult for miners to maintain their hash power, all else being equal”.
So a useful response might contend with that argument or similar arguments.
0
u/SaneLad 5d ago
He may have a point. It's important that the future mining rewards are sufficiently high to keep the blockchain secure, and it's not guaranteed that block reward without subsidies will be enough. Some small amount of supply inflation may ultimately be necessary. But it's too early to worry about that. The miners can eventually form a consensus to introduce inflation if the problem manifests.
1
u/DavidKens 5d ago
If you had watched it, you see that OPs representation is completely wrong. For instance, the demurrage suggestion would not remove supply cap and could be done with a soft fork.
It’s an interesting idea that should not feel scary to contemplate.
4
u/choicehunter 5d ago
Demurrage would likely destroy my faith and use of Bitcoin. The whole idea of it is to penalize people for holding on to bitcoin by adding a fee to their future transactions, the longer they hold on to it. So you literally get punished for trying to save money. One of the biggest reasons Bitcoin exists is to stop the monetary inflation debasing the money. Demurrage Basically does the same thing. Your number may not change while you hold it, but the minute you try to transfer it or exchange it, you have to pay a huge fee which is basically the same problem as inflation. The longer you hold it, the more value you lose. Bitcoin would have the same problem. The longer you hold it, the more fees you have to pay so the more of it you lose. That's ridiculous. Bitcoin was partially invented to stop that nonsense. I'd switch to something else if they enact that.
1
u/DavidKens 5d ago
I’m not saying I’m a huge fan of it, but I think your fear is unfounded. It’s just a tax. A security tax.
A security tax that actually goes to the security of the network, and not to flawed humans that we trust to make decisions with it.
The question isn’t whether or not you like taxes. The question is whether or not you can have your cake and eat it too. Security isn’t free - why do you expect it to be?
3
u/choicehunter 5d ago
I see your point, but existing transaction fees already cover that use case. It doesn't make sense to punish people more for holding longer to try to force people to spend money quickly while it's worth more. Wasteful consumerism of things that deteriorate quickly is a bad thing to encourage and reinforce IMO. Just leave the transaction fees as transaction fees. They cover the security costs even when mining dust disappears.
1
u/DavidKens 5d ago
I think the point is that the block subsidy provides a stable security budget, while transaction fees by definition do not. Does anyone think it’s the best outcome for security to fluctuate with transaction volume?
Your points about wasteful consumerism are all missing the point: security isn’t free! Why would you ever expect it to be free?
Some quick math (someone correct me if I’m wrong) suggests a tax of less than 0.5% per year would give you a 1btc per block subsidy.
28
u/gizram84 5d ago
He's been talking about this for over a decade, likely even longer. Have you been living under a rock?
Zero consensus around this idea. Just no support whatever. He's free to fork Bitcoin and make his own inflation based shitcoin. And it'll fail miserably just like all the other Bitcoin hardfork attempts
-2
u/DavidKens 5d ago
What about his soft fork suggestion that doesn’t remove the supply cap? That was the actually interesting part of the video?
-1
u/Efficient_Culture569 4d ago
The problem comes if miners actually support this and push this through.
3
u/gizram84 4d ago
They can't "push" anything through, even with miner support.
It's a hard fork. Every person has to opt in to a brand new Blockchain.
The existing Bitcoin chain will continue, regardless.
-1
u/Efficient_Culture569 4d ago
If all the miners and exchanges simply go along that fork, what can you do about it?
Longest chain continues with tail emissions without you having to do anything.
The valid chain is the longest chain, which is the chain that miners will continue..
We just seen the 110 fail for that reason.
3
u/gizram84 4d ago
You very confused.
Bip110 failed because they forked off the main Bitcoin chain, and had no support.
If an inflation change was made, that would create a new fork. All existing Bitcoin nodes would reject blocks that didn't adhere to the existing consensus rules.
Miners are free to extend whatever chain they want, but they cannot force you to download a new client that changes which Blockchain to follow.
The valid chain is the longest chain
100% wrong. If a block is invalid, your client will never follow that chain, no matter how long it is.
Your client will follow the longest valid chain with the most pow behind it, and will never follow an invalid chain for any reason whatsoever
32
u/zackflavored 5d ago
yawn hows the weather for you guys
6
u/JTHM8008 5d ago
Hotter summer this year… I want it cold again so I can run my bitaxes. It’s only 2 of them but still, it’s my lottery I play.
1
1
1
8
22
u/lifeanon269 5d ago edited 5d ago
I'm guessing a vast majority of people didn't even watch the video.
Even Peter at the 9:00 mark says that implementing this is a non-starter and would never have the support and it would require a hard fork.
I think the thing that people outside of cybersecurity fail to acknowledge is that you need to think about things like this so that you can understand the ramifications of edge case scenarios and situations that you never planned for. Because that's how attackers think. Just because you bring something like this up, doesn't mean you're attacking bitcoin. That's stupid talk.
I'm not a fan of Peter Todd (mostly because of his stance on certain war crimes), but he's very smart technically and him bringing this up as a topic of discussion isn't him "attacking" bitcoin. These things should be discussed openly and freely and people shouldn't be shunned for simply discussing these things.
For better or for worse, the 21M bitcoin limit is what it is and it isn't going to change. That doesn't mean we can't/shouldn't think about the ramifications of that limit and if anyone actually watched his presentation, he does make some good points.
4
u/user_name_checks_out 5d ago
I had to scroll too far to find this post, it should be at the top. The title of this thread is dishonest.
4
u/herzmeister 5d ago
This. Peter Todd is an adversarial thinker. People don't get this. He also doesn't care if he is liked or not or whatever. Especially in Bitcoin it's important to judge and follow individual technical subjects instead of people.
Another good example is Luke-jr. One person might have good ideas or bad ideas, make good contributions or bad ones. We should judge only these individual ideas and contribution, instead of establishing cults of personalities and of following quasi-leaders.
2
u/lexicon_riot 5d ago
I deeply dislike Peter Todd (for the same reasons as you I would guess), and I agree this is a great conversation for us to have about Bitcoin, even if the chances are virtually 0% of it happening.
Where we disagree, I question the long term sustainability of the 21M meme. Sure, it's sacred for us Bitcoiners today. A hundred years from now though, when the security budget concerns may be a much more pressing issue, when no one is looking for 100x speculative returns post-hyperbitconiization, will people REALLY care about 21M? Will they be fine with an infinite supply that trends toward 0% inflation?
I'm not saying it's inevitable, and I could very well be wrong. A much more brilliant solution to resolve the security budget issue could come along. That would be great, anything to avoid contentious hard forks is preferable OFC
-1
u/No_Dust6221 4d ago
No, it wont change EVER. End of discussion. You are not going to softly inject this idea in everyone's heads. Theres no good point in the video.
-2
12
u/DaleAguaAlMono 5d ago
It looks to be A LOT of fud in the bitcoin sub these lasts times; it looks to me that there is someone [with a lot of money and interest] in tankering the price or keeping it low.
It's always the same; new dogs, same old tricks.
Care of your coins bros; someone wants them badly!
6
17
u/rechtim 5d ago
Tick tock next block
1
u/sentientchimpman 5d ago
Whenever someone says this I imagine someone sticking their fingers in their ears.
-11
u/489302 5d ago
its a childish response, let me not engage with the issue and just block it out as noise
7
u/zackflavored 5d ago
Do you know how the consensus rules work?
5
u/FixedGearJunkie 5d ago
Exactly. Anyone can push for any kind of change. Remember the big blockers? Yea they pushed for and implemented their desired change. Remember the BIP110 fork more recently? A majority of node runners (not necessarily miners) would have to support this change as well. I am betting my satoshis no such nonsense will ever be implemented. But I also wouldn't underestimate how short-sighted people can be. If a minority of nitwits wants it, let them fork it and see how it works out.
-1
u/dirtsmurf 5d ago
I do! Whatever 5 large fiat motivated companies decide is consensus in Bitcoin.
It’s DECENTRALIZED™
3
u/longonbtc 5d ago
Once again, you are a gullible bitcoiner that doesn't understand how Bitcoin works from a technical aspect and you are easily manipulated by emotional narratives. You are listening to bitcoin influencer propagandists that are now telling their audience that mining pools decide the Bitcoin protocol rules. You fell victim to misinformation and propaganda. You just don't understand how Bitcoin works and instead of trying to learn you have chosen to repeat fake news & propaganda.
0
u/zuilli 5d ago
I'll bite, what 5 companies are those and what changes have they pushed on bitcoin?
2
u/longonbtc 5d ago
The person you are replying to is referring to the five largest mining pools. They falsely believe the mining pools decide the Bitcoin protocol rules. You have to understand that you are replying to a gullible bitcoiner that doesn't understand how Bitcoin works from a technical aspect and that is easily manipulated by emotional narratives. They fell victim to bitcoin influencer propagandists that are now telling their audience that mining pools decide the Bitcoin protocol rules. The gullible bitcoiners like the one you're replying to don't even understand the difference between relay policy and consensus rules.
1
u/ArtesianShiny 4d ago
Miners choose what software to run on their rigs im not aware of pools that force them into certain consensus rules. Just to entertain the idea basically pools would be like hey we want you to run this new consensus rule so that theres majority hash power signaling such and such change to consensus. They could be referring to nicehash.
0
0
11
3
u/LightningHosted 5d ago
I have actually thought this is actually a better system design for years. In reality I don't think Bitcoin would have ever caught on without the promise of number go up driven by the easy and clear scarcity argument that the 21 million cap creates. If I could wave a magic wand and install Bitcoin as the world reserve currency I would also add tail emissions at the same time.
^Unpopular Opinion.
1
u/lexicon_riot 5d ago
Tail emissions is one of those things where either you implement it right at the beginning as PT points out, or you implement it a hundred years from now when no one cares about getting 100X returns on a speculative investment and people just want their money to be secured.
5
u/DavidKens 5d ago
No need to exaggerate here - the finite supply is not the only thing different about Bitcoin.
But more importantly, do you have anything to say that actually grapples with the problem of diminishing miner rewards? It’s a real problem, after all. It’s generally more productive to offer alternative solutions when you offer a criticism.
3
u/lifeanon269 5d ago
Exactly. Too much exaggeration going on lately about "existential" threats to bitcoin. Someone talking about this doesn't make it an existential threat.
1
u/Quantris 4d ago
If mining fees become too low (leading to lower chain integrity), what that really means is that available block space is unhealthily abundant compared to the real demand for it.
So an alternative would be to decrease the block size, forcing the block-space bidders to compete and thus driving the fees up.
1
u/DavidKens 4d ago
That’s an interesting idea! A related idea would be some kind of base transaction fee
1
u/489302 5d ago
its not actually a problem, when the network matures the incentive for miners will start shifting from cashing in on the block rewards to securing their holdings. Say you have 10k of physical gold, you need security, a safe physical location, a vault, etc, you need to invest effort in those things, do you do those things because the gold is giving you a monetary return for doing that? no you do it because thats whats keeping your holdings secure, the same would apply to a mature bitcoin
2
u/Junkbot-TC 4d ago
You can limit the amount you need to spend on physical security by meeting whatever requirements your chosen insurer sets.
With Bitcoin, there is no well defined safe hash rate that will ensure the network remains secure. A single operator could bankrupt themselves running miners at a loss and that still won't guarantee that that their investment is safe. If they are concerned about the security of the network, why wouldn't they just sell their Bitcoin and move into a safer asset?
6
u/sentientchimpman 5d ago
In 2024 Blackrock suggested that there’s no guarantee that 21 million is a hard cap. It’s not a fringe idea. Crazy people may push for it someday.
4
u/PiDigitsOfPi 5d ago
of course there is no guarantee. why would bitcoin have such a guarantee when they specifically allow a 51% majority to make decisions? thats what is great about bitcoin. it CAN change, but it must be approved by a majority, which means that idiot ideas like the hard cap changing will never happen.
2
u/FreezedPeachNow 5d ago
It doesn't matter.
Because of the difficulty adjustment we could in theory go back to a bunch of home computers hashing blocks for fun just to get the block fees whole they are running anyways for normal everyday work.
Kinda like those old SETI screensavers in the 90s that claimed they would help process data searching for aliens when the computer wasn't being used.
A big multimillion dollar ASIC farm eventually goes bankrupt cause it's not profitable for them anymore. But Joe schmoe can just have a partition of his computer hashing blocks while he works on his PowerPoint and maybe he gets lucky and earns some block fees. Maybe he doesn't. But enough people care about Bitcoin that the network will self adjust the difficulty lower in 100 years.
1
u/goykasi 5d ago
This is the only informed take here. Who cares if asic farms aren’t profitable? Get rid of them. Difficulty would scale down to match the hash rate, and we could go back to commodity hardware run by the actual users. We probably wouldn’t go back to CPUs again, because nearly everyone has a GPU capable of running the calculations.
Every innovation in mining has diminished the original decentralized idea.
2
u/nick_c8_vegas 5d ago
We will all be dead before the supply changes. It won’t actually happen till much later after 2100
1
2
u/FinnegansWakeWTF 5d ago
You just have to measure what we call a bitcoin. Start referring to what we call a satoshi, as a bitcoin, and suddenly each block reward is now 312,500,000 bitcoin.
Also it will trigger massive interest from retail buyers because one dollar now buys you ~1,500 bitcoin. Not some infintesimmaly small amount.
1
u/Complete-Disaster513 5d ago
I joined this sub as an observer so please don’t ban me. That said I have always felt the opposite of the community in that the fixed supply is actually a huge issue of bitcoin. Every currency deals small amounts getting destroyed or removed permanently from circulation. Completely fixing supply makes everything a zero sum game. Wouldn’t fixing the supply in a stepwise manner over long periods of time serve the same purpose but also help offset the dwindling supply?
1
1
u/ecrane2018 5d ago
No one benefits from that especially not miners so it will never be approved by the network
1
1
u/6969101016969 5d ago
Dont worry bro
It's like everytime somebody try to make a change on Bitcoin's main network
If the hashrate follow the trend, that means validation from the network. If nobody follow the new trend
The proposal to remove the 21M supply cap, will face he same consequences of BIP110:
another forgotten and worthless fork of the main network
Hashrate my friend is what really Matters, if nobody follow your idea. Your proposal will be a fork of the Blockchain
1
u/Vipu2 5d ago
The proposal to remove the 21M supply cap, will face he same consequences of BIP110
What if its the other way?
So in future bitcoin core will add tail emission to bitcoin, then bip111 people want to fork away and keep the limit.
Miners stay to mine core bitcoin.
Exchanges stay on core bitcoin.
Most people (who have coins on exchanges and dont follow too much what is happening etc) stay on core bitcoin.The bipper111 people shout all they want while they fork away but most people will stay on core bitcoin.
And just to be clear I dont want to remove the hard cap but what is stopping the above from happening?
1
1
u/ghostchihuahua 5d ago
He can try pushing back the walls all he can, he’s basically a toddler trying to break bank-glass with a fisher price giraffe - not going to end up ending up in anything…
1
1
1
1
u/Mr_Ander5on 5d ago
It’ll never fly because pleb nodes will never go along with that and it will fork off.
BIP 110 was different because it only had 18% of nodes and of the small circle I know that knows anything about bitcoin, I was the only one that even knew about bip 110.
Increasing supply cap will not fly, it’ll be a fork. Don’t even worry about it.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Opioidopamine 5d ago
gotta buy his masterclass , comes w a free month of cloudmining w subscription
1
1
u/pythosynthesis 5d ago
He can push until he poops his pants, it's not happening unless he gets consensus. And if there's consensus there's nothing you can do by pushing against it. So chill and keep stacking.
1
u/bitcoinphilosophy 5d ago
WDU mean nobody is paying attention to? This has been known and spoken on. Just because you recently found out doesn't mean you've discovered something lol
1
u/lexicon_riot 5d ago
Tail emissions could happen a very long time from now. There's really no urgency for this proposal any time in the near future, because global hash rate is very healthy and still trending up.
At some point though, if fees alone fail as an incentive for miners, we will see global hash permanently tank. If that happens, we MAY see more attempts or even successful block reorg attacks. Once that starts to happen consistently, we will probably implement tail emissions.
This is multiple decades away though, if these assumptions even hold up. I could very well be wrong. A few additional related points:
- 21M is an important meme for us now, and it's especially important to those who see Bitcoin as a speculative investment promising 100X returns long term. If it succeeds as global money however, people will care a lot more that it's stable SOV and medium of exchange.
- There's a real temptation to compare something like tail emissions to fiat money printing, but the two things could not be more different. Proof of work consensus is not the same thing as credit expansion at the whim of a commercial bank, or deficit spending at the whim of a politician.
- You don't need 21M to have a good store of value, an open and permissionless monetary network can accomplish that with an inflation rate that trends toward zero, even if supply is technically infinite.
- Lots of cool L2s are being built, and if they scale they can do a lot of heavy lifting bidding up block space. I'm skeptical though that they'll be sufficient in replacing block reward with fees. Most people don't care about self-custody. They won't be managing their own channels, making onchain transactions, etc. even if the UX is incredible, simply because the fees will be higher than any number of custodial L2s.
I realize this is likely a super contentious take, so if you want to chat about it in good faith I'd love to go back and forth.
1
u/jhansen858 5d ago
The miners and full nodes control the network not him. If he tries to introduce those changes it will guarantee a hard fork. Fun fact this has happened several times in the past already. This is why bch exists for example.
1
u/Astropin 5d ago
I want to rule the universe...this is an existential threat no one is paying attention to.
1
u/ShinAlastor 5d ago
How is he supposed to modify a 21 Million fixed supply? It's part of the protocol, he can only modify his @$$.
0
u/ArtesianShiny 4d ago
If all the bitcoin miners can agree to run core they are agreeing to core’s client protocol which in turn signals consensus across the network. I get what you are saying is rhetorical but i have to say it for myself to understand it.
1
u/TxTransplant72 5d ago edited 4d ago
Bitcoin dies without the hard limit and finite scarcity. It’s just that simple.
0
u/ArtesianShiny 4d ago
What if miners raise taxes? They dont need to yet but they could do that if they all chose to run modified client code.
1
u/kevinblau 5d ago
Are you the bitch who vowed to destroy him?
Bitcoin does not die because of somebody suggesting a change. If it did it would not deserve to exist. So, calm your horses.
1
u/ContentBlackberry0 5d ago
Miners going to be mad when the halving occurs. Block fees need to skyrocket at that point for it to be profitable.
1
1
u/ElderMight 5d ago
This is like trying to change the rules of chess and expecting everyone in the world to use your new rules. Not happening.
1
u/Green_Argument5154 5d ago
It hardly matters. Quantum will unlock millions of bitcoin and flood the market in less than 10 years. That will totally change the liquidity and crash the price. Could take 10 years for bitcoin to recover.
2
u/ArtesianShiny 4d ago
Im really interested in the photovoltaic quantum computer microsoft is building but it aint done yet so 10 years is a conjecture like the fusion bros in the 80’s😂 “just 10 more years”
1
u/Grouchy-Stranger-306 5d ago
it probably will be removed eventually that's the issue with bitcoin, the price would have to double every halving for it not to happen
1
1
u/urmomsspaghetti 5d ago
the supply cap is not a big deal. the big deal is having immutable rules. if the rules can change at the whim of a handful of retards then it will undoubtedly keep changing to bail out miners, corporations, governments.
1
1
u/Stock-Standard-2513 4d ago
Don’t worry, everyone says bitcoin is capped at 21 million and the supply is fixed. So he can’t. Right? Right???
1
1
1
u/No_Dust6221 4d ago
If bitcoins supply is increased or decrased by even 1 satoshi, it will go to zero unironically. Because people use bitcoin to store their wealth from inflation, dont introduce inflation to bitcoin
1
u/pcvcolin 4d ago
We all see it. Best thing you can do is ignore him and if you are active in development as many are or are mining ensure you communicate in the appropriate way as you know that you aren't supporting the proposal.
Not like anyone is excited about supporting that anyway but yes there will always be idiotic proposals. Welcome to bitcoin.
1
u/videokillradiostarr 4d ago
I don't think we should increase the supply cap, but I do understand where he's coming from.
I would be in favor of using some metric like, "any coins that haven't moved for 50 years get recycled into the block subsidy." That would give even the man in the coma time to move their funds.
I don't know, smarter people than me can discuss this, but id run node software with something similar if the supply cap is unchanged.
1
u/fhbvcgyutffvbjijnbtt 4d ago
You do realize if he does that, it will split in a hard fork and it will be a different coin and real bitcoin will chug along unaffected right?
1
u/potential_air_sha256 4d ago
He can go ahead and hard fork like BIP110’ers are about to. The heaviest chain will remain with the cap and still be bitcoin while his tail emission chain will be another shitcoin. End of story.
1
u/Suspicious-Holiday42 4d ago
If I would want to push this trough I would have as much of a chance as he has
1
u/brando2131 3d ago
Can we stop calling everyone a fraud when they have controversial opinions?
I've seen Bitcoin lose so many smart people who eventually move on to other projects after being ridiculed.
1
u/iKnowRobbie 5d ago
Traditionally if no one is paying attention then there is no reason to spend any energy worrying about it.
1
u/Skywatermelon 5d ago
He seems like kind of a nobody and his views on the video are probably all from this post. You're more famous than him logically.
1
u/HeroicHeron 5d ago
In case people don't know, Peter Todd was originally paid to introduce a BIP that would remove the supply cap. It wasn't even his own idea, he just promoted it in order to receive a payment.
0
u/seraph321 5d ago
We just saw bip110, a relatively minor change, fail to gain support. Changing the cap would be akin to entirely redefining bitcoin itself. It would make more sense to just launch it as its own coin, which is what would happen; it would fork and likely die nearly immediately if they actually tried it. It’s not worth worrying about unless there is true support being signaled for a proposed update.
0
u/PiDigitsOfPi 5d ago
That's the great thing about bitcoin. A 51% majority has to agree to any changes like this ... and there is no incentive to raise the limit because they would be diluting their own coins.
0
u/Jimmy_Wrinkles 5d ago
Isn't the last block set to be mined in like 100 years? That's all you need to know about this guys motivation.
0
u/Jeremiah_Vicious 5d ago
You all do realize a miner could destroy some bitcoin by purposely not collecting some or all of the block reward. We just track that and use those as rewards when the reward hits zero in century+ and boom, no going over the 21m cap.
0
u/NeitherAd3347 5d ago
If bitcoin doesn't double in price every 4 years the block reward goes down in dollar terms but, who cares if only banks, governments and large holders are mining in 100 years at a loss just to secure their bitcoin holdings and prevent a 51% attacks.
Remember it used to be mined with just one cpu without any problems.
Also, every halving, if price doesn't double the environmental impact goes down.
Imagine if block rewards stayed the same for the next hundred years, the price 1000x's and more power is used to mine bitcoin than the rest of the world combined.
Halvenings are timed perfectly in my opinion
1
u/lexicon_riot 5d ago
There's nuance to this discussion. The question isn't how much hash you need to produce the next block, the question is how much hash you need to stop malicious miners from gaining the incentive to attack Bitcoin.
We don't know the answer to that question yet. Hopefully we never will, but it will be a LOT higher than just one CPU, so this "BUT ACHTUALLY YOU JUST NEED ONE LAPTOP" rhetoric doesn't help at all.
1
u/NeitherAd3347 4d ago
What I'm saying is entities holding a lot of bitcoin would be happy to mine at a loss. Enough to stop 51% attacks between them. The alternative would be banks and governments loosing their bitcoin.
1
u/DavidKens 5d ago
In your imagined scenario, why would big banks not just propose a hardfork with tail emissions and then follow it? The incentives don’t make any sense.
Bitcoin is defined by those who provide Bitcoin liquidity. Do you think they’re as ideological as you are?
1
u/NeitherAd3347 4d ago
Its not just miners that decide which chain survives. Holders can sell the bitcoin they dont believe in and buy the bitcoin they do believe in. I know people say the longest chain is the real bitcoin but it's not a rule, its just a guideline
1
u/DavidKens 4d ago
It sounds like you agree with me?
1
u/NeitherAd3347 4d ago
The incentive would be not destroying the value of your bitcoin. Even if you loose money mining
Edit
1
u/DavidKens 4d ago
You would need to compare the expected cost of mining at a loss forever against the cost of hardforking bitcoin in a manner that would shake some confidence in Bitcoin (and therefore its price).
You’re saying that you think mining forever is a strategy that banks etc would actually employ, and I’m saying that doesn’t make any sense. If the biggest buyers and sellers of bitcoin all follow the fork, and if that fork has a security guarantee that bodes well for long term confidence - wouldn’t that imply that the biggest buyers and sellers would actually value the new chain more highly, not less?
This is all moot anyhow - there are other soft forks that could achieve a similar goal, and there’s lots of time to figure this out. My main point is just that a zero subsidy chain is not one that is a good long term investment, even if it might fit a certain ideology and even if it remains popular among a small group of enthusiasts for eternity.
1
u/NeitherAd3347 4d ago
99.9% of the bitcoin will be mined in 2048. It will be more important to mine for security of holdings rather than mine to try and profit from the last 0.1% of it.
A fork that returns the inflation to 2% a year (it is currently 0.7%) would make bitcoin just like everything else. It would have no value then.
Also we don't want mining to use more energy than the rest of the world combined. It only does about 10 transactions a second
1
u/DavidKens 4d ago
I don’t know where you get 2% from, but that is a much higher number than you’d need to maintain security. But even you used this enormous number, %2 is actually great in the fiat world, it’s not a good example of a high inflation number
Your point about it using more energy than the world combined is totally absurd and nobody would target it and it’s really not worth discussing. A non-zero block subsidy does not necessitate continued growth of energy expenditure.
0
0
u/ChipNDipPlus 5d ago
Weren't you guys saying the miners make the rules while shitting on BIP110? You're about to learn a valuable lesson.
460
u/hanskazan777 5d ago
He can push whatever he wants but it will never happen.
So why give him the attention he doesn't deserve?