“Bitcoin is doomed because miners won’t be profitable in a few halvings” “Bitcoin needs tail emissions for miners to remain profitable”

Not a direct response to Peter, who is a very smart dev and who I respect, but more so addressing the point from my PoV in general.

my man really just mansplained difficulty adjustments and thought it solves the security budget problem

Exactly

"IT WILL ALWAYS BE PROFITABLE SOMEWHERE BY SOMEONE TO MINE BITCOIN" BINGO. ABSOLUTELY NAILED THIS ONE D. A lot of people have A LOT to learn about all the self-correcting mechanisms built in to BTC

nooooooooooooooo we need to dilute the supply to transfer value to the miners noooooooooooooo

users pay miners through dilution and via fees the tail emissions stance is basically: "you need more bitcoin to secure Bitcoin" no lol

TLDR: the inner Keynesian within you is [redacted]

#Bitcoin security budget concerns.

Lol bookmarked

look mate i’m not a fan of the tail emission people and i don’t think they’re right but you didn’t really address their concerns at all? yes we all know that difficulty adjustment is a thing, and i mean surely you know that peter todd heard about difficulty adjustment too right? but the issue they raise isn’t that “there would be no mining”, of course someone would mine, the issue they talk about is that hypothetically there could be a scenario where the equilibrium we arrive at has miners spending a low amount - let’s say $1mil a day - and then it just becomes cheap and easy to attack the system, reorg it frequently, reversing txs etc