I've encountered a bunch of people that think there is no "security budger" issue, but none of them have given any explanation on why. Do you have one? A link, maybe? You don't think Bitcoin mining has to be paid for?
Login to reply
Replies (12)
I believe that the network works at any compensation level, there is no need to throw extra fees at the miners for their own sake. If some miners cannot survive they'll sell their equipment on the cheap to others that will keep mining profitably.
Define first, what do you understand or mean by “security”.
What about the problem that a network with very small hashpower becomes an easy target for government attacks?
Why should hashrate ever decrease, though? ASIC can be liquidated cheaper and cheaper until it's profitable to plug them again.
If the total miner reward per block is $10 how much hashpower do you think you will get?
A government can then buy a bunch of cheap ASICs and destroy Bitcoin?
No
Mining is exactly designed to be a drudgery. The value miners derive from mining is supposed to be a lot less than the value of bitcoin being useful in the market.
See this video of Saifedean Ammous:
Yes. Or you, or anyone else.
Plus governments can seize property within their jurisdictions. That danger you point out is always present regardless of miner compensation.
If there are many many miners with many thousands of ASICs spread all around the world that improves the situation, don't you think? Compare that to just one just mining all blocks in his apartment with a single ASIC and getting paid the totality of fees the network produces: $5 per block.
Yes, of course. But I see more likely that in the far future block fees will be worth more than the current fees + subsidy (just like the 50 BTC subsidy of 2011 was far less valuable than today's one of 6.25), not that they'll be worth $5.
What's your view of the issuance schedule, then? Do you see it as too harsh?