Author: Manuel Costa 2022-06-19 15:54:03
Published on: 2022-06-19T15:54:03+00:00
The discussion around the potential doom of Bitcoin due to block rewards being too low to maintain acceptable security is considered irrelevant by some. Multiple solutions will be implemented if and when these issues arise, including a hard fork to indefinitely maintain some degree of block subsidy. The history of the chain is not lost, so there will always be alternatives available, allowing social/economic consensus to dictate which one becomes the new accepted chain. The only problems that should truly be worrying are ones that might invalidate the security of the history itself, such as a cryptographic breakthrough like quantum computing that would turn some or all utxos into "anyone can spend". Transitions may be disorderly and filled with drama and discussion, but users who do not want to vote can always keep their utxos frozen in place while the drama sorts itself out and maintain whatever holdings they previously had on the new accepted chain. In response to a proposal to make block rewards continue indefinitely to ensure Bitcoin's security, it is argued that paying for security on a per-tx basis does not make sense and may not work consistently due to lack of demand. It is also highlighted that the PoW security of Bitcoin benefits all Bitcoin users, proportional to the value of BTC they hold, and it would be unfortunate if a decentralized way to store value died simply because of an inability to pay to keep it secure.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T21:21:36.622337+00:00