undefined | Better HN

0 pointsskybrian4y ago0 comments

It’s not “all stakeholders” when only miners get to vote and (barring extraordinary consensus-making) there is only one way to vote.

0 comments

gruez4y ago

>(barring extraordinary consensus-making)

But changing the block reward schedule is "extraordinary consensus-making"?

Yes, because the way they set it up, it will never happen. Miners would have to vote for their own revenue to drop faster.

If people holding Bitcoin got to vote then maybe they wouldn’t choose to give miners $1.5 billion a month in rewards?

gruez4y ago

> Yes, because the way they set it up, it will never happen. Miners would have to vote for their own revenue to drop faster.

Miners follow the users, not the other way around. We saw this with the failed segwit2x fork, which had 80% miner support but still failed.

>If people holding Bitcoin got to vote then maybe they wouldn’t choose to give miners $1.5 billion a month in rewards?

Maybe because they think a 1.75% inflation rate is worth it to secure the network?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

gruez4y ago

>(barring extraordinary consensus-making)

But changing the block reward schedule is "extraordinary consensus-making"?

Yes, because the way they set it up, it will never happen. Miners would have to vote for their own revenue to drop faster.

If people holding Bitcoin got to vote then maybe they wouldn’t choose to give miners $1.5 billion a month in rewards?

gruez4y ago

> Yes, because the way they set it up, it will never happen. Miners would have to vote for their own revenue to drop faster.

Miners follow the users, not the other way around. We saw this with the failed segwit2x fork, which had 80% miner support but still failed.

>If people holding Bitcoin got to vote then maybe they wouldn’t choose to give miners $1.5 billion a month in rewards?

Maybe because they think a 1.75% inflation rate is worth it to secure the network?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse