The monetary policy isn't credible though unless you can prove rigorously that fixed supply is the optimal schedule **for security of a blockchain**.
its truly ironic that an Ethereum investor is using the word "hopium" to denigrate BTC
-
-
It's not ironic. The number 1 and 2 reasons you prop up Bitcoin are its security and its fixed supply, which are both highly dependent on its ability to secure itself on the current inflation schedule, which is completely arbitrary. Don't compare it to Eth for a moment.
-
your speculation regarding bitcoin’s inability to do so are no less speculative as my speculation about its ability to do so
-
First of all, the burden of proof that it works are on you as you go around pitching Bitcoin as an investment to anyone. Secondly: http://randomwalker.info/publications/mining_CCS.pdf … Thirdly: Intuitively, how will it be secure if you won't pay the miners/security guards?
-
It's a valid approach to start w/ a fixed final supply and monitor the situation and if proves non-viable change it. But that's not the narrative being sold.
-
There are reasonable Q's around security w/ zero inflation so personally I think it's worth having those discussions but I understand that such discussions are uncomfortable and markets don't like uncertainty.
-
I take issue more w/ the fact that supply/issuance impact both protocol security and related game theory so any narrative around monetary economics alone is incomplete.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
