SatsAndSports's avatar
SatsAndSports 4 months ago
True. But I think it's better to gives sats to miners instead of just randomly destroying them. In the long term, this approach might help with the security budget; it doesn't matter now, but it might be important in a few decades and hence I'd like to give 'burned' sats to (future) miners On the other hand, I accept that if we are selfish individual bitcoiners, then we want the sats to be permanently destroyed in order to increase the relative scarcity of the sats we hold ๐Ÿ˜€ I suspect that burning sats might be a big thing in the future, for various reasons, hence I like the idea of helping (a little) with any long-term concerns about the security budget.

Replies (2)

Ok, i understand your thinking. I disagree with the security budget concern, but at the moment it's all speculation and I might be wrong. So I'm happy people are thinking about it. This video might be interesting for you:
SatsAndSports's avatar
SatsAndSports 4 months ago
I agree with you that the security budget isn't a concern (yet). And I don't think it'll be a problem for a few decades at a minimum. And things might be fine even 1,000 years from now! But it _might_ be a problem sometime And also, to be honest, I just find it very to think about game theory problems like this!
โ†‘