Zcash Co-Inventor: ''Capping the supply of Bitcoin at 21M doesn't make sense"

[Alphakilo]

That statement was his opinion, and everyone is entitled to their own.  If we do not like such a personal opinion, we can just skip it and ignore it. I believe  Zcash Co-inventor's opinion has little to no chance of being acknowledged by the Bitcoin developers.

I wonder why he is meddling with the Bitcoin business when he has a lot of things to attend to on fixing present and future glitches of his Zcash.  Rather than poking his nose to Bitcoin business, I think it is wiser for him to focus his energy and ideals on his coins.

Perhaps he thinks poking his nose in Bitcoin business will make his own business get the attention and adoption he craves, otherwise it's just pointless.
He must be so fascinated or maybe obsessed with the institutional VC loop to have his thoughts focused more on liquidity while foregoing the main principles and Bitcoin protocols of being immutable and self sovereign.
Bitcoin isn't a bank that can adjust interest rates or cause a 4% inflation target just for those who lost their keys.
That's a hard lesson that stresses on the importance of personal responsibility and adherence to safety tips and risk management practices.

[macson]

If Bitcoin were like that, it wouldn't be any different from the fiat system, which has an unlimited supply that can be expanded through the decisions of central authorities.

One of the things that makes Bitcoin unique is its fixed supply. It will remain that way forever.

Besides, if he's so concerned about it, why doesn't he care more about his shitcoin? Instead of being preoccupied with things he shouldn't be concerned with.

[Dogedegen]

StarkWare (ZK L2 blockchain developer. Total fundraising: $287 Million Dollars. [1]

Its token STARK's performance: down 99.3% from the ATH. [2]


Gee, a multi-millionaire wants people to stay poor.... That has never happened before!

Pretty much every person from the shitcoin world that is saying anything about Bitcoin is a scammer, as you see they keep founding useless projects and extracting money from people. Then he comes back to teach Bitcoin a lesson when he is running a shitcoin that is down 99.3% from the ATH.

This is one of the stupidest post that I have seen on X if he wants bitcoin supply to be increasing. If 20 million BTC was lost in the past, the remaining 1 million BTC is enough. It will be in a way that bitcoin will be more scarce, its price will increase and sats the smallest unit of bitcoin will worth more than what it is today.  21 million BTC is enough.

Actually we could even work with even less if we really needed to, anyone who understands basic way of how units work understands this. So the core argument falls apart completely based on that, he does not sound as smart as people think that he is. There is nothing to seriously consider here, only founders that have proven themselves to be able to create something successful should be given a voice. People online listen to too many others that have some form of authority, but often it turns out to be a big mistake..

Time will surely be lost but not your private keys, unless you don't have a offspring that can operate your Bitcoin wallet after you died, we have children for a reason, to continue where we stopped.

All keys will be lost only if Bitcoin holders stop giving birth, LMao
What a big idiot indeed.

This is not true, with time the number of Bitcoin keys lost is always increasing so in this case your argument to counter him does not work. People lose keys even if they have children, children have nothing to do with this.

[d5000]

I have a bit of a different opinion on that than most forum members.

My take is that in general he's not completely incorrect. If Bitcoin was conceived from the start with a tail emission defined in the code, then I think this strategy would have been at least as good as the 21 million limit.

We would have one discussion less, the fee market issue, and we would have more margin to play around with block sizes as the fee market wouldn't be that important.

However, I oppose a change, at least if the security budget doesn't get dramatically lower. We don't know how the fee dynamics will play out. And the cost and risk of a hard fork would be probably huge.

The current Bitcoin Dominance also seems to confirm that people believe in Bitcoin's model more than in Monero's or Dogecoin's (to mention only decentralized altcoins). We can say: The market has decided, 21 millions and halving until 2140 are fine.

And of course any statement from a guy who created a premined coin who has his own business goals has to be taken with a huge rock of salt

PS: 4% per year is too much, imo. I would go for 1-2%.

[avp2306]

I have a bit of a different opinion on that than most forum members.

My take is that in general he's not completely incorrect. If Bitcoin was conceived from the start with a tail emission defined in the code, then I think this strategy would have been at least as good as the 21 million limit.

We would have one discussion less, the fee market issue, and we would have more margin to play around with block sizes as the fee market wouldn't be that important.

However, I oppose a change, at least if the security budget doesn't get dramatically lower. We don't know how the fee dynamics will play out. And the cost and risk of a hard fork would be probably huge.

The current Bitcoin Dominance also seems to confirm that people believe in Bitcoin's model more than in Monero's or Dogecoin's (to mention only decentralized altcoins). We can say: The market has decided, 21 millions and halving until 2140 are fine.

And of course any statement from a guy who created a premined coin who has his own business goals has to be taken with a huge rock of salt

PS: 4% per year is too much, imo. I would go for 1-2%.

Really got your point out there and if it didn't have on which it had tail emission since the first day of its existence, this will not going to be as controversial nowadays. If it happens that those people tried to change those things now, maybe we might deal with different situation now. Then those hard fork will provably just create confusion then maybe the reason for possible division, then yet it will not solve anything or even fix the fees.

Also the fact that we already have 21 millions supply those changes what other people think is unnecessary. The dominance of Bitcoin shows how people trust its traditional set up. Also people need to be careful on the arguments came from those people who benefited from those pre mined coins. Also yeah 4% is to much and provably people would choose much lesser same as the percentage you have stated here.