“Bitcoin transactions fee grows” in terms of value yes but did you forget that people’s bag also grows in term of value? Does it really make you poorer if both variables increase at same rate?
“The % inflation would be constantly shrinking” so the value of this tail emission contributes to a miner shrinks the same way. It shrinks as secondary compensation to secure the network which means if fee couldn’t sustain the system alone then in future there must be “another way”, thus, further abuse.
“How would devs be abusing tail emissions?” Correct me if I am wrong but I have assumed that tail emission was introduced because fee couldn’t sustain the system. As said above if the value of tail emission shrinks then it is not sustainable for miners, who in turn cannot maintain low transaction fee. Future abuse is inevitable if change is needed.
So who exactly decided 0.6? What about the people who disagreed? If XMR increases or decreases in value will this number need to change? Will that same person have to make decision again? How to prevent abuse here?
100satsaday /
npub1ys…qh359
2023-10-15 12:43:45
in reply to nevent1q…sarw
Author Public Key
npub1yshqv640r9q0kudgamhzvtqwwwv97tqhc6t66purmwslgtrg6gcs3qh359Published at
2023-10-15 12:43:45Event JSON
{
"id": "92c929bd5f452364ac3e54c4d66fe1a07bf41a4ce7ed2a02497e6e36780ab865",
"pubkey": "242e066aaf1940fb71a8eeee262c0e73985f2c17c697ad0783dba1f42c68d231",
"created_at": 1697373825,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5f76ccd62ecd4bfe641ae3ca5a7500d8ed1447e5e8bb042fa8f4ece7d8759e6d",
""
],
[
"e",
"fc6c3d569169096540e2dc4c80f673b176657be498e8a9b83e5886afdb404ca9"
],
[
"p",
"af740d198babb8c7b82d0a4718eb354bb3f6af9a98639b85d4a5cf1371caba85"
]
],
"content": "“Bitcoin transactions fee grows” in terms of value yes but did you forget that people’s bag also grows in term of value? Does it really make you poorer if both variables increase at same rate?\n\n“The % inflation would be constantly shrinking” so the value of this tail emission contributes to a miner shrinks the same way. It shrinks as secondary compensation to secure the network which means if fee couldn’t sustain the system alone then in future there must be “another way”, thus, further abuse.\n\n“How would devs be abusing tail emissions?” Correct me if I am wrong but I have assumed that tail emission was introduced because fee couldn’t sustain the system. As said above if the value of tail emission shrinks then it is not sustainable for miners, who in turn cannot maintain low transaction fee. Future abuse is inevitable if change is needed.\n\nSo who exactly decided 0.6? What about the people who disagreed? If XMR increases or decreases in value will this number need to change? Will that same person have to make decision again? How to prevent abuse here?",
"sig": "63a5a10a2138756757000e62a6a7a6135cf18da671374ff97ad6f56f7d0c5971434886cc0168ed245a6561185fa41958f8f199562125f9e2cba245b9bb5cbe62"
}