• electriccars@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      By over 30%:

      Source: in2013dollars.com

      Meanwhile…

      $1000 would’ve bought 7.388 BTC in August 2013.

      7.388 BTC today is worth… $193,186.08

      Tell me again which one is the best place to store value?

      Edit: Downvoted for showing facts. Not surprised.

      • itsmect@monero.town
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Tell me again which one is the best place to store value?

        I don’t think you are ready to hear this yet, but it’s monero :P All jokes aside, bitcoin ain’t terrible, especially compared to the dollar, but I worry that botcoin’s security model will crumble more with each halfing. Transaction fees are already unusable in some cases, yet they barely contribute to the miner rewards. The math doesn’t seem to work out.

        • explodicle@local106.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lightning has onion routing and lower fees.

          Sidechains (like BIP 300) will allow ring signatures backed by bitcoin.

          We don’t need a new money supply for each new feature.

            • explodicle@local106.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              How much do you think the total security budget needs to be, and why? Where’s the math that doesn’t work out?

              • itsmect@monero.town
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The security budget is total fiat denominated miner reward of the entire network. The higher it is, the the more resistant bitcoin becomes to 51% attacks.

                As you know, each halfing decreases the block reward, which is currently the largest part of the total miner reward. In order keep a steady security budget, the price and market cap has to double each time as well. But remember, the security budget stays constant, so an ever increasing amount is secured by a relatively lower share.

                Transaction fees make up the remaining tiny share, and I honestly don’t see it growing much. Because the higher this fee becomes, the more people will find ways to avoid it, and just keep it on exchanges, custodial solution or lightning. This reduces the decentralization , the primary feature of bitcoin, and thereby reduces it value proposition.

                All this can be side-stepped by having holders pay a small, program-ably guaranteed fee proportional to their holdings, which is then paid out to miners. Yes, this is similar to inflation, but as long as it is lower than fiat inflation I can be worth the trade off. Considering how cult like bitcoin holder are, I don’t think this is a change they are willing to make, at least not before it’s too late.

                • explodicle@local106.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Why would we need to hold the total security budget steady/constant? We’re currently paying FAR more than necessary. If we assume total fee revenue won’t increase, then Bitcoin fees alone are already more than the entire security budget for some reasonably secure blockchains today.

                  And that’s a very conservative assumption. Lightning and p2p sidechains (which don’t hurt decentralization) increase efficiency, so the Jevons paradox predicts that total transaction fees paid will continue to increase. Lightning is less dependent on quick confirmations than base layer commerce is, reducing the impact of 51% attacks if/when they do happen.

                  When evaluating Monero’s monetary inflation trade-off, its primary competitor is Bitcoin, not the dollar. It’s not very hard at all to do better than the dollar. :-P I for one am strongly in favor of making changes in general (go BIP 300!) but tail emission has been proposed for over a decade and has been repeatedly rejected as unnecessary.

                  • itsmect@monero.town
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Bitcoins current budget is sufficient at about 1.6% (= 8B USD) annually. After next halfing it will be about 0.8%, similar to Monero’s budget. In 2032 it will be about 0.2%. If Bitcoins price doesn’t increase, the budget would only be 1B USD; if it does increase, a 4T mcap would be secured by still only secured by 8B. Either way, the more time passes, the easier Bitcoin becomes to attack. How much longer do you think bitcoin will last?

                    The (original) selling point of crypto is that it can’t be manipulated, even by nations with practically unlimited power and funds. Side chains sacrifice some of the immutability for other aspects and are a at best workaround instead of solution. So far there is little evidence to show that transaction fees will one day make up for the loss in block rewards.

                    The primary competitor to Monero is not Bitcoin, but gold, whose inflation sits at about 1.5%. Proponents of tail emission have long left bitcoin, and rather contribute to a project which aligns with their views. The remaining crowd will therefore be biased, don’t take their word as gospel.