If bitcoin was highly valuable as money by the entire world population, and the block subsidy was zero, and fee revenue for miners was next to nothing, how much would an ASIC cost?
Very little right?
Does that make it easier or harder to get 51% of all of them and attack Bitcoin?
The cheap machines would be attractive to attackers, but also to those with wealth wanting to defend their own wealth.
What's important is not precisely calculating today what percentage of attackers and defenders there will be then, but acknowledging the fact that fees are not required for the competitive nature of mining to remain, and that being that case, it still defends Bitcoin, and all talk of tail emission should be stopped immediately.
Login to reply
Replies (7)
I can also imagine public services that accept a fee to do this at scale.
For the record, I would pay such a fee to protect my wealth.
This is the sort of voluntarism that can and should replace taxation.
There will be always the problem with freeriding when the case for economic miners vanishes and user mining prevails.
Some might call that renting hashrate.
But instead of a flat fee to some central wealth protection insurance scheme, you not only have a choice of paying the amount you personally value that protection at but you also have a choice of provider.
please more of this
poast more
Absolute NO to tail emission