Quote from: justusranvier on June 22, 2015, 07:08:37 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on June 22, 2015, 06:53:24 PM

Subsidies are great if you want to get applicants who qualify, It should be called a subsidiary not a reward for good reason, the problem is there are developers who feel the economics are wrong and Bitcoin needs to be fixed, I may not be able to express why but to my understanding the mechanism seems well balanced and considered in my view, the onus is on the people who have a problem with how Bitcoin works to prove its broken, and build a better mousetrap not change this one.

My position is that it would be great if we could have started Bitcoin up without a block subsidy, but since the currency has to be issued via some method, and since the only way to produce a truly optimal initial distribution would require an entity that was both omnipotent and omniscient, issuing the currency via block subsidy spread out over time is the least terrible way to do it.

It's in my queue of articles that need to be written.

I think it was 100% necessary to get it going, but just thinking about the 50% cut every 4 years that's like quitting hard drugs cold turkey, it not like any business invests in new infrastructure with a guaranteed 50% cut in income is a great business to get into even if you can price it in.

to be honest I was even a little apprehensive at the first halving, I thought it would be too much of a shock, I kept mining only because the price went up, all in all there are lots of well balanced incentives and while I've fantasized how my ideal alt would work I learn why something is the way it is.