-
@ waxwing
2025-06-09 12:21:10
I see 3 problems with this pov: (1) since the very earliest days people have constructed apparently watertight arguments as to why bitcoin was guaranteed to fall over and die because of e.g. the halving event (all the first 3 halvings had massive discussions around this). And plenty of others like Emin Gun Sirer "proving" that bitcoin's consensus mechanism was broken and you had to *urgently* sell all your bitcoin (Peter will certainly remember that one! lol). And several others. All of this leads one to be at least *leery* of arguments as to why Bitcoin "has to change its rules".
(2) The second problem is more prosaic: you mention a few decades for this to become a problem, I've seen people arguing it's much more imminent, but in reality anything more than a few years out is almost impossible to predict well. Too many unknowns for now.
(3) On your "religious dogma" angle, this becomes more a matter of opinion, but I suspect it's too deeply embedded in what Bitcoin is (or has become, over many years), to change. Sometimes the "rational" analysis is actually too superficial. Bitcoin's value is intimately tied to its unchangeability and verifiability on multiple angles: cleartext amounts (dumb from a "ecash" perspective, as many old guard cypherpunks and cryptographers agree), fixed supply (dumb from an economic analysis), slow and small data throughput (dumb from a businessman's perspective). All of these serve to create a very heavy but very pristine kind of thing. I suspect choosing a tail emission based on Peter's/monero's line of thinking, and acting on it, will not be viable consensus-wise, even decades in the future, but as per (2), who the fuck knows :)