According to Trustnodes reported on February 24, Peter Todd, the main advocate of Bitcoin's 1MB block, said that the 21 million supply limit for Bitcoin "is actually just a" religious "belief.
Image source: pixabay
- Bitcoin once broke through the $13,000 mark and rose 4.05% in 24 hours.
- Bitcoin network sets another record: on-chain transaction volume exceeds $ 8.9 billion in 1 hour
- Hashing Duck! Outlook for the Bitcoin mining industry in 2020
- Why at this stage of the bull market, most altcoins do not run bitcoin
- Mainstream currencies have different trends, can they break away from the BTC downturn?
- Observation | Bitcoin is borderless, but pricing power is borderless
"The 21 million bitcoin supply cap is actually just a 'religious' belief. Anyone with an economic mind knows that our inflation rate is indeed high, but this is also good, between 0% and 0.5%. The difference is as trivial as it sounds.
We have reason to believe that the bitcoin transaction fee 'market' may develop. But this is far from certain, and it is certainly risky to stake the future of Bitcoin on it, especially if our transaction fees really have a 'market', a game theory of 'mining only transaction fees' It is also untested at best. "
As you may know, the "market" of bitcoin transaction fees is an idea that Peter Todd publicly advertised first. He believes that the block size should be small, and it is best to keep it at 1MB, so that users have to pay more to miners. transaction fee. He also believes that a transaction can contain up to $ 1,000 or $ 10,000.
Between 2015 and 2017, the crypto community had a large-scale public debate on this issue. To sum it up: The party that opposes Todd thinks that fewer transactions and more expensive transactions are more advantageous for paying miner rewards, while the other party believes that more transactions with lower fees are more meaningful.
Todd's side won the promise of "eat the cake and own the cake." The Lightning Network will bear these small fee transactions, while the large fee transactions are left to the Bitcoin blockchain.
The Lightning Network has been running for two years, and everyone has concluded that this is not an effective solution, including Christian Decker, a Blockstream researcher and co-author of the Lightning Network paper. He stated in the paper:
"Further examination of the resilience of the Bitcoin Lightning Network shows that deleting the central node will cause the network to crash into many components, and this evidence suggests that this network may be the target of so-called split attacks."
Todd was not referring to the Lightning Network. He even ignored one of the main arguments against increasing the block size was the risk of a hard fork. Instead, he said "if we really need to, 'we' can implement a hard fork on inflation 'in the future", but he did not say who the "us" is.
However, an employee of Blockstream retweeted his statement. This is not the first time Todd has proposed a proposal for bitcoin inflation. Last year, he hinted that he might conduct a multi-year publicity campaign to remove the supply limit of 21 million bitcoins.
Why did he do this? Is it because he signed a contract with a bank and is consulting with the bank, and then stopped working on bitcoin development? This is not clear at this time. But for bitcoin holders, increasing bitcoin capacity will be a more acceptable solution than depreciating the bitcoin they hold, as the "bank employee" suggested.