Author: Dave Scotese 2022-07-11 18:44:46
Published on: 2022-07-11T18:44:46+00:00
The author of a recent blog post argues that attempting to define Bitcoin objectively is foolish, as it is defined collectively and subjectively. The capped supply is intrinsic to most people's subjective definitions of Bitcoin, but leading bodies such as the Bitcoin core team and Ethereum foundation can only recommend their decisions because people have autonomy. Governments are prone to reacting violently to defiance of their definitions, but nongovernmental leading bodies may resort to ostracism, criticism, or even illegal activity against defiance of decisions. While John Tromp argues that implementing tail emission is disinflationary, Peter Todd counters that true monetary inflation includes lost coins, which are not accounted for. For existing coins, deciding on an appropriate emission rate is simple: decide on the maximum amount of inflation you are willing to have in the worst case, and set the tail emission accordingly. Todd believes that basing Bitcoin's identity on the 21M limit is stupid because it is not technically correct, and if Bitcoin becomes unstable without a reward, the market as a whole will be happy to redefine Bitcoin by removing the limit.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T22:30:44.795726+00:00