here's the formalization of the stupidity behind TBI's inflation proposal last Friday:
https://medium.com/@twobitidiot/the-21mm-btc-soft-cap-71e14cd09946?source=tw-dd6a8357807c-1438618892173but he does bring up a VERY good point that directly undermines the Cripplecoiner's case:
Now I know that centralization will decrease over time. Current holders will get diluted by a third as the remaining seven million bitcoins are mined. And as bitcoin appreciates in value, early investors will likely reduce their positions and lock in gains. So even those who could temporarily tank the market with large sell orders (intentionally or otherwise, read: Bearwhale) will probably be held at bay, and their power to truly manipulate market pricing is limited. (Wealth concentration isnt really a risk to new long-term investors, but it does ensure that it will be take many, many years and probably several unmitigated wipeouts of derivatives markets before a healthy infrastructure can emerge.)
It seems a bit perverse that 100 private capitalists could reap enormous gains in the event that the currency become a developing economy reserve, but theres nothing unique or inherently wrong about that dynamic. Without speculators, bitcoin wont hit the critical market cap and liquidity it needs to emerge as a truly viable reserve. So again, the wealth concentration issue is just the weak argument for adding low inflation to bitcoin (to gradually dilute down the largest holders). Its not an industry killer, but the optics probably suck enough to significantly constrain growth.if we keep Cripplecoin as is and attempt to make it a "settlement layer" with only 100 or so private capitalists as owners, what is the likelihood that the other 6 billion users worldwide will come on board with this new system? answer:
they won't. it will be an even worse system of wealth concentration than we have today. and with the attitudes displayed by the most vocal advocates of Cripplecoin advocates (both technical and non technical) in this thread and elsewhere, are these really the new economic masters you want to bow down to? i say, "hell no".
another quote from the blog:
One of the primary untested assumptions confronting the industry is that this anticipated fee-based mining incentive can work at scale. At best, that will mean that we probably end up with a network that is more expensive than existing card networks and money transfer options. At worst, that will mean that the network is constantly threatened by double spending attacks, undermining confidence in the entire bitcoin technology stack that is being built out today.bold part mine. Bitcoin won't get more expensive, fee-wise, if we bring on many, many more tx's onto the MAINchain that will help spread the costs and provide enough profit for mining to expand and grow. this is why i'm so against all these offchain solutions that have been presented like SC's and LN. furthermore, this isn't novel thinking; it was ALWAYS in the original Satoshi vision that these Cripplecoiner's are so quick to dismiss and trash.
