Peter Todd, the chief proponent of 1MB bitcoin blocks, has called the 21 million bitcoin supply limit “practically a religion.”
“21 million BTC is practically a religion, and anyone with any economic sense knows that we do have a high inflation rate and do just fine, and the difference between 0% and 0.5% is as insignificant as it sounds,” he said, further adding:
“We have reasons to think a fee market may develop. But it’s far from certain and staking the future of bitcoin on this is certainly risky, especially when even if we do have a fee market the game theory of fee-only mining is untested at best.”
A fee “market” as you might know is an idea first publicly propagated by Peter Todd that argues the blocksize should be very small, it should stay at 1MB, so that people are forced to pay more for a transaction to pay miners, including $1,000 or $10,000 for just one transaction.
A massive public debate occurred on the matter between 2015 to 2017 that boiled down to Todd’s side arguing few transactions with very high fees are better for paying miners, while the other side argued many transactions with small fees makes more sense holistically.
Todd’s side won on the promise of eating your cake and having it too whereby the Lightning Network was to provide these small fee transactions, while the blockchain was to be reserved for the big fee transactors.
Now that the Lightning Network has been running for two years all are concluding it is not a sufficient solution, including Christian Decker, co-author of the Lightning paper who now works for Blockstream.
“Further inspection of the resilience of the [Lightning Network] shows that removing hubs leads to the collapse of the network into many components, an evidence suggesting that this network may be a target for the so-called split attacks,” Decker’s paper says.
Todd refers not to the Lightning Network, and further ignores that a chief argument against increasing the blocksize was the risk of a split from a hardfork.
Instead he says “we can hard fork in inflation later if it’s really necessary,” without clarifying who is “we.”
A Blockstream employee retweeted his statement however, so it might not be just Todd raising this inflationary bitcoin suggestion once again after last year he hinted he could engage in a years long propaganda campaign to remove the 21 million limit.
Why he’d care to do so seeing as he was contracting or consulting for banks instead of coding for bitcoin, isn’t too clear, but increasing capacity would be a far more acceptable solution to bitcoin holders you’d think, instead of devaluing their holdings as this bankers’ employee is suggesting.