Comment by kybernetikos | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kybernetikos | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'd stay away from BTC too, its poor environmental effects invite regulation and they have no plan to pay for chain security in a way that scales as issuance drops off.

If you like the "limited supply" thing (I don't) you might be interested to know that other chains exist that can even have negative issuance, and while there is a plan to eventually stop issuing BTC, right now the supply of BTC is actually increasing (1.72% at the moment i think).

Ultimately if you want people to hold your cryptocurrency as a store of value rather than spend it, and you are using an expensive means like POW to secure the chain, then its going to be difficult to pay for securing the chain just with transaction fees, calling the whole "limited supply" thing into question.

If you don't have issuance then the cost of securing the chain for all the people with value on the chain is an externality bourne entirely by those making transactions. Unless you have a plan to keep demand for transacting extremely high then the chain is unsustainable.

Yep. To put some numbers on this, transaction fees are currently about 1% of the block reward[1]. As of the next halving next year, transaction fees would have to grow by 50x to make up for the lower block reward.

Bitcoiners I talk to either haven’t gamed out the long term, plan to sell before then, or have some wishy-washy story about how Coinbase et al. will mine as a loss leader to keep the industry running.

1: https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/fee_to_reward-btc.html#...

Coinbase mining at a loss makes it more difficult for other miners to turn a profit?

The profits for miners = the security budget. The chain will work fine regardless, it's just less secure.

I think the idea is that if big institutional holders like Coinbase subsidize mining at a loss, the for-profit miners become less necessary. To be clear, I'm not defending this theory, it's just the most reasonable theory I've heard.

As it happens, mining is currently also subsidized by a bunch of retail investors flocking into the publicly traded miners, given that most of them are currently losing money per coin on a unit basis once hardware depreciation is factored in.

> I think the idea is that if big institutional holders like Coinbase subsidize mining at a loss, the for-profit miners become less necessary.

I suppose it's one possible future, but I'd be shocked to hear a bitcoiner say it, since it would effectively turn a decentralised chain into a chain run by a consortium of large financial companies.

I agree, but the other path I've heard proposed is for miners to force a hard fork to lift supply cap and keep subsidizing the network with inflation. I think that's even less true to bitcoin's original ethos.

(I also think it overestimates the power that miners have to unilaterally hard fork and have the community accept it, but so goes)

You're probably right on both counts. Having said that, if the analysis is correct, then it means that users will eventually drive the chain to a place where it's experiencing regular attack. At that point they'll probably not stay around and will look for other options.

Yes, that's essentially the conclusion I've come to as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com