According to Todd, it will not be healthy for miners to only charge transaction fees.
For the developer, an emission of 0.1% per year is valid if that increases security.
Bitcoin developer Peter Todd is convinced that it would be beneficial for the network if the number of bitcoins (BTC) to be issued was not limited to 21 million.
In dialogue with Vlad Costeahost of the Bitcoin Takeover podcast, Todd explained that an infinite emission (or “tail emission”) would make Bitcoin mining a more sustainable industry. To understand his position, keep in mind that when no more BTC is issued, the only incentive for miners will be transaction fees.
Todd points out that transaction fees are quite unstable and that scalability solutions such as the Lightning network, because they will decongest the Bitcoin network, will mean that they can go down a lot in the future.
For this computer science specialist, add inflation Bitcoin of, say, 0.1% per year, it would not be a catastrophe. “If you can’t afford to spend 0.1% of your savings to make sure it’s safe, what are you doing with your life?” she asks.
Next, Todd made an implicit reference to those who deposit their money in platforms like Celsius (currently bankrupt), who pay a small annual return for giving them custody:
It reminds me of those people who took their bitcoin and chased a 1% a year return to make a little more money by putting them in those ridiculously risky savings accounts. Of course, they were all eliminated. It’s just stupid to do that kind of thing. In the same way, it is stupid not to pay a percentage of the total wealth to guarantee security.
Peter Todd, Bitcoin developer.
Peter Todd Suggests Steady, Controlled Inflation in Bitcoin
As CriptoNoticias reported days ago, the limit of 21 million bitcoins was always one of the flags of the bitcoiner community. This is because scarcity favors the appreciation of BTC against other currencies and assets which can be issued unlimitedly.
Todd, for his part, defends his idea by saying which would be a constant and controlled inflation in order to encourage mining.
The host of the podcast asked his guest if he does not consider that such a proposal goes against the postulates of the Austrian School of economics, which many bitcoiners defend. But Todd denied any such accusation.
“Supply queuing also implies a fixed supply,” says the developer, clarifying: “I mean having a fixed inflation rate, so that the actual number of coins produced per block is known to increase slightly with time. weather. That is also a fixed supply.”
According to Todd, “all these things are completely compatible with the Austrian economy”:
What Austrian economics is all about is removing government control over the money supply. Austrian economics is not about saying what exactly that money supply is. (…) You know, the fact that gold continually inflates by extracting more gold from the ground does not make it any less Austrian, in the same way that Monero is completely Austrian even though it has its tail emission.
Peter Todd, Bitcoin developer.
In Todd’s opinion, this change (if it ever takes place, as there is no formal proposal so far) could be done through a smooth forkin such a way that it does not produce major complications in the network.
Unlimited BTC issuance has supporters and detractors
Among those who support the perpetual issuance of BTC, besides Toddmeet Bitcoin developers Vjudeu and Brahm Cohen. The latter considers that a 10% / 90% relationship could be maintained between commission earnings and mining incentives, respectively.
Among the detractors are Bitcoin developers Gregory Maxwell, Anthony Towns and who goes by ZmnSCPxj. The latter argues that while the proportion of rewards is tilted more towards commissions than the “subsidy” for mining, the more secure the network will be. This is because a miner would be less encouraged to censor transactions, since his income will depend on adding the largest number of transactions in the blocks he mines.