#1 Dismiss grin due to knee jerk reaction in regards to emission rate yet take an interest in grins max capped cousin.
#2 After careful reflection, realize max caps aren’t the defacto basis of crypto currency value, and that grin’s cousin could be rendered obsolete if bitcoin implements mimblewimble (Which it looks like it very well may).
#3 Realize PoW works to secure blockchains and should be sustained because no other security models for peer to peer currency are proven to work, and that grin’s implementation of infinite PoW is really just a nod to objective reality.
On #2, I don’t think BTC will add MW. Too big of a change, and BTC has shown itself resistant to even small change.
On #3, PoS/dPoS has been around for a long time (Peercoin, NXT, Bitshares, etc.). It’s a bit of a stretch to say no other models are proven to work. Hey, one could even argue that PoW isn’t “proven” to work. A lot of this is just politics.
Still, I liked your post. Keep thinking outside the box.
Thanks bud I appreciate it.
I think I agree with you on #2, it’s hard to change and that would be a complex change. I think it would have to become necessity to implement mimblewimble to bitcoin, in order for it to be implemented.
on #3 those models worked on coins with questionable decentralization, so I guess I should have said PoS has not been proven to work to secure a truly decentralized blockchain.
Cheers, and thank you for your thoughts.
in what world is btc hard forking an easy course of action?
Shifting bitcoin to mw would be hacky and a whole thing
also bitcoin has an infinite pow, it has a limit, but it will not hit zero and even if it technically would (does it round up or down? dividing ints behavior can be weird) your looking at a millennia
BTC block reward will hit zero somewhere near the year 2140, I think. The smallest money unit is called a “Satoshi” and is an int.
the 2140 estimate is 42 satoshis a block and I find it fairly unclear what will happen when ints start rounding considering miners may just “accidentally” not follow whatever satoshis says should happen in an off hand comment.
21-> 11->6->3->2->1->1 is a rather real possibility no? Its not the software will last that long
We can look in the BTC source code to see exactly what should happen. It’s not an unsolvable mystery.
using the same code in 2140? I have my doubts, it will be a strong argument for one way over another; but really this whole thing is rather more organic then I think your giving it credit.
I think its very realistic that sub-sats are in the protocol and this whole thing is a debate long before 2140
That’s my opinion… I think the same code will be running. time will tell.