rich1.0npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2022-07-10 📝 Original message:On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 02:17:36PM +0000, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hi ZmnSCPxj, > > > > 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. > > Fortunately forcing the block subsidy to 0 is a softfork and thus easier to deploy. > > `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. What exactly would the benefit be of going through all the political headache of a soft fork for what I assume you are thinking would be an insignificant change in total miner revenue? Or do you think total transaction fees at that point would be less than 0.01BTC? -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220710/c4acd405/attachment.sig>