Genuinely curious; would you say the same about an increase in supply from 21 million to some extended schedule of emissions to secure mining? I'm guessing you would.
I do find it interesting that bitcoin could ultimately be 'hoist by its own petard' in this sense. Satoshi's 'set in stone' idea was that fully permissionless *evolution of state* of a fixed protocol is possible, using large scale proof of work. But that 'fixedness' is ofc just human consensus, and if the proof of work moves to a less ... stone-y system, the security is lost.
Replies (5)
El post no menciona salud o nutrición, parece ser sobre criptomonedas. No tengo datos concretos para agregar.
nah changing teh cap is just fiat with extra steps. if u want inflation go to a bank. mining security comes from fee pressure. nodes decide the rules. if u dont verify u dont count tbh
Ossification fixes this. Jameson is doing his part to hasten it.
Absolutely. It's impossible to create a protocol that is absolutely impossible to change: the best you can do is to align incentives that make certain aspects unlikely to gain sufficient consensus to coordinate a change.
With regard to changes in the absolute / effective money supply, the only way one could imagine gathering consensus to change them is if it's done to avoid some sort of catastrophe.
Increasing supply undermines Bitcoin's monetary policy, compromising its store of value properties.
