Re:Winklevoss 500k Bitcoin Argument
by tromp on Friday August 28, 2020 @07:27AM
(#24303620)
> I'm not completely impressed with the comparison between gold and Bitcoin.
Me neither.
Gold may have a finite supply, but it's been mined for millennia and has slowly increased its supply rate over time, and will likely continue to do so in our lifetime.
In contrast, Bitcoin's emission which ranges from 2009 through 2140 is heavily tilted to the first few years.
Its final century from 2040 through 2140 accounts for only about 0.5% of emission.
The only point of the halvings is to be able to claim "finite supply". A constant reward would still have the yearly supply inflation rate (stock to flow ratio) going to 0, albeit more slowly. So crucially, supply would still be scarce, would be more predictable (time independent), more fair to late adopters, and be much closer to Gold's emission over our lifetime.
It would also avoid the inherent instability [1] of mining rewards dominated by transaction fees, and avoid lengthening confirmation times to maintain security against double spending [2].
If we further consider the fact that coins inevitably get lost, then even a constant reward will yield a softcap of supply, where yearly emission merely serves to balance the yearly losses.
Me neither.
Gold may have a finite supply, but it's been mined for millennia and has slowly increased its supply rate over time, and will likely continue to do so in our lifetime.
In contrast, Bitcoin's emission which ranges from 2009 through 2140 is heavily tilted to the first few years.
Its final century from 2040 through 2140 accounts for only about 0.5% of emission.
The only point of the halvings is to be able to claim "finite supply". A constant reward would still have the yearly supply inflation rate (stock to flow ratio) going to 0, albeit more slowly. So crucially, supply would still be scarce, would be more predictable (time independent), more fair to late adopters, and be much closer to Gold's emission over our lifetime.
It would also avoid the inherent instability [1] of mining rewards dominated by transaction fees, and avoid lengthening confirmation times to maintain security against double spending [2].
If we further consider the fact that coins inevitably get lost, then even a constant reward will yield a softcap of supply, where yearly emission merely serves to balance the yearly losses.
[1] https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/publications/mining_CC...
[2] https://www.coindesk.com/the-halving-exposes-bitcoin-to-51-a...