/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>17528290
truth be told, i'm 100% concerned with the economics of bitcoin and not much else, so my understanding of this may come off as a little bit shaky being not so inclined technically as i am economically—but that said:
blockstream intends to integrate off-chain solutions into bitcoin (BTC) in a purported effort to address what is known as "the scaling problem", which is essentially a limit on bitcoin's transactions per second as a result of its 1mb blocksize. blockstream—from what i can tell—cites concerns over a fully on-chain protocol (e.g. increasing the blocksize) naturally mandating that all miners must use more expensive hardware and expend more energy as a reason for wanting to use off-chain solutions.
the integration of off-chain solutions to assist transactions invariably throws miner rewards into question; if miners aren't getting transaction fees, then what reason do they have to keep their miners running once the supply runs out? what implications will this have LEADING UP to the time that the supply runs out?
i recall an exchange with a supporter of blockstream when i had raised this point, and they had claimed that blockstream did, in fact, have a solution to this problem—and i honestly can't remember exactly what it was, but from what does come to mind it was merely a pretty typical keynesian-minded central planner's "solution" that ignored the fundamentals of what makes bitcoin valuable—that being, mining.
this, of course, doesn't even take into consideration what other fundamental attributes of bitcoin blockstream will be willing to axe in the future; the less mining, the more vulnerable and centralized the results, at least.

>>17528360
no, mate—a statement, let alone one that entirely ignores everything i'd said and is merely a paraphrasing of your opening post to which i was responding, is not an argument. i'm not repeating myself to you, and it's past my bedtime; take what i've written into consideration, if you so care.