/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.12809337]

THERE WILL ONLY EVER BE 21 MILLION BITCOINS IN EXISTENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

based satoshi

[Anonymous No.12809403]

You're right. I just hope you choose the correct Bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.12809447]

>>12809337
Core dev here! Before you make definitive statements like that we should discuss a few things about the Lightning network and how it will affect protocol economics...

[Anonymous No.12809604]

>>12809447

REE ...

[Anonymous No.12809671]

>>12809447
Peter did say there might be a proposal to keep inflation at 1% but we're 10+ years from even debating it
Personally I believe merged mined sidechains plus main chain fees will be enough to reward the miners for their service

As bad as fees were at the end of 2017 it proved miners can be rewarded without block rewards
In the future several efficiency upgrades will make on chain much cheaper (schnorr, channel factories, LN and sidechain consolidation)

It'll be alright we're not even half way to the point of the window closing and we already proved the system works fine with higher fees although not optimal for users
We will straighten it out I'm like 80% sure

[Anonymous No.12809897]

>>12809671
>As bad as fees were at the end of 2017 it proved miners can be rewarded without block rewards
The point is if money keeps circulating in LN/Layer2 the fee market may not work as planned. I'm just meming for the btcbugs, I don't really care about this and find his comments to be completely reasonable.

>In the future several efficiency upgrades will make on chain much cheaper (schnorr, channel factories, LN and sidechain consolidation)
Part of his point.

[Anonymous No.12809918]

>>12809447
Bitcoin will unironically drop to 0 if they ever decide to change the static supply.

[Anonymous No.12809958]

>>12809918
If it ever comes to the point where people are using BTC as an increasingly fragile arbiter that is never used because nobody dare cheat (yet), opinion will change because the incentives are broken.

Which is exactly what he said. Never suggested a contentios fork to implement unbounded inflation, he suggested circumstances may change. 1% (which is way WAY WAY high if it ever gets to that point) compared to a broken system with no miners and a 100% loss is an easy choice.

[Anonymous No.12809964]

>>12809897
There will always be open and closing channels and wealth isn't going to be put on a LN node unless you're a major operator so large transactions will be on chain
Nobody really knows if this fee model can secure a chain and have inflation at 0%
Litecoin will be tested way earlier than bitcoin with their block model which should give us some data on how to proceed

[Anonymous No.12809976]

>>12809964
>There will always be open and closing channels and wealth
How do you know? Well connected LN with functional routing should mean nobody has to exit. They only need the ability to exit, which so far is free.

[Anonymous No.12810033]

>>12809976
New nodes and channels will always be onloading and offloading
The economy is dynamic
I believe there will be incentive to shit capacity adjust connections and plain old putting some earnings in cold storage

[Anonymous No.12810077]

>>12809976
I respect that opinion though
A perfect developed network eliminates many reasons to interact with main chain

The rsk merged mined sidechain is interesting but I believe another Turing complete contract sidechain will eventually over take it

[Anonymous No.12810083]

>>12810033
And you have the math to back up the assertion that this is enough to cover mining at a rate which absolutely guarantees security? Nobody does. Most channels might be opened via (trustless, unless intentionally crippled, otherwise trusted) sidechains, custodial networks, etc, which rebalance even more seldomly. It's simply not possible to know oobanga i africa will use the value backed by BTC and if this use is parasitic or not.

Either of us could be right as I see it. I'm kinda just arguing the opposite side, I don't really know.

[Anonymous No.12810146]

>>12810083
I think the routing fee structure would incentivize channels to adjust connections if it and made sense considering on chain fees and how much of a priority it is to make that change

[Anonymous No.12810205]

Maybe these network efficiency adjustments on LN work synergistically with main chain
Giving the coin more value and therefore fee
Add some tx batching or channel factory upgrade that allows a node to make more than one efficient upgrade per on chain tx than more and more happen improving both miners revenue and LN topology

Idk It's exciting to think about and we have 10 years to do make it happen

[Anonymous No.12810242]

>>12810146
>incentivize channels to adjust connections if it and made sense considering on chain fees
Circular argument unless I'm missunderstanding. This depends on fees being "low enough" (<< channel value), which may still not be enough to guarantee mining security. Multiparty channels can see to it that the rebalancing problem is reduces by a whole lot so I just wouldn't bet on things working out by themsleves.

Parasitic use of BTC is absolutely a thing and will become even more of a thing as time goes by because people love free shit. I just don't think charging everyone who holds BTC for the privilege is a bad way of doing things, though that upsets the libertarians.

Either way that shit is 15 years out so nothing to worry about. If BTC is still big by then, a solution better than the alternative of packing up and going home will be found.

[Anonymous No.12810285]

We’re all going to make it frens

[Anonymous No.12810301]

>>12810285
nice anon

[Anonymous No.12810310]

>>12810242
Right on we'll see what happens