undefined | Better HN

0 pointslxgr3y ago0 comments

Accepting or spending Bitcoin increases its utility quadratically per participant (via the network effect).

Utility increases utilization, which increases fees, which incentivize mining.

It really is exactly the same thing as boycotting a company.

0 comments

The majority of miner revenue is a subsidy given via inflation. It's effectively paid for by all bitcoin holders, and is decoupled from usage and fees. Fewer people transacting is going to make no difference. Miners aren't going to suddenly think "Oh, perhaps I should mine less now that these clowns at Wikimedia aren't taking donations."

lxgrOP3y ago

This is the case now, but every halving shifts that proportion towards fees.

sparkie3y ago

Correct, but miners are operating on the assumption of revenue now, and not 8 or 12 years down the line when transaction fees eventually exceed the block subsidy.

By that time, the network effect will be so large that Wikimedia will not be able to just ignore it to pacify a small group of whining overgrown children.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointslxgr3y ago0 comments

Accepting or spending Bitcoin increases its utility quadratically per participant (via the network effect).

Utility increases utilization, which increases fees, which incentivize mining.

It really is exactly the same thing as boycotting a company.

0 comments

sparkie3y ago

lxgrOP3y ago

This is the case now, but every halving shifts that proportion towards fees.

sparkie3y ago

Correct, but miners are operating on the assumption of revenue now, and not 8 or 12 years down the line when transaction fees eventually exceed the block subsidy.

By that time, the network effect will be so large that Wikimedia will not be able to just ignore it to pacify a small group of whining overgrown children.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse