Bitcoin Community Revived the Debate over Funding Miners after 2040

[FP91G]

Bitcoin developers are debating the network’s future after the halvings.
They have once again raised the idea of removing the 21 million BTC cap.
The community is discussing scenarios after 2040.
link
A new debate has erupted in the Bitcoin developer community about the network’s long-term security as miner rewards gradually decline. The trigger was a large discussion thread on the Delving Bitcoin forum titled Addressing the Diminishing Block Subsidy, which drew the attention of the MARA Foundation.


Proposal: Permanent Issuance After 2040
The author of the discussion, under the pseudonym show1225, proposed introducing so-called tail emission — a small, permanent issuance after the block subsidy is significantly reduced.

According to the proposal:

Introduce an additional reward of 0.25 BTC per block
Activate the mechanism in 2040 at block height 1.68 million, when the reward drops from 0.390625 BTC to 0.1953125 BTC
Combine the new issuance with burning base fees, similar to EIP-1559 in Ethereum
The author calculated that this would result in issuance of about 13,140 BTC per year, or roughly 0.06% inflation, which could potentially be offset by fee burning during periods of high load.

[Mia Chloe]

~snip

Personally I think developers should get rid of their fear for the time being. The discussion of the dynamics of the bitcoin network based on the halving is still future based. Increasing the supply cap is not gonna be of huge benefit if you ask me since to start with the halving was made to combat supply issues.

It's just my personal view though and I am of the opinion that increasing supply is gonna cause a slight drop in that strong incentive the limited supply already brings.

[Outhue]

~snip

Personally I think developers should get rid of their fear for the time being. The discussion of the dynamics of the bitcoin network based on the halving is still future based. Increasing the supply cap is not gonna be of huge benefit if you ask me since to start with the halving was made to combat supply issues.

It's just my personal view though and I am of the opinion that increasing supply is gonna cause a slight drop in that strong incentive the limited supply already brings.

Long term preparation naturalise problems better, when you have fear of something thats possibly to happen in the future you have a lot of time in your present to figure a better solution out, if this is already on the table as it is right now it will easily yield better solution, if we get closer to that date before they start talking about what to do we will have to go with whatever they believe is the best at the moment, kinda critical decision kinda.

Miners are the ones keeping Bitcoin Blockchain safe, I will rather see that slight drop in that strong incentive the limited supply made possible, miners must be active to maintain trust, security and integrity within the Blockchain.

[ABCbits]

At very least, his idea is better than most other idea/suggestion about changing/raising either Bitcoin total supply or mining reward. If you read the direct source, there are some consideration that usually other people don't think or mention. For example,

Q. Why not simply set a floor sats/vB? The current low-fee environment is the result of market mechanisms. I admit the price elasticity of block space is low, but setting an artificial floor may just result in empty blocks. In addition, floor fees could be confiscatory for tiny Bitcoin holders who can wait many blocks for lower fees but cannot afford to pay higher transaction fees.

This is a bit interesting, since Bitcoin Core lower default min TX relay fee from 1 sat/vB to 0.1 sat/vB, but some mining pool exclude such low TX from their block (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5565739.msg66063663#msg66063663).

[FP91G]

~snip

Personally I think developers should get rid of their fear for the time being. The discussion of the dynamics of the bitcoin network based on the halving is still future based. Increasing the supply cap is not gonna be of huge benefit if you ask me since to start with the halving was made to combat supply issues.

It's just my personal view though and I am of the opinion that increasing supply is gonna cause a slight drop in that strong incentive the limited supply already brings.

Long term preparation naturalise problems better, when you have fear of something thats possibly to happen in the future you have a lot of time in your present to figure a better solution out, if this is already on the table as it is right now it will easily yield better solution, if we get closer to that date before they start talking about what to do we will have to go with whatever they believe is the best at the moment, kinda critical decision kinda.

Miners are the ones keeping Bitcoin Blockchain safe, I will rather see that slight drop in that strong incentive the limited supply made possible, miners must be active to maintain trust, security and integrity within the Blockchain.

All scenarios are negative. After 2040, only large companies will remain in mining, and they won't operate at a loss.
This means that if the coin supply remains constant at 21M, miners' costs will be covered by users.
Miners can negotiate and set a minimum commission, or mine empty blocks. Solo mining after 2040 will not be as profitable.

[philipma1957]

how about doing a 30 year abandonment rule for four years.

2009 stale addresses get folded back into rewards starting in 2039.

2010 stale addresses get folded back into reward starting in 2040

2011 stale addresses get folded back into rewards starting in 2041

2012 stale addresses get fold back into rewards starting 8n 2042

solves governments from forcing abandoned property laws on btc.

and the amount of coins lost from 2009 to 2012 is likely a huge amount

we mined 10,500,000 coins then.

if we lift 1,500,000 abandoned coins. out of the first 10,500,000 mined


from that  time and create the tali end 0.25 btc from them.

we have enough coins  for 6,000,000 blocks

starting 2040 on.

and we never print more than 21 million coins.

0.25 btc is only .25x 144=36 coins a day of recycled coins.

1,500,000/36=41,666.667 days. edit math error it is 4x

that is 114.155 years of stable mining or 2154 edit 456years of stable mining

and it is more likely we pull 2 or 3 million not 1.5 million from the 2009-2012 time.

which means  675 to 900 years of stable mining.



thus all problems of abandoned or lost coins and funds for miners

and stay at 21 million coins.


and that is the correct way to fix not one not two but three issues for at least 450 maybe 900 years.


so lets have the developers fix the problems now.


btw my fee for the best solution so far is 21 coins of btc.

which could easily be paid as I solved a shit tone of issues.

21 million stay the same
miners funded for centuries
and the abandoned address issued solve with zero government laws.

[FP91G]

philipma1957, I think this solution is even worse than increasing the Bitcoin supply. If we allow developers to access other people's coins through a hard fork, then a lot of scammers like Craig Wright will emerge, who will use the courts to force developers to hand over their lost coins.
I think it would be easier to change the algorithm.

[gmaxwell]

However much you hate "journalists" it seems it's never enough:  What happened here?  A pseudonymous rando shows up proposing inflation only to get spanked by developers tell them that it's a complete non-starter, and if they really believe in it they're welcome to go make an altcoin with it.

So in other words: not news.

What do these garbage "journalists" and their publishers do?  Run articles and spam the forum with garbage claiming "Bitcoin developers are debating".

These are publications by vile people who want to cause stress in anxiety in others just to make a tiny profit.  Beyond the toxic effect of spreading concern for nothing this kind of activity strongly encourages bitcoin developers to move out of public forums-- since you can't misrepresent them if you can't see them at all.

[philipma1957]

It is why I like my variation.

Zero inflation.  Same 21 million coins.

1-2 million get recycled back into rewards.

Over a period of 400 or more year.

[FP91G]

I didn't expect a Bitcoin developer to join our discussion.
The halving is less than two years away, and with Bitcoin's current price, 55% of my income goes toward electricity, with the remaining profit going toward paying for my equipment. I could turn off my ASICs and sell them, taking a loss.
Many mining companies are currently losing money, but they can't turn off their equipment due to long-term contracts.
Large miners are selling Bitcoin to cover expenses.
I'm very curious what the developer thinks miners should do in this situation.

[Somegory]

Then it's going to get uglier in the future, since Bitcoin came into the world in 2009 there has never been a great reset in its time, the last one happened before Bitcoin was here.

And the next one is going to happen in 2030, a mighty reset that will cripple Bitcoin to its core and many people don't even see ot know about it, I wonder how miners will keep up at the time.

Let's say Bitcoin spiral down to 30k mining will be greatly affected, what is keeping me in Bitcoin mining right now is the adventure part of me, still young and will probably still be here in the future.

Another good reason is I care more about Bitcoin future value even if I have to keep mining at loss for now, all I want is some Bitcoin piling up in my wallet every week.

[FP91G]

Then it's going to get uglier in the future, since Bitcoin came into the world in 2009 there has never been a great reset in its time, the last one happened before Bitcoin was here.

And the next one is going to happen in 2030, a mighty reset that will cripple Bitcoin to its core and many people don't even see ot know about it, I wonder how miners will keep up at the time.

Let's say Bitcoin spiral down to 30k mining will be greatly affected, what is keeping me in Bitcoin mining right now is the adventure part of me, still young and will probably still be here in the future.

Another good reason is I care more about Bitcoin future value even if I have to keep mining at loss for now, all I want is some Bitcoin piling up in my wallet every week.

What equipment do you have?
Understand that mining a coin at a loss is a big mistake. For example, I break even on my equipment but don't make a profit. If you pay more for electricity than you earn in profit, it's probably more profitable for you to buy more bitcoin a few times a month.
If your equipment is unprofitable now, you won't have a chance after the halving unless the price of bitcoin quadruples.

[Lucius]

~snip~
Many mining companies are currently losing money, but they can't turn off their equipment due to long-term contracts.
Large miners are selling Bitcoin to cover expenses.
I'm very curious what the developer thinks miners should do in this situation.

I think the real question is what they should have done to prepare for this situation. History has shown that every major bull run is followed by a major correction, meaning that the price of BTC loses at least 50% of its value, which then has a direct impact on the profits made by miners.

We all know how important it is to put something aside for a rainy days, especially in times of abundance. I believe that there are miners who did that and today they pay their bills with money from coins that they sold for more than $100k.