Ahh, I see the Monero supply expansion argument.
Okay, so fixed expansion is linear and so is a human life. By the time adoption of Monero would happen, the original holders would be massively diluted.
This is the same problem as Gold albiet fixed instead of sporadic.
The thing is there's no need to expand the stock of money when you can infinitely subdivide it. They serve the same function without dilution. As value increases, you spend fewer units for the same goods.
With monetary expansion you spend the same amount on the same goods while the value of each unit falls. (If you inflate at the same rate as productivity rises). If there is some productivity shortfall the monetary unit will inflate making prices rise. This is why fixed stock is better for accurate economic calculations.
Replies (5)
The problem isn't NOT having enough units man
and it's better to have >0 cushion in the case of a productivity shortfall then absolutely zero.
not to mention the fact you have to secure the network somehow. making it the responsibility of a subset of group members to bear the entire burden of the security budget is bad policy and further disincentives spending. aka the free-rider problem.
I feel like we could have a much more productive conversation in person because I feel so much is lost in text.
Energy itself being the security mechanism is the boon. If all the current miners quit, the value of Bitcoin would incentivise others to flood into mining. The incentive is bearing the burden not the individual doing the mining. If bitcoin was not valuable to mine, that would break the incentive structure and thus the security.
There would be an immediate correction by the way. There wouldn't be prolonged malinvestment (which is where the pain comes from) cushion is only necessary when you go the wrong way for too long, that wouldn't be the case.
I think you're right about that. it's a lot of nuance.
what I'm saying is that Bitcoin design is incentivizing holding, but transactors pay the security budget.
seems poorly structured.
I get why it seems that way but of what use is holding if not using it for resources. Sure people who can save their massive wealth stores will free ride for some time but eventually they use the wealth for their needs.
(Also, for the next few decades even empty blocks keep the security budget humming along until market utilization increases)
To be clear I totally see your perspective and grasp your argument. I would just say that "Bitcoin design is incentiving holding" is a feature of all money. For how long depends strictly on the scale of inflation of supply. You can hold dollars longer than you can hold Naira, but you can hold gold longer than you can hold dollars and you can hold Bitcoin longer than you can hold gold, while maintaining value. There's a through-line as to the reason.
Bitcoiners may be trying to min/max and that could be too lofty or idealistic, for sure.
