On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:01:36AM -0800, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > A 6 month investment with 3 months on the high subsidy and 3 months on low > > subsidy would not be made… > > > > Yes, this is the essential point. All capital investments are made based on > expectations of future returns. To the extent that futures are perfectly > knowable, they can be perfectly factored in. This is why inflation in Bitcoin > is not a tax, it’s a cost. These step functions are made continuous by their > predictability, removing that predictability will make them -- unpredictable.
You know, I do agree with you. But see, this is one of the reasons why we keep reminding people that strictly speaking a hardfork *is* an altcoin, and the altcoin can change any rule currently in Bitcoin. It'd be perfectly reasonable to create an altcoin with a 22-million-coin limit and an inflation schedule that had smooth, rather than abrupt, drops. It'd also be reasonable to make that altcoin start with the same UTXO set as Bitcoin as a means of initial coin distribution. If miners choose to start mining that altcoin en-mass on the halving, all the more power to them. It's our choice whether or not we buy those coins. We may choose not to, but if 95% of the hashing power decides to go mine something different we have to accept that under our current chosen rules confirmations might take a long time. Of course, personally I agree with Gregory Maxwell: this is all fairly unlikely to happen, so the discussion is academic. But we'll see. -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000000004d430e1daab776bc1c194589b0326924220faa00efc50cf
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
