3 Arguments for Unlimited Crypto Supply
Posted Feb 23, 2019, 8:01 PM UTC
015
If my children's children's children decide to change the inflation rate, I'm okay with it.
Trying to fix a problem which will not manifest until 2140 is very facepalm.
2
Halving the profitability of mining is a very big change. This happens every few years. Saying effectively "it is not a problem until it reaches 0" is just silly.
This of course assumes fees=0, which is obviously not true, but unless usage picks up massively might as well be.
1
If the value of Bitcoin doubles for every halvening, it's a non-issue.
So far the value is growing faster than it's being halfed, so it's just FUD afaict.
There is also no data I've seen on the distribution of miners' operational costs.
1
If the value of Bitcoin doubles for every halvening, it's a non-issue.
So far the value is growing faster than it's being halfed, so it's just FUD afaict.
I mean, sure, so far, but that is very far from guaranteed to be sustainable in the long term.
There is also no data I've seen on the distribution of miners' operational costs.
we can make some assumptions, but that would include a lot of guessing and be quite inaccurate.
However, if mining is wildly profitable, likely more people will start mining and profitability goes down*. So it is safe to assume they are not just printing money, rather making some or no money, depending on their cost of electricity and hardware.
*unless of course the profitability is based on free (or very close to it) electricity.
1
[deleted]
1
The droping blockreward (excluding fees) represents a big uncertainty.
I do not think any of the bitcoin-forks should change the 21MM limit, as at this point it is part of what defines bitcoin. However I do think the "exponentially going to 0"-inflation of bitcoin is worse than just a stable blockreward of x coins per block.
1
The 21M limit has always been a social consensus thing.
As soon as there is an sufficient interest in the future to increase the limit in the future, it can and will be increased. That can be decades or even hundred years from now.
Even the whitepaper says that inflation is not necessary - if there is enough fees eventually. That implies that it will be necessary if there is not enough fees.
But it is critically important for people to feel like the 21M limit is permanent and impossible to change because it is what sets Bitcoin apart from regular currencies and even Gold which while finite will take a long time to mine from earth and it is not possible to verify the numbers on some public ledger.
1
https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Standard-Decentralized-Alternative-Central-ebook/dp/B07BPM3GZQ please read this book and then make this video again 🤦🏻‍♂️
1
not my video.
also, you can fuck right off.
-1
Ok, for you answer now i know is impossible you can understand this book or something about how economics works.
1
lol
-1
“What matters in money is its purchasing power, not its quantity, and as such, any quantity of money is enough to fulfil the monetary functions, as long as it is divisible and groupable enough to satisfy holders’ transaction and storage needs” Saifedean Ammous
1
And this is relevant to the argument how? I think the answer you will give to this question will assume that the price of bitcoin will rise in the future.
1
Another approach might be to make sure there are always 21M coins that have been moved in the last x amount of time. So if a coin has not been moved in a 100 years, simply add that amount to inflation instead of taking someone's property (as has been suggested).