Quote from: m2017 on December 21, 2024, 01:42:21 PM

What is the real reason for their desire to increase the number of bitcoins? I doubt they are worried about technical aspects (51% security). I think these guys want free money.

Conspiracy claims are always misguided

The "security budget" argument claims that if the hashrate falls, there will be enough spare, idle hashes to 51% attack
And then, why are people frightened of a 51% attack?
Mostly, this question goes unanswered
When it is answered, it is answered in prejudicial terms - Bitcoin would stop. Actually, Bitcoin won't stop. Miners will keep hashing. Nodes will keep verifying newly-mined blocks. So what is "Bitcoin will stop" code for?

Investors will lose confidence and the price will fall to zero

Whether that's true or not (BTG still exists, and it's price isn't zero, after two 51% attacks), there's a more fundamental contradiction between "Bitcoin" and "the Bitcoin price market"

Bitcoin developers have never changed Bitcoin in order to protect Bitcoin's market price
Bitcoin developers will never change Bitcoin in order to protect Bitcoin's market price

Investors can accept that Bitcoin is a risky investment, or try to claim its price is some sort of protected species

The fallacy is in the investor's belief that Bitcoin is a synonym for "the price of Bitcoin"
and the corollary that the software should be changed to prevent the price from falling

Never going to happen

Just for fun, a different conspiracy claim ...

The "security budget" and tail emission claims were common in some forums 2 or 3 years ago. The proponents in those forums were always non-players, people with no history of participating in Bitcoin discussions. They were paid to disrupt the conversation. They didn't seriously want a change to the controlled supply schedule. They only wanted to create conflict within Bitcoin

After about the fourth iteration of one of these debates, I noticed that the proponent always disappeared after a week - a sign of the paid non-player. I challenged the next one with this - you're only going to be here a week, who is paying you. He deleted the post

Those people have vanished. But they left the conflict simmering behind them, like the burglar who shits on the bed while robbing a house

When they bothered to engage, after running out of arguments, they always claimed that large Bitcoin holders will support high hash rates by deliberately overpaying fees, because they have the most to lose if the market gets a fright and their investment value collapses, and they would do this collaboratively, a kind of "Bitcoin high-fee Association"