Bitcoin doesnt in theory have a cap, if it can be mined until 2140 etc.
If you say scarcity wont offset fees and less security ,weaken mining ecosystem, that is another theory. But without Bitcoin, Grin has no meaning to exist imo. I agree with phyro, they complete each other with open ledger and one is private.
The security problem is/will become real, however, I think this is just another ‘Bitcoin is dead’ excuse at the moment.
I would be interested both in the original as well as a hard fork with a small tail emission. My guess is though that Bitcoin will stay true to its principals of being predictable with a finite supply since that would be best for the overall crypto space as well as for the value of Bitcoin.
I see Bitcoin as Digital Gold, and Grin as Digital Cash. I hope both projects will flourish and that at some point we have a good Coin Swap so we can hold our value in Bitcoin and spend our cash as Grin without any dependencies on centralised exchanges.
So true. Let me rephrase, I see Bitcoin as a great store of value, better than gold or Grin (at least for the coming years). On the long run Grin will in addition to being digital cash also become a good store of value.
If Bitcoin will remain a good store of value when security weakens, only time can tell. I hope some solutions will be found. For the coming few halvings, waiting for a larger number of blocks before seeing a transaction as confirmed/final should already be sufficient to be certain a transaction will not be reverted.
Indeed. However it it will only work if the price of opening and closing channels of all lightening channels together is sufficient to pay for security. Meaning you need a huge amount of economic activity on lightening to share these costs otherwise lightening will become to expensive since a few transactions for opening and closing channels will have to pay to huge fees. I highly doubt the current economic activity (transaction volume, not capacity) on lightening is enough to cover the full security fees for miners.
So I did my math.
Daily lightening transactions around 600.000, average value around 0.005 BTC, asuming 2% average fee for opening and closing channels, equals 60 BTC daily could be paid for security
Current security fee for bitcoin is 900BTC. So around 15 X growth is needed. Not impossible, but not easy to achieve either. Also this would bring fees up for Lightening transactions, e.g. 2% for security on Layer 1, + the percentage you pay for layer2 transactions (2-5%) is around 4-7% fees for a transaction, not so cheap.
The hard cap at 21 million enforces deflation on Bitcoins, just like the passing of Picasso cuts off new supply of his artwork. Whoever Satoshi Nakamoto is, he’s not an economist. Bitcoin encourages hoarding and not trading, just like Picasso artwork.
The point was that Bitcoin is far more different from gold than grin since the emission is approaching zero, meaning the stock to flow is going towards infinite. So, many call Bitcoin digital gold, not true, although being a good store of value if security can be maintained.
Gold has a historic stock to flow of around 70, quite stable. Meaning an inflation of around 1.4%. Grin is going long term towards a scenario where the loss ratio will approach the emission rate.
But you are right it is comparing apples and pears since we should also consider how Grin is at the moment, and at the moment we have a stock to flow of 4, so 25% inflation. That is very much not like gold. Grin is Grin.
Agreed. There are so many fundamental differences that it becomes wired to focus on an assumed similarity. First of all Gold has no Gold emission. There is a finite amount of gold on this planet that could become extracted. First I wanted to say that the difficulty of extracting gold doesn’t become easier again if gold mining would stop for a few thousand years, but I’m not completely sure…
But an other guess on BTC. If for BTC the low coinbase reward becomes a problem that fundamentals “need” to change. I would prefer an other change. I would take the block reward from the oldest unspent output. The oldest outputs have high probability to be lost coins. And if not, that is an incentive to spend them and prove that they are live and compete by paying fees. That would also solve the problem of unknown loss rate.