{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub16dt55fpq3a8r6zpphd9xngxr46zzqs75gna9cj5vf8pknyv2d7equx4wrd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub16dt55fpq3a8r6zpphd9xngxr46zzqs75gna9cj5vf8pknyv2d7equx4wrd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2022-07-18\n📝 Original message:On 2022-07-10 07:27, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e The block subsidy directly ties miner revenue to the total value of \n\u003e Bitcoin:\n\u003e that's exactly how you want to incentivise a service that keeps Bitcoin \n\u003e secure.\n\nI'm confused.  I thought your argument in the OP of this thread was that \na perpetual block subsidy would *not* be tied to the total value of \nbitcoin.  It'd be tied to the total value of bitcoin *lost* each year on \naverage.\n\nIf so, would you then agree that the inability of a perpetual block \nsubsidy to directly tie miner revenue to the total value of Bitcoin \nmakes it not exactly how we want to incentivise a service that keeps \nBitcoin secure?\n\nThanks,\n\n-Dave"}