Ninjastic
PostEdited versionsQuotes to this post
Next scheduled rescrape ... never
Version 1
Last scraped
Scraped on 11/06/2025, 22:58:08 UTC
Quote from: takuma sato on June 11, 2025, 09:12:01 PM
Quote from: stwenhao on June 06, 2025, 07:38:13 AM
Quote
It doesn’t take much to change a finite supply into an infinite one.
Only if you want to make a hard-fork, which will quickly put you into an altcoin land.

I would agree typically with this but with one exception: The quantum computer threat is very real in the long term, and as far as I know this may require a hardfork, and here I fear that people are going to want to stuff on the hardfork every idea under the sun, and since their idea does not get agreed by the majority there will be infighting. Im just hoping rationale may remain and we will just agree to something makes the most sense specifically for QC threat defense and that's about it. But some people may bring for instance this subject of increasing the tail emission, even if some novel ideal where it would somehow respect the 21 million limit which I don't see how. But that is the only scenario where I see an actual hardfork pick up traction due the QC threat. If we can get QC protection with no hardfork then that would be ideal.
I don't think that is what is going to happen, unless of course the people that propose the hard fork are idiots. If or when the threat of quantum computers are real, then a hard forkchanges must be made to ensure the safety of Bitcoin. Because itIf a hard fork is so important to its continued existenceneeded, the forkthen it must pass as quickly as reasonably possible or as needed and with the least amount of contention. If you have Bitcoin's best interest at heart, you will not stuff anything contentious in the same hard fork because this will guarantee its rejection. For me, if we do have to do a hard fork it would be probably to only include non contentious changes that are needed to clean up some technical debt and other issues. Anyhow, I think that we can probably get away without a hard fork but this topic is still developing.

Quote from: tromp on June 06, 2025, 07:11:57 AM
Quote from: SilverCryptoBullet on June 06, 2025, 01:53:06 AM
Having a finite total supply is one of biggest strengths of Bitcoin compares to overwhelming thousands of shitcoins on the market.
It's not really. Being predictable and disinflationary are great strengths, but neither of those require a finite supply [1].
You are making assumptions and judgements for other people, do not do this. Everyone gets to decide what is Bitcoin's biggest strength for themselves, and which features provide the most value to them. Everyone that I know that has Bitcoin is pretty much strict on the finite total supply, and I am very sure that a lot of people are in the same position. Slipper slope danger anyway, today you're talking about removing the finite supply and tomorrow you are going to talk about yields and staking.  Roll Eyes
Original archived Re: Tail emission ideas that retain the 21 million limit
Scraped on 11/06/2025, 22:53:19 UTC
Quote from: takuma sato on June 11, 2025, 09:12:01 PM
Quote from: stwenhao on June 06, 2025, 07:38:13 AM
Quote
It doesn’t take much to change a finite supply into an infinite one.
Only if you want to make a hard-fork, which will quickly put you into an altcoin land.

I would agree typically with this but with one exception: The quantum computer threat is very real in the long term, and as far as I know this may require a hardfork, and here I fear that people are going to want to stuff on the hardfork every idea under the sun, and since their idea does not get agreed by the majority there will be infighting. Im just hoping rationale may remain and we will just agree to something makes the most sense specifically for QC threat defense and that's about it. But some people may bring for instance this subject of increasing the tail emission, even if some novel ideal where it would somehow respect the 21 million limit which I don't see how. But that is the only scenario where I see an actual hardfork pick up traction due the QC threat. If we can get QC protection with no hardfork then that would be ideal.
I don't think that is what is going to happen, unless of course the people that propose the hard fork are idiots. If or when the threat of quantum computers are real, then a hard fork must be made to ensure the safety of Bitcoin. Because it is so important to its continued existence, the fork must pass as quickly as reasonably possible or needed and with the least amount of contention. If you have Bitcoin's best interest at heart, you will not stuff anything contentious in the same hard fork because this will guarantee its rejection. For me, if we do have to do a hard fork it would be probably to only include non contentious changes that are needed to clean up some technical debt and other issues. Anyhow, I think that we can probably get away without a hard fork but this topic is still developing.

Quote from: tromp on June 06, 2025, 07:11:57 AM
Quote from: SilverCryptoBullet on June 06, 2025, 01:53:06 AM
Having a finite total supply is one of biggest strengths of Bitcoin compares to overwhelming thousands of shitcoins on the market.
It's not really. Being predictable and disinflationary are great strengths, but neither of those require a finite supply [1].
You are making assumptions and judgements for other people, do not do this. Everyone gets to decide what is Bitcoin's biggest strength for themselves, and which features provide the most value to them. Everyone that I know that has Bitcoin is pretty much strict on the finite total supply, and I am very sure that a lot of people are in the same position.