Author: Thomas Voegtlin 2015-05-26 18:47:15
Published on: 2015-05-26T18:47:15+00:00
In this email exchange, Thomas expresses his agreement with Gavin that 20-year planning for Bitcoin's future is ambitious, and it cannot be used to justify decisions made today. He believes that the opposition to block size increase stems from concerns about increased centralization and long-term fee pressure needs. While he agrees that increased centralization is a risk, he does not believe that miners can eventually be funded by a fee market. Therefore, he supports the proposed block size increase. However, the issue of long-term mining incentives remains. The easiest solution to ensure long-term viability of Bitcoin would be to put an end to the original block halving schedule and keep the block reward constant. Another solution would be to keep the original block halving schedule but allow miners to redeem lost coins. Thomas believes that such solutions are better than relying on unproven mechanisms. He notes that he supports the block size increase because of its potential to address long-term mining incentives, rather than fee pressure. Thomas acknowledges that a completely different solution might arise in the future, or Bitcoin might cease to exist for some other reason. Ultimately, he believes that adopting a proven solution is preferable to relying on untested methods.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T20:39:55.886507+00:00