"Does it really make you poorer if both variables increase at same rate?"
It only makes you poorer if you are actually using Bitcoin often as a MoE vs better alternatives.
We can see that during times of high use Bitcoin transaction fees sharply increase (And are increasing on average over time). And that makes sense. There is limited blockspace and a growing number of users. For the sake of argument say you are correct about both variables increasing at the same rate. In absolute terms, it would still be more expensive to use Bitcoin onchain for transacting vs something like Monero.
https://monero-bitcoin-fees.vercel.app/
If your retort is that you use LN for transacting - fair enough. But imo LN is not Bitcoin. It is a very different beast with many problems. And on top of that has tiny fraction of adoption vs onchain or even vs Monero. I could expand on this if you want.
--------
Maybe you are right. This is all uncharted ground. Who knows what will turn out to work? Maybe they both will? Or both will fail (hopefully not)? Or a third path like demurrage is better?
Tail emission was introduced so that there would always be incentive to mine and produce blocks. A lower bound. It also helps keep fees low.
Monero's tail emission is not the only thing that keeps transaction fees down on Monero though. Dynamic blocksize also plays a big role. Blocksize is elastic and changes to demand (unlike Bitcoin). I could also see a similar argument as yours and say 0.6 XMR will slowly grow in value over time (although not as well as BTC). I guess we will have to see how it plays out.
-------
Nothing is technically stopping the economic policy of Monero from changing aside from strong community consensus.
But nothing is stopping those who disagree with changes to Monero from selling, swapping, or forking Monero either. If there was an unpopular enough update users would refuse to update, fork the code, or split the userbase and no one could stop them. That hasn't happened yet though and hopefully won't. But transparency and the ability to opt out is what is most important imo - not necessarily backwards compatibility.
You have to understand Monero is not trying to be "p2p digital gold" or SoV like Bitcoin. It is trying to be p2p digital cash. A MoE - priority is transferring value cheaply, easily, and privately. No promises are made about saving or storing value in it.
-------
PS: Your pfp always makes me laugh lmao
SaberhagenTheNameless / Saberhagen The Nameless
npub14a…yz6rn
2023-10-16 04:20:13
in reply to nevent1q…0zk4
Author Public Key
npub14a6q6xvt4wuv0wpdpfr336e4fweldtu6np3ehpw55h83xuw2h2zsgyz6rnPublished at
2023-10-16 04:20:13Event JSON
{
"id": "60db370e482087992936fcb55124bf1f9bd9069897c8ddbb689d31e8b916c6ae",
"pubkey": "af740d198babb8c7b82d0a4718eb354bb3f6af9a98639b85d4a5cf1371caba85",
"created_at": 1697430013,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5f76ccd62ecd4bfe641ae3ca5a7500d8ed1447e5e8bb042fa8f4ece7d8759e6d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"92c929bd5f452364ac3e54c4d66fe1a07bf41a4ce7ed2a02497e6e36780ab865",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"af740d198babb8c7b82d0a4718eb354bb3f6af9a98639b85d4a5cf1371caba85"
],
[
"p",
"242e066aaf1940fb71a8eeee262c0e73985f2c17c697ad0783dba1f42c68d231"
]
],
"content": "\"Does it really make you poorer if both variables increase at same rate?\"\n\nIt only makes you poorer if you are actually using Bitcoin often as a MoE vs better alternatives.\n\nWe can see that during times of high use Bitcoin transaction fees sharply increase (And are increasing on average over time). And that makes sense. There is limited blockspace and a growing number of users. For the sake of argument say you are correct about both variables increasing at the same rate. In absolute terms, it would still be more expensive to use Bitcoin onchain for transacting vs something like Monero.\n\nhttps://monero-bitcoin-fees.vercel.app/\n\nIf your retort is that you use LN for transacting - fair enough. But imo LN is not Bitcoin. It is a very different beast with many problems. And on top of that has tiny fraction of adoption vs onchain or even vs Monero. I could expand on this if you want.\n\n--------\n\nMaybe you are right. This is all uncharted ground. Who knows what will turn out to work? Maybe they both will? Or both will fail (hopefully not)? Or a third path like demurrage is better?\n\nTail emission was introduced so that there would always be incentive to mine and produce blocks. A lower bound. It also helps keep fees low.\n\nMonero's tail emission is not the only thing that keeps transaction fees down on Monero though. Dynamic blocksize also plays a big role. Blocksize is elastic and changes to demand (unlike Bitcoin). I could also see a similar argument as yours and say 0.6 XMR will slowly grow in value over time (although not as well as BTC). I guess we will have to see how it plays out.\n\n-------\n\nNothing is technically stopping the economic policy of Monero from changing aside from strong community consensus.\n\nBut nothing is stopping those who disagree with changes to Monero from selling, swapping, or forking Monero either. If there was an unpopular enough update users would refuse to update, fork the code, or split the userbase and no one could stop them. That hasn't happened yet though and hopefully won't. But transparency and the ability to opt out is what is most important imo - not necessarily backwards compatibility.\n\nYou have to understand Monero is not trying to be \"p2p digital gold\" or SoV like Bitcoin. It is trying to be p2p digital cash. A MoE - priority is transferring value cheaply, easily, and privately. No promises are made about saving or storing value in it.\n\n-------\n\nPS: Your pfp always makes me laugh lmao",
"sig": "0f3fac1d7eaddb206a9b716323e916011b67f81d18bdc08a7dc843704cbcfe9bd3397c53f6dd9df80f9d95a8a25369a154127889b03750d67b80164dcb2aabca"
}