The debate about Bitcoin remaining faithful to its cypherpunk principles has heated up, as critics claim that its potential for decentralization and anti-control is disappearing. Meanwhile, Peter Todd, one of the coin’s developers, suggests “tail emission” as an alternative.
The basis of the cypherpunk movement underlines strong cryptography and privacy tools to protect individual rights and promote a decentralized society. It combines the word “cypher” as in encryption, with “punk” as a symbol for a rebellious, do-it-yourself spirit.
This movement has played an important role in shaping the internet, especially key technologies such as blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin’s creation also brings the cypherpunk movement closer to its goal of building tech for digital privacy, security, and independence.
Recently, BlackRock questioned BTC’s fixed 21 million supply limit. It contained a disclaimer: “There is no guarantee that Bitcoin’s 21 million supply cap will not be changed.”
Micro Strategy’s CEO, Micheal Saylor, who is one of the top BTC holders, also retweeted the video.
THIS IS NOT AN ALTERED SCREENSHOT
Michael Saylor, the unequivocal face and most influential person in Bitcoin today, posted a video from BlackRock with a really interesting disclaimer:
"There is no guarantee that bitcoin's 21 million supply cap will not be changed."
They're… pic.twitter.com/Xg3sQP9BJw
— Joel Valenzuela (@TheDesertLynx) December 18, 2024
Doubts have poured in over whether Bitcoin’s fixed supply remains as inviolable as one thought after BlackRock issued a disclaimer. Serious questions have been raised over the cryptocurrency’s capacity to bear long to its ethos due to the growing capitalist influence of corporate players.
Peter Todd suggested ‘tail emission’ for Bitcoin back in 2022
Another critic on X, @sebp888, criticized renowned Bitcoin developers, including Adam Back and Peter Todd, for remaining silent about these issues. He argued that Bitcoin’s community should fight back against the perceived growing corporate domination.
Peter Todd retweeted the tweet with a screenshot showing a community note under Sebastian’s post. The note pointed toward Todd’s article from 2022: “Surprisingly, Tail Emission Is Not Inflationary.”
In this piece, Todd contemplated the threats Bitcoin could face when it ditches block rewards in favor of transaction fees for miners’ incentives. This could happen after all of the Bitcoin supply has been mined.
He warned that such a shift could be unstable. “To date, no proof-of-work currency has ever operated solely on transaction fees, and academic analysis has found that in this condition, block generation is unstable.”
He suggested an alternative like Monero’s implementation of tail emission, in which miners receive a fixed, small reward per block forever.
Lost Bitcoins naturally balance out the continuously emitted coins
According to Todd, this model doesn’t cause inflation but rather creates a stable supply. He also said lost coins naturally balance out the continuously emitted coins. Thus, in the long run, coins are created just as fast as they are lost,” Todd said.
He explained it through mathematical modeling by which he proved that fixed rewards in combination with natural coin loss yield a stable monetary system.
One user on X, @LibreHans, doubted Peter Todd’s prediction. He said, “You think you can predict the future? How could anybody take you seriously?” Todd replied rather sarcastically that losing coins can only “magically” stop in the future.
However, his article also points out how difficult it would be to implement such changes on Bitcoin. Todd noted that a hard fork to enable it would likely mean not winning consensus from the large and diverse Bitcoin community.
“While Monero was able to get sufficiently broad consensus in the community to implement tail emission, it’s unclear at best if it would ever be possible to achieve that for the much larger Bitcoin,” he wrote.
Land a High-Paying Web3 Job in 90 Days: The Ultimate Roadmap
