BTC.Top’s Jiang Zhuo’er Reiterates Bitcoin Supply Increase, a Stunt or a Real Question Ahead?
Jiang Zhuo’er, founder of world’s leading cryptocurrency mining pool BTC.Top, as well as a KOI in the Chinese crypto space, reiterated that Bitcoin’s rigidly set 21 million cap could be raised by Core in the future, despite too many backlash against him from bitcoiners.
“On the issue of bitcoin supply cap increase, (let’s see) how many people will get slapped in the face in the future. If you’re angry or even scared that bitcoin cap might be raised by Core, you’ll thank me for what I’ve done.”
Of late, the hypothetical discussion of bitcoin supply cap increase has sparked heated debate in the crypto space. The topic started with Matt Luongo’s offhand remark in response to a discussion about the anticipated adoption of the Lightning Network. For most bitcoiners, this heedless remark from an Ethereum contributor is sacrilegious.
While Jiang took it seriously and claimed that Bitcoin Core’s next goal is to raise bitcoin supply cap and to halt bitcoin halvening, which soon lead to a backlash from bitcoiners in the Chinese community, and Matt himself also stood up to correct him.
Can anyone in the Chinese BTC community slide in there and correct him? Both on the big issue as well as the minor character assassination – I especially love the part where folks think I'm claiming to be a BTC core dev ? https://t.co/Ny6k8S9hXM
— Matt Luongo (@mhluongo) February 11, 2019
Matt clarified that he’s taking the discussion out of context and pretending that it’s a widely held belief of BTC core devs, “It isn’t. No one is seriously proposing raising the supply limit. I was only speculatively discussing how the fee market might develop in the future relative to subsidies”.
Even Bitcoin core maintainer Wladimir van der Laan feels angry about it, condemning it bullshit.
This is bullshit. It's sad that this needs to be said but no one in their right mind proposes changing bitcoin's monetary policy.
And if the software claiming to be 'bitcoin core' ever proposes this, I'd recommend you run software without this change as it's been compromised.
— 74810b012346c9a6 (@orionwl) February 11, 2019
The truth of the matter seems to come to clear that bitcoin supply cap increase is simply a man-made stunt, considering that Jiang is a strong BCH proponent. While Jiang argued that he has known Core’s plan of increasing bitcoin supply long ago, but “just found they have started to test the water”. After a weeklong discussion when the community calmed down, Jiang reposted a bitcoiner’s analysis about this issue, which again triggered hot discussion.
Citing Peter Todd’s saying when asked about whether there would be consensus for BTC monetary supply inflation – “If bitcoin mining is failing because of low fees, sure. Won’t happen for 10+ years, but maybe at some point in the future”, the article proves that Core developers have mentioned about compensating miners by changing bitcoin supply in the future after several reward halvenings, and hints that Peter is probably not the only one bearing this idea.
If bitcoin mining is failing because of low fees, sure.
Won't happen for 10+ years, but maybe at some point in the future.
— Peter Todd (@peterktodd) February 4, 2019
“So, will the issue be solved if fees are high enough?”
The article then negates it, saying if high fees are promised and it even catches up with the block reward, it would pose a great threat. Quoting a 2016 research paper by Arvind Narayanan, “A miner has numerous options to consider when mining, but let’s focus on just two possibilities. She could extend the longest chain (Option One), obtaining a reward of 5 and leaving a reward of 0 for the next miner (at least until more transactions arrive). Alternatively, she could fork it (Option Two), obtaining reward of 55 while leaving a reward of 50 Bitcoin unclaimed. The Bitcoin protocol dictates Option One, but a quick reasoning suggests that Option Two is better.”
“The randomness of the block arrival time, as well as selfish mining would in effect make the situation worse.”
“So the issue shall not be deemed simple as a “rumor/stunt.” writes the analysis.
A hypothetical remark triggers the discussion of troubles bitcoin is facing. Such a change, if seriously proposed, would do cause quite a rift in the community. A comment read that “why to argue for a thing that might occur 10 years later”. Maybe, future generations of bitcoiners may be more receptive to raising the cap, or they’ll have better solutions.