Anyone worried about mining subsidies becoming unstable enough in the future to cause massively bad chain reorgs on a regular basis, is forgetting that people are rational beings with incentives. Companies like Strategy will pay a subsidy of sorts to keep the timechain secure, by shifting their funds around and paying onchain fees on a regular basis whenever there is a threat of instability. It will be pocket change to them. And there will be many competing companies like this, even if Strategy is the largest. Each of them has an incentive to preserve the security and legitimacy of their chief asset. If any one of them starts using that money to censor instead, any number of the other companies and individuals can simply bypass this by paying a fee or stacking and mining on behalf of those trying to bypass it, earning bitcoin for being true to the Bitcoin ethos.

Replies (2)

This counterpoint against tail emissions demonstrates yet another reason why Peter Todd is an arrogant schmuck. His usual spiel is "The only reason tail emissions aren't happening is because everyone besides me is stupid, and it would be better if they all just stopped pretending they can think, because I know they can't" or something like that (I'm paraphrasing). 0 respect for the reality that is human action. I also figured out what he did about tail emissions being A useful way to secure regular mining fees, and that it converges to lost coins, a long time ago before I even fully understood Bitcoin. But he never goes further than that, nor considers the ethics. Pathetic.
Kevin's Bacon's avatar Kevin's Bacon
Anyone worried about mining subsidies becoming unstable enough in the future to cause massively bad chain reorgs on a regular basis, is forgetting that people are rational beings with incentives. Companies like Strategy will pay a subsidy of sorts to keep the timechain secure, by shifting their funds around and paying onchain fees on a regular basis whenever there is a threat of instability. It will be pocket change to them. And there will be many competing companies like this, even if Strategy is the largest. Each of them has an incentive to preserve the security and legitimacy of their chief asset. If any one of them starts using that money to censor instead, any number of the other companies and individuals can simply bypass this by paying a fee or stacking and mining on behalf of those trying to bypass it, earning bitcoin for being true to the Bitcoin ethos.
View quoted note →
40,000 Lichtensteins
Kevin's Bacon's avatar Kevin's Bacon
Anyone worried about mining subsidies becoming unstable enough in the future to cause massively bad chain reorgs on a regular basis, is forgetting that people are rational beings with incentives. Companies like Strategy will pay a subsidy of sorts to keep the timechain secure, by shifting their funds around and paying onchain fees on a regular basis whenever there is a threat of instability. It will be pocket change to them. And there will be many competing companies like this, even if Strategy is the largest. Each of them has an incentive to preserve the security and legitimacy of their chief asset. If any one of them starts using that money to censor instead, any number of the other companies and individuals can simply bypass this by paying a fee or stacking and mining on behalf of those trying to bypass it, earning bitcoin for being true to the Bitcoin ethos.
View quoted note →