{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2022-07-10\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 02:17:36PM +0000, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Hi ZmnSCPxj,\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e Thus, we should instead prepare for a future where the block subsidy must be removed, possibly before the existing schedule removes it, in case a majority coalition of miner ever decides to censor particular transactions without community consensus.\n\u003e \u003e Fortunately forcing the block subsidy to 0 is a softfork and thus easier to deploy.\n\u003e \n\u003e `consensus.nSubsidyHalvingInterval` for mainnet in [chainparams.cpp][1] can be decreased to 195000. This will reduce the number of halvings from 34 to 14 and subsidy will be 0 when it becomes less than 0.01 although not sure if this will be a soft fork.\n\nWhat exactly would the benefit be of going through all the political headache\nof a soft fork for what I assume you are thinking would be an insignificant\nchange in total miner revenue?\n\nOr do you think total transaction fees at that point would be less than\n0.01BTC?\n\n-- \nhttps://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 833 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220710/c4acd405/attachment.sig\u003e"}