Author: Peter Todd 2022-07-10 17:27:05
Published on: 2022-07-10T17:27:05+00:00
In an email discussion, ZmnSCPxj clarified the relationship between censorship resistance and perpetual issuance in blockchain. He explained that a blockchain with a block subsidy is less susceptible to censorship than one without because miners would lose out on fewer earnings if they reject transactions. However, reducing the total mining reward and tying it to transaction volume rather than the value of Bitcoin as a whole could make Chain Anchor attacks cheaper. The block subsidy indirectly incentivizes miners not to censor coin movements by keeping Bitcoin valuable, but transaction fees provide a stronger incentive. Therefore, ZmnSCPxj suggests preparing for a future where the block subsidy must be removed before the existing schedule removes it, in case a majority coalition of miners ever decides to censor particular transactions without community consensus. However, Peter Todd disagrees, arguing that mining should be boring, predictable, and with little reward to larger scale miners for maximal decentralization. Additionally, he believes that making mining a sophisticated business reduces competition and increases visibility to government regulation. Finally, Todd points out that fee revenue is a much worse way of achieving predictability than subsidy revenue and questions why no other coin has implemented transaction-fee-only mining.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T22:36:14.888153+00:00