rich1.0npub16dt55fpq3a8r6zpphd9xngxr46zzqs75gna9cj5vf8pknyv2d7equx4wrdhttps://nostr.ae/npub16dt55fpq3a8r6zpphd9xngxr46zzqs75gna9cj5vf8pknyv2d7equx4wrdnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2022-07-18 📝 Original message:On 2022-07-10 07:27, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > The block subsidy directly ties miner revenue to the total value of > Bitcoin: > that's exactly how you want to incentivise a service that keeps Bitcoin > secure. I'm confused. I thought your argument in the OP of this thread was that a perpetual block subsidy would *not* be tied to the total value of bitcoin. It'd be tied to the total value of bitcoin *lost* each year on average. If so, would you then agree that the inability of a perpetual block subsidy to directly tie miner revenue to the total value of Bitcoin makes it not exactly how we want to incentivise a service that keeps Bitcoin secure? Thanks, -Dave